Trump, Pence and Compromise
I think the part about Obama not having any sex scandals was intended to convey that whatever your disagreements with him on abortion and gay marriage, there’s never been any suggestion that Obama is personally anything other than a faithful, loving husband and father, unlike the current occupant of the White House. And the basic question here is whether the possibility of scoring political gains is worth the cost of aligning ourselves with a man no father would want within a mile of his teenage daughter. And the alliance between evangelicals and Trump is reminding me more and more of the alliance between Jehoshaphat and Ahab. There is plenty of biblical precedent for making strategic alliances with the devil, and it never ends well. Someday Trump will no longer be president, but the damage done to the reputation of the evangelical church by aligning with him will continue to stink for generations. (And by the way, whenever Trump opens his mouth, I hear, “I will be like the most high.” Someone needs to tell him that pride goeth before destruction, that God resists the proud but gives grace to the humble.) And someday abortion and gay marriage will both be gone but not because Christians made an alliance with the devil.
Mike
Mike, thanks for the input, and there is much in what you say. I am planning to work through all of this stuff soon.
Gillette’s Close Shave
RE: “approved blacks” Were you aware that Gillette edited their original version of the ad to remove a black rapper who was seen objectifying women onscreen? Their new version has only white antagonists and black protagonists. Here’s the original ad that CBS was using in a news story. They were using the original video uploaded by Gillette to their YouTube page. You can see the rapper there: And here’s the rapper-less version on the Gillette youtube channel. The conspiracy theory here is that YouTube allowed Gillette to surreptitiously upload the even woker ad without affecting the view count or upload date. More info in this guy’s video:
Alex
Alex, thanks.
[Re: Wokescold Gillette] I have to admit, when I watched the Gillette ad, my initial response was closer to “this does not deserve such an extremely negative response!” Sure, it had its problems, but as you said, there’s nothing wrong with “Gillette’s desire to get men to stop being pigs.” But your post gave me a much better angle on it. The problem lies, of course, in their standard by which a man is declared a pig. They’re not afraid to attack the “approved sins,” the ones the culture deems reprehensible. Where’s the ad calling men to fight real sins? Where’s the ad calling men to throw away their porn and stop sending their unborn kids to the butchers? The last place we should look for a definition of manhood is a razor commercial.
Paul
Paul, yes. Exactly so.
You wrote in “Wokescold Gillette and the Misplaced Antithesis” that “The Gillette ad indicates that we are very close to the ‘four legs good, two legs bad’ stage of all this.” Are you able to explain the expression for me? From context is it something like arbitrary distinctions will eventually be removed or simply unable to bear the weight of responsibility they were employed for? Blessings
Marty
Marty, the expression is an allusion to Animal Farm by George Orwell. It was the propaganda that was being used to demonize humans.
I’ve always preferred Schick products anyway.
John
John, I have a beard. Not really up on such things.
Re : “Wokescold Gillette” What is partly so funny about all of this is that even the most woke feminists have never condemned a man for controlling his emotions too much. I mean, do they look at Trump and see a man who just demonstrates too much emotional control? No! They make fun of his outbursts and his temper. Do they honestly think that men commit rape because they are just too in control of their own feelings and desires? Of course not. They look at Kavanaugh having what was actually a very understandable emotional response (being sad and angry) to being publicly accused of being a serial gang rapist, and they conclude: See! He’s yelling and crying! That proves he’s the type of man who would do that! These women drink their coffee out of their “ironic” White Male Tears mugs and then claim the problem with men is that they don’t cry enough. And it’s just sad and kind of funny until the APA starts listening to them.
Lori
Lori, exactly. We are learning that just because something is really crazy, that doesn’t mean folks won’t buy it.
Wet Behind the Ears about Young Earth?
Greetings in Christ from an Anglican in Seattle! Though we come from different traditions, I greatly appreciate your comments, counsel, and lively means of expression.
I am curious about your approach to the biblical creation narrative in Genesis. Books I have read, including Blomberg, Can We Still Believe the Bible?, Provan et al., A Biblical History of Israel, Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament, and Halpern, The First Historians, persuasively advance the view that, contrary to criticism of the Enlightenment and after, much of the Old Testament (to say nothing of the New) should be regarded as history rather than myth or folktale. None of them, however, regards the creation story as historical. I think there are at least two reasons for this. First, creation of the earth and heavens a few thousand years ago would be contrary to the evidence of physics, geology, and paleontology. Doubtless God could have done it, but in that case he made an earth and heaven that look like they are millions if not billions of years old. God could have created the heavens and earth yesterday and given us false memories too, but it would seem an odd thing for God to do. Equally odd, I think, would be to make the heavens and earth a few thousand years ago but plant marine fossils in the rocks on mountain tops. Second, the Genesis creation narrative appears to be written for a philosophical rather than a historical purpose. It celebrates God’s omnipotence and explains the possibility of evil despite that omnipotence. This is explained in an interesting way in Reno’s commentary on Genesis (Brazos Press). I gave a brief summary in my occasional blog series called “Who Is God?” at the website for St. Barnabas Anglican Church in Shoreline (you have to look back a few months). St. Augustine, I believe, wrestled with the creation story, noting (among other things) there could be no solar days until the sun was created on the fourth day, which suggested that the author’s intent was not to present a history of 24-hour days.
