Well, you’ve gone and put your foot in it now, Wilson. Why, what have I done? It’s all very well to aspire to become the bad boy of Reformed letters, but there are supposed to be limits. But this piques my curiosity. To what might you be referring? Yes, you pretend to be ignorant, but you know very well what you have done. Well, yes, I actually do know. I did toss a cinder block into the goldfish bowl.
As I mount the gallows and look out over the crowd gathered for the festivities, the chaplain accompanying the hangman asks me if I ever thought it would end this way. Well, kinda, I did, but to be honest, I hadn’t anticipated that it would be for believing that Christian women were prettier.
I have risen to praise Christian womanhood, and the forces of notsurewhatexactly have taken to Twitter to express their dismay, outrage, indignation, and deep concern. The alternatives to the views I expressed are basically that Christian women are uglier, or that they are exactly the same, or that they are prettier, but that my manners are exceedingly bad for mentioning it. This is going to be festive.
And blogs were involved also. Carl Trueman responded to me thus:
“So there you have it. That is Mr Wilson’s sophisticated take on the psychology of non-Christian women: they either aspire to be sex mad prostitutes or, failing that, turn into butch lesbians.
I guess he must be describing my mother because she is not a Christian — but I am not sure at what point in her life she quite fitted this description. I must have missed it. When she married, still chaste, at 20? Throughout her 46 years of faithful, devoted marriage to dad? When she patiently and lovingly nursed him through his long, final, painful illness, administering his meds, lifting him on and off the toilet, attending to his most basic and undignified bodily needs? During the years since his death when she has been faithful to the memory of ‘the only man I will ever love’, to use her phrase?
To be sure, she is not a Christian. She needs Jesus as her saviour. But I suspect the reduction of non-Christian women to whores or lesbians says more about the psychology of the writer than it does about my mother. And maybe other mothers too?”
Russell Moore took some time out of his busy schedule to link to Trueman’s response, along with an “Amen to this by Carl Trueman.” I forget. Is it easy or hard to get a Baptist to say amen?
In my initial post, I was going to have a whole section devoted to a defense of generalizations, for of course I know quite well that there are some non-Christian women who are prettier than some Christian women. I was going to do that, but then I ran out of time — my day has a habit of getting out of bed about twenty minutes before I do. So I was going to include it because I knew it was probably necessary, but the reaction I am getting tells me that a paragraph about generalizations would not have done much good. Let’s see if a few paragraphs do any good now. I am dubious because I like to string my words together into things called “arguments” and my adversaries generally string their words together into things called “outrage,” and this is results in interactions that are about as on point as that time we discussed whether Henry is taller than a pig is fat.
But Trueman knows how to argue, and the point he raises is worth answering, so here goes. The reply that Trueman makes would work equally well on any generalization, including all the good ones. If I said that men are taller than women, it is not to the point if he produces a sister who is half a foot taller than I am. The generalization remains accurate, and his sister remains taller than I am.
Let us try the Trueman method of evaluation when it comes to the rough treatment that Jesus gave the Pharisees. They were a highly respected group in Israel before Jesus trashed their name forever and ever. There were in fact Pharisees in Israel who were entirely worthy of their historic tradition. They were the ones that Jesus ignored as He undertook to blast all the whited tombs. There were some Pharisees who warned Jesus about an attempt on His life that time (Luke 13:31), and so to dismiss them all as blind guides tells us more about the psychology of the speaker than it tells us about the actual behavior of Pharisees under Second Temple Judaism.
But even taking my generalization as a generalization, understanding how generalizations work, was my generalization a reasonable one? Is a case to be made — even on the level of generalization — that the alternative to belief in Christ for women today is either to become easy skanks or angry lesbians? Sure, it is. The circulation of Cosmopolitan, the general outlook of which I was making fun of, is in the Millions. And what outlook, if not that of angry lesbianism, rules all the stupid decorum policies — you know, microagressions and all that crap — of virtually every college campus in America? And who cooked up that yes means yes foolishness in California?
Right. And so now my critics can’t believe I am making light of the rape epidemic — how dare I minimize the scourge of mistreatment of women? Fine. Let’s talk about that — and the fact I do have to talk about that shows how influential the angry lesbians are. Let’s talk about who actually promotes treating women like dirt. Can you say Random House?
How many copies of 50 Shades sold in America? How many million do you say? Oh . . . 100 million copies of mommy porn? How many adult women are there in America? About 160 million. So what is that? Approximately two out of three?
In short, the two alternatives I presented in my generalization are two groups of women that are widely influential, and whose members number in the millions. These two alternatives currently dominate the public discussion of what a woman’s role and identity should be, and I cannot get through a day without being confronted by multiple examples of them.
And this leads us, however circuitously, to a discussion of how such comparisons should actually work. I am very willing to acknowledge what Carl Trueman says about his mother — that she needs a savior, and that she is a very nice woman. If God’s common grace has already been bestowed on such a woman, is there anything that could make her lovelier? And if you postulate the plainest Christian woman ever, is there anything that could make things worse? If you started with the most beautiful pagan woman, would the addition of faith, hope and love not do anything? And if you started with a Christian woman who was not at all pretty, would the presence of bleak despair have no additional negative effect?
This is elementary. C.S. Lewis talks about it when he compares a jolly unbelieving man with a grouchy old Christian woman. He points out that we are not to compare him with her. He says that we are talking about what he would be like if he actually came to faith, and what she would be like if she had no faith.
Does the gospel of Christ do anything in the world at all? Does Trueman’s suspicion of transformationalism extend down into individual sanctification? The gospel does have an effect. There is an impact. And this was the point of the verses I cited — and I did notice that in all the responses to me, there has been precious little interaction with those texts.
“Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear— but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious. For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands, as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. And you are her children, if you do good and do not fear anything that is frightening.” (1 Peter 3:3–6, ESV).
Christian women are here instructed to work on their loveliness from the inside out, and not, as the unbelieving women do, from the outside in. This is not saying that feminine Christian loveliness is invisible. It begins in an invisible place, in the hidden person of the heart. It starts with a gentle and quiet spirit, a spirit that has an imperishable beauty before God. A gentle and quiet spirit never needs Botox injections.
It starts there, but does not stay there. Peter is not saying that Christian women need not worry about adorning themselves for their husbands. Rather, he is teaching them how to do it. The way to make yourself lovely to your husband is by cultivating a demeanor of trust in God, learning freedom from fear, becoming beautiful before God, and then submitting to your husband, calling him lord.
Are you a staunch inerrantist and complementarian, secretly rooting for me in all of this? And yet, despite your secret support for me, you rather wished I had not ended the previous paragraph with those fatal three words, calling him lord. And I just did it again! I said it twice! At least the apostle Peter had the good grace to say it only once, and that in the midst of a passage he knew we were all going to skim over anyway.
Ah, so we have found the culprit. Christian feminine loveliness is directly related to that vile s-word, submission. Submission makes Christian women lovely, and a lack of submission does the opposite. So this is the very reason we must embrace what the apostle teaches. Our rejection of this glorious feminine loveliness is the root of our current cultural drift. We want to believe the Bible, but we want our faith to be the scratch and sniff kind. We want to believe what the Bible says without having to actually do what the Bible says to do.
It all comes down to this. Do you believe that the bride in a Christian wedding ceremony should have to promise to obey? Those who say yes are believers. Those who say no are unbelievers. I dare I call them unbelievers? Well, they don’t believe, right? And of course in saying this I am emphasizing the idea, not the mere inclusion of the word obey. The word might be present and the reality absent, and the word might be absent and the reality present (in alternative words).
Incidentally, the loveliness of submission is also the alternative to the fundamentalist rejection of all adornment, those who want plain for the sake of plain. There are some who whoop the word submission, but who reject the idea of adornment and loveliness, which means they are trying to obey the command of the apostle while fighting the logic of the apostle.
The grace of true submission is also the alternative to those who want to substitute “hot” for “lovely.”
Let us finish our instructive morning by taking a walk through the gallery of those who appear to believe that arguing for the loveliness of Christian women is teetering on the edge of a hate crime. In my defense, I will only say that I did it without employing the word pulchritude.
response by Dr. Carl Trueman to @douglaswils about DW bizarre & scary beliefs concerning non Christian women
Like the false report saying that all non-Christian women are sluts or lesbians?
The theology @douglaswils espouses is astoundingly backwards and misogynistic. Good Lord Almighty, save us.
it might be funny, if it wasn’t so incredibly hurtful and harmful.
right when you think he couldn’t marginalize and disqualify himself any more…he out does himself.
If first shall be last, @douglaswils patriarchal claims put him firmly in the category of “last” in the kingdom of God!
Doug, can you please reconsider/revoke this piece? Highly inflammatory/ offensive. Words like this hurt real people.
ironically I do not think he gets lumberjack dykes at all
Now this morning round-up would not be complete if I did not spend at least a paragraph on the tart rejoinder of @rachelheldevans.
“He calls women/ gay people ugly, demeaning names but his theology is good.” No. If he calls people ugly demeaning names his theology’s shit
So here is a golden opportunity to apply the golden rule to RHE. Should I take her statement the way she is taking mine? Should I take it as an exhaustive claim, extending all along the waterfront, such that if anybody, anywhere, calls anyone an ugly, demeaning name then that person’s theology is shit? But this would mean that RHE just called the Sermon on the Mount a very tacky name. For in that sermon our Lord said some things that some very respected theologians found to be hurtful. They didn’t think they were hypocrites at all, and the trumpet they blew on the street corners when giving alms was a gift to them from their dear, departed mothers, saintly women all.
Or should I simply allow her to make a generalization about some people — and I have met them too — who really do betray their orthodoxy by personal malice? Should I take her generalization as such, interpreting her words so that they do not include a condemnation of the Lord Jesus?
That would be nicer, and nice is the option I always try to go with.
Fashion tip for aspiring female models everywhere: Develop the habit of leaving your mouth hanging open. (No, this has nothing to do with the article.)
Well, kinda it does — false standard of beauty and all that.
“Close your mouth, please, Model. We are not a codfish.”
One of the biggest reasons I usually don’t like Keira Knightly. :)
All this bickering among Christians is enough to make me want to leave the faith completely. If it weren’t for a certain God-Man’s blood, I’m sure I would have left already.
Are you complaining?
If it’s the faith of those who are howling for Doug’s scalp, it were best for you to leave it as promptly as you can. Flee for your eternal life!!
Its the same faith. I used to go to church with Russell Moore. I’ve sat in his Sunday school class and under his preaching. I cannot overstate my respect for Russell Moore. Our wives were friends before he took a pastorate at another church. I just dont understand why he would do this, and there are many others. Then there are many who answer in kind. I dont understand that either. I would never run from the faith of a godly Christian man who I respect, but that doesnt mean I agree with all they say or understand their motives… Read more »
This is reminds me a bit of David Howard having to explain the word niggardly in the face of outrage. Not a precise analogy but still.
I found it rather telling that the first instinct of many of evangelicalism’s Cultural Commentators–to a column extolling the unique beauty of Christian women–was to howl in outrage and rush to the defense of the unbelievers. Explains a lot about how we’ve gotten to the place in which we find ourselves. If these are our complementarian friends, I’d hate to see the enemies. Or, more accurately, the enemies have very little to worry about. I’m not sure whose favor these cultural quislings think they’re currying, but they will find soon enough that the gains they thought they were making were… Read more »
Doug–you asked “Is it easy or hard to get a Baptist to say amen?”
Easy–just announce that, immediately following the revival meeting, an all-you-can-eat potluck is to be held in the Church basment.
“My sermon has three points today, and they all start with M.”
Hmmpff. I wonder what sort of apoplectic fit they would have if you installed one of those “Real Men Love Jesus” bumper stickers?
“DW believes men don’t exist if they don’t love Jesus”
“Wilson thinks only men who swing axes and wear flannel love Jesus”
“Doug Wilson says men who wear pink polos don’t love Jesus! “
” The way to make yourself lovely to your husband…” Nice try of Doug’s to add the husband in here to try to make his article sound appropriate. But the assumed husbands of these lovely women appear nowhere in the original post, which contains only Doug’s roving eye. It is overtly about Christian women being pretty *to him* (Oh, and a token atheist, from Beverly Hills no less, to help prove his point). Doug’s post isn’t written in praise of the loveliness of his own wife, it is Doug Wilson in praise of (and conversely, in condemnation of) alot of… Read more »
Totally agree. I have never even noticed whether a man or woman is good-looking. Except my wife. And then only after we were married.
