The Liberalism is Not in Remission Yet
Pastor Doug, have you seen this? Thoughts? https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/10-lessons-from-reformation-in-sbc/ I find it ironic since from the contact I have with people in local SBC churches, liberalism is far from having been defeated.
Amanda
Amanda, I thought that article was outstanding, and on point. I like Al Mohler a great deal, and I admire and respect him even more than that. But he does need to look back over his shoulder.
The Trump Thing
“Now I find myself in the weird position of having been told the truth by a dishonorable man. One hardly knows where to look.” Look to the Word! (as always!) 1 Kings 18:16-17: So Obadiah went to meet Ahab and told him, and Ahab went to meet Elijah. When he saw Elijah, he said to him, Is that you, you troubler of Israel? “the great housecleaning has started with the pretentious and polished hypocrites, instead of with the cads.”
Jason
Jason, thanks.
Why do people keep calling the bureaucratic establishment the “Deep State,” as if it were something shadowy, out of sight, under the surface, behind the throne, and all that? I mean, whatever it does bad or good, it’s hardly a secret. It’s pretty much right in front of us and not really trying to hide.
John
John, who they are is not shadowy at all. But what they have been doing is hardly out in the plain light of day. We are well into many years of high crimes committed with functional immunity.
NINE Times! Does anybody but me remember the Conservative cry of “Character Matters” in the 90s to dismiss WJ Clinton and his in-office adultery? A mere 20 years later, conservatives are validating Dabney’s screed against vain respectable growling while deferring to the progressives/secular humanists. Yes, those who dismissed tawdry details of Clinton’s term are exponential hypocrites when decrying Trump and Stormy. While it is pleasant to see the Swamp be called out in some regard, MAGA (which was also WJC’s motto) is a fraud. See all the photos of golfing Trump/Clinton/Guiliani. One wonders at what point he was denied or betrayed in some deal by these Swampers. Bush x 2, Dole, Romney, McCain, Trump. Here’s to seeing which clown the GOP offers up in the next cycle. Whatever truth he may be telling these days is simply for his own vain glory and vindication. It has little or nothing to do with the benefit of those who put their faith in MAGA. From the USFL to the XFL to WWF, to POTUS. #TrumpFirst Always a popcorn worthy spectacle, do we trust this guy to rebuild whatever he may tear apart?
Ron
Ron, you seem a little bit jaundiced.
After having just read this out loud in order to get the full impact of your analysis, I am just speechless. I don’t think I’m much of an apple-shiner (in fact, I’m probably a bit too critical at times and should be encouraging people more), but, I must say, you have really outdone yourself with this one. I hope this is read far and wide. Thank you for the very good work you do. Please continue to do so.
Paul
Paul, thankee. I resorted to my commonplace book.
Re: Bueller? Bueller? Mueller? Excellent! But how about a couple of minor style pointers from your Anabaptist friends? When emphasizing low morals, “greasiest” is best spelled “greeziest.” And I might have capitalized “precious.”
Steve
Steve, points taken. Thanks.
RE: Bueller? Bueller? Mueller? Dear Pastor Wilson, I always enjoy reading your discussions of what’s in the news since you bring a perspective that’s so rarely seen anywhere in the media. However, there are two issues that confuse me about your arguments. To me they look like blind spots or oversights, but I think that may very well be my blind spots talking so I’d love it if you could delve a little deeper on a couple things for me. 1. “The Deep State” is what exactly? It might seem like a dumb question or a trap question, but it isn’t. I hear so many references to it that I feel like it would be helpful if we defined our terms. The way some conservatives talk it comes across as if they think the CIA/FBI are being run by Wesleyan Graduates, and attendees of Obama’s constitutional gymnastics class. Aren’t these “Deep State” people mainly ex-military types? Isn’t it the Republican Party that gave them an infinite budget, passed the Patriot Act, and created the Department of Homeland Security? The lack of trust in these people from conservatives strikes me as convenience more than a sudden discovery of a liberal cabal at the Virginia Military Institute. 2. I’m old enough to remember the Clinton years, but not old enough to remember much before that. VBS was a long time ago, but once upon a time I could name all the kings of Israel. I’ve heard about half a kajillion sermons about Saul, David and the importance of humble leadership. What confuses me is the logic that says “Yes Trump cheated on his wife a thousand times, but he would NEVER take a bribe” or “Yes, Trump faked an injury to avoid the draft, but he would NEVER make a sleazy deal with a spy.” Is it possible you’re fighting yesterday’s battles? Is it possible that you’re fighting the absurd accusations of McCain’s racism, and Mitt’s Ebeneezer Scrooge greed? I appreciate your work. Thank you for modeling the humility that’s so lacking just about everywhere.