Anyway, I know you are a smart guy. Can you please direct me to a publication that explains the basis for your view of the creation story?
Thanks and keep up the good work!
Karl
Karl, thanks for the question. It is obviously too big an issue to address adequately here, but let me say just a few scattershot things about it. Marine fossils on mountain tops indicate flood geology to me—catastrophic formation rather than uniformitarian formation. And when Jesus fed the multitudes out of the five loaves and two fish, how old did the food seem to the folks in the back rows when they got it. Anything that is created ex nihilo is going to automatically have the appearance of age. On a book recommendation for a young earth approach (this from my brother the scientist), try The New Creationism by Paul Garner.
History of Law
First, I would like to say thank you for your ministry. I consider you one of the most insightful cultural commentators of our day, as well as an insightful exegete of the Word of God. So, thank you pastor! I have a question for you in regard to justice. What are some good and helpful works on the history of western jurisprudence? Are their works out there that show from history the biblical foundation of western law? If so, which ones have found the most helpful? Thanks!
Jon
Jon, thanks for the kind words. Huge subject, but why don’t you start with Rushdoony’s Institutes of Biblical Law?
Taking Requests?
This has nothing to do with Karen Pence, because there really is nothing to say other than, “Attaboy!” And maybe throw in a hardy “Amen!” for good spiritual measure. But a subject that is almost equally appropriate to biblical law. What’s the problem with Nationalism, when grounded on the standard of biblical law? And can the utopianism of Globalism be consistently applied from biblical law? Is “Kingdom First” an appropriate response and opposition to Nationalism, or is that a misapplication of Christ’s Kingdom and His Law-Word? Maybe a longer form primer of a blog post is more appropriate to answer these three questions. Thank you!
Trey
Trey, I think I will be writing some about nationalism in the future, but the principles I would appeal to I have written on before. Try the search bar and patriotism.
Assorted Thanks
Regarding this statement re Higgins in short 1/18 article: “At the Q Talks in Denver (in 2016), she was actually willing to share conference space with a noted slavery apologist.” Sometimes I think you take it too far. (smiley-face)
Nathan
Nathan, no, no. Maybe a little far, but not too far.
Since the root cause of the wicked is to destroy the created order of God by redefining words and other forms of outright rebellion (Psa. 2: 1-3), the “Has God indeed said” tactic of Satan in the Garden, you best be careful unless you be accused of using fissiparous in a hateful way. Soon, you will be accused of being sissyparous: the act of being divisive in causing harm to the great march of societal progress. Since the American Church long ago cast off God’s Word as the transcendent, final standard for the whole of man for the whole of life, it is now screaming down the slopes of cultural collapse in a desperate race to be “politically correct and relevant”” in today’s pagan culture. If the foundations are destroyed, What can the righteous do . . . only one thing, to repent and turn back to the Lord (2 Chr. 7:14) in breaking their unequally yoked fellowship with paganism (2 Cor. 6:14-18) and turning back to His Word as their standard for life (Neh. 10:28-29) in living out the glorious Gospel of the Kingdom, as the salt of the earth and light of the world. Thank you for your bold stand.
T
T, thanks.
As always, thank you for your work. One sentence in this post caught me up short and I am looking forward to how this gets fleshed out in future posts (please?): “The evangelical establishment has its own version of the deep state . . .” I will grant that we have the suit$ and haircut$ machine humming away, and the seminaries are too often producing appalling and risible ministry candidates. But are we at the evangelical Elite vs. Evangelical Deplorables stage? How do rank/file fight back? How does the use of the tithe come into this if at all? I recall somewhere someone based in Moscow Idaho with an admonition to not forget one’s place in the story. So if there is an evangelical deep state . . . are you like Donald Trump? Pax,
Dave
Dave, in our evangelical circles I do believe that we have an elite leadership that is largely 1. Unaccountable, 2. Incompetent, 3. Proud, and 4. Vulnerable. That is what I was referring to as our version of the deep state.