Good on you Jay. ;)
Good thing you noticed she wasn’t a man.
Ba-boom
I’m guessing that you are either kidding, or blind.
Jay’s comment was sarcasm.
Yeah it’s sooooooo creepy to notice that other human beings have outward appearances.
That’s not what he said, Jane. He said he noticed their prettiness, which is a judgement/decision on his part about the nature of their outward appearance. If you want to say that’s okay, then do so, but don’t change his argument.
If they’re pretty, and you notice their appearance, you notice their prettiness. That’s not so much “changing” his argument, as wondering why you think it’s a big deal to both notice something, and observe whether you find it pleasant or otherwise.
Agree or disagree that it’s normal and healthy to notice whether something or someone appears nice or not, but to make that into creepiness is just, well, creepy.
Don’t you guys just love the way people just keep trying to outsmart Jane on arguments involving the use of words? Cute.
“why you think it’s a big deal to both notice something, and observe whether you find it pleasant or otherwise”
Your own separation of the act into two parts negates your assertion that noticing appearance and passing judgment on it are somehow the same argument. But nevermind, it’s a rabbit trail and not the main point of this comment thread, so I won’t engage with you further on it.
I do wonder, though, why you are unwilling to apply yourself to parsing Doug’s words as carefully as you do those of the mere commenters here.
It’s precisely because I do parse them carefully that I notice the distinction between speaking in a generality, and saying, “All women are…”
But Tim’s already dealt with that one. You’re the one who doesn’t seem to realize it.
And of course noticing and passing judgment are two things, but they are two things that follow one from the other inhaling and exhaling. Nobody, but nobody, is free from doing that.
So I assume you noticed his “either/or” language, which is not the language of a generality.
Someone please tell Guester to stop digging his own grave.
Jane Dunsworth exhibits Christian Feminine Beauty in her commenting. You are a very attractive Christian woman Jane Dunsworth. Your husband is a very blessed man.
Creeper.
Genesis 29:17 is one of the more scandalous verses for the axiomatically schizophrenic.
“Leah’s eyes were weak, but Rachel was beautiful in form and appearance.”
If everyone is beautiful, then no one is beautiful. Beauty becomes a meaningless category. If it is wrong to notice beauty, then Genesis 29:17 calls God’s character into question.
Prettiness is a pretty objective thing.
If that’s the case, then if any passing stranger doesn’t think I’m pretty, then my husband won’t think I’m pretty, either.
No, it means that the stranger will either be right or wrong, and so will your husband.
Prettiness being objective doesn’t mean that random people’s opinions are correct, why would you even think it means that?
Because if something is objective, there can’t be an opinion. Things that are a matter of opinion are subjective.
No, there can be opinions, and they can be wrong. Just because someone thinks that they can have a valid opinion about something, does not make the opinion valid, and does not mean that their opinion is not actually either right or wrong. I could have an opinion that politician X is a trustworthy person, but if he actually is dishonest, that would be objectively false, and my opinion would be wrong, even though it’s something that everyone thinks they can have an opinion about. Of course some things are merely subjective (whether asparagus tastes good) but the mere fact… Read more »
Actually, yes, it does. Objective truth: I am a woman. Am I pretty? That depends on who you ask.
No, the *mere existence* of differing opinions does not make something subjective. Look again at my example. “In my opinion, Bill Clinton is an honest man and a good husband.” I just expressed an opinion different from that of most sane people. Some less sane people will actually promote that opinion. Does that make it not objectively true that Bill Clinton is a liar and an (apparently unrepentant) adulterer? We can disagree on whether a woman’s “prettiness” is objective or subjective, but it’s not subjective simply because two people might have different opinions on it. It’s only subjective if it’s… Read more »
Jane, if “honest man” admits to various definitions, which it probably does, then it is subjective. When you get right down to it, there’s none of us who is honest 100% of the time. We all draw the line somewhere, as to when we will or won’t lie, and we draw it in different places. Is there such a thing as objective truth? Absolutely. Besides Jesus, has there been a human being who’s told the objective truth one hundred percent of the time? Not a chance. Then is the term “honest man” meaningless? No. It means different things to different… Read more »
But someone who viewed adultery as no big deal would be objectively wrong because God said it’s a big deal, and it’s always wrong. The question isn’t whether it’s better or worse than some other kind of objectively bad behavior; it’s whether it’s objectively defined as bad. Anything God defines as bad, is objectively bad. I see now that you aren’t just defending the idea of physical beauty being subjective, which is not an unusual position and I’m not entirely convinced is wrong; you are calling all kinds of things subjective that God has clearly called objective. So I don’t… Read more »
Fortunately that is not true. Men tend to see the woman they first fell in love with, even after much of her outside beauty diminishes. Also, if she exhibits the loveliness that comes from walking with Christ and endeavors to serve her husband and be a blessing to him, then there is a good chance that her husband will continue/come to see her as beautiful. “Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, when they see your… Read more »
How does that square, then, with prettiness being objective and not subjective? My husband tells me I am pretty and beautiful. That’s enough for me, which is a good thing. Objectively pretty I am not.
Maybe you are objectively pretty by a different standard than you are used to using.
Maybe pretty is just subjective. Which would be very nice, because that way, if a woman isn’t pretty to person A, she might be to person B.
But if it’s objective, if a woman isn’t pretty to person A, there might be something wrong with his eyes.
Or his standards, which is where this all starts, I think.
Prettiness is objective in terms of an impartial observer. Your husband loves you which magnifies the qualities about you that are objectively beautiful. If you have been together for a while, his brain probably also remembers the way you used to look when he first fell in love with you. If you are both living for Christ, that magnifies your prettiness, even to an impartial observer.
guester wrote that Doug Wilson was being creepy. That is nonsense. Men notice what is in front of their face. There is no reason to assume Doug Wilson was being inappropriate.
“Prettiness is objective in terms of an impartial observer.”
That doesn’t make any sense to me. Different people have different tastes. I think you are taking your view – “I like what I like” (which you share with the rest of us) – and trying to turn it into some kind of universal truth.
This is hard to explain to a woman. Men have preferences, but given a large enough group of men those preferences just become background noise. That is to say we find that most men more or less agree on what they consider pretty. This suggests objective standards of aesthetics governing prettiness. An impartial observer would be one who recognizes these general standards without throwing his own preferences into the mix. That joyful, peaceful, bright-eyed feminine look a lot of older Christian women have is something most men find attractive, which adds to those women’s overall prettiness. Take three pictures of… Read more »
A lot of words, but no. There just is no universal standard for what constitutes pretty. And if there were, some of us would be out of luck ever being attractive to a man. You think there is no woman living an abandoned life can find men who think she’s pretty?
Outliers exist, but their existence in no way contradicts the existence of objective standards.
guester, Your finding an innocent and exulting comment on the beauty of Christian women creepy, seems creepy to me . . .
Doug is simply saying that Christian character is an element of physical beauty. Holiness makes people attractive, women doubly so. Your comment is stupid.
LOL, maybe it’s time to give “In Which” it’s own category. “Filed Under/Tagged With: Engaging the Culture; In Which”
No fair stealing your enemies’ hermeneutic.
“The alternatives to the views I expressed are basically that Christian women are uglier, or that they are exactly the same, or that they are prettier, but that my manners are exceedingly bad for mentioning it. ” Doug seems to love the false either/or. Far from being a “generalization”, it is actually a well-known logical fallacy called the false dilemma or the false dichotomy, of which his “unbelieving woman as easy lay vs lumberjack dyke” is a most egregious example. In the above quote, he presents another, ignoring additional alternatives, such as not using comparatives like better/less than or prettier/uglier… Read more »
All generalizations are statements of general truth which are fallacious, in one way or another, if absolutized.
The false dilemma is a very specific and well-known logical fallacy, Tim. Look it up instead of generalizing about generalizations.
One of the characteristics of a fool is the inability to generalize. The book of Proverbs is a book which is designed to teach us wisdom. What is wisdom? In the Proverbs, wisdom frequently comes in the form of “statements of general truth.” If you attempt to absolutize the Proverbs, you will find that many of these statements are not always true, namely they admit exceptions. Exceptions however do not disprove the general rules. A wise man will make good generalizations about the world, but will realize that his generalizations are not to be taken as absolute rules. Your same… Read more »
“Your same critique can be leveled against the whole book of Proverbs.”
Ummm, not so, Tim. That’s a statement that is illogical on its face. The whole book? Really? How about
“Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding”
or
“”Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.”
or
“The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding”
Your argument doesn’t even rank as a fallacy, it’s just wrong.
Hehe…
I’ll place several quotes in order and rest my case.
Tim: “One of the characteristics of a fool is the inability to generalize.”
Tim: “Your same critique can be leveled against the whole book of Proverbs.”
guester: “Ummm, not so, Tim. That’s a statement that is illogical on its face. The whole book? Really?”
My work is done here.
Tim scores, for the win!
Guester is left bleeding in the street.
Maybe someone needs to explain the fallacy of the false dilemma to guester.
“One of the characteristics of a fool is the inability to generalize.”
So true.
If you think he offered a false dilemma, then say what other options there are, don’t just say that he could have avoided the subject.
Read my comments above, Webster. I did indeed offer another option, and compared to the statements by C.S. Lewis.
> such as not using comparatives like better/less than > or prettier/uglier than at all Your “another option” is to not make the comparison at all, as I previously stated. The format of his argument is logically valid: it is not a “false dilemma” fallacy. If what you are trying to say is that the very concept of comparing the prettiness of Christians to the that of non-Christians is inherently irrational, then that is a different type of argument, and bringing up the “false dilemma” is itself a logical fallacy known as a “red herring”. Your description of his “most… Read more »
Guester, the Either-Or Fallacy only applies to the Either Or statement if the statement is intended to be (1) absolute and (2) if there is actually at least one more option than what was presented. Why would you not allow as true Doug’s clarification that he didn’t postulate that every single (vs. some) unbelieving woman has loose sexual morals among either men or women? ‘Unbelieving women are X’ implies (1) Some set of unbelieving women are X Or (2) Absolutely all unbelieving women are X, Where X consists of an Either-Or construct or does not consist of an Either-Or construct.… Read more »
Because Doug explicity used the either/or language of a dilemma in the original post. His afterthought (after being called out for his statements) is that he was generalizing, even though he didn’t use that language originally. That requires us to simply *believe* that his intent was different than his language. I don’t believe that.
‘Let each bear his own burden’ (Gal 6:4) is an exhortation to avoid comparisons?
You’re quoting Galatians 6:5. Verse 4 says “But each one must examine his own work, and then he will have reason for boasting in regard to himself alone, and not in regard to another.”
haha its funny how defensive you sound here.
Man, I am so thankful for guys like Russell Moore and Carl Trueman.
I am too but I don’t agree with them here.
Dr. Trueman holds very strongly that women should not hold office in the church. But he otherwise seems to avoid having an articulated theology of gender (based on MoS and the ITunes U lectures that are available… and amazing).
It’s too bad because he’s very insightful usually and I’d love to hear what he’d have to say.
Some 20 years ago I was in Ukraine strolling down the street on a Sunday. I started noticing several groups of very attractive people, men and women. These people weren’t wearing anything much different than the rest of the public and I couldn’t even put my finger on what gained my attention about them. After watching for a moment though I did notice that these various little groups did have one thing in common. They were either walking into or out of church. Over the course of my stay there I noticed that the people with life in their eyes… Read more »
If a dead woman walks into a room, can you tell, sometimes?
Dead in sin? Yes, absolutely. It is disquieting and sad.
Some 20 years ago I was in Ukraine strolling down the street on a Sunday….
That is an expressive line..