Nick
Nick, reasonable questions both. For the first, I define the Deep State as the structure of government offices and agencies that is largely untouched by elections—career operatives. It is the bedrock that lies under both Republican and Democratic administrations. In short, I don’t believe that Republicans and Deep State functionaries are necessarily in opposition at all. For the second, I don’t believe at all that Trump is somehow a shining knight outside this realm of corruption. That is actually the reason for my astonishment at what is happening. I feel like an Israelite watching Ammon and Moab attack Mt. Seir. And the fact that I find all the combatants distasteful won’t keep me from taking the spoil.
Alexa, What is Dirty Omniscience?
So . . . um . . . what are your thoughts on Amazon’s Alexa and all her wannabes? Half of me says “wow, that’s pretty cool” while the other half says “get that outta my house!” Frankly, I don’t know how it works, but I do know the microphone is always on, which is why every time I say “Alexa” (completely at random) she perks up and points her light in my direction. So who is listening on the other side, or might be listening? Or recording. Or monitoring, you know, for helpful suggestions that pop up in targeted advertisements in the future that I have to endure before Alexa will play the song I asked for. And why is this lighted canister a “she?” Maybe I wanted an “Alex.” Should I be very, very afraid?
Malachi
Malachi, it is just an algorithm listening. Totally fine.
When you state “I believe that we should begin the fight to outlaw all such information in court,” are you advocating that all digital data is simply too easily manipulated to be useful as evidence in any manner in court? Our system accepts oral third party testimony, documents, physical items, as evidence in court, and all of these can be manipulated to frame someone. However, it is the trial process by which the evidence is rebutted/challenged and the defense made. For physical evidence, a prosecutor/plaintiff must demonstrate adequate chain of custody, etc. and even then, the defense can thereafter attack it (e.g. Wife testifies “yeah, I found this in Billy’s search history and called my husband to look at it, and here is the timestamp on my cell phone showing I made the call.”) Or are you simply advocating that the court of public opinion (aka internet mob) should not prematurely jump to conclusions and should take everything mentioning what was found on a computer with an adequate amount of skepticism salt?
Jess
Jess, I am certainly advocating the latter. And with regard to the former, I want the burden of proof to lie with the prosecution—not only to establish the guilt of the accused, but a burden of showing that their digital evidence could not have been tampered with.
Yes, the age of Big Brother has arrived and it is creepy beyond our ability to imagine. It makes me want to pull up a Huffington Post blog in another tab and leave it open for every moment I spend at Blog and Mablog. Big Brother may be watching, but I can control what he sees. It would bring me great joy to let him know that I know he is watching and I am not above manipulating the very data he is so diligently mining.
Dan
Dan, what if your camera is checking your eye movements to monitor what tabs you are looking at?
Peter the Protestant
Peter Hitchens emotional attachment to the Anglican Church is understandable and even commendable in a fashion. It reminds me of a man excusing his crazy uncle by recounting the man’s youthful exploits. Unfortunately, he left out some critical detail regarding those youthful exploits. The three Oxford martyrs—Ridley, Latimer and Cranmer—were indeed convicted of heresy. However, Hitchens omits the fact that they were deeply involved in the political management of the country during the reign of Edward VI. Cranmer was the boy king’s most trusted adviser; Ridley was the brains behind exceedingly consequential religious legislation; Latimer was the court preacher. They were essentially the top generals in a culture war that killed thousands of ordinary Englishmen and torched a thousand years of history. Thus it is sadly disingenuous for Hitchens to paint them as solely religious martyrs.
John
John, of course they were political players—the charade of secularism had not yet been established. But precisely because the charade of secularism was not yet in place, this means that the “ordinary Englishmen” you refer to had loyalties that were also not merely religious. This particular knife cuts both ways. The Armada of a few years later could have been called a trans-denominational outreach but, as you point out, more than that was going on.
Natural Child Birth?
Are you really against natural child birth? This is frankly bizarre. I get that child birth is now difficult due to the fall, but to suggest that the better option is to fill your wife and child’s body with admittedly dangerous chemicals to facilitate something that women do just fine all over the world and have been doing for millennia is again just bizarre. Using modern medicine is clearly not sinful, but to suggest that perhaps all of the new chemicals pushed by mega corporations to make money are not the best method or even necessary is completely rational. To suggest that it is ignoring the fall is silly.