Re: Yellow Vest Presbyterians. You make a good case that rank and file Presbyterians should push hard enough against the embrace of liberalism in the PCA so that there is “a controversy that the courts of the church cannot bury under the determinations of a semi-somnolent study commission.” I’m in agreement, having just written about the role of the PCA’s laity in this context: http://www.excellentthought.net/the-role-of-the-laity-in-the-pcas-battle-against-the-nations-part-i/. But here is my question. What if a session responds to the rabble rousers by telling them that such a debate belongs (only) in the church courts in the interest of the peace of the church? All of a sudden the issue changes from liberalism of the PCA, and perhaps the local church, to a question of how to faithfully submit and even perhaps a fear of contumacy if one continues to make a ruckus outside the courts.
Bill
Bill, that is a legitimate concern. But the main thing to remember is that there is a time when it is our duty to be contumacious.
Christian Ed, Special Ed
I write as a father of a profoundly disabled daughter and one who sat for some time on the school board of a mature, Christian school. Wouldn’t it be nice if a Christian school had the dollars to dedicate to a trained, special-ed teacher and aides to teach the diverse population of physically and cognitively disabled children? Unfortunately, in the vast majority of places that is a dream left to future generations. That money would be better spent on paying teachers fairly and building infrastructure first. In addition, a large portion of the disabled children (including my daughter) will also never be able to discern the difference between a Christian and secular education. We elected for our able-bodied kids to go to Christian school and our daughter to be in public school. Home school? Go for it if you have the ability, but school outside of home for many is the only respite they will get from year-in and year-out, 24/7 care, and that burden, just like home schooling falls most heavily on the moms. The burn-out potential for the women is extraordinary.
DC
DC, the force of your point is understood. May God bless your family richly.
Your response to the “tough question” submission . . . just wanted to say well done. We often can come across high minded and rigid and I read such love and grace responding to that mother. My heart was hurting for her and your words were such pastoral and kind. Well done. May our Lord bless you and keep you.
Jordan
Jordan, thanks.
[For Tina] One avenue that may be an option is relocation. Rocky Bayou Christian school in Niceville Florida has a pretty darn good special-needs program, and their superintendent is an elder in the CREC church which I am a member of. Having taught at the school myself, from a family of teachers there, I’m kind of biased. But our special needs program has been the trigger for folks in your shoes to move here. We have some of them in our church. I would be happy to connect y’all with them.
B
B, thank you.
Mormon Music
I probably won’t be the only one to point this out. The Lower Lights is a Mormon music group. I enjoyed their music very much until I learned this about them. I then sadly deleted them from my Spotify playlists. I don’t have the time or even ability to analyze their lyrics to be sure they are theologically sound so I figured this was the best choice for me. I’ve heard that the Mormon hymnal takes our hymns and alters them to fit their theology. For this reason I also don’t listen to music by the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. Did you know this band is Mormon and if not would you have shared the link? Thank you for your time. I really appreciate your ministry.
Amy
Amy, congratulations. You are the only one to point that out, and no, I didn’t know that.
RE: Genesis
“the Genesis creation narrative appears to be written for a philosophical rather than a historical purpose.”
One can deny the history of Genesis 1-11 is accurate. One can deny that the history of Genesis 1-11 is literal. But there is no way, in my mind, that one can justifiably argue that the purpose of Genesis 1-11 non-historical philosophy. That feels more like someone trying to both maintain that the Bible is “true” and deny that Genesis 1-11 is historical.
It’s hard to work out how one is expected to draw a reliable philosophical conclusion from a sequential series of events that is not intended to be taken as a description of how things actually happened — i.e., historical. Our “philosophy” is supposed to be founded on make-believe? That worked pretty well for the pagans but it is diametrically approached to the biblical idea of truth, which is consistently offered as “this actual thing happened, therefore…”
RE: Gillette The mistake I think most folk are taking with this ad is that the motivation behind this ad was not to change cultural norms. It was free advertising. Corporations will always follow the money. Nike scored big returns for their ad featuring Kapernick. I suspect Gillette will, too. No publicity is bad publicity if it grows your business. Women are the overwhelming percentage of purchasers of household goods, including men’s razors. This message plays very well with females, even conservative ones. Gillette made a logical decision. The shaving industry has hit real slow downs in the last decade,… Read more »
BJ, I mostly agree. For a perceptive look qt the way controversy drives attention, and media schelling points develop around content that will be interpreted in fundamentally different ways by (tribally coded) different observers, see here: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/17/the-toxoplasma-of-rage/ There is a broader issue of the separation of ownership and control at large corporations that would be interesting to delve into as well. This particular case is fairly mild, but I’m not convinced that the adoption of SJW stances is always a good financial decision for these companies. It is, however, a good social, status, and often financial decision for the corporate… Read more »
Demo,
As usual, thanks for the link. I did finally get around to reading the Oren Cass piece from a few articles back, and it was very interesting. I loved his policy proposals and his overall assessment.
