No Goddess Can Ever Save Us

Show Outline with Links

Introduction:

Last week I posted something called Potiphar’s Wife, Survivor, which elicited something of an enthusiastic reaction. That reaction was registered in different places, like Facebook, Twitter, and in the comments section here, and a noticeable bit of it ran down the lines of the eff-you-Doug school of thought. Not only was it registered in different places, it was registered in different registers. What I was doing was vile, outside the pale, scarcely civilized, and so on.

What I actually had done was to take the case of Potiphar’s wife, who falsely played the victim, and give her the jargon that victims are expected to use today—survivor, therapy, rape culture, and so on.

What I want to do here is examine why such an innocuous point garnered such a fierce reaction, and then I want to bring the gospel of Jesus Christ to bear on the foundational compromises which necessarily breed that kind of reaction. It would be dereliction of ministerial responsibility to do anything other than bring the message of Jesus to bear on a mess like that.

So a very reasonable question asks, “What do you intend when you do things like this? What are you trying to accomplish?” The answer is simple, and comes near the conclusion of The Silver Chair. I want everyone to notice, in the first instance, that the thrumming has stopped, and I want them to realize, the second place, that everything smells pretty much like burnt marshwiggle. It is not a pleasant smell, I freely grant, but it is what the situation calls for.

What Makes Something Vile?

In the course of looking at the stream of responses to my post, I noticed the word vile recurring. It came from trolls and it came from otherwise responsible voices like Aimee Byrd’s. But what makes something vile?

In the old days, a man’s speech was vile if he spoke or communicated vile things in a vile way. He was vile if he was vile. But now we have gotten to the point where vile speech is anything which causes vile speech in others—a circumstance which can always be arranged by the easily aggrieved, or by the presto-triggered. And so suppose that someone points out that Potiphar’s wife was not really a survivor, as she would have claimed, and someone else comes into to argue something like “eff-you, Doug! Effin’-bleep-&!*# this is why I bleepin’ left the effin’ church because of effin hypocrites like you! Effin’ in the blim-blam!”

Is it not apparent that the first statement is what caused the second statement to come into existence? Thus it is that talking sense in a calm voice can be considered vile, and a volcanic eruption of sewage is taken as a matter of course. That person must be dealing with some deep wounds, and so we give them a pass. But talking sense is provocative, and therefore vile.

Christians have actually long specialized in responding this way. When they come across a confrontation between someone who is being fully irrational and someone being rational, they write off the irrational one as a lost cause, and make their appeal to the rational one. On one level this makes at least some initial sense, but we have been doing this for so long that we scarcely notice it anymore, and we do not realize that we routinely come across as though we were finding fault with the person who is behaving, and as though we are giving a free exculpatory pass to any whirling dervish with enough of vocabulary to cuss at anything within his spin radius.

Let me illustrate this with a very short play with three characters. Let us call them Me (M), Voice of Outrage (VOO), and Voice of Moderation (VOM).

M: I think that a  wife and mother should learn how to make those extra flaky biscuits, and serve them with honey butter. That would make the men in her life very happy.

VOO: You troglodyte! You bleepin’ waste of skin! This is what is wrong with the effin’ church! Judgmental, harsh, unloving, intemperate shitheads! Seriously, biscuits?

VOM: Doug, don’t you think it would be best if you tried to moderate your views somewhat in the future? Saying the word biscuits is not essential to gospel witness, is it? I find this approach to be vile.

What Is Feminism?

Never forget that at the end of the day, feminism is a goddess. Not only is she a goddess, but she is a fierce goddess, implacable, and impossible to reason with. She is an idol like many of our modern idols — made up of abstractions like egalitarianism, sentimentalism,  and the arbitrary dictates of erratic feminist sensibilities. Like many idols, her power arises from the shared faith of her devotees, and in the modern world that power is palpable.

We are not (yet) at the point where you must worship her, as though she were your only deity. But we are at the point where she must be propitiated by all. You may not come anywhere near her without leaving a tribute offering—a token, a bowl of fruit, a pinch of incense. Something. Not only so, but many Christian women believe that they have a positive Christian duty to leave some sort of thoughtful little votive candle in the comments section as a way of “reaching out” to someone in bondage to  this goddess, seeking to evangelize with niceness instead of with the gospel. They couldn’t be more mistaken. But this is why you can find sweet Christian women “liking”  the most appalling falsehoods.

We are told the tribute is not “much,” but if it is not rendered, then hell hath no fury like what will happen next. This is why so many Christians speak to one another in hushed tones. This is why so many of us, even good men, tiptoe past her temples. This is why women in our churches so often get slipshod pastoral care—because elders and pastors are simply afraid of providing the kind of care that might involve confrontation of any sin that has a peculiarly feminine foundation. And if a woman makes a pronouncement or allegation in the name of this goddess, there are those in conservative circles who seriously maintain that it is our duty to respond with sorrow and contrition, regardless of the circumstances. And that is the heart and soul of our compromise, as we will soon see.