BJ
BJ, of course I am not an automatic fan of “new chemicals” or “mega corporations.” But neither am I a fan of the mortality rates for women and babies that we had going “for millennia.” When women used to come to the point of delivery, without any artificial aids in sight for centuries yet to come, we know one thing for sure. Lots of them died.
“Every time I see something advertised as ‘all natural and free of chemicals’ I brace myself for the day—and it cannot be far off now—when certain food items are touted on the package as being entirely ‘molecule free.’” Well, Wilson expect things to get worse! Annnnnnnd, never believe anything an atom tells you, they make up everything! ; – )
Jason
Jason, was that really necessary?
Classroom Pitfalls
[The 9 Pitfalls of Homeschooling] Hi Doug, I’m just wondering when you’re going to write that promised follow-up regarding “classroom” education? Thanks!
Max
Max, thanks for the nudge. I got distracted. Will try to get to it soon.
Framework of Assumptions for Local Politics
Hi Doug, My question is this: should I run for mayor or city council of my small town? I, perhaps presumptuously, think I might be able to do some good (frankly not hard to do better than what we presently have) and have been asked to consider it by a few folks. Now, before you start cracking your knuckles to type a response, please bear in mind I’m not asking you to find God’s will for my specific life. But more generally, if I am considering such a question, what other questions ought I be considering, especially if I want to do so in a way that honors Christ, and does good for my community. Not so much interested in your thoughts on the logistical kinds of questions, as important as they are (how this might affect my work, family, church, weeds in my yard—I am working through those too); rather, philosophically and theologically, what are the kinds of practical matters and methods someone should keep in mind? I appreciate your insights on the ills and temptations of governance and the way it undermines truth and the gospel. But if you were to recommend a book or books, or write one on whether and how to be involved in local politics, what would you say? Or, to put it perhaps more clearly: if you were not usefully and pastorally critiquing the government as you do, but thought that it was time to move from pastoring to politics (please don’t, BTW); is it something you could engage in as a Christian? If not, why not? If so, then how would you go about it? Not looking for a magnum opus—but somewhere to start would be super appreciated. Thank you!
Bryan
Bryan, I think I get your question. Leaving aside questions of yard sign politics, and leaving aside questions of personal priorities (e.g. family questions), what advice would I give? I would say this. Make sure you have a well-read, thoroughly established political theology/philosophy. Have a well-established framework of assumptions that you will take into any particular political question. If I were in your shoes, and a voter asked me, “What are you?” “What framework will guide your decision making?” Those are questions I would want to have answers to, independent of whether the city is going to widen the road on the east side to make it into an arterial. And my answer would be that I am a theocratic libertarian.
You Say You Want a Revolution
Please, I pray thee, elaborate on your penultimate paragraph there! I am always fascinated by explanations of the differences between the two Revolutions. Friedrich von Gentz’s book The Origin and Principles of the American Revolution powerfully explains one part of it, but I feel like there’s something beneath the surface in your insight here that I’m not quite grasping.
Samuel
Samuel, Gentz is great, and I wrote an essay on him for the last of the Omnibus textbook series which I would refer you to. But for that “beneath the surface” issue you may have detected, I think it might be this. Most conservative Christians today are right wing, but this terminology comes from the seating of the revolutionaries after the French revolutionaries—the more modest revolutionaries sat on the right side of the chamber, but they were all revolutionaries. Fortunately, on this subject, here is a rough and ready worldview litmus test for the modern Christian—do you like Les Mis?
More than his own shoulder, regretfully, Al Mohler is somewhat a part of this liberal resurgence. I am sure he doesn’t see it that way, but he is still part of it.
Yep. From his compromised position on sexual orientation to virtue signaling during the election to his awful, anti-1 Cor. 7 teachings on men needing to “earn” sex from their wives, Mohler is definitely a part of it.
Glad you stayed aboard JP.
Yeah, Mohler isn’t the worst, but he’s pretty bad. He needs to understand that fidelity needs to be kept still today, and not just look back on the glorious “conservative resurgence.”
To me, it’s clear that Mohler is just not a fighter. You really only have to look at the guy to be able to tell that. That’s the problem with having large, hierarchical institutions representing the church. The elites who get to the top tier levels of those institutions become detached from regular Christians. And they have very little incentive to actually put up a fight when they have a nice comfortable life and are both materially and socially secure.
Mohler fought hard against the liberalism attacking the Southern Baptist Convention. One must be careful he doesn’t complain someone doesn’t do exactly what he thinks he should do. The fight may be harder than it appears on the outside. Credit can be given for a correct trajectory.
