So in the wake of yesterday’s post responding to Elizabeth Bruenig’s, um, critique, a number of scattershot questions have arisen. You can track some of that by looking at @ebruenig and @douglaswils.
For example, one friend cautioned me offline that Bruenig is not a moral liberal. But in my calculus, the beating heart of liberalism is egalitarianism, and she definitely is egalitarian. That is what the whole discussion is about. More about that in a minute.
Now I am prepared to acknowledge that when I first had her half brick bounce off the back of my head, I didn’t know who she was. I of course read her dismissal of my (most reasonable) traditional sexual ethic as psychotic, that being the half brick, and then looked up her Twitter feed. Just a few tweets down I noticed her eff-bombing about something or other. And so I responded to her incoming friendly reminders as coming from the same kind of source these sorts of things usually come from. But I am happy to acknowledge that there is a sliding scale on these things. Principled conservatives > nice conservatives > decent liberals > ardent liberals > demented liberals. Not everyone who is sowing the wind is, as of yet, reaping the whirlwind. I am more than willing to acknowledge that she is not as far along as her tweets represented her as being. But that does not alter the center of my response at all. Egalitarianism is moral liberalism in principle.
One commenter noted that Russell Moore “liked” her initial tweet, and there’s another instance. I am experimenting with using the Twitter page instead of HootSuite, and still getting used to it, and so I presume his liking it was less accidental than mine just was.
I said above that egalitarianism is the problem. The central disease in the sexual revolution is the egalitarianism that drives everything else. Because it begins by setting aside portions of the plain Word of God, it ends by us discovering that the hidden intent the entire time was to dispense with the entire Word of God. And when that happens, there is no law to convict and no gospel to save.
Being pressed for time this morning, I will leave it there for now. I am more than willing to have a serious (and friendly) discussion about these things with Elizabeth Bruenig. Open door. Liberty Hall.
Egalitarianism is not the enemy. Liberalism is not the enemy. Feminism is not the enemy. And women had best not be the enemy either. Your theology becomes psychotic when it begins to demonize women, to dehumanize us, and to imply there is something like salvation through male dominance and perpetual female submission.
The reason is was only a half brick probably has a great deal to do with Christian charity. I would have cheerfully pitched a whole brick.
You might say the theology first becomes ‘psychotic’ with the doctrine of the trinity and ultimate reality being both unified and diversified.
A helpful run-down of the issues for Meme’s benefit: Doug says Egalitarianism is the enemy. — TRUE. Feel free to argue about this. Doug says Liberalism is the enemy. — TRUE. Feel free to argue about this. Doug says Feminism is the enemy. — TRUE. Feel free to argue about this. Doug says Women are the enemy.—- FALSE Doug has never said anything like this. Ever. If you make this your argument, you’re just creating a straw man. Doug says something like salvation comes through male dominance and perpetual female submission. — ???? Seriously? Where in the world did this… Read more »
if Salvation came that way
surely Saudi Arabia would be saved?
MeMe’s logic is just hilarious
“Where in the world did this even come from?”
The voices.
” Your theology becomes psychotic when it begins to demonize women, to dehumanize us, and to imply there is something like salvation through male dominance and perpetual female submission.”
Good thing he doesn’t do that.
Equalizing by theft or force when difference is a fact–I will be like the Most High, ye shall be as gods–was the original sin. Differences cause some, not all, inequalities, so suppressing differences often distorts matters. (I have to pay for pregnancy insurance, but Obamacare-fan ladies don’t want to pay male rates for life insurance??) Of course theft and force are used to make some inequalities worse, and you’ve probably suffered from that. Some feminists sometimes have noticed things that need correction or care against. (US political) Liberalism becomes psychotic when it begins to demonize common people, to dehumanize us,… Read more »
Egalitarianism, feminism, & liberalism all come from a hatred toward God. This cones from the wickedness of the human heart. The wickedness is so total that men and women often see an attack on these evils as an attack on all women. This too is wickedness and reveals a heart that hates God’s word.
To accuse Christian women of hating God because we don’t believe in male dominance in all things has got to be the epitome of all stupid.
To attack Christian wives and moms as so many of you do, is just astoundingly wrong headed.