Like the pagan gods of old, this goddess functions by receiving flattery and by destroying a person’s life if she doesn’t receive it. But the power to destroy is not the same as the power to save. In order to be saved, we have to be regenerated. This means that we must be begotten to salvation (1 Pet. 1:3). But a goddess can beget nothing.

She can do nothing, except through what she can accomplish through fear engendered by lies. When it comes down to it, she has no real power at all. And if you can’t run with the big gods, then you should stay on the porch.

Throughout the Bible, we see that chasing after other gods is described as whoredom. Israel was married to Jehovah, and her trysts with other gods are described in graphic ways (Eze. 16:25). But what do we call it when a good portion of the bride of Christ today wants to chase after the goddess? This is nothing other than covenantal lesbianism. It is a gross insult to leave a man for another man, and the prophets routinely describe idolatry in that way. But it is an even more profound insult when a woman leaves a man for another woman. Every form of feminism in the church is just such an insult aimed straight at the Lord Jesus. Let us leave the bridegroom of glory, the temptation goes, and let us do it for some celestial chick.

But the next step is important to understand as well. Not only must the goddess be propitiated, but she must be propitiated through her designated representatives, her priestesses. While feminism as goddess resonates with us, taken alone it is too abstract. Every religion must have embodied representatives, including this one.

So as this new religion is taking shape in our midst, we see that the priestesses are taken from the ranks of victims. Now some of the victims are true victims, some of them are partial victims, and some of them are liars in the same category of Potiphar’s wife. It is truly a mixed bag. In the meantime, evil men do their part in keeping the ranks of true victims full. But once someone has become a priestess, the rites of their temples must be observed and harshly defended. They must start to blame men as such, and not just abusive men.

Men as such. A friend who serves as a missionary in the Ivory Coast tells me of a deep custom in the village where he has served. If a woman dies in childbirth, all the men in the village have to go into hiding for a couple of days. This is because the women all strip down to loin cloths, and take any available weapons, and go on a rampage, severely beating any man they find. Think of the Bacchae, and think of the future.

So priestesses of the new religion must hashtag things like #F***thePatriarchy. They must also pour out abuse on real victims of men, women who have found healing in Jesus Christ, and who refuse to be inducted into this new faith. All the priestesses must be designated as victims, but not all victims get to be priestesses.

So this whole thing is not a choice between victims and non-victims. It is fundamentally a choice between Jesus and the goddess. It is a choice between our elder brother, our high priest, on the one hand, and a pagan priestess on the other.

Wrath of the Goddess

What propitiates? If the wrath is genuine, meaning the wrath of a holy God, the only thing that will propitiate that wrath is the blood of Jesus, shed on the cross for the sins of His people. But the wrath of the goddess is appeased with cajolery, flattery, book deals, offerings, conference gigs, and so on. And if the priestess is a millennial, then Facebook likes will frequently do the trick. Tell her that she is “so brave,” or that her story is inspiring.

Wrath is a very real category, but there is a night and day difference between the wrath of pagan deities and the wrath of God. The wrath of pagan deities is disconnected from right and wrong, from truth and falsehood. It does not matter if you are personally innocent. If you got on Juno’s wrong side, that was it, pal. The merits of your case did not matter. The merits of your case are a matter of indifference. The Fates were looking the other way. You simply got caught in the machinery.

Now if an ordinary victim of a crime is seeking for some reason to have her status upgraded to priestess-victim, one of the tell-tale signs is that she will demand to have her story automatically believed. This is a pagan version of justification by faith alone.

Now mark me carefully here, ye who would ignore this part. Whenever a woman reports a crime against her, she should be heard with sensitivity and care, she should be treated respectfully, and her claims should be thoroughly investigated, in all seriousness. She must not be blamed for reporting the assault, or treated as though bringing an accusation itself were a crime. She must be treated with high courtesy. Mark that, and mark those liars who say that I don’t believe this.

But the demand that she be instantly believed is in a different category. What this amounts to is a demand that whoever she names as the alleged culprit must by no means have the presumption of innocence, and under no circumstances should he have a fair trial. If the system formally believes her the night she files the report, then the system formally disbelieves him the night of the arrest. And notice that in this new system the duty of believing her is applied regardless of testimony and evidence. It is a demand for faith that is disconnected from the world of facts. Worship of this goddess is fideistic. It should be obvious that giving the accused a fair trial is a form of disbelieving the accuser.

This is also why a short parable where Potiphar’s wife is using the jargon of someone who must be believed at face value—when the story is common enough that we all know she must not be believed—is a short parable that causes a fair number of Internet commentators to explode into little pieces. The problem was caused because I gave Potiphar’s wife the language of an aspiring priestess. That is why there was a ruckus. This is why there was such wrath. I took the liturgical jargon that must be believed in order to “keep the faith,” and I superimposed it on an unbelievable story.