I’m not sure what liberalism he’s fought, but his seminary now has a professor of Women’s Studies and grants women Pastoral Ministry certificates (though they’re not ordained…yet). Also, SBC students have commented on here about the Ron Burns (Thabiti) influence and race-based identity politics being promoted at the seminary. If that’s our standard for a conservative stalwart, our standard is getting pretty low.
Conservatives are basically libs from 20 years ago.
But apart from that, Mohler needs to keep fighting, which he isn’t. The war isn’t over and isn’t until we die/Christ returns. So Mohler reflecting on “that one time we sent liberals packing from the SBC!” is ok. It’ s fine to remember a win in an important skirmish, but the overall war remains.
I understand that he fought hard in the past, and for that he is to be commended, but if he’s going to continue being a public commentator on political and social matters, it behooves him to be educated on the current state of affairs in the political and cultural world, and not just simply repeat the talking points of the cultural and liberal elite that desire so much to influence people like him to the detriment of the Gospel. The fact is, Mohler is getting old and probably doesn’t have much fight left in him. If you just look at… Read more »
Armin-
I agree. It’s a fact I have noticed in life anyway, apart from this SBC stuff. When men get old, the fight goes out. The courage begins to dissapate. I have even heard some men say they have tempered their former fire with “wisdom.” Sometimes it’s wisdom. More often it’s cowardice.
Mohler wants his legacy to be the guy who ran the liberals out, and then settled down, and had a beautiful legacy. If he were to fight now, he might lose, at least as far as the SBC is concerned. He doesn’t want to lose in that way.
Jaundiced? Is that a Trump pigment pun? (that would be awesome!) I’ll fess up to it. I’m ” exhibiting or influenced by envy, distaste, or hostility”. Mainly distaste/hostility. Primarily regarding RKBA, he calls himself the Champion of the 2nd Amendment and is changing regulations with the stroke of the executive ATF pen. This was too far a bridge even for the Obama Administration! He supports the “take guns first, due process later” Extreme Risk Protection Orders (“ERPO” or “red flag laws”). He just passed the Fix NICS outrage. To be fair, the NRA is hand in hand on these outrages.… Read more »
Just my own little SRPF here, but maybe it will encourage other DNVVWs to consider their HJP. Maybe no one else shares my pet peeve, but there are so many times when I read something on the internet where initials are used in place of names or phrases or government agencies and it leaves me wondering just what in the world is being spoken of, that I personally make it my practice to SPELL OUT the phrase the first time I use it, and then I feel free to use initials FTOO (From There On Out). Now, I grant that… Read more »
ATF (sometimes BATFE “Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives)
RKBA (Right to Keep and Bear Arms)
NICS (National Instant Criminal background check System) the background check that Federal Firearms Dealers (FFLs) run when you buy a GUN (firearm).
NRA (National Rifle Association)
GOP (Grand Old Party ie Republican party)
MAGA: Make America Great Again
I thought NICS was that show with the Goth chick who works in the crime lab…
And the handsome man who forever more I will see as Ted Bundy!
Doug, Thank you for the response to my comment, but it sidestepped my concern. You claimed that encouraging natural childbirth was ignoring the reality of the Fall. You never justified that claim. Here you say that encouraging natural child birth is making room for women dying. I am really at at a loss as to how to respond. Millions of women globally deliver babies naturally without them or their child dying. Yes, the Fall is real and childbirth is harder for it, much harder, yes. I am very sympathetic to that challenge having helped my wife through three natural births.… Read more »
BJ, having read Doug’s post and your response, I’m wondering if you are discussing exactly the same thing. Is he perhaps referring to the importance of skilled medical aid being available during childbirth in case anything goes wrong? If so it would be hard to argue that such medical aid has not significantly reduced maternal and child death. Obviously a C section has saved thousands of lives. But if you consider natural child birth to be doing without epidurals and avoiding unnecessary C sections, that is something different. I investigated the side effects of epidurals before instructing my OB that… Read more »
His claim was that the practice of natural childbirth was evidence that one is “refusing to apply the doctrine of the Fall, ignoring the curse that God placed upon childbearing.” https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/books/remember-genesis.html That is total nonsense. Pointing out that women have died in childbirth does not redeem his point. It is a red herring. Whatever he may have meant by the term ‘natural childbirth’, the normal use of the term is when a woman delivers a baby the way women have been delivering them for millennia. If he meant something like refusing to treat serious complications in childbirth with modern medicine,… Read more »
BJ, I was interested. I read most of the way through, and what really caught my attention was the level of mental conformity that that the participants appear to demand of one another. It reminded me of women’s groups I have been in where the timid statement that one’s own husband is a nice and good man was met with universal scorn and loathing! Obviously these men have experienced situations I can’t understand from a male perspective yet which deserve my sympathy. But the conversation seemed to be going in circles. (A) All women will break your heart and leave… Read more »
I think there were three dynamics that converged to make my conversation fruitless. (1) I made my work as a pastor known and there seems to be some real hostility to ministers in that world, for whatever reason. (2) They intentionally use some serious insider baseball lingo to signal their manosphere status. (Seriously, they would make the French Marxists jealous with their zeal for status language.) I know some of it fairly well, and could use it somewhat conversantly if I desired. But, I didn’t and the fact that I didn’t created the impression that I was somehow not knowledgeable… Read more »
BJ, I think the third point is very true. When you feel you have been victimized, it’s hard to respond to advice with any other than defensiveness. I too think it is good they have this place to vent. I suppose that in many cases the pastor is seen as the wife’s ally rather than as a person who cares equally about justice for the man and the woman. It might lead to a jaundiced view of pastors in general.