I am convinced that when mega-corps do this kind of thing, it is well thought out and researched. They know what they are doing and pull the trigger anyway. Of course corporations sometimes blunder and a marketing scheme will go badly. But they don’t act without first putting in the work.
I think this was intentional, and I think it will pay off.
BJ, I agree on this case, as I said it is pretty mild and mainstream and seems well targeted. I was thinking of other cases, like EA releasing a Call of Duty game with women in combat roles on WWII, playing the kick-ass princess trope (must read: https://mereorthodoxy.com/why-we-should-jettison-the-strong-female-character/). When they received push back they called the complaints bigoted and said “accept it, or don’t buy the game.” It sounds like not many bought the game. It seems obvious that most gamers are (poorly formed) young(ish- the biggest demographic is my age…) men, and alienating you major audience makes no sense… Read more »
The ad may appear mild and mainstream to some, but it was pure propaganda. Just a few observations (not all are original): (1) The woman behind the ad is a radical feminist: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/01/surprise_genius_behind_manhating_gillette_ad_is_a_radical_feminist.html 2) There are no good groups of men–only a few lone rangers (maybe 1-5% of the male population?) who do the right thing. It gives the impression that all groups of males are either angry mobs or horny bands of bad boys. 3) They created the 50s/60s style sitcom, the one with the white guy grabbing at the derriere of the non-white housekeeper. Even now, that type… Read more »
BJ, How in the world was this free advertising? Unless it was considered a public-service announcement, I see no way this was free in any fashion. In effect, they advertised that they believe men greatly need to change, and, since we’re willing to say so, you should buy our products. More importantly, I am sick and tired of men are bad, and we’ll never say anything about women’s failures until men are perfect mentality. Since all men will never be consistently perfect, then they will never need to say anything about how women should improve, allowing them to maintain their… Read more »
OKRickety, I used to adopt this position, but the problem is that it assumes more or less equal agency between men and women. In terms of reason, accountability, patience, and emotional self-control, most women fall somewhere between a man and a child, and thus simply can’t be held to the same standard as men (I’m not saying we should have no standards, of course, since even for small children we have certain expectations). It is our responsibility as men not only to protect women from outside threats, but to protect them from themselves. There’s a reason most western women, as… Read more »
Armin,
I believe the Christian perspective is “equal agency between men and women” when it comes to sin.
However, in public discourse, there is the assumption of equality of the sexes. In that arena, the unwillingness to extend the same expectations of men to women is hypocritical.
The free advertising is all the coverage that comes in the wake of a negatively received ad. People who never saw the Gillette commercial are reading about it or hearing about it from family and friends. Gillette paid for 60 seconds of advertising and has reaped hours and hours of free publicity. Ultimately, how an advertising message is received is unimportant if it gets your name out there and generates lots of buzz. Brand awareness drives increases in market share which is why organized boycotts can make the offending company profit rather than suffer. Of course, there’s always a limit–you… Read more »
In the 1960s Americans were challenged to show that they weren’t racist. Now your kids don’t get to grow up in the America you grew up in and you can never work against their interests hard enough to earn the not-racist designation. Gillette invites you to play the same game with gender.
“Where’s the ad calling men to fight real sins? Where’s the ad calling men to throw away their porn and stop sending their unborn kids to the butchers?” ~ Paul Still asking the wrong questions. Where’s the ad calling women to stop murdering millions of their own babies? Where’s the ad calling women to stop divorcing their husbands and depriving their children of fathers? Where’s the ad calling women to stop wasting their youth on “bad boys”, then whining “where’d all the good men go” when they’re 35 with four kids from three different men? More importantly; where are all… Read more »
Those are not the “wrong” questions. Those are a different set of good questions from the ones you think should be focused on.
I do think the question “Where’s the ad calling men to … stop sending their unborn kids to the butchers?” is not a good one. From what I understand, women are quite often unilaterally choosing to get abortions. If so, then that question is extremely misleading, implying that men are the ones with primary responsibility for this holocaust accepted today. I think Oscar’s comment is wondering why, although it is fashionable to speak out about men’s failures, it is unacceptable to say anything about women’s failures. Edited: It seems to be quite difficult to find anyone anywhere willing to take… Read more »
I understand what he’s saying, and to some extent, he’s right.
But it’s still not “wrong” to ask men why they are not repenting of their part in this, which while it may be less than half, is not insignificant enough to be a non-concern.
And I don’t find it *that* difficult, though it’s admittedly more difficult than it should be. Why, right here we are, on a site sponsored by someone who does exactly that.
What ever happened to “my body, my choice”? Well, guess what? If it’s your body, your choice, then it’s also your responsibility.