We Live in Crazy Town

If you think that strong words and plain dealing are not really necessary because things are still relatively normal out there, let me remind you that a girl transitioning to “boy” and taking testosterone for it just won the state girls’ wrestling title in Texas, when a girl just taking testosterone to cheat would just be cheating. We crack down on cheating at wrestling, and throw accolades at those trying to cheat biology. Let me remind you that safe spaces at universities have sobbing men in them because Trump rescinded Obama’s great bathroom order, such that it now appears that men might have to pee in the men’s room. Could things get any darker? Some European men recently protested sexual assaults on women by Muslims by donning miniskirts themselves and marching in a defiant procession, showing their knobby knees to the quaking rapists. More than a few people in authority have lost their cotton-picking minds, in other words, and waiting until later to point it out will not make things any easier for anybody.

We need many more Christians with courage, who are willing to say that Christians must refuse any sort of homage to the goddess. Make no mistake, this takes courage. Many of your fellow Christians will charge you with being a hothead, with being unnecessarily reckless. Don’t you see, Gideon, that when you pull down the Baal, this involves all of us? Don’t you see that drawing cartoons of Muhammad is counterproductive? In order to keep our liberty, we must make sure never to exercise it.

Miscellaneous Misogynistic Misses

Allow me to take a few moments to clear away some standard objections

It is the work of two minutes for the advocates of this alien religion to start yelling that I am a misogynist, along with others like me, and that we have a deep loathing for women. Not a bit of it. How does it reveal a loathing for women to plead with them never to give up their essential glory? I loathe feminism because I believe that Scripture reveals femininity as glorious. Why on earth would a first rate woman want to become a third rate anything else?

And here is a parenthetical logic lesson. If I say that all dogs have four legs, I am not arguing that if it has four legs it must be a dog. It could be a cat, or a cow, or a moose. And if I say that all victim-liars have victim stories, I am not saying that if a woman has a victim story, she must be a victim liar. This is a cute little fallacy called affirming the consequent.

Neither is it an attack on all women to say that some women are dishonest. To charge dishonest women with being dishonest is not to say that honest women are being charged with being dishonest. Or so it seems to me.

And to speak autobiographically for a moment, as a pastor I have labored to help wives escape abusive situations, I have helped wives reconcile with repentant husbands, I have helped men deal with false accusations, and I have watched as self-absorbed people destroyed their only possibilities for happiness. I have helped people come to grips with the fact that what they have done was inexcusable. But inexcusable is, thank God, not the same as unforgivable. More on that shortly. If you want to read more about one portion of this ministry, check here. To charge dishonest women with being dishonest is not to say that honest women are being charged with being dishonest. Or so it seems to me.

If you wonder why advocates of the new religion pour abuse on ordinary victims like this, on regular people, it is because—to repeat—this is not a contrast between all victims on one side and all non-victims on the other. It is a contrast between Jesus as our High Priest and true Victim and the goddess as aspiring priestess-victim.

It is a contrast between two different approaches to propitiation—Christ’s blood as propitiation on our behalf, or our throat-clearing apologies, offered to a sullen and offended priestess. And you cannot split the difference. If you serve the one, you cannot serve the other.

Love of the Father

So why do I do things like this? Why do I write things that challenge the reign of the goddess? The answer is that I am a minister of the Lord Jesus Christ, the one who was sent for us men and for our salvation. He is the only way to the Father. At the heart of all that is, we find fatherhood. This is why the gospel is so good.

When Jesus teaches us to pray, He teaches us to pray to our Father (Matt. 6:9). When He said that He was the way, the truth, and the life, He followed it up by saying that no one could come to the Father except through Him (John 14:6). The apostle Paul bowed before the Father of the Lord Jesus, from whom all fatherhood on earth derives its name (Eph. 3:14-15).

C.S. Lewis once said this about George MacDonald:

“Far the most important thing we can know about George MacDonald is that . . . an almost perfect relationship with his father was the earthly root of all his wisdom. From his own father, he said, he first learned that Fatherhood must be the core of the universe. He was thus prepared in an unusual way to teach that religion in which the relation of Father and Son is of all relations the most central” (George MacDonald: An Anthology, emphasis mine).

So when you come to the apex of all that is, you do not find a goddess there. She is an idol, and thus cannot occupy the highest place. Among the gods (and goddesses) there is no one like our God (Ps. 86:8). What you find in the highest place is a Father. Jesus brings us to that Father. That is why He came to earth. We needed to be reconciled with His Father. We still do.

Hot Gospel

In the New Testament, when the gospel is preached, the message is repent and believe. Repent of what? Believe what? The answer is repent of your sins, and believe the gospel.

When God grants repentance to a people, He grants repentance for particular sins, for particular evils. He does not grant a nebulous unhappy feeling about that ill-defined sensation of angst. He brings the guilt, and He brings the repentance. The guilt is over fornication, and drunkenness, and lying, and blame-shifting, and slander, and back-biting, and carousing, and rape, and incest, and malice, and self-righteousness. To use Whitefield’s great phrase, God in His mercy, “puts thorns in your bed.”