To attack Christian husbands and fathers as you do almost daily, is astoundingly arrogant, hateful and wrongheaded.
CHer, you’re right. And one of the downsides of supporting feminism is that you don’t get to play the wife and mother card. Your argument stands or falls on its merits, and you don’t ask for gentle treatment because you’re a woman.
The sweet Christian grandmaw who viciously attacks fellow Christians all day, pushing what’s mostly a radical, Leftist feminism along with some completely opposing positions–I couldn’t dream up a more unbelievable, contradictory character. No one would buy it in a movie or novel. It would even be too over-the-top for Flannery O’Connor.
I’m at the point where I like to think that MeMe as an account is an elaborate prank. That John Piper is sitting at his keyboard giggling at the responses he gets.
Please tell me he outsourced the comments here and InsanityBytes’ content to a college kid or someone in India. The thought of anyone in the clergy writing it gives me shivers.
I think this is a fair assumption to make. Piper totally seems like the kind of friend who’d prank/troll Doug for fun.
Piper has changed is is basically egalitarian now
Pretty bold statement and assertion? Do you have links to his own words proving this?
READ HIS blog
https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/real-men-love-strong-women
real men submit to women and support them in their careers and work
aka
real men must women who act like men
obviously a response to men abandoning marriage as there is no incentive for men to marry anymore
that itself is egalitarian
also he is scared of Girls
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2016/02/18/pipers-debilitating-fear-of-saying-no-to-women/
Piper’s article: Biblical. And nothing wrong with strong and courageous women, we want to avoid rebellious women. There is a big difference. Don’t see how you read a promotion of women working over nurturing in that article.
OH PLEASE
the strong and courageous women he was clearly referecing are women so are acting like men.
Sheryl Sandberg types who want their career and a house husband to support them.
the articles definition of strong women was women earning more, climbing the career ladder etc
and he said Godly men should not avoid them but pursue them
I would argue that Godly men are looking for strong women that want to be wives and mothers….
read again
but obviously u are egalitarian?
The Desiring God article observed that women are increasingly outperforming men “in many areas of professional and personal competency”. This has been my observation as well. I’m noticing a lot of young men who have not given attention to discover and develop the gifts God has given them. Books have been written about the “Lost Boys”, who never seem to grow up into any competency and seem to have no vocational interests they are willing to work to pursue. Christian men can blame the egalitarian culture’s favoritism toward women if they want, but it doesn’t change the observation that young… Read more »
The Strong Women article lost me at this statement: “whether a woman is “intimidating” is a factor of male perception, not female personality. ”
Sounds distinctly like the “Green Book” from Abolition of Man.
Nathan, I see the similarity but I think in this case the statement is okay. The definition of ‘intimidating’ is its effect on the one perceiving.
The writer identified applied intelligence and accomplishment as something some men find intimidating in a woman. It is not sinful for a woman to be openly intelligent. It is a sinful weakness for a man to be intimidated by her talent. He should instead rejoice in it and strive for a return on the talents God has given to him.
a man should rejoice then when women are on the front lines ?
when women are providing for him while he is the homemaker?
This is hilarious
men who are attracted to women that prefer to be feminine and not try and and usurp men are not weak…
all of a sudden Christian theology seems to be straight from Sheryl Sandberg and not the bible
In turning every remark into a caricature, you miss the opportunity to really engage with anyone.
I agree. Men who speak to an intelligent woman and think, ‘I’m scared of her because she’s too smart’ are weak.
AHA iNDIGHOST So if men refuse to date career women they are weak?! because that is what most people refer to when they think of intelligent. I for example am not scared of career women- In the secular world I do not really care. A Christian career woman at church those, kinda repulses me, all she wants is to be a good husband, not good wife then she goes and whines to the pastor about how men are scared of “intelligent women” and men get told that that is weak? hilarious how things have changed for 6000 years men were… Read more »
What most people refer to? Not me, bdash. I know too many blindingly clever stay-at-home mothers to associate intelligence with ‘career’.
If you want people to take care not to put words in your mouth, you should extend them the same courtesy.
the article was referring to career.
talking about women outpacing men in the workfroce and equating that with intelligence
READ!!