Some of my favorites (they tend toward film-noir-ish):
The rose room bled light (Fitzgerald)
In the Winter of my twenty-first year I set out on horseback to slay a pack of wolves… (Rice)
“This is elementary. C.S. Lewis talks about it when he compares a jolly unbelieving man with a grouchy old Christian woman. He points out that we are not to compare him with her. He says that we are talking about what he would be like if he actually came to faith, and what she would be like if she had no faith.” This difference between Doug’s argument and that of C.S. Lewis is that the latter didn’t posit that the world was composed of either jolly unbelieving men or grouchy old Christian women. C.S. may have been generalizing, but he… Read more »
You seem to have missed the point entirely. And I’m not foolish enough to teach you.
If this were a rowdier blog, people would be calling him aspie by now.
Aspie? As in Asperger’s?
Yes.
Dare I ask why?
cuz aspie gonna aspie.
Why on earth are you bringing aspergers into this?
Some people exhibit patterns of thought that are hyper-logical to the point they cannot communicate with regular people. They do not understand rhetoric, hyperbole, or figures of speech. They interpret everything through the lens of formal logic (which many still manage to get wrong). These types of people have become so common on the web, that terms like ‘sperg’ and ‘aspie’ are used to describe them and warn others: P1: All that glitters is not gold. Aspie: Gold glitters. How can Au not be Au. P1: ? P2: What he is trying to say is that not everything that glitters… Read more »
But you do agree that unbelieving women are spoiled / broken & dead on the inside?
And you’re saying that’s something you just can’t see sometimes?
“As I mount the gallows and look out over the crowd gathered for the festivities, the chaplain accompanying the hangman asks me if I ever thought it would end this way. Well, kinda, I did, but to be honest, I hadn’t anticipated that it would be for believing that Christian women were prettier. ”
I think one my favorite parts of a DW reframe or distract post, is the slathering of complex of self-pity and persecution sauce.
Yes, he is so convinced of his victim status, while admonishing true victims, including those of sexual abuse to not take it as their identity! But with Doug it’s all tongue-in-cheek of course. He is jesting. Of course! And yet he must remind us…..every time….of how set upon he is by “enemies”. Though he pays them no mind, of course (of course!) he must tell us about them again, and again, and again….
It is also a clever mirroring of the Jesus story, meant consciously or no to appeal to the american christian persecution myth. Substitute ‘cross’ for ‘gallows’. Rather narcissistic either way.
He’s also fond of a peculiarly Christian logical fallacy in which he sets up a false similarity between his words and those of the Saviour. Even though Jesus never did and never would say what Doug actually said. The worst example in this post is the comparison of his words about women to Jesus’ words about the Pharisees. Ignoring, of course, that Jesus was speaking (a) to men (b) to men who held power over others, women and men alike and (c) calling them out for abusive and hypocritical religious practices, not their physical appearance and (d) rebuking them from… Read more »
What a fine duet of slander and calumny you two perform!
If only you’d take it to the alleys of some distant street, where it belongs.
Doug was just explaining generalisation for those who didn’t get it. Seems you still don’t. He is saying that faith is part of beauty, which might be why RHE has an unmistakable ‘harridan’ vibe.
Doug’s language in the original post was clearly the “either/or” of a false dilemma, not of a generalization. NOW he’s saying he was generalizing, in order to explain (cover?) himself. You obviously believe him. I don’t.
It seemed pretty clearly to be generalization to me the first time I read it. Maybe I’m just not reading with the particular intent to find fault in any way I can.
The language of generalization is “all, everyone, nobody, always, never”. Either/or is the language of a dilemma. It is certainly a well known distinction in logic and rhetoric. People can engage in this fallacious reasoning even without an either/or to telegraph its presence, but Doug made it too easy. He of course frequently engages in generalizations as well, and they have their own pitfalls of logic! But this was an absolutely classic example of the false dilemma fallacy, which is defined as presenting two options (generally opposing options) as if they are the only available alternatives (i.e., unbelieving as either… Read more »
Please stop it. I am starting to feel sorry for you and that just sucks all the fun out of the room.
It’s so touching when a couple SJW”s get together and serenade each other in a emasculated version of Kumbaya. Prescious for all of us to witness this creepy perverted side show
Like your namesake, it’s pretty obvious you have no sense of humour. :)
What is the dis here w my name? Don’t get it.
And of course my humorless bad. The clown crying on the inside.
Randman, I see you commenting elsewhere on Drudge. Why are you here? Is it too stroke your pride? You won’t convert anybody here that isn’t already on the road to perdition, and your pied piping leading them there. You really should pray for the gift of repentance.
Tim Paul, why must I convert anyone? That is an evangelical preoccupation. As is judging others. Oh, and offering unsolicited advice on the nature of their souls.
Not Ayn Rand’s strong point, but a fan once told her, You write such wonderful sex scenes; what is their source? Rand: Wishful thinking.
“This works as a distraction because he then makes a big show of correcting the people who inevitably draw the conclusion that he’s being pretty insulting to women. Because, you see, he’s not insulting all women. He’s just insulting some women. He pats himself on the back for thus schooling the masses in logic.”
http://kbotkin.com/2015/09/23/why-men-who-submit-to-authority-are-prettier/
Ha! Doug needs some schooling in the logical fallacy of the false dilemma.
I had no idea that Rachel Held Evans was now running the Twittersphere.
It’s a fine day for it, anyway.
Spit Take Of The Day: “That would be nicer, and nice is the option I always try to go with.”
The funny part is that he actually does.
He’s taking the time to explain some really simple things, and with humor and verve. He could just call them stupid and be done with it.
Calling b***s*** on that one.
I don’t think this would have caused as big a stir if Doug had said, “a woman who believes and follows Christ is prettier than she would have been if she had not.”
And there seems to be some reponding to the notion that all Christian women are prettier than all non-Christian women. Something which Doug did not claim.
It’s the brittle, ungenerous, narcissistic, controlling and anti-woman small-mindedness that fuels this nonsense here. Then of course the jaw-dropping double downs. Because the ideas he is putting forth are simple-minded and dismissible. They are really a vehicle for the bubbling stuff underneath and that is what people are so passionately responding to. With his every utterance, I can feel the underlying anger he has toward women, his frustration with control and that things aren’t his way in this life. Then these posts where he fantasizes himself up on a gallows… I mean, come on. This snake is eating his own… Read more »
“With his every utterance, I can feel the underlying anger he has toward women, his frustration with control and that things aren’t his way in this life.”
I don’t know you RandMan but it’s time to take a nice long break from the internet.
Why? I feel those things in his writing. I have been on the internet too long if I am capable of an opinion on the subtext of a writer… of opinion? dumb.
Why? Maybe because with every one of your utterances, people might start to get a similar “feeling” that you’re harboring an underlying anger towards Wilson, and get a sense of your frustration with control…etc.
ah yes, the old: “No, you are!” move.
As I have stated elsewhere, being passionate in response to someone’s demeaning of others is quite different from anger.
I am not trying to control others behavior by way of righteous judgement, passed ‘with love’, and buttressed by whatever scripture I can summon. How can any truly thoughtful christian miss this part, then cry foul when someone points it out?
Oh, yeah, much easier to cry: Bitter, angry, gossip, slander. I forgot.
All I can do is give my read on the situation based on how I see it, and you seem to me to be flailing about with a lot of self-satisfied bluster and frustrated protest. But, hey, if you’re enjoying yourself, don’t let me stand in your way.
What is the bluster part exactly steven? My protests are far from frustrating. I protest bad ideas and demeaning of others, especially in the name of jesus. Merely to plant a seed of different though for someone railroaded by the freight train of behavioral control propogated around here is enough for me. Please, keep crying anger and bitter. That code might work to silence your brethren, but not me. So, I have repeatedly called out Douglas for exactly three things: His awful position and handling the the sexual abuse case of Jamin Wight. His awful position and handling of Steven… Read more »
Your mother needs to take away all your social media devices, stat.
Wow, as a woman, I feel the complete opposite as you regarding Pastor Wilson’s writings, as for you, I feel very unsafe around your kind.
How fortunate, then, that this is the internet! It’s not like he can come through the screen, MrsMac. I’m sure you are quite safe.
My kind… okay.
You, as a woman would be well served to really ponder what pastor Doulas thinks about ‘your kind’.
I am very well aware of what Pastor Wilson thinks about about women.
C’mon, Rachel, you don’t need to hide behind a pseudonym.
Harsh. Wish you would refute an argument or at least show that you understand it before you attack the arguer.
Is it gross to think dead women generally appear less beautiful than the living?
Do I feel your (7 or so adjectives omitted) underlying anger here? Jesus Christ died for sinners without feeling bitter about it. Turn to Him.
Ahhh yes, tarred w the bitter brush. Listen AL, We can discuss w/o the bitter, slander, gossip code. Not angry at all. Discriminate between passion for a topic and anger.
Anger creeps in w Doug’s mistreatment of sexual abuse victims and failure to protect children but not here. I am passionate about human rights and people not trying to control others.
And avoiding spiritual matters in conversation!
Lol. Doug, you so silly!
Is it true that Doug has never been ordained? Does anyone know?
Where did that come from?
I’d simply like to know. Ordination isn’t some big secret.
Hmmm….in spite of the plethora of people that want to argue with me that the logical fallacy of the false dilemma doesn’t apply to Doug because he was generalizing (He said so himself! So it must be true!), nobody is touching my question about his ordination. Interesting.
Where did you come by your information?
I provided a question, not information. But it’s certainly within the context of seeing the multiple denominational censures against Doug, here:
https://web.archive.org/web/20060716041948/http://terrymorin.com/censures.html
With that many censures, I’m simply wondering who ordained him.
“Is it true that Doug has never been ordained?”
Are you representing to me that the above is not a claim to have obtained information?
I had no idea whether or not Doug had actually been ordained. But PerfectHold has now cleared that up for me, thanks. You’re late coming back to the discussion. If you have anything to add, please do.
Thanks,
Time zones and schedules have a way of doing that betimes.
I don’t know. I don’t care. Was St. Peter ordained? St. Paul?
Given the product I see in Christian 501(c) Churches, the Gospel seems better served by a dropout, if in fact that is what Pastor Wilson is.
Is it true that guester kicks puppies for fun? I don’t know myself, just asking.
ashv, shouldn’t you be somewhere defending the concept of lynching or something? Seriously, just funnin’! Good to see you again pal!
Is it true Jesus was never ordained?
Nor Paul?
My goodness, are we being led by a bunch of outlaws?
So….you’re comparing Doug to Jesus and Paul? Does he rank there for you?
Yes.
From what I’ve heard, all pastors are supposed to rep Him.
So, like performing miracles and rising from the dead and stuff? Or dying for other people’s sins? Do pastors do that?
At least this explains why some here see Doug’s words as infallible. I’d been wondering about that.
They, like, preach His word in His stead and then some folks, like, rise from the dead.
Yes.
Ah, clever substituting the metaphoric for the real. But I don’t buy that. Jesus rose *literally* from the dead, in body, and Lazarus, too, was raised in the flesh. Show me a pastor who does that. And then answer the question about whether Doug is ordained instead of changing the subject.
Not metaphor — real real — just unexperienced as yet by you, if I’m guessing right. So you can be forgiven your inability to notice / acknowledge / identify and see these occurrences right in front of you. Recall that Jesus said, while Lazarus was “dead” using your terms, that he was not dead but sleeping. — just a hint for you about how Jesus Himself saw life in a believer. Regarding ordination, Doug was “officially” ordained by the folks there at the Moscow church. But if I may say, that didn’t do squat. The ordination He received from Christ… Read more »
Thank you for answering my question PerfectHold. Though your *guess* at whether or not I’m a Christian is wrong. I’m a devoted and practicing follower of Christ. And though I agree with you on the importance of the resurrection of the soul, it is in fact not the same as the resurrection of the body. Which is one of the many ways in which Jesus is utterly unique, and why we should not rank the words of mere mortals like Doug Wilson with those of the Son of God.
… unless he is speaking the Words of Jesus or the thoughts of the Father.
And how do you know when that is the case, PerfectHold? When is Doug speaking “the Words of Jesus or the thoughts of the Father?”
All the time? Just when he is in church? When he is blogging and tweeting?
Takes one to know one.