Jill Smith wrote: I too think it is good they have this place to vent. I also get the sense that the Dalrock blog attracts wounded men, but I think the evidence is pretty strong that the result hasn’t actually been good for them at all. I don’t see that Scripture prescribes “venting” as a remedy or a balm for relationship wounds. What I saw was complete and loud misrepresentation of anyone who doesn’t tow a particular party line concerning men. To recognize that our culture is aligning against men and husbands just wasn’t enough. Any remaining critique of men,… Read more »
Many of those men are obviously profoundly unhappy and probably (as far as we can tell from hearing one side of the story) have suffered great injustice. I think it is useful to have a community where that can be acknowledged and commiserated, but I have to agree with Katecho that venting is not a biblical therapy and doesn’t bear good fruit. Some of the commenters seem to be genuine Christians struggling with their pain in a biblical way, but overall the air of the comments section there is an unwholesome mix of bitterness, bravado and despair.
I would argue that the desire for male-only or female-only spaces do not originate from the same thought patterns as identity politics calling for black-spaces.
One originated from God ordained biological differences. The other draws it’s inspiration from Marxist oppression arguments.
BJ, I think we all agree there. It’s not wrong that the Dalrock commenters want a masculine space to retreat to. That’s natural, especially in the circumstances. If they used it to build one another up, it would be a positive good. Many men’s groups do that. The identity politics comes with the us-against-them mentality. The reasoning I saw went like this: 1. The government has made it easy for women to leave their husbands and get a sweet lifestyle out of it. 2. The culture (including the church) has been complicit by automatically taking the woman’s side instead of… Read more »
And therefore we are entitled to use women, because we still have sexual desires, but they won’t treat us right anyway.
Jane-
Who says they are entitled to use women like you said?
msy, I’m wondering about that, too. I’ve never seen a comment like that . If there are any, they’re probably from an occasional troll and not a typical “Dalrocker.”
To the extent they are refusing marriage but not immediately and explicitly advocating strict celibacy, they’re advocating using women.
I don’t know how many take that line, though.
Jane- Okay. That could be a potential problem. It’s way down the list, though. Right now, there is nothing to protect young men from unilateral divorce, should they choose to marry. They are told to get married, knowing full-well that the same older Christians who tell them to get married will instantly side with their wife once divorce talk comes up. Are some of these views cynical? Of course. But I have seen them in real life. I have seen, in divorce, wives get a free pass, from the husband’s family, for stuff that would get any man locked up.… Read more »
Girls are so much not what they used to be in bygone years that, in the absence of deliberate deception, it is hard to see one sex as using the other. I think we would have to describe both participants in consensual fornication as volunteers. I’m not sure how many men are still ravishing virgins by holding out an insincere promise of marriage. Given this, what can be done to mitigate the risk for the young man? Pre-nups? Ensuring that he marries a woman who can support herself (i.e. has an education that will enable her to get a job)… Read more »
I understand the women are willing participants, and users in their own turn, but I still think it’s “using” women even if they’re willing to be used. It is still treating women as objects for one’s own gratification, and the fact that they’re happy to be used as objects, puts more guilt on them, but no less on the men. Each man (or woman ) is responsible for his own sin, and not excused by another’s willingness to participate in it. And since it’s a man-centered movement we’re talking about, I was only not mentioning the women’s fault in the… Read more »
Jane said: “But none of that relaxes moral responsibilities, still less justifies defying God’s order because it’s just tooooo haaaaaaaard to do it His way.”