Bdash, I was quite a good copy writer. I wrote ads that made people feel kindly toward buying my company’s products. How is it not possible to do that job in an entirely feminine way? And if my husband had welcomed my working there while I was childless, should I not have honored his wishes?
DID i SAY WOMEN cannot work? I know female doctors and surgeons who are Godly wives they worked like 2 days a week part time their whole lives even though they could have earned more than their husbands why? out of respect and understanding that men and women are different. a Godly man will not be scared of such women what I am pushing back against is this idea that Godly men must not reject career ( supposed christian ) women , and anyone who does so is weak… using that nonsense logic of Katecho and Indighost a man that… Read more »
I agree with you, Indighost. Of course, there is a way that a woman can consciously use her intelligence and strength to intimidate someone deliberately. That might make for an unhappy marriage!
Jill, it certainly does happen, and isn’t it ugly. It might have been helpful for the article to touch on the improper form and use of feminine strength, for balance.
I was thinking more about the other side because that’s what I’ve seen more of, and because it reminded me of recent discussions about age gaps in relationships. The clever girl who’s regarded as a freak of nature by the guys in her class would have good reason to be attracted to older men.
nothing wrong if men do not like women who have spent their lives focusing on their career instead of cultivating skills that would make her a better wife and mom…
men do not want to marry men or man like women.
only weak men like the author of the article ( who based on his job will need a wife to provide for him) accuse men who chose wisely of being week to validate his incompetence
??? it clearly tells that men need to support these women basically asking men to be the help meets to these women and not be scared of them… The only reason women are out performing men is because they have been raised to be men and not female. And society gives them privileges right through the process some countries are now mandating that men be house husbands for 6 months ( Sweden) Why should a man work and sacrifice his life when all the women want to do is usurp him. Time will tell men are abandoning marriage and society,… Read more »
I found this to be true in my own experience long ago, and I don’t suppose it has got much better. I noticed that in my particular fields–teaching and writing–women were often more willing to put in the longer hours, did not encourage time wasting, accepted instruction more easily, and resolved to profit from criticism.. Just this constellation of traits–regardless of native ability–can cause women to advance more rapidly than men who do not have them. In my experience, some of the resentment directed against women was due to their diligence and seriousness which was seen as kind of wrecking… Read more »
women are brilliant! iI am not saying they are not! but if a woman’s desire is to “invade a male dominated field” or work just to prove it is “Not a mans world” and to work so that she is no dependant on her husband I question her motives. If however a woman uses her skills, whatever they maybe , teaching , doctor, engineer etc, in a way to help/enable her husband and not to usurp men it is very different, that is Godly and honourable the former i disagree with, yet Christians keep encouraging the former and telling men… Read more »
I have a big problem with Piper’s negative attitude toward defending innocent people from violence. That’s not a biblical attitude and conflating it with a willingness to endure persecution is alarming.
I’d very much like to see a better explanation of the scriptures he believes support police and soldiers defending innocents by force but can not apply to private citizens. He just breezes by that one, but I don’t think there’s any support for it.
I wonder about that too, Nathan. I think I have to right to choose martyrdom for myself. But my duty is to protect the innocent, especially the ones under my care.
why?
most Christians attack men on a daily basis
“we don’t believe in male dominance in all things”
If not in all things, what would male dominance look like where it is appropriate?
I think to MeMe male dominance is never appropriate. And in strict definitions of domination, I think most of us on the “biblical patriarchy” and “complementarian” side of the argument, including Doug, would agree. Domination and dominance is bad and it is sin. But “biblical patriarchy” and “complementarianism” is not at all about what MeMe consistently mischaracterizes it as and her mischaracterization is done with, I dare to suggest, malice in her heart.
is it sinful for men to dominate the workforce and military?
I
wow….
I think you’re using a different definition of domination than I am.
use the definition feminists use….
male dominance refers to men dominating work/political and leadership spheres….
you are against that?