I feel confused by this statement. It makes it sound as if you yourself are either Jesus or the Father and that’s how you know Doug is speaking their words. But I’m sure that’s not your claim, so do please clarify.
He that hath ears to hear, He says.
Does that mean you have to have Jesus’ ears? — yes, you have to be given a type of hearing only He can give.
Jesus speaks now and then through pastors and laymen and such, and it is the responsibility of those who are His sheep to acknowledge when this is the case.
But again, how do you know when this is the case? To use a specific example, do you believe Doug was speaking the words of Jesus and the thoughts of the Father when he said “Unbelieving women either compete for the attention of men through outlandish messages that communicate some variation of “easy lay,” or in the grip of resentment they give up the endeavor entirely, which is how we get lumberjack dykes. The former is an avid reader of Cosmopolitan and thinks she knows 15K ways to please a man in bed. The latter is just plain surly about… Read more »
Two good questions you ask.
How knowest thou? — the same way anything can be known — by virtue of given insight.
The thing known must have a channel into the knower.
Color receptors must be there and working to see the silver.
Second — does Doug speak Jesus’ thoughts with that quip on laymanship?
Unfortunately, yes.
Maybe a bit crudely, for effect, but yes.
Easy Lay = accepting anything less than God’s given standards for best human coupling and need fulfillment which is either or both a form of usually mutually agreed upon immature reverse rape, or prostitution.
Unfortunately.
I am very sad to hear that you think those are Jesus’ thoughts, PerfectHold. He never said anything of the kind to the women he met while on this earth, though he came in contact with those (the woman taken in adultery, the Samaritan at the well) who someone like Doug would call an ‘easy lay’. If Jesus didn’t choose those words then, why would he choose them now? Instead, he said to the women taken in adultery: “Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.” (John 8:11) and to the woman at the well (who had five… Read more »
Not yet for you.
Keep on reading the ones you acknowledge now though, and I’ll do the same.
I’m sure we’ll get a better bead on this as time goes on.
I will certainly keep reading Scripture. That’s enough for me.
The process of Sanctification is Him transforming us into His likeness.
The fruits of the Spirit, which Pastor Wilson exhibits , are evidence of God’s work.
Surely Christian, you sense other Christians without even speaking to them? Complete strangers know God is in you. Why then should we not sense the work of Christ in Pastor Wilson.
Spurgeon refused to be ordained.
Its funny how people keep justifying non-ordination without actually answering my question! But if PerfectHold’s comment below is accurate, I already know that Doug didn’t refuse to be ordained (so he’s no Spurgeon).
Though it seems he was ordained by the elders he appointed himself (and did he then ordain them in their turn? Was it a circular ordination?) and after being censured by more than one denominational body. In my world, pastors are ordained by other pastors (and longstanding senior ones at that) but obviously Doug’s church has its own unique policies.
Your are free to not recognize his ordination & or his authority as it purportedly derives from Jesus, whether indirectly through that chain of pastors or directly from His hand.
So Jesus ordained Doug? When did that occur, PerfectHold? I’d love to know more.
No pastor is a pastor unless ordained by Jesus.
How do you know if they’ve been ordained by Jesus? And you didn’t answer my question about when Doug’s ordination by Jesus took place.
Do you agree that one must be ordained by Jesus in order to be a pastor?
If so, I’ll answer as to when it took place.
If not, splain why when I think it took place has any meaning to you.
I believe that one must be called by Jesus to be a pastor. I count two pastors and three missionaries in my immediate family and am familiar with their calls. But “ordination” has a specific New Testament meaning, and in Acts 14:23 is carried out by existing church leaders, not by Jesus himself. So your definition confuses me.
“When they had appointed elders for them in every church, having prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed”. ‘They’ in this passage are Paul and Barnabas.
Called by Jesus — you need that to be a pastor?
And how did you know that happened for them family folk?
Take their word on it?
Yes. As I said, though, I would consider their call as being a personal experience different from that of ordination, which is described in Acts 14:23. As for my family members, their personal testimonies of salvation and call were examined by senior church leaders, and they were then actually ordained.
You rely on the supposed church leaders, by virtue of their supposed ordination by other supposed church leaders, to inform you as to whether folk are called by Jesus?
Ever take a gander directly at their lives and testimony and consider that as the basis of validation?
The example of Acts 14:23 shows that the new ordinees were in fact validated by the church leaders, so I think the ordination I speak of follows the New Testament pattern. But yes, I do also consider it my personal responsibility to evaluate their lives and testimonies according to I Timothy 3 and Titus 1. In fact, I have one brother who went into the ministry only to later fail the tests of those passages. Sadly, he became overbearing and quarrelsome and lorded himself over the flock (I Peter 5:3). Ordination doesn’t prevent there ever being a problem with a… Read more »
For all the good that ordination can do in helping to identify & acknowledge & encourage in the church, the question then follows:
Can one be ordained by Christ, and without ordination by local dudes, and should such be considered a real pastor.
First — ordained by Christ = not just called but placed, such that the dude can legitimately demand obedience.
Any examples of seemingly lone ranger prophets / pastors you see in the Bible?
Let’s see.
Jesus.
Moses.
Abraham.
Melchizidek.
Noah.
John the Baptist.
Appolos.
That dude the apostles were complaining about preaching & healing without a licence.
In the account of the early church, new church leaders were ordained by existing leaders. Jesus, being the Son of God, is a unique case; he required no ordination at all. The Old Testament role of the prophet is not directly equivalent to the New Testament pastor or elder (as shown by the fact that there are specific New Testament requirements listed in I Timothy 3 and Titus 1). The ministry of John the Baptist was in fact validated by Jesus, but Jesus was of course present in the flesh at the time. The ordination of Appolos is not known,… Read more »
Bit of rabbit hole, but are really troubled at the idea of obeying any blessed thing a Jesus-called pastor throws your way? As long as it’s godly?
Are you still working on the Luke 9 unordained dude? Did you say Jesus ordained John the Baptist?
Guester, the idea just occured to me that your disagreement with Doug is cultural. He does not behave in ways you are used to and because of this you doubt his calling.
Is that a fair reading?
Which ordination authority would you prefer, exactly? Which body would you consider valid?
And who made you judge of all this, BTW?
My post on Facebook: I’ve seen a couple of happy clappy posts by people delighted to see that Trueman has nailed Wilson to the wall. It’s all very exciting. Trueman’s point is something like, wah, my mom’s not like that. And, either-or fallacy! Trueman’s rant gleefully assumes that using “either” and “or” necessarily means that what’s going on is not a presentation of extremes that actually do exist, but rather an ignorant failure to acknowledge that some unbelievers know how to play nice. It doesn’t matter to Trueman that Wilson obviously affirms the complexity of unbelief, because Trueman’s goal isn’t… Read more »
I…..goofed….please….forgive….me. Its the best response and is short. Seriously dude, sometimes reading your stuff is like reading my old school papers when a teacher gave a 1000 word minimum and I only had 500 words of content. You used “generalization” 4 times in one sentence, presumably to be cute, in an article that was already difficult to read. Editor’s nightmare.
Can we all be blatantly honest here and just say, there are some girls down the street who are unbelievers and are just plain attractive and there are some dear sisters (and some chunky bald brothers like me) that didn’t win the looks lottery? Thankfully God looks upon the heart.
I am someone that has really enjoyed Doug Wilson’s writings in the past. When he takes his time and thinks things through he is helpful, kind and sometimes quite brilliant. But then there are times like this. One of the requirements for being a pastor is that we are not be pugnacious (Titus 1:7). In other words, do not go out looking for a fight. Obviously,as preachers of the gospel, we sometimes find ourselves in fights whether we like it or not. But stirring up trouble for the fun of dropping a concrete block in a fish bowl is something… Read more »
“If the point of the post was “the gospel tends to add to the beauty of women” I think you could have said that with almost no controversy.”
Yes, and well said. A pity that was not the point.
What percentage of women look more beautiful when they come alive?
So what do you think WAS the point?
That’s what the title says and that’s what nearly every paragraph leads towards.
I think one point was for Doug spew his smug, indefensible views about women in the context of ostensibly talking about the evils of society. (I mean Eve screwed it up for EVERYBODY. right?!) I think another point was for Doug to deflect the legitimate and growing criticism of his conduct in handling the sex abuse cases in his church with a post or two sure to stoke some good old-fashioned outrage. Lastly, I think another couple of minor points are that 1) Douglas likes the attention he gets good or bad and is a narcissist. 2) He also enjoys… Read more »
So, he is small like you are; motivated only by human concerns.
> I mean Eve screwed it up for EVERYBODY. right?
No. The Bible consistently blames Adam. Old Testament: “Cursed is the ground because of you” (said to Adam); New Testament: “For by one man, sin entered the world, and death through sin,” (said of Adam).
I’m unaware of the situation mentioned in your second paragraph, but this hardly seems likely to deflect attention from it. In fact, it seems more likely to highlight it. Outrage feeds on outrage.
Your third paragraph is basically irrelevant, since the question was about “the point”, not “all the points”.
Jesus regularly looked for a fight… so are you saying he couldn’t have been a pastor?
Darius, Jesus spoke the gospel truth. Doing that led to a fight. He did not go “looking” for a fight The fight came to him. John says that the world hated him because darkness hates the light. It didn’t say that the world hated him because he called their mothers lumber jack dykes. I made it clear in my comment that sometimes the fight comes to us when we speak the truth. I also made the point (quoting scripture) that as pastors we are not supposed to be pugnacious. This post was pugnacious. It was written in such a way… Read more »
Titus 1:7English Standard Version (ESV)
7 For an overseer,[a] as God’s steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain,
pug·na·cious
eager or quick to argue, quarrel, or fight.
sigh.
Seems you’ve just agreed with Prolifeevangelical, Timothy! Well done. He said
“One of the requirements for being a pastor is that we are not be pugnacious (Titus 1:7). In other words, do not go out looking for a fight”
You could of course also quote I Timothy 3:
“Now the overseer is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money.”
There is quite a difference between “quarrelsome” and “being salt” and “letting your speech be seasoned with salt”.
Did you ever read the fable “The Princess and the Pea”? You remind me of the princess and Pastor Wilson’s words are the pea.
What a dainty thing you are to consider the mild-mannered Pastor Wilson a bully.
The greek word here is “plektes” which the friberg greek lexicon defines as “pugnacious person, bully, quarrelsome person “.
Thank you Willis! While my knowledge of the Scripture is decent (a legacy of my pastor father), my greek is poor. This is helpful clarification.
Sounds like a lot of people need to be sent to insensitivity training.
“Is a case to be made — even on the level of generalization — that the alternative to belief in Christ for women today is either to become easy skanks or angry lesbians? Sure, it is. The circulation of Cosmopolitan, the general outlook of which I was making fun of, is in the Millions. And what outlook, if not that of angry lesbianism, rules all the stupid decorum policies — you know, microagressions and all that crap — of virtually every college campus in America?” It boggles my mind that Doug’s critics seem to be able to read between the… Read more »
The lines are pretty self explanatory. In fact when I read them again they seem even more obvious. Is reading between them even necessary.
Women to Douglas Wilson:
Skanks
Angry lesbians
Easy lays
Clueless women
Waifs with manga eyes
Lumberjack dykes
Pushy broads
Twinkles in tight tops
These are the words of a pastor? A leader of a congregation? This particular christian community, the one aligned with Doug Wilson has a problem.
Especially when they claim that his words are like those of Jesus. As a fellow Christian, I am absolutely stunned by that. And embarrassed. And grieved that someone might see Jesus as someone who would say these terrible things.
It is interesting to me too that feminism is a dirty word here. Among christians in general. I place it in the shame-code/self-censor file with bitter, slander and gossip.
Ah, yes, being Baptist I already knew that. It is a word to which people (on both sides of debates, in fairness) have already attached their own meanings! I avoid using “the f word” because it seems to block real discussion; people just end up arguing over what it means.
What has been turning American women into whores and dykes if not feminism?
Dumb.
Nonsense. Would you say feminism has made American women more whorish and dykish or less?
Would you say that christianism has made American men more wife-beat-y and bi-curious or less?
See how that one makes as much sense as your insulting false premise?