Women have 100% authority over whether their baby in the womb is butchered or not. Responsibility is proportional to authority.
But, as usual, women grasp for authority while blaming men for the consequences of their actions.
A man isn’t ultimately responsible for a woman’s choice, no.
A man is responsible for his own behavior, and exerting pressure on a woman to commit an atrocity, or otherwise influencing her to do so by refusing his own responsibilities to his child, are behaviors.
If a woman chooses to abort her baby, what legal recourse does the father have to stop her? If he wants her to abort the baby, what legal recourse does he have to make her abort the baby?
Jane,
I suspect another group often exerts pressure on a woman to have an abortion: her parents (and I suspect the mother is the one who pushes for it).
Note: My perspective may well be influenced by my understanding that this is what happened to my ex-wife.
You’re right, OKR, this does happen. Even in the absence of compulsion (“If you want to go on living here, you’ll get an abortion”), many pregnant teens are urged by their parents “not to let one mistake take away all your options.” Remember when Obama said if one of his daughters got pregnant, he wouldn’t want them punished with a baby? I think this attitude is very common among parents who have no strong moral or religious objection to abortion.
“…influencing her to do so by refusing his own responsibilities to his child”
Well, that would be one explanation for why women get abortions, but usually one we hear from pro-abortionists.
JohnM, just because that’s not a valid excuse for the mother doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen, and that it doesn’t exert a degree of influence. Are you suggesting that absolutely no influence of that kind takes place? Of course pro-abortionists say that, but they’re making a different point. Is it actually untrue, and if not, why shouldn’t it be said to hold men to account *for the part they play*?
If a “man” refuses to take responsibility for his child he is guilty of being a deadbeat. He is not guilty of the woman getting an abortion. The woman was faced with one of two choices, and she chose the option she minded least. The woman who chooses to have her baby may need our help; save your sympathy for her.
I never said he was guilty of the woman getting an abortion. I said he was guilty of the part he played in it. I’m not sure where you’re seeing “sympathy” for the woman who has the abortion. Two people can both have guilt in a situation without lessening the guilt of either one. Guilt is not a zero-sum proposition. The woman is 100% guilty of the sins she committed; the man is 100% guilty of the sins he committed. They are not guilty of one another’s sins, nor is each of them less guilty because the other committed their… Read more »
Jane, Where “it” is getting an abortion the man does not play *any* part in it just because he declines to take responsibility for a child. You are correct when you say “They are not guilty of one another’s sins..”. Emphasizing a second party’s “part”, actual or supposed, in connection with the guilt of the first party often enough is intended lessen the opprobrium of the first party’s actions. Logically and factually, just as you say, bringing up a man’s irresponsibility and selfishness does not make a woman less guilty than she is for her sins, but it likely gives… Read more »
He plays a part in the situation. That doesn’t mean he’s committing the same sin as the person who procures the abortion. And I think you are treating abortion distinctly from the way we treat any other sin. When people act in ways that add to the temptation for others to sin, do we not call that leading them into sin? I think the Bible surely does. I don’t want to pawn women’s responsibility in abortion off on men. I want to be careful that we don’t fail to hold men accountable for the part they play in the situation.… Read more »
Jane, Remember, I am not talking about the man who works to pressure or persuade a woman toward abortion; that man is guilty of solicitation to abortion, and thus does play a part. In fact, it is the man who will offer to pay for an abortion who is guilty of leading a woman into sin. I started by responding specifically to notion that women get abortions because of non-support from men, and noting it is typically a pro-abortionist line. Abortionists know full well, as the pregnant woman does, as the irresponsible father does, as we all do, that in… Read more »
But refusing to support your own child is every bit as bad as telling its mother to kill it. Or if not quite as bad, the moral difference is so slight as not to be worth splitting hairs over “culpable in this case, not in that one.” Refusing to support his own child is the worst thing a man can do short of outright killing that child, and it is only a tiny bit short of that. And again, I never said it was any kind of excuse or explanation. If I have to own the wicked and illogical application… Read more »
At this point I’m too lazy to elaborate much, but no, other than in the way in which all sin is the same (which I think we agree is not in every way) I don’t think refusing to support your own child is as bad as telling the mother to kill it. I also think that is beside the point here. I think you are trying to draw a picture using dots that do not connect the way you think they do. I think I am not going to persuade you, and I think I’m satisfied that I’ve already made… Read more »
Jane, I had to work all this out in Catholic moral theology and you are right about the 100% guilt, although there’s a twist. A adult woman who has an abortion commits grave evil for which she is 100% responsible. Anyone in any kind of relationship with the woman (lover, husband, sibling) who counsels her to get an abortion or who pays for it is formally complicit in grave evil and is 100% responsible for his/her acts. A father who uses the threat of nonpayment of child support to encourage a woman to abort her child is also formally complicit.… Read more »
Jane, A little research suggests that abortions seldom occur because the father wants the abortion. It’s unclear how many, but I’ll let these statements (from various sources) speak for themselves (bold emphasis is mine) (Note: Many of the data sources allowed multiple choices as the reason for abortion.): “As many as one in six men are never told about the pregnancy or the abortion.” “Fewer than 1% said their parents’ or partners’ desire for them to have an abortion was the most important reason.” (National Institute of Health) “14% of respondents cited partner pressure as a reason for their abortion.”… Read more »