Some people like to pretend that because there is a “dispute,” we can’t really tell who belongs in what category. Really? Take a passage like the following, and scroll down a vitriolic comment thread. Can you not find anybody talking like this?

“This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away” (2 Tim. 3:1–5).

This is a toxic cauldron, with a mix of venom, lies, narcissistic flattery, slander, backbiting, great swelling boasts, battery acid under the tongue, contempt for parents, and of course the endless pursuit of lust. And Jesus comes down to this our degenerate Cana, and offers to turn all of it into the finest of wines.

He can only do this because He died on the cross as a substitutionary atonement for all who believe in Him. This is true propitiation, not the thin veneer propitiation offered by the goddess. The religion of the goddess reminds me of Niebuhr’s comment: “A God without wrath brought men without sin into a Kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a Cross.” But still, there is turmoil in their lives, and so they think something must be done. And what must be done is that the goddess must be feted and flattered.

The true propitiation provided by God through Christ on the cross was a real death for real sin, accomplished through the outpouring of real wrath. Jesus died and rose, and for those who are in Him, this means that nothing else is necessary. It means that you need not despair that the goddess can do nothing for you because you don’t need anything done for you. All is yours. Christ is God’s and you are Christ’s, and who can take that away from you?

Christ died once for all, to put sin away. His salvation is offered freely to all, and at the end of the day those who will have it are those who receive it on God’s terms. Those who will not have it are those who reject God’s terms outright, or who try to modify this gospel so that they can have it on their own terms. This means, cutting through the fog of all our rationalizations, that there will be the worst of the worst in Heaven. Get yourself ready. There will be people there who were far worse than you, and people who were far better than you in Hell. We are talking about free grace.

Remember—death, burial and resurrection. This is true gospel. False gospel invites you to blow sunshine at the goddess in the hope that she accepts you for now.

Come Ye Disconsolate . . .

The goddess cannot save you, and further does not even want to. The goddess offers no forgiveness for the things you have done. The goddess has no forgiveness to offer because she herself is unforgiven.

But we are still a mess. We still need a word of pardon spoken over us. In need of that cleansing word, we fear to come into the presence of the Holy One, and rightly so. We look down at ourselves with contempt. We are grimy, and our clothes are in tatters. We are filthy, and every attempt at self-improvement just smears the dirt around.

There are people who read this blog who have had sex with animals. There are readers who molested their sisters or daughters. There are readers who have lied about certain men in their lives, falsely accusing them, sometimes with devastating effects. There are people out there who are porn junkies. There are people who worship what they see every morning in their bathroom mirror. There are self-righteous prigs who think they don’t need cleansing at all. There are thieves who have tried to put things right by giving part of the swag to the church. There are miscreants, liars, scoundrels, and frauds. And the message to all such is the same message—come and welcome to Jesus Christ.

Jesus bled, died and rose to fashion a new humanity out of the unclean residue of humanity that we had all become. This is the only hope, the only way out. If we turn to Christ, He will bring us to the Father. If we refuse to come to the Father, then we are destined for the outer darkness. If it is the Father you must hide from, then that will work after a fashion. There is no functioning fatherhood there. And those who continue to follow the goddess will be lost in exactly this way. And when you come to that freezing darkness, all the lies you have told in the course of this life will truly be a thin blanket against that cold darkness. I say thin blanket, but that it not really right. There is no blanket at all, and the lies you have told, beginning with all the lies you have told yourself, are the darkness itself.

A Holy Indifference

So this is why I write as I do.

I have a lawn, and on that lawn are countless blades of grass. If you were to ask me whether the number of those blades were odd or even, my response would be that I do not care. It is a matter of supreme indifference to me. And in the same way, if you were to tell me that taking this stand, outlined above, is offensive to many in the modern church, and others out in the world, my indifference is comparable to my indifference about the blades of grass.

When I encounter the devotees of this exotic and alien religion (for that is exactly what it is), I do not tug at my forelock, and I do not kiss the back of my hand. I am a baptized Christian, and owe no homage whatever to this goddess. I have, it is true, drawn her ire from time to time. There is a balancing act here. Seeking to imitate the apostle Paul, I have not blasphemed the goddess Diana. Paul had pagan friends at Ephesus who were willing to testify publicly that he had not blasphemed her (Acts 19:35-37). But, on the other hand, there was a stadium full of rioting Ephesians who thought that he had done precisely that (Acts 19:25, 28). So there’s that. Sometimes the comment thread doesn’t know why they showed up exactly.

I am zealous for the Word of God, and I am zealous to see it applied as our central weapon and tool in all cultural engagement. When I get grateful feedback from the saints, as I often do, I am frequently thanked for this emphasis on cultural engagement. But often, even from the grateful, it goes something like this: thanks thanks okay many thanks okay thanks wut?