I don’t know what ‘christianism’ is, so I couldn’t answer. If you meant Christianity, then I can answer, but you will have to ask the question. For a premise to be false, it has to be false. My premise was that American women have been turning into whores and dykes. Because women are discrete objects, and because of the binary nature of whores and dykes (you is or you ain’t), clearly this can be interpreted as a larger number of American women becoming either whores or dykes relative to the pre-feminist years. I thought we were all on board with… Read more »
That is a truly idiotic premise. Yes, looking forward to the published scientific, peer-reviews studies that prove it. I can see it now: The New England Journal Of Medicine. Sept 2015 The Nature Of Discrete Objects And The Subsequent Metamorphosis Into Whores And Dykes When Exposed To Feminism By Job. uh… no recognized credentials. Douglas Wilson. strangely, no recognized credentials. Not even ministerial credentials. Methods: Conjecture and fantasy (oh, and don’t forget the bible!) Results: We think woman are ordered to be submissive and we can tell them how to behave. Conclusions: Christian woman are pretty. Non-christian woman are whore… Read more »
Which ministerial credentials would you approve of, exactly?
Ministry of Silly Walks. Come on man. That is your take away question?
I will be happy to cite studies to support my premise. Now I do have some concerns about your honesty and knowledge and I am more than aware of the frailty of my own nature, so please help me as I lay some groundwork (just to make sure we’re not wasting our time): 1. What is my premise? 2. What is the difference between discrete and continuous? 3. What does binary mean? 4. What does whore mean? 5. What does dyke mean? 6. What, as you understand it, is the difference between statistics and science? 7. Has your trust of… Read more »
Job, do you seriously think I would humor an apologetics quiz? That is hilarious.
And please, after thinking about it, I realize that I will no evidence for the premise. I can’t take it.
THE “RandMan” INTERNET ARGUING CHECKLIST http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2013/09/20/the-internet-arguing-checklist/
Skim until Offended
Disqualify that Opinion
Attack, Attack, Attack
Disregard Inconvenient facts
Make Shit Up
Resort to Moral Equivalency
Concern Trolling
When all else fails, Racism!
Hey RandMan, I was offline for the weekend. Suit yourself. I have no ill will toward you and look forward to future discussions.
On behalf of American women everywhere, thank you for the insult.
You are quite welcome, assuming you are either a whore or a dyke and happy in your condition. If you are a feminist, then you deserve much of the credit.
I am an American woman. Per you, I have been turned into a whore and/or a dyke. Your assumption was already made.
That is not true.
‘been turning [a group]’ does not equal ‘[a discrete member of the group] has been turned’
If you are going to take offense at what I said, please take offense at what I actually said.
I make no assumptions about you as an individual.
You remember that thing about communication, that goes like this? 1 – What I want to communicate 2 – The words that come out of my mouth (which may or may not accurately express what I want to communicate) 3 – The words you hear (which may or may not be the words I said) 4 – What you understand from the words you heard (which is now 3 steps away from what I wanted to communicate, with 3 separate opportunities for error). You want to communicate a thing, but what I understood from your first comment was “American women… Read more »
I was responding to this: “It is interesting to me too that feminism is a dirty word here.” What I wrote was this: “What has been turning American women into whores and dykes if not feminism?” You understood it as “”American women are whores and dykes.” Your mistake was to take it personally. All I was doing was letting Randman know that there is a darn good reason for feminism to be hated. It is not benign. It is evil and it ruins women in a real sense. That ruination is something only the gospel can fix. By Christ’s blood… Read more »
If women are being turned into whores and dykes, then that is what we are. That is simple logic.
I don’t know why you can’t express yourself without using that ugly language. Are you able to articulate what is sinful about feminism without using gutter language? Between a lack of chastity in action, and a total abandonment of circumspection in language, I’m not seeing a huge gulf.
If women are being turned into whores and dykes, then that is what we are. That is simple logic
Logic is hard; especially for the fairer sex.
“If women are being turned into whores and dykes, then that is what we are. That is simple logic.” That is what many individual American women have become. More are becoming that every day. This colors the entire group, making it more whorish and dykish on average, and increasingly so over time. However, many women have been held back from those sins by God’s grace. Others are being renewed every day in Christ Jesus – they are no longer defined by their sins, rather they are new creations in Christ and their identity is in him. I think the language… Read more »
I will tell you this:
It is wrong for you to use these terms to describe women. You need to either stop, or else stop calling yourself a Christian. Pick one. Now you can’t say no one has told you this.
Now I’m done. You’re dragging me down and I don’t need it.
No.
Now you have been gracious to me, and I appreciate your feminine spirit. You seem like a kind person and I am sure you are a blessing to your husband, but you have no right to dictate the terms of my salvation. If I am in error, then may the Holy Spirit correct me so that I can serve him more faithfully. As for now I think vulgarity has its place.
I am leaving you to God to correct now, but I can’t help asking – what do you think the vulgarity is accomplishing? Who is it persuading to turn to Jesus?
Hi, Laura. I was offline for the weekend. Vulgarity’s chief use is in cutting through the layer of social niceties that plague American discourse.
You think that’s what plagues American discourse, really?
When your mother taught you to say “please” and “thank you” that was a plague?
To answer the first question, of course. Just ask the Europeans. They consider our excessive politeness to be dishonest (Krauts in particular think this.). Add to that political correctness and American discourse too often devolves into a farce.
I don’t care about European standards.
That is fine. What you have not shown is why anyone should care about the current American standards.
If they are Americans, they should.
It is wrong for you to use these terms to describe women. You need to
either stop, or else stop calling yourself a Christian. Pick one.
Pick this.
What are you revealing about yourself here?
beautiful.
guester, serious question: Do you believe that Jesus is God in the flesh who has been raised from the dead by the power of the Holy Spirit?
“The lines are pretty self explanatory. In fact when I read them again they seem even more obvious. Is reading between them even necessary.”
So in other words, “Everything I read from Doug passes through my “Doug is evil” filter, so no need to take my opinions seriously.”
Nope. I think my point was that the ideas are not hard to grasp. You, I must assume agree with those descriptions of women.
At some level, I see what you’re saying. But at another (more reasonable level) I completely disagree. Now, I should mention, there are times that I wish Doug wouldn’t use the inflammatory language, not because I don’t like the inflammatory language (I actually usually get a good chuckle out of it), but because using such language generates reaction to the language and not reaction to the content. Which is annoying, and also my main point. But here’s where I think your error is: saying that all the above is how Doug thinks about women. In each case (and I went… Read more »
*Sigh* Do I have to point out again that Wilson wasn’t generalizing, he was engaging in the well known logical fallacy of the false dilemma? You can tell by the either/or language.
But regardless, not. like. Jesus.
It is not a false dilemma, your logic here is poor. You may incorrectly take the first article as a false dilemma, but Wilson clearly explains here that it is a generalization.
I am not willing to give him that leeway. It is fairly clear what he thinks about women no matter how cleverly he likes to wrap it up in a fishy-smelling newspaper with the gospel printed on the back. I will link again to what I could not possibly improve upon: “This works as a distraction because he then makes a big show of correcting the people who inevitably draw the conclusion that he’s being pretty insulting to women. Because, you see, he’s not insulting all women. He’s just insulting some women. He pats himself on the back for thus… Read more »
So you’re asking us to concede that what Doug says about some women must reflect his opinion of all women. That’s quite the argument, but maybe I’m reading too much between the lines. But let’s talk about your hermeneutic. You say that it’s “fairly clear what he thinks about women.” I agree, but I’m willing to quote all of what he says as representative of his beliefs, including what he says about his wife. You, however, can only take half of what he says, and must throw the rest away as being deceptive and misleading. Which hermeneutic is more reasonable?… Read more »
Not interested in this as an apologetics game. It’s too simple to waste time untangling pretzel logic. Look at the language and attitude DW uses regarding women.
Be a man and stand up for your sisters against a bully.
It’s not pretzel logic, it’s baguette logic: straight and to the point. Saying “Doug’s not talking about all women: he’s accurately describing a certain subset” is hardly convoluted. If you have trouble following it (which seems unlikely) then perhaps the discussions which pop up so frequently on this blog are not edifying for you. If you can follow it, then please stop conflating all women with some women: I think that disavowing any differences between kinds of women is rather insulting to the amazing diversity that their gender possesses.
Nope. His certain ‘subset’ in this case is non-christian women who he characterizes as easy lays or dykes. Or christian woman who who are bee-yootiful. Your attempt to turn tables on who exactly is disavowing and failing to support diversity of viewpoint here shows either a tremendous amount of willful ignorance or simple intellectual dishonesty. Of course this conversation is downstream from his other post that hands out all women theirrulebook: Keep quiet, submit, be a homemaker, put out sexually, don;t be a nag etc. And that post exists to deflect from the REAL issue knocking at Doug”s door which… Read more »
You’ve run out of arguments, Randman. You’re returning to abuse which you and others have failed to substantiate, coloring actual events to suit your narrative. You continue to insist that every sin must turn into a pitched battle, where you pick a side and fight the other side to the death. Thus, you say that Doug chose one side over the other. But that’s not how the Gospel works. He has faithfully ministered to both sides. Again, you have no evidence that Steven has harmed his child, so continuing to accuse only multiplies your dishonesty, and reiterates your false view… Read more »
Who are you to judge what the font of my rebuke is? I know what Douglas’s is because it is obvious. From what he writes. A combination fear of female power and sexuality and the scripture. Listen to what mine is from what I write: I do not like those who coddle and protect rapists at the expense of their victims. I will rebuke those who do, whatever scripture they choose to pull out of their a** to do it. My rebuke comes from having familial experience with sexual offenders and understanding first hand where the problems lie in dealing… Read more »
Randman, I know what the font of your rebuke is: Comic Sans Evidence.
And while I grieve that you were abused, being a victim doesn’t make you an expert in justice. Being a patient doesn’t make you a doctor. And being the plaintiff can make you a very bad judge indeed.
Both Wight and Sitler were charged and sentenced. Wilson advocated leniency for both. Blame/shamed the Greenfield’s in a letter. Sided with Wight in court and then married off Sitler to a young parishioner knowingly producing a baby. Then there is Natalie’s blog which details her abuse quite explicitly. Evidence enough for me. Also spare me your bulls**t grief, not asked for nor required. Being open about abuse is different than being somebody’s victim. I own my experiences. Certainly, reject my argument from personal anecdote. Reject Natalie’s. Reject the two year old with a p***s on her mouth. And by all… Read more »
When you demand that I acknowledge that the events are always the same, you’re showing the true source of your anger: you’re still angry at your abuser. If events are always the same, then that makes it easier for you to be as angry at Steven as you were and are at your abuser. You want Steven to be punished because, in your mind, he’s the same person as your abuser. They all are the same, you cry. You want to form a common identity between the two. But let me tell you this: people are different. Steven is not… Read more »
You are of course wrong, but that is an easy mistake to make when you have no idea of how the pathology works or what you are talking about with regard to child sexual abuse. I pity abusers. They cannot help themselves and are statistically almost certain to be abuse victims themselves. I feel no anger. I feel disgust however for people who would think they know better than those who devote their lives to the study of this sickness and call it merely sin. Who would then put other children in harms way and treat the victims and families… Read more »
Also, I don’t want Sitler punished. Punishment is a most christian preoccupation. I do want Sitler and Wight far away from children. Forever. I want the victims of Silter and Wight to be given kindness and deference.
Fail city here in both of those departments.
Is that being a man to you? Knowing where to take a date for dinner. Are you kidding?
You know what being a man is? Standing up for people weaker than you. Pushing back against ideas that minimize others. Try it sometime.
Or stick to your ‘broad-shouldered’ manly schtick. It’s working for you.
You pathetic little schmuck. You yell and scream point and shout and refuse to engage the ideas. You are a poser.