Jane, It’s not that it doesn’t matter, but Doug Wilson is rather a voice in the wilderness (and even he is not nearly as strident in this area as you likely think). I consider it rare to find Christians that will point out women’s failures and expect them to change. Since you think it is not very difficult, would you please provide some general examples of Christians speaking out about women’s failures? I believe that Christians are far more likely to point out men’s sins and rebuke them than do the same for women. Would you agree? If so, do… Read more »
Pastor Doug believes women should NOT be held legally accountable for murdering their babies in the womb… https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/s7-engaging-the-culture/trump-corduroy-pillow.html https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/s7-engaging-the-culture/abortion-first-degree.html If women can’t the held accountable, then they must not be responsible. If they’re not responsible, then they must have no authority, right? But no. They have 100% authority over whether or not their children are murdered in the womb, and 0% accountability for the murder. Not even Pastor Doug will hold them accountable for murdering their babies in the womb. Thus my questions. And thus, women scream (literally) for authority, then evade all responsibility. Because Pastor Doug, the Church, and… Read more »
What do I benefit from in what way?
And it’s ridiculous to say that Doug “will not hold them accountable” for their sins, just because he doesn’t believe that a particular civil penalty should be applied in every case without distinction. It is possible to agree that there needs to accountability without agreeing that one particular form of penalty must be applied.
“What do I benefit from in what way?” Your name is Jane, is it not? Do you use a woman’s name because you are female? If so, then you benefit (temporally, at least) from the Church’s refusal to hold women accountable for their sin. “And it’s ridiculous to say that Doug ‘will not hold them accountable’ for their sins, just because he doesn’t believe that a particular civil penalty should be applied in every case without distinction. It is possible to agree that there needs to accountability without agreeing that one particular form of penalty must be applied.” Pastor Doug’s… Read more »
Oscar, “Pastor Doug believes women should NOT be held legally accountable for murdering their babies in the womb…” and “If women can’t the held accountable, then they must not be responsible.” There is a significant difference between should NOT and cannot. I think Doug Wilson is arguing that, although they do have complicity, women should not be held accountable for their abortions. This seems similar to plea deals made with criminals to get their testimony. That is a nasty business which should be avoided whenever possible. I find Wilson’s argument to be weak, especially his premise that the women don’t… Read more »
OKR, you’re right, there are fewer exhortations to wives than to husbands. Do you think there ought to be equal numbers? Or just less lopsided? A lot of men have it tough, I grant you. However, there’s a brand of bitter MRA that I think does a disservice to their cause by on the one hand, indicating that they believe a marriage relationship ought to be indistinguishable from master-slave; and on the other hand, complaining exclusively about women’s faults without seeming to address their own, except maybe in the secular sense of getting more ‘game’. They want to eat their… Read more »
Indighost, I did a little research a while back comparing the number of commands to husbands and wives found in the Bible. From memory, there were more commands to wives than to husbands. Notably, the command for wives to submit to their husbands is given much more often than for husbands to love their wives. So, if we follow the Biblical pattern then I think wives should be exhorted at least as often as husbands. By the way, the axiom in some quarters is that Fathers Day sermons are usually of the “man up” variety, and Mothers Day sermons are… Read more »
OKR, I think you’re exactly right about this: I have wondered how women could be best motivated to work at their marriages. It seems that what I (and most men?) would consider logical arguments results in further entrenchment instead. At some point, I decided that, if they were going to really hear it, women needed to hear the truth from other women in a way that pushed the right buttons. And the article you linked is a great example of that. It’s a personal story, told humbly and with strong emotional appeal. I enjoy Lori Alexander’s writing very much, but… Read more »
Indighost, You describe Chris Taylor’s article as “told humbly”. That is certainly in strong contrast to other women blogs I have seen, such as Sheila Wray Gregoire, where the attitude is know-it-all, if not downright belligerent. I find that know-it-all attitude extremely egregious in cases where a woman claims to know what men really think or why men behave a certain way, and I know they are greatly mistaken. When called on it, they insist that they are right and I am wrong. Yes, bitterness needs to go, but, as you likely know, being told to get over it is… Read more »
“…where the attitude is know-it-all, if not downright belligerent. I find that know-it-all attitude extremely egregious in cases where a woman claims to know what men really think or why men behave a certain way, and I know they are greatly mistaken. When called on it, they insist that they are right and I am wrong. ” That reminds me of something I recently saw on Twitter. Saira Rao, a hard-core progressive running for Congress, said “White folks don’t get to decide what’s racist. Men don’t get to decide what’s sexist. Able-bodied folks don’t get to decide what’s ableist.” Someone… Read more »
Sheila Wray Gregoire had a valuable message for women who wanted to improve the intimacy in their marriage but her theology was dodgy. At the time I stopped reading her blog a few years ago, she was getting a fair bit of pushback from some female readers whenever she posited mutual submission. The last straw for me was the very thing you mention, claiming to know what really goes on in a man’s head. I thought her conclusions were mistaken and dangerous. You’re right about the wringer, it was at a seasonal workers’ campground when I was working at a… Read more »
“Having said that, rebukes against wives’ sins are commoner than you might think. In the first place, one finds them in places not targeted to your demographic. Christian mom-blogs are a mixed bag (to put it mildly), but some of them are quite hard-hitting”
Any examples? Not that I frequent mom blogs, but I’ve only seen a few “red pill friendly” ones that rebuke women regularly (e.g., Lori Alexander). Unless you mean ones that tell women their only “sins” are having a poor self-image and not speaking their mind enough.