One of my aspirations is to be numbered among the men of Issachar, who understood the times and knew what Israel should do (1 Chron. 12:32). I work hard at this task, believing it to be an important part of my ministerial calling. And I certainly don’t have it all figured out. But I do have some of it figured out. One such lesson I have learned is this. If I say something like “dudes shouldn’t really be in the junior high girls’ showers,” and leaders in the church gasp and draw their skirts away from me, whoever they are, it is safe to say that they are not the men of Issachar.

So if you come and plead with me to lay off the goddess, my answer will be simple. No. And if you come with tears in your eyes, and say that you will make my life miserable, that you will bury me under piles of slander, calumny and opprobrium unless and until I make my peace with her, and what do you say now? Now my answer is Hell, no.

And this is not frivolous swearing. Hell is in the vocative.

And this is not frivolous swearing. Hell is in the vocative.

296
Leave a Reply

avatar
 
39 Comment threads
257 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
72 Comment authors
jrenee817Alex SpikeValerie (Kyriosity)jillybeanWendell Dávila Helms Recent comment authors

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Joshua Butcher
Guest

You could have described what you are doing as using your left hand to stab the bloated monarch of the age who has fattened itself on the suffering of the people of God, noting that the refuse that has come out from the thrust going past the hilts seems to be getting some attention both from the monarch’s servants as well as the Israelites who are wondering why Ehud has come back with his hand so filthy.

Jane
Member

That’s just not cricket, and it was so inconsiderate of the servants who had to clean up afterwards. I mean, locking the door, they must have been in a panic that they’d lose their heads for not attending on their lord. How unsympathetic.

lndighost
Member

I’ve been wondering whether the archaeologists will uncover a blog post by Eglon about his thyroid problem. Or maybe that would be one too many cats among the pigeons!

insanitybytes22
Member

Wow, this is a powerful post packed with content. Goddess worship, yes indeed. And she is unforgiving and without mercy, trust me. It ends with your complete annihilation, there is no compromise available. “This is why women in our churches so often get slipshod pastoral care—because elders and pastors are simply afraid of providing the kind of care that might involve confrontation of any sin that has a peculiarly feminine foundation.” I really have been living in a little bubble, or truly blessed, because I haven’t seen that myself, but I’ve read it in enough places to suspect there is… Read more »

valerieab
Member

Amen, amen, amen. Tears of gratitude are flowing. I have such a kind Savior, and one of his kindnesses has been to bring me to a church where I am well-taught, well-loved, well-protected, well-pastored, and very, very well-gospeled.

johnmoody
Guest
johnmoody

“Hell is in the vocative.” I am SO stealing that line…

Michael Snow
Guest

Great line. But rare the person today who has any idea what the ‘vocative’ is.

Dave
Guest
Dave

Amen!

PerfectHold
Guest
PerfectHold

Your writing = very clarifying, helpful gift to us.
By it, you visit a lot of folks regularly.

Makes me wonder how many other pastors justify their salaries, given they don’t write nor visit their folks in person much to speak of.

jigawatt
Guest
jigawatt

And here is a parenthetical logic lesson.

Oh so now NOBODY ANYWHERE knows anything at all about logic, huh? You make me SICK, you vile man.

With apologies to Scott Adams:

http://dilbert.com/strip/2001-11-05

http://dilbert.com/strip/2015-06-07

Nat
Guest
Nat

What is the name of that “logical falicy”. I just want to smack folks who do that (while praying that they will repent of course)!

Nat Carswell

jigawatt
Guest
jigawatt

What is the name of that “logical falicy”

Doug refers to the fallacy of affirming the consequent, but I think the fallacy of the undistributed middle is applicable too.

The wikipedia articles on logical fallacies are usually pretty good (for now at least).

valerieab
Member

I’m pretty sure that’s the enlargio ad absurdum fallacy. ????

Nat
Guest
Nat

Right! Been 50+ years since high school. Thank you both.

jigawatt
Guest
jigawatt

I like to think of it as the “Some equals all” fallacy, of which there are two types, both of which are probably best called hasty generalizations.

Type 1:
Person A: “Some Christians are hateful. Therefore, all Christians are hateful.”

Type 2:
Person A: “Some women are liars.”
Person B: “You’re saying that all women are liars.”

valerieab
Member

Oh, dear. I just made up that fallacy and its fake Latin name on the spot, riffing off of reductio ad absurdum, so I hope you don’t take me seriously!

jigawatt
Guest
jigawatt

They didn’t teach formal logic or Latin at my school. Professor Kirke would have been very disappointed.

Nat
Guest
Nat

Sounded good to me! Like I said my Latin and logic courses were 50+ years ago. Perfect description. From now on I’ll call it the “Valerie Fallacy”.

valerieab
Member

I’m…er…so honored. ????

Arthur Sido
Guest

“This is nothing other than covenantal lesbianism.” OK that is just vintage Doug. The comment thread should be something wonderful and terrible to behold.

duellsquimby
Member

Yes, that was indeed the golden line of the post. And quite an apt metaphor too.

Brandon Klassen
Guest
Brandon Klassen

No other minister of the gospel is able to expound so evocatively just why the gospel is such a scandal. Thank you.

adad0
Member

Gen. 3:12
The man said “the woman you put here with me- she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it.”