Here “the Words” of the Lord, The Lamb, The Christ. They are pretty self explanatory, however, there is much to be read, between the lines: You snakes, you brood of vipers! “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean. Let them alone; they are blind guides of the blind. And if one blind person guides another, both will fall into a pit.” “Are you still so dull?” Jesus asked them. and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat… Read more »
Jesus’ invective was directed at the religious leaders. In the passage you’ve quoted, he specifically and repeatedly lists their hypocritical religious practices. Jesus certainly could have directed his words at the crowds around him, or the loose women of Jerusalem, or the unbelieving Gentiles. But he didn’t. He turned his scorn on the religious leaders. There is no valid comparison between Doug’s misdirected insults of unbelieving women and Jesus’ righteous rebuke of the Scribes and Pharisees.
OK, so regular people are better, or get a break compared to Scibes and Pharisees. Got it. Good thing you and I have never been hypocrites, never been blind, never been unclean, never been adulterous, it’s just those “leaders”. ; – ) Whew, for a minute there I thought I might have to repent.
Please reread my comment, A Dad. I didn’t say any of those things that you have said. The context and target of Matthew 23 is very clear and very specific, and I pointed that out to you.
Sorry gusti, read The Word of Matt 12. Jesus was speaking to the Pharisees and the entire generation of Israel at that time, “the crowd”, so you are just wrong when you say Jesus did not direct His Words at “the crowds. (and you and me as well. we are part of that “crowd”) Submit to The Word of Jesus gusti, don’t submit to me. The Word of Jesus is valid, yours is not, mine does not compare either.
Matthew 23: 1-2 “Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat:” Jesus is speaking *to* the multitude and the disciples, but he is speaking *about* the Pharisees. I don’t know how many times he has to say it to make it clear to you but here goes: vs. 13: ” But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!” vs. 14 ” Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!” vs. 15 ” Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!” vs. 23 “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!” vs… Read more »
Gusti, context my boy! I quoted Matt 12, 15, 18 and 23. The Word tells us who the comments were adressed to as well as who they where about. “Jesus certainly could have directed his words at the crowds around him, or the loose women of Jerusalem, or the unbelieving Gentiles. But he didn’t. ” You are wrong gusti, Jesus did. Don’t argue with me, read The Word! Matthew23 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2 “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must be careful to do… Read more »
But still yet, Jesus repeated seven times “Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!” Jane Dunsworth tried to make the same argument as you yesterday, that the passage could be about something else. But as I said, when Jesus makes the same statement seven times I’m going to receive it–literally–as he said it. You obviously have made another choice.
The preposition “to” is used to refer to who is in the audience; who is being spoken to. But Jesus makes it very clear who he is calling hypocritical: the scribes and Pharisees. We will have to disagree on this one, A dad.
Gusti, we don’t disagree so much as you ignore the Words of Matt 12, 15, 18 in addition to 23, that I quoted, in response to randi’s words. But here is where we might actually agree, while people are often the vessels of God’s Word or ministration to others, conviction of sin is the Work of The Holy Spirit, not the messengers. Per below, John spoke a tough message to “the crowds”. John spoke the same message to the pharisees. The Spirit Works on hearts, even now. Luke 3:7 John said to the crowds coming out to be baptized by… Read more »
Some Women to Douglas Wilson:
Fixed it. I like his use of language. It captures the wide road to hell as contrasted with the narrow gate to heaven. I love the concern that you, an atheist, have for Pastor Wilson. Such care. You are quite the moral example.
Here is a list courtesy of St. Paul: 28And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. 29They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness , evil , covetousness , malice. They are full of envy , murder , strife , deceit , maliciousness. They are gossips ,slanderers , haters of God , insolent , haughty , boastful , inventors of evil , disobedient to parents ,foolish , faithless , heartless , ruthless. 32Though they know God’s righteous decree that those who practice… Read more »
Clearly Paul has a problem with “they”. Which must mean “everybody”!
You really think he said that about all women?
You really think that there are not some women who are in those categories?
Yes, I think based on his output that he is a madonna/whore kind of guy.
Are there male prostitutes and gay men? Yes. Would it EVER occur to me to use only those categories to refer to non-christian men? No.
If it did, it would say a lot about me. It says a lot about Wilson.
Here’s a practical question: how in the world do you have time to keep feeding the beast of all of the controversies you spark? Isn’t there a church that you pastor? Seriously, the sheer amount of time that you spend managing and pouring gas on all the debates you start? Maybe this is part of feeding the flock/equipping the saints for you. But the problem is that the flock end up eating up all this stuff, and majoring on the same minors that you do and continue to build up serious walls around the little fortress you guys are building…or… Read more »
It is called narcissism. Douglas likes it- the attention. And any attention is better than no attention. Frankly, I am happy to feed Wilson’s beast, because these issues, especially those around his failure to protect his parishioners deserve it. The victims deserve it. I for one, clearly see the thread between his general view on women and how he responded in those cases. His concern seemed squarely placed on the souls of offending males. Why wouldn’t it be with his view of patriarchal superiority and woman being called to submit? It is easy to follow the dots here. Ideas have… Read more »
It is called evangalism. The Word is a sword that divides. Its about time a Pastor wielded it.
They stoned St. Stephen, Crucified St. Peter and executed St. Paul for speaking as Pastor Wilson speaks.
“They stoned St. Stephen, Crucified St. Peter and executed St. Paul for speaking as Pastor Wilson speaks.”
Stephen, Peter and Paul called unbelieving women either easy lays or lumberjack dykes? Do please provide a Scripture reference for this, Timothy.
Here is Pastor Wilson’s statement:
Unbelieving women either compete for the attention of men through
outlandish messages that communicate some variation of “easy lay,” or in
the grip of resentment they give up the endeavor entirely, which is how
we get lumberjack dykes.
Your strawman just turned to ashes.
You consider Pastor Wilson’s statement a Scripture reference? That is indeed very strange.
How could anyone without autism interpret this in a literal manner? Wilson is obviously exaggerating for rhetorical effect by contrasting two ends of a spectrum of female behaviors.
And NOW you’ve angered all the mothers of autistic kids! When will you learn to stop making analogies, using stereotype, and conjuring useful pictorial images?
“A” dad actually stands for Autism dad, re: one of my children. I am not offened by either “Job” or Malachi’s comment, even if Malachi is from Texas! ; – ) By the way, my child is pretty literal, it’s quite an endearing and refreshing quality. The child does have an abstract side as well, but if one is too literal one might miss it.!
Alright buddy. Metaphor and Allegory are waaaaaay out of line.
(;
Actually, the fires are very helpful. In the light of them the sheep can see the wolves.
Thanks for all of this, Doug, and your faithful pastoring. Keep it up!
Pastor Wilson:
Rather than a cinder block in a goldfish bowl, tell us why we should NOT think you are purposely creating a tempest in a teapot here. And why should we not assume this all to be a diversionary tactic.
Diversion from what?
I think you jest. That’s a good one! :) :0
Seriously, I’m hoping Rev Wilson will respond, so I ought to clarify. Although I intended “diversion” as “diversionary tactic”, it could also mean”entertainment”. I’ve a cynical, sneaking suspicion that Wilson finds the reactions to his writings amusing. I hope I’m wrong, and that he’ll set me straight.
I thought you were referring to the pedophile scandal, but wanted to hear it from you. Is this the case? I do not jest. Quite the contrary.
Yes. I wanted to hear it from Wilson. It appears I’ll be disappointed.
I must say Doug, well done! The last several weeks I really have been able to see how the Gospel is scandalous. The reactions to Steven Sitler, and now your description of what makes a lady really pretty, bring to mind episodes where the Pharasee’s screamed, rent their clothes, and put their hands over their ears. Thank you and praise God for your boldness.
Indeed! Because preaching the gospel needs to be at the expense of other’s well-being and personhood.
You are too clever by half. He’s done no such thing.
Let sleeping dogs lie?
R’, the Gospel did come at the expense of someone’s well-being and personhood, that of Jesus. He paid that expense at the cost of His own well-being and personhood because both your and my “well-being and personhood” are not as “well” or as personalbe as we might like to believe. ; – )
Such tender ears. The Gospel, like Math, is hard.
timothy, stop following me around!
Mr. Friendly gets angry.
Seriously, you are like some kind of little stalker. I am beginning to think that you might like me? Ok, I will let you tag along.
An interesting property of a comment board is the sequential ordering of comments. One can then scroll from top to bottom and comment as one sees fit. You call that “stalking”. Ok, I will let you tag along. heh. That blithe assumption of smug superiority so prevalent among the coddled and well fed will evaporate when you face a Holy God. You will not be able to ignore Him; I suggest you face the music now and state clearly and examine in detail why you reject Him. Care to engage the topic? Or are you going to bravely run away… Read more »
timothy, I know you want engage in some sort of righteous duel so as to proclaim your faith. And I do like a good debate about the circular logic that is belief in a supernatural entity and the doctrine that follows. But you, with your hocus-pocus language and assumptions of some sword-wielding, ass-kicker of a deity who will require souls to ‘face the music’ are not the kind of mind I would choose to have the conversation with. No offense.
You really picked the wrong blog to comment on then. I hear Rod Dreher has a good comment section though.
ashv, isn’t there a cotton field missing an overseer somewhere? be of service.
I am praying for your repentance and salvation. This is a Christian blog RandMan; I think it is presumptuous of you to think that its “poltiics only” or “culture only” and that that is the arena on which Christians ply their trade. God exists. He loves you and wants your immortal soul with Him in Heaven. He is also a righteous God who cannot allow sin into His presence. The rhetorical play you engage in will not work with Him. It is for that reason that I am firm with you. Reconciliation with Him is available by His grace, yet,… Read more »
So go talk to him. You are too scattered for me. And frankly seem a wee bit unstable.
I talk to Him all the time in thought and in little everyday things. The folks who wrote the hymn “I Walk With Him, I Talk With Him” had it right. Its called fellowship with the Lord.
See? You venture onto a Christian comment board and now you start wrestling with new realities. Progress!
People, don’t miss the point. Keep notes on who is saying what. All this is really about whether the Christian faith makes any waves in the actual physical world. It’s really about culture, sports, art, politics, astronomy, legislation, poetry, economics, geology, moviemaking, journalism, jurisprudence, music, and why not, fashion. Pastor Wilson keeps shooting down, from any angle he can, with wit, enthusiasm and godly boldness, any incarnation of the widely popular but biblically inept and eschatologically-impaired assumption that what we have here is all a state of mind, an invisible spiritual aura hidden between heaven and your heart, which you… Read more »
Fantastic! Christian blood sport. I like your deranged sniper analogy. Very apt.
Willful misconstruction is also highly entertaining.
But I’m sure Gianni appreciates your providing a textbook example for his textbook explanation.
Hello Jane! I am glad you are back. Hope you brought some ammo and body armor. Some old time religion is about to happen.
BTW, you’re cute when you pretend you don’t understand how metaphors function in writing.
Sorry about the judgment, but being a human and not a robot, I simply couldn’t think about how you present yourself here and not simultaneously form an opinion about it.
Clearly I got the metaphor Jane. Maybe is you who did not pick up on my continuation of it? Come on give me some credit. We are pen pals at this point.
Your aw-shucks tactic of pretending to be friends is wearing thin. You are gonna need a new frame.
Well, I do actually feel friendly towards you. But we can keep some emotional distance if you wish.
I feel contempt for you; shallow, foolish people have that effect on me. No distance, I like my disdain straight up.
No ammo needed. Old Timeless Religion is happening, as always.
2 Cor. 10
3 Of course we are living in bodies made for this world. But we are not fighting for the things in this world.
4 We do not use the things of this world in our fighting, but we use the power of God. This power can break down the walls where the enemy hides.
5 We can break down what people think and every big idea that tries to stop people from knowing God. And we can make every thought a prisoner to obey Christ.
Fantastic! Anti-Christian deranged cluelessness. I like your willingness to show to the world the levels of your reading comprehension. Very apt.
So, folks, here you have it. Practical demonstration that Christians are not only more good-looking, but also way smarter than non-Christians.
Battle of Lepanto was pretty good too. Phineas wielded a sword with elan and General George Washington was renowned for his prayer life while at war.
Fantastic! (disarming praise)
Christian blood sport. I like your deranged sniper analogy. (dissonance)
The rhetorical effect is “jamming” as the person feels ‘good’ about the initial statement and the follow up creates cognitive dissonance.
Some better terms for my parenthesized words would be most welcome. Any ideas?