JP, I’ve only seen a few good quality ones too. I wish there were more. Many of them seem to start off well and then a few years down the track the writer gets distracted by waste-free living or politics or the importance of self-care. I would like to see more godly women encouraging mothers to make their family their priority, but such a woman tends to be busy making her family her priority.
I just did. I mentioned Wilson.
I agreed that it’s more difficult than it should be. But if you can do it by using the search bar on the very site we’re on, then it’s not that difficult to find “anywhere.” That’s all I meant.
Jane,
Okay. To avoid that argument, I edited my earlier comment accordingly.
Go to the Abortuary and see. Stand outside and watch on abortion day. How many women come alone or with a “supportive friend”? How many are brought by forceful men? How many are dragged by angry mothers? How often does a man come, grieving but feeling like it’s not his “choice”? How many women think the baby’s father won’t be pleased, and so they take care of it before he even knows? My husband stands there and prays, and sometimes I hear stories of those who go in. “What you understand” comes from somebody’s agenda. Go and see, and remember… Read more »
Sarah,
It would be helpful to know who, if anyone specifically, you were addressing.
I think everyone here opposes abortion strongly, but your comment seems to imply otherwise. While your questions are relevant, I don’t see that an observer “on abortion day” can determine the true answers. From what I understand, the patients are extremely unlikely to interact with anyone outside.
One question is of great interest here: Are the fathers of the babies pushing for the abortions, or are the mothers of the babies choosing the abortions primarily for other reasons? What is your opinion?
I wanted to thank everyone who left such nice and encouraging messages to my question to Pastor Wilson last week. A few of you were asking about whether my daughter has an IEP and a professional diagnosis. I did not go into this when I wrote my question as I did not feel they were relevant, but for those of you who asked, the answer is yes, she does have a professional diagnosis. She was diagnosed at 2 years old with severe autism and we sought a IEP through the public school system when she was 3 years old, though… Read more »
Hang in there Tina! You, your husband and your family!
I’ll try to remember to pray for you.
I have been where you are going.
That being said, my son, in his publicly supported residential program has done better than he would have at home.
At home, it is possible that he was being “over therapied”.
When he turns 22, we don’t quite know what will happen, but he is a good candidate for other residential programs.
Enjoy your daughter’s innocence!
That’s something I really love about my autistic son !????
About Pences wife and her oppositions propensity to lie. It’s illuminating to point out lying and duplicity are part of the game being played by the hard left. There were so many stories illustrating such duplicity this weekend. Surely you all didn’t miss the entire mainstream media demonizing the Covington High School group? Every last outlet reported the facts of the case wrong, which just so happened to paint these boys as evil racists. Then on the corrections the media extensively quoted the “victim” Nathan Phillips who claimed he was trying to stop the boys from attacking some (old, young,… Read more »
What’s worse, the woke Evangelical Intersectionality Complex condemned the Covington boys based only on the early clickbait articles. Some haven’t retracted their comments to my knowledge. Beth Moore, Ron “Thabiti” Burns and Kyle J. Howard are among them. I can only imagine how they’d respond to grown KKK members shouting at and cussing out black high schoolers. Somehow the Black Hebrew Israelites get a pass, though. Howard could only bring himself to say “The Black Hebrew Israelites are a religious sect that prey off of young black men who have become disilluisoned w/Christianity due to white *Christian* Supremacy (sic).” Yep,… Read more »
As far as I know John Piper has never retracted his libel of Darren Wilson.