Who needs a goddess, when we can just go “old school” and directly blame God? ????

insanitybytes22
Member

LOL! I hear you A-dad.

Rob Steele
Guest
Rob Steele

> I have not blasphemed the goddess Diana.

Wait, wut? Didn’t you just put dog do on a stick and smear it on her lips? How could you possibly blaspheme her harder? Because I want to blaspheme her harder.

Nathan Anderson
Guest
Nathan Anderson

My take was that some people will take offense at some posts of his that have nothing to do with this topic, and then go on to respond with vitriol to straw men that they have erected. Because reading comprehension is not always a strong suit of people caught up in the grip of mindless outrage.

Kimberly Corley Tavernier
Guest
Kimberly Corley Tavernier

It is the responsibility of the writer that his readers are able to discern his intent unless the writing, itself, is meant to cause mindless outrage. Or rather, if his point is so ambiguous and elusive that the sinners he ministered to are often left scratching their heads, the writer is responsible for the lack of clarity unless his intent is to be unclear. And I’m so GLAD that Jesus came to us, so far beneath who He is that it’s been said His love is condescending in that he must keep it simple for our childish understanding. If my… Read more »

Jane
Member

Or, if the readers are weak in their Bible knowledge and cannot see a straight retelling of an actual event from biblical history for what it is, yet choose to sit in judgment upon a preacher of the gospel, that may be their problem for going into the situation inadequately equipped, not his for speaking the common language of his vocation.

Jesus said many things that were hard to understand, deliberately. It might be worth rereading the gospel accounts to see how many times that happened.

Kimberly Corley Tavernier
Guest
Kimberly Corley Tavernier

Considering the tone of many comments on this and the OP, I think mine thoughts are being expressed quite charitably, although they are not in agreement with Mr. Wilson’s.

You’re right, Jesus did say things that were hard to understand. Then he gave an explanation of most of those things. Yet the most difficult things he said seemed to be quite clear. To love God and each other just as scandalously and outrageously and he loves us.

Nothing of the sort is expressed, in either post’s thread, towards any commenter who doesn’t agree.

Jane
Member

Many of the things Jesus said that were hard to understand, He explained later to his closest disciples, but the mass of people were left wondering. I am not saying that is necessarily a model for pastors today, but it does show that it’s not as simple as “Jesus kept things simple for everybody.” I did not say your comments were uncharitable, but that you need to consider whether there is any responsibility on the part of the reader to understand something, especially when those readers are approaching things from a standpoint of being well-informed, when their criticism claims superior… Read more »

Kimberly Corley Tavernier
Guest
Kimberly Corley Tavernier

I’m not sure why you think I haven’t considered that. I’m a writer and copy editor by profession, presently. Before that, I taught and turtored Writing and Grammar. I don’t believe my own knowledge to be superior to DW but I will say with confidence that he hasn’t been charitable in his response and if he was attempting to give a clear and concise defense of the OP, he fell short. Why is it not the charge of the Christian, a Minister of the Gospel, no less, to consider that his own words might’ve been unkind? Why is it on… Read more »

Nell
Guest
Nell

May I suggest that you go back and reread the conversation between M, VOM and VOO and the subsequent three or four paragraphs?

Kimberly Corley Tavernier
Guest
Kimberly Corley Tavernier

What are you wanting to direct me to, Sir? My comment was part of a longer discussion that has otherwise ended. I didn’t have any further questions. If you’re thinking I’ve missed something please let me know.

BdgrGrrl
Guest
BdgrGrrl

I did reread this conversation. If I were the VOM, I’d have several suggestions for the wife, depending on the situation. 1) If her husband was diabetic, obese, and/or had high cholesterol, it would be a good idea to come up with a healthier alternative to flaky biscuits, or at least make them less frequently than before. 2) If they had children old enough to learn to cook, she might say, “I’m teaching Bob and Bill to cook and bake just like I did for Jane and Jill. Why don’t you learn to make the flaky biscuits along with them… Read more »

Jane
Member

I guess my point is that a minister should always consider whether his words are unkind, but that should not be absolutely measured by the reaction of those who may not be inclined to judge fairly and may be seeking offense. Just because someone reacts as though something is unkind, does not mean it was unkind. It can be, but that’s not always a reliable measure.

Nathan Smith
Member

This was my question as well. He did nothing but defame the deity but denies having blasphemed her. I probably haven’t thought enough about blasphemy. Moses got rid of the golden calf and all… Maybe one can point out the worthlessness of idols without being needlessly antagonistic?

Jane
Member

Diana isn’t identified with the goddess of feminism. He’s saying he didn’t do what he’s accused of doing, not that he didn’t do anything they might take offense to.

bethyada
Member

I think Doug was saying he didn’t blaspheme any goddess. That would include the goddess of feminism.

Read ‘blaspheme’ as ‘slander’

Jane
Member

Ah, that could be.