With RandMan’s rhetorical techniques laid bare, we will see if he is man enough for dialectic. I doubt it; farmers-market shopping mom-jeans atheists rarely have the intellect, ethics or courage for it, but there is hope.
How about dinner and a date first timothy?
Well done, and quite eloquently stated too! I agree, insert St. Crispins day speech here!
Whether women are prettier here or there I can’t say. But all the cigars, scotch and arguing don’t do much for Moscow men. Not to mention the paunch bellies and greasy beards. When being appraised by one such as this, I guess I have a hard time caring.
Ad hominem wins again! Or “maybenot”. Nothing like avoiding content to beat down the enemy.
Oh there can be no beating down here-not with his faithful minions to call upon! Ride to the defense of the great master! lol. It doesn’t change the fact that the one who thinks women should care whether or not they are pretty would not do well under the same eagle eyed appraisal.
I’ve only met the man twice, so not exactly a minion. Sometimes I even disagree with him! But invalid argumentation is visible from any distance and a second dose of ad hominem doesn’t make it any more valid.
Sometimes you actually disagree with him?! Wow. You must be a gud thinkr. How cute. I hope you are rewarded well for your loyalty.
And there we have it! Three meaningful comments. Or “maybenot”.
You’re funny. Your initial comment didn’t have anything to do with anything. I wasn’t trying to “take someone down” (Doug is quite willing to shoot himself in the foot. No help needed from me.) and I agree, I have no interest in the content of the blog post. That WAS my point. You, in your eagerness to defend your master come leaping out with omigosh, Latin words, no less. How CERC can you get? I’m sorry you’ve only gotten to meet him twice. It must be hard to be here wagging your tail so hard and barely be noticed. Well,… Read more »
For someone who has a hard time caring, you’re not very convincing.
Eh, a little sparring can be fun.
Especially when you get to the, “Your mother was a hamster!” stage of commenting, eh? :)
Yeah. Because though put forth with fancier language, that’s how I see the post. There are people with genuine concerns about the way women are treated in the church and this is what he throws out *at this time*. It strikes me as a pseudo intellectual “And not only that, but you’re ugly too!” and I do care. I do care. I care about the way people are treated. Doug “supporters” can put people who have something to say into tropes that are easily disposable to them, but that will be to the detriment of the church on the whole.… Read more »
Why don’t you go and talk to them? If you’re a member of this church. Wouldn’t that be more productive?
Not in my experience.
“I have no interest in the content of the blog post.” and yet here you are.
Yep. You got me. Here I am. Not going away anytime soon, either.
I’m afraid we’re all going the way of the belly. Good think no one noticed my ear hair. My goodness! Then I’d really be sunk.
Ha! Zing.
Respectfully, this is not my blog so I don’t make the rules. Based on this, and most of the recent threads, dissenters are welcome. Take your shots at Doug. Question the motives of those who are generally in this camp. Hell, adopt a lumberjack dyke and start your own blog.
But, I humbly request you leave the cigars and scotch out of it. They are the real victims here.
This made me laugh. Well played, Reformed Roy.
To both maybenot and guester, I appreciate the replies. In the interest of full disclosure, at the moment it is whiskey and a marlboro. More to the point, I’m fairly sure I understand your respective perspectives from your posts. Selfishly, I do not care for the heavy/light hearted hostility you bring. I come here for pleasure. My manly version of a soak in the tub if you will. I believe that Doug can be edgy. I believe that he can provoke. I absolutely believe he can be wrong (his initial take on reformed rap). Although, he did come around. That… Read more »
You admit to a Marlboro. And THEN you want people to take you seriously?
Doug can be edgy. I guess he should be able to take it then. I found it ironic that the man who literally WROTE THE BOOK sanctifying the use of sarcasm suddenly needs
protection when it is used in return.
Pretty sure I wrote selfishly, not seriously. No intent on my part to protect Doug. I do not think he needs it. If he were truly bothered, you would vanish at the literal push of a button. It is his blog. The fact that you are posting here would appear to bely some of the presumptions posted. As I wrote, I’m selfish. You’re invading my scented, bubble filled tub. No true resentment though. If you are good enough for Doug, you are good enough for me. Also, regarding the Marlboro, I tried some of the faggy European sticks. They did… Read more »
I hope you enjoy it all, even the Marlboro. I say that with all sincerity. :) I didn’t really mean the response about the sarcasm to be directed at you personally, more replying to other things I’ve read where people are disregarded as “bitter” because their tone was not just perfectly gentle. I should have said that. Sorry.
@maybenot: No worries here. You may, or may not be bitter. I have no idea. I seldom give a rat’s ass about tone. Most folks are not subtle to the point where tone is relevant.
My mere desire is for honest opposing views that are not overtly dismissive. While I acknowledge that many here, including myself, appreciate what Doug brings to the table, descriptives such as minions tend to be somewhat general and condescending.
Possibly to the point of contributing in a similar fashion to the very generalizations to which some have taken offense.
OK, this is what I mean. Minions is mild compared to what Doug deals On A Daily Basis. Towards women, towards other pastors, towards anyone who disagrees. You are either anti dismissive tone across the board or you are pro dismissive. If you only take an exception when someone is aiming it towards the side you are in agreement with and then get all offended when it comes back, then you are a hypocrite.
Good grief, why is this so hard for people to see? If you men take an exception at someone pointing out your paunch belly and ear hair, and hope your wife can see beyond that, why is it so difficult to imagine women might feel the same? If, when in a disagreement don’t want to be typed as a fat, drunk, slime ball, maybe don’t talk about the people who disagree with you in those kind of terms. You get back what you give. You posted humor and I responded in humor. Monte posted in arrogant, intellectual bravado so I… Read more »
Wow. If that is what you got from my response I will let it go now. Doug is the misogynist here (not really, just deflecting). From my end, you are proving my point. No dark intent in my heart. Just a little back and forth. God bless.
Bastos is a superior Euro cig. Better than Reds or Camels
You may be correct. I have never smoked a Bastos, although I will humbly suggest that the name is slightly faggy. Aside from that, the Camel non-filter may be the best cigarette ever mass produced. I threw my wife a bone after my first heart attack and switched to the Marlboros. I felt it was what Jesus would do. On a wildly different note, I was recently turned on to some sweet music. The Water and the Blood album by Sojourn is worth anyones time. Mostly old, forgotten hymns brought to 2015. For those who check it out, you are… Read more »
You touch my heart with your appeal and I confess, I did tread on sacred ground. If the scotch is of a certain quality and as long as the cigars are smoked outside I will leave off my attack. (Or in “the den”) I must confess, I don’t mind a little tobacco smell mixed in with the autumn air. The scotch though, is all yours.
Miss, you of all people should know that boldness is more important than looks, in men. With women it is the opposite.
Miss? I am long past Miss. Sir. And I know no such thing. And assholery is not the same thing as boldness.
It’s close enough for most women, ma’am.
No, it’s a way to insinuate youth and inexperience.
Boldness, I mean.
I sometimes wonder if Wilson is not an atheist or satanist posing as a Christian to make Christians look ridiculous. The original article had nothing to do with Christian women’s inner beauty, but their supposed physical attractiveness.
As far as submission goes, I’ve not heard any support from Wilsonite Christians regarding Michelle Obama and Hillary Clinton’s deference to their respective husbands. Apparently, submission is a virtue unless your husband is a Democrat.
Outward appearance is unperturbed by inner death?
That is certainly a Screwtape Letters take on Doug’s shenanigans, which being a fan of C.S. Lewis he should recognize…interesting point.
T’, below is where Wilson reitterates the value of Godly behavior by Abigail, where she respects her husbands “authority” while working around his abuse of it. Also, if Bill is a serial adulterer, H’ has grounds to leave per the same post below. Finally, how does Michelle defer or submit to Barry? Are they not equal? https://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-culture/open-letter-to-a-trapped-wife.html Your strategy should be to bring everything to a head. Abigail dealt with her blockhead husband with all wisdom, and everything consequently came to a head. She was submissive to him, up to a point, and went completely around him in another sense.… Read more »
I’m wondering if Doug Wilson and some of his defenders here would also say that Christian men are more handsome than non-Christian men? Or does this rule only apply to women because, of course, the most important thing a woman has to offer the world is how she looks. And maybe it is a low blow to go after Doug Wilson’s looks but it doesn’t really look like he takes much pride in his physical appearance. Maybe hit the gym once in a while, eh Doug? Don’t you want to look good for your wife? Or is it okay for… Read more »
What can we say? I’m forever glad my wife waited 36 years to find me. I like to think its for something other than my belly and ear hair.
And surely you see something more in your wife than just “prettiness.” Or at least I would hope.
Absolutely, you wouldn’t think that’s my wife’s only redeeming quality just because its the only one mentioned here would you? The same should apply to Doug. The prettiness of my wife is a gift that keeps on giving. But her beauty is not skin deep, it goes all the way through, and comes out shining in many aspects constantly. This was also a point of Doug’s posts. The longer we’ve been married the more beautiful she gets.
If Doug wanted to make a point about internal beauty then he failed to do so because much of what is here is still focused on the external. And I’m not the only one who thinks so.
He is observing that the internal effects the external.
Surely you recognize some truth to the statements:
“There is nothing uglier than a bad attitude?”
“He might be handsome if he tried a little and wasn’t such a jerk.”
Apply the same principle to feminism and you will understand his point.
In this case, women who embrace a biblical worldview have a prettier worldview. This pretty worldview influences them to present themselves in ways which are actually more objectively desirable both in terms of their physical appearance (not lascivious or man-ish) and attitude.
Then you really missed the point of the whole post(s). Christ in the believer makes the woman more beautiful, and the man more handsome. There is no way to avoid it, it leaks out and overflows naturally. Though it may be paradoxical from the viewpoint of the world. I’ve seen it first hand in my life, and the lives of other believers. The two (inner/outer beauty) are inseparable in the believer.
I’d give my left eye to be as handsome as that dude.
But yes — dead men as a rule are less handsome than the living.
Let the dead put make-up on the dead.
Men aren’t women. Most wouldn’t blow a fuse if their looks were insulted. Beside that, lumberjack dykes don’t care what men think. They are the ones who have given themselves over to their ugliness.
I can think of a couple of big ol’ fat women I know who love the lord and have a loveliness that blesses everyone around them. Their husbands are fortunate men. These women are not very pretty, but they will never be ugly she-beasts. That is title reserved for women whose ugliness emanates from their souls.
Well my, aren’t you a lovely person. I can definitely feel the love of Christ eminating through your words. /sarcasm
I take it you’re pretty good at being sarcastic.
Would you consider yourself a lovely person?
“…ugly she-beasts. That is title reserved for use by men who have no love in their hearts.”
Jesus died for the women you refer to as ugly she-beasts. Do you think it pleases him when you talk that way about people he gave his life for?
Lady, it does a sinner no good to wallow in their delusions until the judgment day. Some women are hideous, just as some men are abject cowards. That hideousness comes foremost from their rejection of God and their having given themselves over to sin. Shall I pretend not to notice? Christ died for ugly she-beasts. My hope is that some of the ugliest ones will turn and repent and demonstrate God’s glory to the whole world through their new life in Christ. As they become more Christlike, their beastliness will diminish until on the day of resurrection they are perfected… Read more »
Job, how do you think these women will respond to a self-identified Christian calling them ugly names? Do you think this wins them to Christ? Do you think it makes them want to go to church? Please remember that people all over the world, of every faith and no faith, read this blog and these comments. Are you a faithful witness for Christ when you call women ugly she-beasts? Here’s 2 Timothy 2: 24 And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. 25 Opponents must be gently instructed, in… Read more »
Laura, thank you for your reasoned response. You are absolutely right that we are to be kind to everyone and gently instruct our opponents. Now please be charitable in reading my response. My original comment was: “These women are not very pretty, but they will never be ugly she-beasts. That is title reserved for women whose ugliness emanates from their souls.” I was merely using a term I think appropriate for a certain type of woman, who hates God and has given herself over to sin. Ugliness is palpable. I argue that no woman indwelt by the Spirit of God… Read more »
Your penultimate paragraph is much, much, much better. Your last paragraph is kind of funny. I agree that it’s wrong to make our appearance into an idol. Yet we are judged by our appearance at every turn. Have you heard men offer a number value on a scale of 1 to 10 for women, even women who are complete strangers to them, to describe how attractive they are? Have you heard the term “hitting the wall” to describe women in their late 20s who no longer are young enough for men who are complete strangers to them, to want to… Read more »
“Won’t you be turned off forever from anything I have to say?” No, I would probably go away happy or annoyed (depending on whether or not you came around to my point of view) and then forget all about the exchange within a day or two. Same with a friendly fistfight. I will say that I have been using this blog as a school for rhetoric and your response has convinced me that I need to change my tactics a little. A jab that was meant to probe the weakness of an adversary might sometimes floor an innocent woman passing… Read more »
Glad to see that you are reviewing your tactics. It would be wonderful if women could find a refuge from the cold hatefulness of the MRA and PUA folks in the company of Christians, instead of more of the same. I’d like to give my fellow American women reasons for the hope I have. I certainly wouldn’t invite them here.