Assuming one can be content with celibacy and not burn with passion, I do not consider remaining single today to be defying “God’s order”. In fact, I would argue that our situation now is also a “present distress” and Paul’s directions (1 Corinthians 7) to remain single to be obeying God.
Jill,
“I think we would have to describe both participants in consensual fornication as volunteers.”
One would think so, but MeMe somehow managed to avoid accepting that to be true, continuing to assert that men held all of the responsibility.
Once married, the best protection for men would be to live where divorce is not strongly supported by the state (perhaps Saudi Arabia?). If not married, stay away from women entirely (yes, that includes celibacy). I don’t like that answer, but, based on my own experience and what I’ve heard of many others, I think that’s the truth.
Let’s just say they’re sinning. As long as it’s consensual, the women are also sinning and “using” men for the own purposes. I prefer Biblical language (e.g., men sin but so does the crafty harlot in Proverbs) than modern identity politics and “exploitation” talk. Lord knows we had enough of that with MeMe.
JP-
Your comment was shorter than mine but better. Thank you.
JP,
Indeed, the women are also sinning (unless you accept MeMe’s belief that the women would never behave that way if those evil men did not want sex). Unfortunately, Jane, when she speaks of men using women, promulgates the popular concept that we should only look at the men’s behavior and ignore the women’s behavior.
“Unfortunately, Jane, when she speaks of men using women, promulgates the popular concept that we should only look at the men’s behavior and look at the women’s behavior.”
I can’t control what you choose to infer from what I didn’t say, but I would only be “promulgating” a belief if I stated it.
I only referred to men because men were the subject at hand. I assure you I would have much to say to the same effect if women were the subject at hand.
Jane,
It appears you are arguing from their silence on celibacy that they are instead advocating (publicly recommending or supporting) non-celibacy. That “logic” was typical of MeMe, but it is not what I expect of you.
Not exactly. I was assuming that, like most secular people in the world, they assume a certain amount of sexual activity will be present, unless it is explicitly stated otherwise. I don’t think that’s an unfair assumption in 2018.
They probably think that you are trying to foist responsibility on them without granting them any real authority. Even if they were being generous to you they might point out that you don’t have the authority to grant them authority and thet patriarchal authority under the current legal regime is an illusion and this patriarchal responsibility is an illusion. It doesn’t help that the conversational well has been poisoned by the original post material which is some of Wilson’s more foolish writing.
So would you argue that the proper response to the current legal regime is to abandon male headship?
The current situation sucks, and mightily so. I think I get the enormity of the situation to some degree. But I simply can’t sign up for the position that says to quit.
I can’t give men that authority, but God can and has. Are you advocating we reject the biblical mandate?
First of all, there is not one biblical model for life with regards to marriage. Be fruitful and multiply at a time when the Earth was empty vs “it is better not to marry” in a time of persecution and upheaval. The truth is that there are a lot of pastors who want white males to keep shouldering the burdens of society while everyone else defects. Keep pursuing a career and paying taxes, keep joining the military, keep marrying those reformed party girls and single moms, all while being demonized and taken advantage of. If you show that you actually… Read more »
@Barnie, Thanks for the chat. This is a topic I care about, so I do want productive discussions. there is not one biblical model for life with regards to marriage Technically, this is correct, but the command to be fruitful and multiply is still in effect. Plus, what Paul is getting at in that passage is more complicated than face value. Of course celibacy is an option, but society wide celibacy is a bad thing. The truth is that there are a lot of pastors who want white males to keep shouldering the burdens of society while everyone else defects.… Read more »
Great post. You do a great job of listening to legitimate concerns of Barnie and commenters at Dalrock–without encouraging escape (MGTOW) or retreat (“we’ll just have to wait for things to reset after some kind of apocolypse”).
BJ, “If we uphold our standards and put up high walls of expectation for our people, then I think we have the potential to build a solid community. And that takes good leadership from men, and that is what I have been trying to get at from the beginning.” My concern (and what I think Barnie is referring to) is that the expectations of responsible behavior seem to be applied only to certain groups. For example, you point out that good leadership is needed from men, but there seems to be little expectation that others, most especially women, will follow… Read more »
OKR, I got interested in the studies about divorce and looked at a few. The major risk factors that keep getting identified are teen marriage, previous cohabitation, lack of education, financial stresses, infidelity, and lack of religious affiliation. But one major study said that the number one marriage killer is an attitude of contempt towards one’s spouse. Once the eye rolling starts, the marriage is in trouble.