Jennie
Member

Pastor Wilson didn’t blaspheme. He revealed and exposed this goddess for all to see, but he did so in a serious, maybe even dire, way with some nice humor.

This is what we’re up against, folks. This god has a lot of adherents who will defend her probably to the death.

I wish that Christians had as much fire and readiness to defend the Gospel. How easy it would be to cast her from her throne then.

jigawatt
Guest
jigawatt

But the demand that she be instantly believed is in a different category. What this amounts to is a demand that whoever she names as the alleged culprit must by no means have the presumption of innocence, and under no circumstances should he have a fair trial.

Duke Lacrosse, Group of 88.

John
Member

And let us not forget our favorite “pastor” and Tawana Brawley.

jigawatt
Guest
jigawatt

“A Rape on Campus”, Sabrina Rubin Erdely, Rolling Stone

Dave W
Guest
Dave W

Much thanks, Pastor Doug. I’m with you.

Zachary Hurt
Guest

There he goes again, committing the sin of tone-deafness. How can Pastor Wilson possibly hope to coax the nail into the board by smashing it on the head like that?

Karen
Guest
Karen

So, would you mind telling exactly what it is that you find ‘glorious’ in femininity? Your descriptions, including your order that women learn to make a particular recipe because the men in their lives like it, plus the assertion that God is entirely and completely male with no element of female at all, sounds like you love having a class of automatic servants who will never complain or argue or have needs or desires of their own — perfect little doormats. You will raise women to be stupid, cowardly, and, most importantly, completely and utterly SILENT. Women who will do… Read more »

Mark Hanson
Guest
Mark Hanson

Have you met (or read books by) any of Doug’s women? His wife? Daughters? If not, then you have no right to an opinion. Especially if you think they are “silent” and “doormats”.

Chad
Guest
Chad

That was my thought to this comment as well Mark. Additionally, those who are familiar with Doug understand that his comment about the biscuit was meant to be entirely about the logical point being made and has nothing to do with “describing” anything. As for God being Father, this does not logically infer there is “no element of female at all.” This is to logically assume that there is a far more stark contrast between women and men than complementarians would argue. It would be to assume that there is no aspect of God’s image shared by men and women… Read more »

valerieab
Member

The biscuits (which were not mentioned in the vocative, i.e., in the context of an order) are a metaphor for a woman knowing and loving her people well, particularly in the realm of her domestic calling, which is indeed a glorious thing.

Chad
Guest
Chad

Maybe, but my point is that this hypothetical discussion is used in a logical argument. It is clearly marked in this blog post to be out of the context of Doug expressing his plain and overt beliefs. If my neighbor came to me and asked “what is something special I could cook for my husband and children” and I responded as Doug did, but I did so without “a wife and mother,” then there would be nothing for feminism to attack. I think Doug knew exactly what he was doing in order to set up the hypothetical outrage, which Karan… Read more »

valerieab
Member

I wasn’t disagreeing with you, just adding further comment.

Chad
Guest
Chad

My apologies. And i’m not disagreeing with you either, only pointing out that context is key, because I believe there may in fact be a context within which a statement like this is misogynistic. One of my irritations with feminism, as with any number of other idolatress movements, is the blatant disregard for any sort of context, whether immediate or historical, both of which are ignored and/or assumed by the OP. But any of us can fall into the trap at any time, because we are still susceptible to our own idolatrous hearts to some degree. It is possible that… Read more »

valerieab
Member

No apologies necessary. ????

Chad
Guest
Chad

Also of note is this. When I reply, I’m not replying to you personally, because I don’t know you or your context or your history. I’m replying generically to anyone tracking the thread and continuing to work out my own thoughts.

Jill Smith
Member
Jill Smith

It’s also a context in which those who are looking for offense will conclude that Doug was suggesting biscuit-making is the height of a woman’s talents and capabilities! No one ever assumes that the other way around. No one ever thinks that when a woman says a man grills a great steak, she is saying that is all that he is good for.

Chad
Guest
Chad

That’s interesting, and seems to be true in our culture. My Grandmother was extremely well known in her area for her biscuits and tea cakes. All the local cook books used her recipes. In contemporary culture, who would want to be known for that? Only if its a business making money, and never a service to your family, church and community. My grandmother was an amazing woman who took incredible care of a large family with very little money, and still managed to make the best biscuits in the county that she never made a dime off of. Those biscuit… Read more »

Jill Smith
Member
Jill Smith

That is a wonderful story. One of the things I don’t like about some feminist attitudes is the contempt for accomplishments like your grandmother’s. Who got to decide that there is more intrinsic merit or value in mastering calculus rather than cooking? Or, that if work is not done for pay, it is not worth doing?

bethyada
Member

mastering calculus rather than cooking

I teach my daughter both

lndighost
Member

And so we should. I think the problem is where we are more impressed by one God-given ability than by another, and rank them in terms of worldly glamour.

adad0
Member

Jilly, your suggestion about how well a man might grill steaks, sounds like a great ploy to get a bunch of free steaks! Let us know how that works out!????????????

jonmnoel
Member

Biscuits may have been a metaphor, but I take them to be a very serious expression of love and affection from my wife. Anybody who argues with the importance of biscuits in a home is clearly off the rails.

drewnchick
Member

Amen, brother!