Meme, I care nothing about your petty name calling. You continually feign incredulity over being a grandmother who is disrespected. Your immature behavior disgraces yourself. I do care about your continual slander and hatred of God’s word. Apparently you do not have any men in your life who love you enough to rebuke you for your hatred of God’s word. You need to stop blogging and commenting on blogs until you can exhibit humility, love, and submission to God’s word. You set yourself up as a teacher and lead anyone foolish enough to listen to you away from Christ. You… Read more »
+1
Is this the part where we link “Alas for you” from Godspell?
Are we sure Silas isn’t actually rebuking John Piper? :-)
Yes Me, what you need is a good ole-fashioned REBUKE from a real christian male.
RandMann,
What is needed is MeMe’s proper response to Christian rebuke, whether it comes from male or female. MeMe has also been rebuked by many women. For example, Anna, in comment 211658 here, and Ellen in comment 211702 provided another. But MeMe, in her selfish pride, will not acknowledge the truth and repent. It seems she believes that admission of sin is itself sin.
I always appreciate those who defend people who are being condemned unfairly. But if you made yourself familiar with the pattern of engagement here, you might find that what you are defending is name calling, slander, and really abusive personal attacks on fellow posters who have not deserved this treatment. Is that really something you are interested in defending?
Rejecting egalitarianism and feminism is NOT the same as believing in male dominance in all things. That sort of either/or thinking is simply ridiculous.
Christian women trusting God’s word regarding authority and submission is not the same thing as believing in male dominance in all things. Christ was no less God because He submitted to the Father. We are no less human or children of God or holy saints because we submit to authority in the ways God has spoken. I for one am privileged to follow my Savior in this, and yes, sometimes I have had to submit to authority I didn’t agree with, sometimes I have had to resist authority that would have been contrary to God’s law. In none of it… Read more »
Anna what you wrote is beautiful. The last last woman who responded to meme that way was accused of being desperate for male approval. This is why I rebuked her. It is not possible to have a rational discussion with someone like meme who has rejected God’s word and is filled with bitterness. They are intentionally deaf to reason and scripture. I think there is wisdom in how Tim Bayly responded to RHE. He warned his flock against her and admonished the men in her life to love her enough to rebuke her. Doug mentions how he has different tactics… Read more »
Thank you, Silas. I do already have male approval, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Jesus delivered me from the pit and that is the only approval I need. I pray that MeMe will understand that.
most Christians do not agree with you on this
What if you don’t believe in superstition and find the idea of a god ridiculous? And yet you believe in equality, respect for women, and want to support them to be/do anything they can envision. Oh, and you believe in liberty, equality and Enlightenment ideals…
If you are someone like that, then the idea of ‘hating god’ seems like so much dog-whistle, feel-good evangelical hogwash.
I have never found a circumstance where the term “dog whistle” didn’t mean “I can’t find a problem with what you’re actually saying so I’m going to pretend you said something else”.
Fair enough. And I have never heard anyone wield the facile ‘hating god’ argument who didn’t want to appeal to like-minded, incurious version of christians as a call to censor and shame.
randallmanntoo wrote: And I have never heard anyone wield the facile ‘hating god’ argument who didn’t want to appeal to like-minded, incurious version of christians as a call to censor and shame. If there is a God, then all sorts of obligations follow, and fallen man chafes against the very idea. Indifference toward God isn’t an option, as randallmanntoo clearly demonstrates. The point is not that atheists are running around in a blind rage all the time, but they will clearly devote a significant portion of their lives to suppress the truth. Again, randallmanntoo is a case study of this… Read more »
And I have never heard anyone wield the facile ‘hating god’ argument who didn’t want to appeal to like-minded, incurious version of christians as a call to censor and shame. The following is an excerpt from the abstract of a study done in 2011 entitled “Anger toward God: social-cognitive predictors, prevalence, and links with adjustment to bereavement and cancer”: Some atheists and agnostics reported anger involving God, particularly on measures emphasizing past experiences (Study 2) and images of a hypothetical God (Study 3). Anger toward God was associated with poorer adjustment to bereavement (Study 4) and cancer (Study 5), particularly… Read more »
Reverend Wilson, Before the quagmire hits the comments section, I thought I would offer you some unsolicited advice from an uneducated plumber who is totally on board with what you are doing at this blog. I don’t spend time reading any other comments sections because the discussions, if that is what they can be rightly called these days, all resort to name calling and precisely zero value is gained. Unfortunately your board is tacking toward that direction. I love the fact that I can write and defend my very unpopular opinions on here and the vast majority of the posters… Read more »
I’ve already suggested the fix which is about as much of an 80/20 (or even 95/5) solution as you’re going to get. Even if Pareto was part of the evil, “male dominance” patriarchy.
likes this.