It is profoundly depressing that Christian marriages are not immune from this.
BJ, I think it is entirely possible that unscrupulous women avail themselves of the Duluth Model to obtain unnecessary restraining orders. I have known women who got RO’s as the first shot across the bows. This is tantamount to saying you’re hired Gloria Alldred and this is going to be ugly, so give in now. But, otherwise, I think you’re right and that it comes into play in legal proceedings later on especially regarding who gets to stay in the house, why the husband gets supervised visits with the kids, and why the kids can’t hang out with Daddy’s new… Read more »
Yes, I think a young suitor ought to have a list of red flags to check against a potential mate. The state of grievance thing is a good one. I can think of a few more too: – Nothing is ever her fault. She makes excuses and blames someone else. – She can’t accept, or even thoughtfully discuss, a rebuke. – She might assent in a general way to the proposition that she is sinful, but she never acknowledges or deals with her specific sins, even the little ones. – She resists apologising. – She has a flippant or dismissive… Read more »
This is a great list, Indighost. I would add another one with which I am personally very familiar (don’t ask how):
– She smiles, agrees. and even adds something amusingly self-deprecatory, then does exactly what she planned to do all along.
“She will beg you for advice, your reply will be concise and she will listen very nicely, then go out and do precisely what she wants!”
Deception with a veil of charm. I think this one would be tricky to spot until one was a fair way down the romance road, but you’re right, it’s another one to watch for.
There might be other things to add in a list for young women, but all of the above traits are bad in men to, so I think young women very well could use the above list to weed out bad husbands. Generally, it is a list about being a good disciple of Jesus.
I think what Indighost was saying is that these are qualities to be cautious about in women because (unsaid) they are sins to which women are susceptible to.
Of course avoid them in men, but the list for men will likely be sins that they are more likely to have problems with (eg. absconding from authority)
That is really a very good list. Do you think it is common?
@bethyada, thanks. Are you asking whether the list is common or the traits in it?
The traits
It’s hard to say. Certainly they are uncommon among spiritually mature Christian women, but on the way to maturity I believe many women will battle at least some of these propensities. The first four are pretty closely connected, and where you find one you would likely find the other three. Defensiveness of this kind is irrational and stunts growth. I’d call these marks of intellectual dishonesty, and I think they are common among immature women to varying degrees. To my mind those are the big ones. If she is willing to hear and consider criticism fairly, all sins can be… Read more »
Indighost, I think a lot depends on what losing one’s temper looks like. I don’t think I have much of a temper so losing it isn’t a problem. But I think I would rather deal with someone who gets mad from time to time (in a rational, controlled way) and then is willing to make up than with someone who goes all passive aggressive and nurses a grievance. I think women are especially prone to doing this and thinking it isn’t sinful because they’re not overtly angry. I so much agree with your point about loyalty. If you’re not loyal… Read more »
Jill, for clarity I should have said, She is prone to fits of rage. Screeching, slamming doors, throwing things. Of course, all unrighteous or mishandled anger is wrong, and I agree that it would be miserable to live with anyone who was often irritable or passive-aggressive. In this case I was thinking of violent manifestations of anger because they indicate a more dangerous lack of self-control and maybe mental instability. I agree about the trouble-making too. I saw a comic strip once with a graph showing that the frequency with which a person says they hate ‘drama’ is directly proportional… Read more »
The other trait I just thought of is demanding that your spouse assume responsibility for your mood. “Make me feel happy” is an unreasonable expectation, yet people get bent out of shape when it isn’t met.
Indighost,
A good list of red flags. The 2nd, 4th, and especially the 3rd items remind me of my ex-wife far too much. Unfortunately, I only saw them years after the wedding.
Barnie, you said:
Would you be willing to expand on those factors and how they work in your favor? Are there any factors over which you have direct influence?
I give you credit for sticking up for Duluth-condemned authority measures. Not many would have the guts.
To a hostile and suspicious man, no well is wholesome.