Yeah, they would probably get struck by flying furniture.
I don’t know about furniture. I’m thinking more along the lines of, “forget Christianity. I can stay with the heathen if I want vulgar insults.”
Evil doth oft evil mar; Patricia Ireland, case in point.
The same thing happens to me and the words we use for such men are just as rough.
By neutering our langauge of these terms–and that includes terms directed at women–we lose the ability to express the depth and complexity of life.
Job, Laura is being kind to you and in her post I can tell she is a sweet and forgiving person. You however from my reading the joy of your damning language, must be a real piece of work in the real world. For one, no woman of any substance or kindness could possibly remain adjacent to a mind like yours for very long without needing an escape plan. Also, when I was very young in the church and began to look around and notice there was not much ‘there’ there, I was consistently beset by some of more the… Read more »
RandMan, I agree with you about Laura. Upvote for that.
It is truly amazing that God himself would leave the glory of heaven, take on flesh, and submit to being crucified naked to a tree, bearing the Father’s wrath and descending into the grave, all for a vile sinner such as myself.
Are you a Christian? I don’t remember.
In order for Trueman to come out smiling he only had to come up with a biblical definition of beauty.
I think Doug beat him to it.
Trueman’s point is that his own (unbelieving) mother is beautiful. Are you asserting that she is not?
What was his definition?
He didn’t list a definition, but if you read his description (which I’ve pasted below if you missed it), he refers to her chastity, loyalty, devotion, love, faithfulness, and selfless service. “When she married, still chaste, at 20? Throughout her 46 years of faithful, devoted marriage to dad? When she patiently and lovingly nursed him through his long, final, painful illness, administering his meds, lifting him on and off the toilet, attending to his most basic and undignified bodily needs? During the years since his death when she has been faithful to the memory of ‘the only man I will… Read more »
This has probably been posted already, but here is an amazing rebuttle to this steaming pile of sexism, for anyone who is interested: http://kbotkin.com/2015/09/23/why-men-who-submit-to-authority-are-prettier/
An excellent article, Sara. Thanks for posting.
Philippians 2 5 Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God,did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, 7 but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness.And being found in human form,8 he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death—even death on a cross. Wow! Jesus had to become obedient unto death…. (how is that for submission?) I only have to submit to Jesus, and He is way better than death. I myself might… Read more »
Remember when you became a Christian and someone handed you that book that had all those words and phrases in it that you weren’t allowed to say anymore. Well, Doug never got that.
I never got that one, either.
“She’s a lumberjack, and she’s ok…”
The opposite.
PETA on goldfish killing in 3,2,1….
You made coffee spray across my keyboard!
Crucify him!!! Oh. Wait.
It’s good you thought better of crucifying Doug, Coyote287. Nobody here wants that.
I’m glad we agree. I’m sorta new to Doug’s blog but already a fan.
And you are quite welcome.
Honestly, no one fussed when Roald Dohl said something similar. http://bit.ly/1LQWqwR
Crucify Roald Dahl! Oh wait, I copied the Coyote. ; – (
Wow, Roald Dohl, Mr. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory himself! You don’t get to write truth like that these days.
This was just delightful and so well said. Thank you.
The joke here is on anyone who actually took that post seriously enough to respond. Either don’t feed the trolls, or just roll your eyes and move on.
Some don Colacho to start the morning,
The left is a collection of those who blame society for nature’s shabby treatment of them.
– Nicholas Gomez Davila
Envy differs from the other vices by the ease with which it disguises itself as virtue.
-Nicholas Gomez Davila
Perfect way to start!
I just got a Chinese proverb from our exchange student last night.
” Its not society’s fault you’re stupid”
Looks like that goes pretty well under your number one.
Good morning Barnabas.:)
When Trueman describes his mothers selfless devotion to his father, he is saying she was Christ-like without Christ. That she is beautiful while denying the standard of beauty. That was the impetus behind the serpant’s lie.
You really got flack for arguing faith makes a woman more beautiful, and without faith an essential beauty is lacking? Please dont stop writing about it I want my neices to have an understanding of beauty besides the one from cosmo, katy perry and the the sitcoms. And they will only find “engagement with tge culture” no matter how vile, from those other writers
I think that the problem is not that he said “faith makes women more beautiful” but that he did it in a way as to ensure everyone who has a nonChristian mother/sister/daughter/friend would be offended.
There are ways to say biblical truths without bringing in “lumberjack dykes” and “easy-lays”. Believe it or not, those words are not actually in the bible.
The biblical words to describe non believers woul be even more offensive. Children of wrath. Sons of the devil. This doesn’t prevent us from loving them but we shouldnt be offended when those we love who are in darkness are referred to either as what the many of them are or the culture many of them support sees as ideal. And i dont think all non christian women are, but the christian view of womanhood, still influential on some who deny the faith, really is the only alternative. Some simply arent consistent
Also, the second term is one used by that culture itself. “I can call myself that to shock you, but you can’t call me that to call me out,” is wearisome.
But neither is Cheeseburger in Scripture either. If you want nuance, then Doug is great, however if nice talk with pillows on the sides is what you’re looking for then Doug ain’t your guy.
Doug Wilson is a pastor. Pastors are not supposed to be pugnacious (Titus 1:7). If he views having a witty line that brings outrage on a blog as more important than following the biblical outline for pastoral behavior, he should resign.
Personally I’d refer you to Jane’s comment above. I think if you don’t want to talk to his board of Elders you should try to get on it. Looks to me like you’re the one spoiling for a fight.
I think he overstated the case and was a mite sloppy, though I understand why he thinks he didn’t. That’s his style, that’s who he is, and appealing to “that hurt me” right out of the gate doesn’t work well when trying to get Doug Wilson to see your point, for good and ill, especially when you’re a fellow blogger who doesn’t always wear the kid gloves himself. But it wasn’t because he brought in the idea that there are real consequences to avoiding a biblical conception of what makes a woman beautiful, and laid out the extreme ends of… Read more »
I made this point elsewhere but – Titus 1:7 says that, as pastors, we cannot be pugnacious. We cannot be out looking for a fight. Sometimes, preaching the gospel causes the fight to come to us. But if a pastor is out looking for a fight (for the fun of dropping a concrete block in a fish bowl), he is not doing a good job as pastor. The statement “the gospel makes women more beautiful” would receive very little backlash. He could have said that with almost zero dust storm. He could have communicated something he thinks is an important… Read more »
Your point fails because every single person certainly did not think that. And yes, I know, you were exercising hyperbole, but if there is actually a large number of people who did not take that meaning from it, then it becomes much less clear that his writing was objectively (and unnecessarily) offensive. You take his title to mean he did it “for the fun of” dropping the block in the fishbowl. Another way to read it is that he felt an urgent necessity to make the points he made, and to make them starkly, in a way that caused the… Read more »
A complete “Amen!” from this non-Baptist brother, Jane! Doug (and so many of us reading or listening to him) does, in fact, enjoy watching the bloviating that typically follows when he tips over some secular-prog sacred cow. (And no, I’m not referring to a non-Christian woman.) Cow-tipping is just plain fun sometimes…especially when the cows are sacred. But, honestly, I think the point is not the fun derived in the tipping, but the fact that there’s so many people who think the cows are sacred!! Every once in a while, you can get a kind of domino thing going, and… Read more »
See, here’s what I don’t get: How is it “fun to watch” that a man should be “having too much fun” “slaying sacred cows”, when it hurts and offends the saints who have loved ones for whom they are praying strenuously? If he had said that our female unsaved loved ones were “objects of wrath” that would be a truth I could swallow, because it is a true picture of the unsaved, straight from the lips of God, which prompts me to prayer. Why would a man of God seek to offend the saints by making a generalization about their… Read more »
I’m not granting that there was anything in Wilson’s generalization that should have caused saints to take offense on behalf of their unbelieving loved ones. It’s just not there.
Some saints have shown themselves eager to take offense, and have no qualms about weaponizing their unbelieving mother if they think it can get at Wilson. It’s sentimental misdirection from the core and substance of Wilson’s argument.
Yes, I know the ‘we cannot know the mind of Doug’ fall-back. Sorry, as I know it a fave. Give everyone here a little more credit. Doug writes his ideas down and hits send. It’s not as hard as you think to know the mind of this guy. Those words should not be said, and not because he is a ‘pugnacious’ pastor. But because they are belittling and demeaning. But of course, since you are a christian woman you don’t need to empathize here with the derision. Of course easy lays and dykes deserve to ridiculed and sneered at- ‘with… Read more »
Wasn’t it Orwell where the use of words was discouraged? Where words where discarded ? The purpose was to kill thought and the expression of ideas.
He would be proud of you; you are of the same mold.
timothy, I like you because you seem like a christian Boo Radley. hiding behind the tree waiting to help me stumbling around in my ham costume whenever I fall into trouble. And I appreciate having the same depth of verbal communication with you.
Nice try, but the goal is at the other end of the field. I didn’t say we couldn’t know his mind, I said we couldn’t know his psychological state with enough precision to know whether he post outrageous stuff because it’s fun and doesn’t care enough about whether it’s good and right, or whether he posts outrageous stuff because he earnestly believes it’s good and right, while having fun.
Do you seriously think you can know that?
I guess sneering is in the eye of the beholder.
He a pastor, a leader of a congregation. A very directed advocate of what he stands for. Of course he believes it to be good and right. It is much too demeaning a position to take without that particular courage of scriptural elixir in his belly.
So, a really judgmental bunch, you particular version of christians. Unless it is those in power above you that are the ones who could stand a bit of judgment. Then there is a lot of equivocating and backing off. But I guess that comes with the territory doesn’t it.
Actually, my conclusion is that some people are simply looking for something, anything, to say against Wilson, and I take it as a sign of highly effective writing and argument that, in all the rest of Wilson’s points against feminism, the best tactic that they could find was to go after his generalization in an attempt to weaponize their unbelieving mother (who probably doesn’t even read Wilson’s blog).
I guess when that is all that you have, you use it. Misdirection is everything.
Meanwhile, I take it that all of the rest of Wilson’s arguments in that post stand.
A more generous reading there never was.
Douglas has a thin conception of womanhood and repeatedly loves to foist it on his sheep. And pervert the bible to give him a patina of authority to a christian thinker. Because, who am I to question scripture?
In order to make accusations about a thin patina, RandMan would actually have to interact with Wilson’s arguments from Scripture. It seems that RandMan and the others are more interested in squeezing some mileage out of the anticipated offenses of unbelievers who might take exception to one of Wilson’s generalizations. As long as they continue to play that misdirection game, all of the rest of Wilson’s points against feminism stand.
Let’s not forget, that Baptist said “amen” to a Presbyterian!
As a woman whose husband sent me the original article as a form of compliment: I’m sorry that you had to go through all this nonsense. Some people have too much time to navel-gaze.
While I do appreciate what you are getting at, I do not think the Lord wants us to draw sharp lines dividing men like this. Since we cannot, at this stage, distinguish between the wheat and the tare, comments on the comeliness of the green shoot are neither here nor there.
You are almost there! Could you please re-compose this as a complete sonnet or other poetic form?
;-)