Dalrockian and Disoriented

Sharing Options

Last week, Dalrock took a few shots at my teaching on sex and marriage, indicating that I am well on the way toward feminism. You can take a gander here and here.

“From what I can tell, Wilson is over a decade ahead of the complementarian curve in this regard. So far, this idea seems to only be popular with Wilson and Christian feminists.”

The problem appears to be a common one. When I argue for two things that don’t go together in a way that makes any kind of carnal sense (like a man as the true head of his home but also living with his wife as a true gentleman), one thoughtless reaction is to pick one of the two options and accuse me of arguing for that one only. The feminists ignore my insistence that a husband must be the kind of head that Christ was—one who sacrifices himself. The Dalrock option ignores my insistence that the husband is the actual head of the home. Both do it for the same reason—they can’t make the two things fit together in their heads, so I must not have said one of them.

They even link to this blog post, in support of the idea that I am slowly drifting into feminism. Go ahead, check that out.

And here are a couple of things from How to Exasperate Your Wife, the book that Dalrock is using to highlight my feminist, or at any rate soft patriarchal, sins.

“The most important word in the marriage vows is ‘obey’” (p. 95).

“If a wife is a servant or a dominatrix, the husband needs to confess his sin” (p. 97).

“This does not contradict what the Bible teaches elsewhere about the husband’s authority and headship. In the family, the husband is the head of his wife, as Christ is the head of the church. He is also the head of the home and has the responsibility to protect and provide for that household. He is responsible to lead and he has the authority to do so” (p. 12).

“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” (p. 16).