Amen.
What solution would you propose? It’s very difficult to manage this sort of thing which is precisely why virtually every comment section on the internet, no matter how many resources the website has at its disposal, devolves into trolls and responses to trolls.
Justin Parris said:
I suggested a few possible solutions a few days ago. The most effective I think for our present situation would be the ability to mute specific people AND all the comments under them in the thread (i.e. all their comments as well as all replies and replies to replies etc.)
Why not state it outright? The comments are worthless because it’s just MeMe spewing trash and baiting folks into answering her according to her folly?
Comment sections are like gardens. In order to make them healthy and productive they must be pruned. When a blog is small, with only a committee readership, the comments will usually take care of themselves, but at some point critical mass is reached, the community norms break down, and order must be imposed. The odd thing about what is happening now is that MeMe has been posting for a long time. I took my shot at correcting her when she grieviously slandered former poster Malachi, and after that experience didnt pay her much heed, that most have been over a… Read more »
FYI…the poster formally known as Malachi was reincarnated as drewnchick…
Thanks for the support then…and now. ME was a bit off-kilter back then, but (s)he is downright detached these days.
According to her comment on the most recent post, she’s no longer participating here and will move all of her “complaints” about DW to her blog and Facebook.
https://dougwils.com/the-content-muster/content-cluster-muster-11-16-17.html
Ha, the comment on the trinity must have been more than she could tolerate.
I am kidding of course. It’s been a while since I’ve been on the blog, and was taken aback by MeMe’s presence here.
Well said…bravo.
Brueng is controlled opposition. Any “discussion” with her is a fool’s errand.
I need an article on what Bro. Doug means by “egalitarianism” and why it’s the enemy. Not challenging; just curious.
I would imagine, and this is just that, me guessing, that he’s operating on a slightly different definition than a progressive would say off the top of their head. A progressive would likely say egalitarianism is “people are morally equal and have equal rights” or something to that effect. The part that becomes sinister, and where it’s the enemy is that they interpret the goal of being considered morally equal requires being the “same”. Where egalitarianism requires us to believe that there’s no difference between men or women, no difference between broken homes and whole homes, no difference between different… Read more »
Right, I think Doug is talking about egalitarianism as a philosophical “ism,” a worldview, so to speak, rather than merely as a descriptor of a certain position on certain matters. Egalitarianism as a worldview is dangerous and never anything but selectively practiced.
I like reading the articles, the posts not so much anymore. I think we all can read an comprehend what’s being stated but the comments seem to devolve quickly to nothingness.
Yes, mainly because we have begun dissolving over and over into opposing people rather than engaging ideas. I myself have been guilty of that more often than I want to be.
Jonathan, do you remember you and I arguing mildly about the exact amount of gun violence an average Angeleno encounters? I thought of that the other day when a high speed car chase and a shootout between a criminal and the cops took place in my intersection with the result that my entire block was shut down for hours No one in, no one out. Hearing six shots, I ran outside in the hope that I could heroically rescue someone, or at least get a ringside seat. The criminal was killed by the cops, and his body was lying across… Read more »
I honestly don’t remember, but I’m glad ya’all are safe. I wasn’t allowed inside my apartment for hours once due to police lines after a shooting – didn’t think to use the snowflake’s technique!
I think perhaps you have to look like the Snowflake for it to work.
On the plus side, perhaps the other half of the brick was used by someone else, just now, to expose liberal senator Al Franken, for sexual harassment.
Couldn’t have happened to a more smarmy, sanctimonious weasel!????
And a weasel who won his election in the sketchiest way possible.
and that’s defining the word “won” in the loosest possible terms…
Neither defending nor not defending Russell Moore, but some people “like” tweets” as a reference tool, not as a means of expressing approval.
does not matter
Russell Moore like Challies, TGC etc are all closet feminists
this will be interesting
considering most commentators here are complementarians- who are bascially egalitarians but are aware the bible does not back their feminist nonsense.