“…….And by the way, whenever Trump opens his mouth, I hear, “I will be like the most high.” Someone needs to tell him that pride goeth before destruction, that God resists the proud but gives grace to the humble……” :Mike. You know Mike, I suspect Trump actually knows that “pride goeth before destruction”. As he likely understands that principle, as demonstrated by: Bill Clinton Gordon McDonald Hillary Clinton Harvey Weinstein King David Anthony Weiner Eric Schniederman Eliot Spitzer John Edwards Charlie Rose Matt Lauer Just to name a few………. Not to mention that the Apostle Paul got Justice from Caesar… Read more »
I suspect he understands very little by way of whatever history illustrates. If he paid attention at all he would most likely choose to take “winner” Bill Clinton as his object lesson, from the list you suggest.
No, Trump is not the devil. He’s hardly a Caesar or Nebuchadnezzar either, though I’m sure he’d enjoy the comparison .
J’, Mike spoke of “the alliance between evangelicals and Trump”, when there is no “alliance”. Paul and Daniel were not “allied” with Caesar or Neb. Paul and Daniel were “allied” with God, and their relationship to rulers that God set in place, was not an alliance with those rulers. The same can be said of any American christian’s alliance with God, and any relationship with Trump, or any other president. Trump, Caesar and Neb. are all in the same category, which is, human beings that God has allowed to govern. Finally, considering that Trump gave stage to Bill Clinton’s abuse… Read more »
Apparently some evangelicals believe Trump is aligned with them and they are aligned with him. That would be an alliance. You are right though, there really is not an alliance between Trump and The Church. If you understand that then I am not the one you need to persuade. Sure, allowed by God to govern only puts Trump in a category with every person God has ever allowed to govern anytime anywhere, if that’s all you meant. You’re right, any other President; Obama, for example. At best, Trump is no better than in that category. It doesn’t put Trump in… Read more »
“…There is to date, zero evidence that Trump understands anything about the consequences of obstinate, overweening pride.”
Gosh J’, Trump clipping the wings we bought for Nancy was a nice reproof and consequence to Nancy’s overweening pride!????
Trump was very understanding of Nancy’s overweening pride! That is indisputable!????
The possession of pride (or in this case, more likely vanity) never prevents our recognizing the same trait in other people no matter how blind we are to it in ourselves!
Let’s hope there are instances where humiliation breeds humility! ; – )
“#Pence What kind of @VP makes it clear thru the #SecondLady’s employment that a large bloc of #Americans & allies who don’t believe in treating their #kids as a disease if they feel they may be #LGBTQ aren’t entitled to #education or #art? #ExposeChristianSchools—#Evangelicals.” I heard a similar statement from one of my more committed feminist friends, and I couldn’t resist the chance to tease. “So Pence is ultimately responsible for his wife’s employment decisions and should have used his authority as a husband to tell her she couldn’t work there.” “Yes, I mean, no, of course not…” and on… Read more »
That’s great, Jill. Too bad you couldn’t work a racial contradiction in, too….maybe if it happened to Clarence Thomas. It’s always nice to see intersectionality implode.
” there’s never been any suggestion that Obama is personally anything other than a faithful, loving husband and father” Maybe, maybe not. There were a few homosexual allegations, but the MSM quickly ridiculed and dismissed them. I never researched them any further. However, a liberal, Pulitzer Prize-winning author wrote a book about Obama and his very large pre-marital sex appetite. Whether he instantly turned into a faithful husband to Michelle or not, we’ll probably never know. https://www.haaretz.com/life/.premium.MAGAZINE-the-biographer-with-no-regrets-about-uncovering-obama-s-sex-life-1.5477977 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/09/books/review/rising-star-biography-barack-obama-david-garrow.html When I was in college, I worked with a retired FBI agent who was in D.C. in the J. Edgar Hoover era.… Read more »
I couldn’t read you first link, but your second hardly fits with your description of Obama’s sex appetite. Three girlfriends (not at the same time) before Michelle, and faithful to them while the relationships lasted. Your words makes one rather the ni of orgies or something.
I can’t read the first link any more either. One of the girlfriends described his appetite vividly with a generous use of the “F” word. Here’s another review of the book–just avoid the pictures on the side. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4470040/Obama-s-sex-drugs-past-laid-bare-new-biography.html#ixzz4iotwkcvx A few highlights: – He had sex on a first date with a 22-year-old, who was then a journalist on a financial trade magazine, that was ‘earthy’ and ‘passionate’ – She also reveals his use of cocaine aged 22 and 23 – far later than he himself has spoken of in his own memoir – Book reveals he proposed twice to another… Read more »