BJ, I interpreted him as thinking thusly: As a general rule of thumb, those who scorn all medical care in childbirth do so out of misplaced reverence for the “naturalness” of the child birth. In the same way that some people think “all natural” means “healthy for you”, a very large portion of those who do things this way treat doing things “the natural way” as self evidence that it is the best way to do the thing in question. If you believe the doctrine of the fall, one would think you’d have a healthy skepticism of “natural” things. The… Read more »
Justin, You claim that Doug is thinking: As a general rule of thumb, those who scorn all medical care in childbirth do so out of misplaced reverence for the “naturalness” of the child birth. You are reading way too far into his words. He said natural child birth and you interpret him as saying “those who scorn all medical care in childbirth.” That is quite a leap. If you believe the doctrine of the fall, one would think you’d have a healthy skepticism of “natural” things. This is too simple by half. Am I to be skeptical of trees? Fruit?… Read more »
BJ wrote: As Indighost noted, there is a balance. Doug did not provide that, and that is my criticism. Criticism noted, but I see a great deal of qualification and balance in Wilson’s statement of the problem. Wilson wrote: To say that pregnancy is not a disease is quite true. To say that giving birth is a natural process is also true also. But this overlooks the fact that it is a cursed natural process. It wasn’t very difficult for me to recognize who Wilson was addressing, and who he wasn’t addressing. I see nothing to indicate that Wilson is… Read more »
I agree with Jill, that the definiton of “natural childbrith” needs to be made before we find disagreement, but I doubt that agreement is likely as BJ has not yet commented on the millons who have not done so well with “natural childbirth.” It only takes a few seconds to find stats on current maternal mortality where it is clear that those countries with the most potential for intervention into “natural childbirth” have orders of magnitude decrease in maternal mortality. If you want historic numbers, head to Wikipedia and find the article on historic maternal mortality. https://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?v=2223 I wonder if… Read more »
Am I supposed to have?
I wonder if dchammers thinks that people growing gardens by hand because they find something beneficial about it means that are in denial about the doctrine of the Fall?
And since we are on the topic, the use of cancer-causing and testosterone-destroying chemicals on our food is really reeking havoc in many ways, just for the record.
BJ wrote: I wonder if dchammers thinks that people growing gardens by hand because they find something beneficial about it means that are in denial about the doctrine of the Fall? It depends. Do they use their actual hands to grow the garden, or do they rely on artificial tools, such as shovels, dams, wells, and hoses? If they buy diatomaceous earth, harvested on an industrial scale, then it could go either way. I’m pretty sure I know who Wilson is talking about in his book Confessions of a Food Catholic, but I’m not sure I know who BJ is… Read more »
I am not going to split hairs about definitions, especially when we all probably agree.
My sole criticism was to reject Doug’s assertion that advocating natural child birth was denying the Fall.
Contra Doug, there is nothing contradictory about asserting a belief in the historical Fall and believing that the natural world still operates reasonably within normal predicable patterns.
BJ, I think Doug may have been addressing a certain first-world mindset that has grown too used to the low risks of childbirth in their society. This makes them scornful of drugs or surgery, and sometimes of the whole medical profession. “She’s into Intervention and everything,” someone said disparagingly to me about a midwife. The remark went down badly because I’d just been reading The Hospital by the River, the autobiography of two doctors who set up a hospital in Ethiopia especially to treat women (thousands of them) whose bodies and lives had been destroyed by problems during childbirth for… Read more »
Very well said, Indighost. I think this is one of the areas where women are unkind to one another, being critical and judgmental about one another’s choices. Some of my fellow mums were scornful of me for electing to give birth in a hospital–well, gee, at 41 years of age, I didn’t think this was the time to go it alone. Others were scornful of me for electing to have an epidural. The good thing is that this prepared me for further battles in the mommy wars where I was heaped with scorn for bottle feeding, using disposable diapers, co-sleeping,… Read more »
It’s a bloodbath out there. We’re all inclined to think our own choices objectively the best, especially those who haven’t happened to need special monitoring or intervention. I who have been blessed in God’s mercy with straightforward natural births am therefore tempted to think that everyone else should just toughen up and do it properly! As if I were somehow responsible for God’s particular providence for me. The judgmental spirit will make itself at home, given half a chance.
I think Doug may have been addressing a certain first-world mindset that has grown too used to the low risks of childbirth in their society. Then he should just say that. In many ways I think childbirth has been overmedicalised Careful, there, Doug thinks you might be denying the effects of the Fall. The healthy attitude is to understand that God created a perfect system that still works well on its own a surprising amount of the time, but that it is now also a fallen system and we do well to bear that in mind when considering our options.… Read more »
If asked to pick a date for the genesis of secularism, I’d offer this letter as evidence that the year 1552 is a good candidate:
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/resources/the-english-reformation-c1527-1590/cranmer-on-religious-practice/
When the details of mandatory state religious services are dictated by politicians, it is a fairly direct path to the modern condition of the Church of England:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nrZBtKWSfs