“dispense with the entire Word of God …(then) … there is no law to convict and no gospel to save”
If by Word you mean Bible, then perhaps you forget that law & gospel predate Scripture?
Yes, but without Scripture, we have no knowledge what Law and Gospel are, except the portion of the Law still written in our fallen hearts. Which our fallen mind and conscience consistently fail to read or heed.
“If by Word you mean Bible, then perhaps you forget that law & gospel predate Scripture?”
That’s like saying Moses is ok if you reject Jesus.
Dear MeMe! Please! I am so embarrassed for you to read what you are writing! It is so opposite of reality! Read Anna’s response. I could not write a better one and agree with her. Pastor Doug is not saying what you accuse him of saying. Not at all. Read Anna’s response and repent! We would like to have sane productive interaction with you but the more you write the further you get from reality. I’ve been reading your comments for a long time now. For awhile I thought you were coming to your senses but this leading comment is… Read more »
I think Russell Moore did well here, for what it is worth. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2017/11/06/why-church-shootings-dont-intimidate-the-church/ On egalitarianism But in my calculus, the beating heart of liberalism is egalitarianism, and she definitely is egalitarian. That is what the whole discussion is about. Egalitarianism is moral liberalism in principle. Well anything that is unscriptural is liberalism in some ways. If paedobaptism is correct then credobaptism is liberalism; and vice versa. Same with Arminianism and Calvinism. Pentecostalism and Cessationism. Pacifism and Militarism. So it matters whether egalitarianism is directly or fundamentally liberalism. And if so whether it is the heart of liberalism. While I am… Read more »
you live in NZ
right?
There are hardly any complementarians let alone egalitarian conservative there.
it is a feminist nation with feminized churches.
Some. Fortunately many of the feminised churches are dying. Plenty of rigorous ones though.
not from what I see
the feminised pentecostal churches are thriving
rigorous are dyning
it is a requirement in Kiwi culture to submit to women
bethyada,
I’m not certain that this is what you want, but <a href=”https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2017/11/06/why-church-shootings-dont-intimidate-the-church/”>Why Church Shootings Don’t Intimidate the Church</a> results in: Why Church Shootings Don’t Intimidate the Church
There may be an easier way, but I find this works on this blog and most WordPress blogs, perhaps others.
You can edit your comment and try it if you want.
Yeah, I used markup like usual but it removed it.
If the comment continues into a “read more,” the markup disappears until you click the “read more.” Is that what happened?
No, I didn’t close my blockquote properly and perhaps the correcting code went into a spin. Maybe I forgot to use quotes around my url?
Rules change from time to time. Embedding pictures isn’t always allowed.
Or perhaps I blamed a bug on my lack of obsessiveness in html syntax.
I can imagine a day in the far future when someone will invent a computer that makes it so that people never have to type html syntax into a blog comment again.
Having taken the trouble to master it, I don’t welcome that day. When this old dog learns new tricks, she expects them to be useful for more than a year or two.
Actually katecho’s being facetious. There are already commenting systems that allow for markup without typing html tags. Unfortunately, they have various other drawbacks.
<blockquoteBut in my calculus, the beating heart of liberalism is egalitarianism…
The beating heart of liberalism is power; egalitarianism is but one tool liberals use to achieve it.
Oh!
And let’s not forget that liberals use groping and assault to project their alleged “power”.
They are their own gang:????
Griping gropers of Gotham. ????
I just read the desiring God article referenced above. I am so tired of references to Jael as a woman to be emulated. Especially when there is never any reference to the Titus 2 model, nor Peter’s nor Paul’s letters for us to be sumissive. Nor the Proverbs 7 description of the adulterous woman who is loud and defiant and never stays at home.
You got my point exactly.
the type of women Piper is talking about and asking men to respect are not Ttius 2 intelligent women
They are “I am Woman , hear me roar” Sheryl Sandberg type women
If women are allowed to emulate Jael as a Godly woman
Men are allowed to Emulate David and have multiple wives and be called a Godly man….