BdgrGrrl
Guest
BdgrGrrl

Nothing wrong with that whatsoever. However, my husband appreciated some of my gifts that didn’t necessarily fit the typical female stereotype. I’m much more willing to bargain hard for cars than he was. He thought is was great because it saved us money and was willing for me to do the negotiating. Good thing, because he now resides in long-term care because of a severe disability. I just negotiated a good deal for a new car for myself. I’d have been in deep doo doo I hadn’t developed that skill for myself. Yes, I have a couple of guys who… Read more »

Karen
Guest
Karen

That is precisely my point: are women made in the image of God or not? Are we, as this post and most others on the subject imply, less in the Divine Image than men are?

adad0
Member

Ok, please explain what, if anything, is ” stupid, cowardly and doormat-like” about the writing of the women in question.
Please don’t be surprised if you agree with them, more than you might anticipate.????

Chad
Guest
Chad

Thank you for clarifying. The way you wrote the OP seems to assert that women and men must be the same, or at the very least, without hierarchy, in order to be made in the image of God. If this is indeed your assertion, then I disagree. But, yes men and women are both in the image of God, but clearly not in the same way. For instance, One is inherently more servant and one is inherently more protective. Men should learn as much about servitude from their wives as women should learn about guarding their hearts from their husbands.… Read more »

bethyada
Member

Both are made in his image. And different is not less

Jane
Member

Share with us the actual words in this post and “most others on the subject” that you think “imply” that women are less in the Divine image than men. Either you will have trouble finding any, or we will help you see why they imply no such thing.

drewnchick
Member

My wife is shorter than me, she runs slower, can’t carry as much…so, yep! She is less than me.
But then, she is prettier, smarter, has a keener intuition and a softer shoulder for the kids to cry on. Also, she makes better biscuits than I do. So, maybe she is more than me.

I’m so confused…why do you ask such bothersome questions??

jigawatt
Guest
jigawatt

Your descriptions, including your order that women learn to make a particular recipe because the men in their lives like it …

“I think that a husband and father should get to know his local florist and make regular purchases there for birthdays, anniversaries etc. That would make the women in his life very happy.”

What a hateful thing to say, amiright!!??

drewnchick
Member

“What a load of misogynistic crap! How could you be so vile and hateful of men! You must think all men exist for the sole purpose of buying things for women. Well, eff that! And eff all the selfish women who line up for their sugar-daddy handouts! Go get a job and buy your OWN damn flowers!!”

drewnchick
Member

Jigawatt…I am SO glad you up-voted that comment! Whew!!!

Heidi_storage
Guest
Heidi_storage

I bet you’re not a fan of 1 Peter 3:1-6, eh? Esp. V 4: “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.” And verse 1 tells wives to be submissive even when their husbands aren’t believers.

Nathan Anderson
Guest
Nathan Anderson

“… including your order that women learn to make a particular recipe because the men in their lives like it…”

How is it not clear that there was a tongue-in-cheek element to this?

…and yet how did I know that someone would decide to respond almost as predicted in the post anyway?

Jennie
Member

Our society has gotten so far out of whack we believe that either you are a free woman aka feminist or you are in bondage aka wife/mother. I understand as I used to believe that a free woman was one who determined her own destiny and pitied women who were ‘stuck’ in marriages and popping out brats. I called them ‘breeders’ with disdain very similar to your own. Truth is you have it absolutely backwards. The women who are submissive wives and who raise their children to walk a straight path are jewels and deserving of highest honor. They have… Read more »

insanitybytes22
Member

“..perfect little doormats….women to be stupid, cowardly, and, most importantly, completely and utterly SILENT. ”

Well I personally can testify to being a total doormat, stupid, cowardly, prone to utter silence…Or perhaps not. Perhaps in my case that is a downright comical accusation.

I do however, make biscuits to die for….

Jennie
Member

I remember learning to make biscuits from an old Southern lady. “You take a lump of lard about the size of a hen’s egg, a teacup full of buttermilk…”

Maybe feminists are just mad because they are lousy cooks?

Jill Smith
Member
Jill Smith

Lard and not butter? Really, lard is better? I don’t think I have ever even seen lard. It’s probably banned under California health laws.

Jennie
Member

In the South, lard and fatback make up one of the six main food groups. Never met a veg down there that didn’t have fatback in it except okra, which was fried in … lard. :)

Jill Smith
Member
Jill Smith

Yo!

Jennie
Member

By the way, everything is better with fatback. It’s really that good. :)

Jill Smith
Member
Jill Smith

Is that something you get from a pig? This vegetarian is cringing. Not on grounds of principle because that’s not my reason for being one, but just the idea!!

Jennie
Member

I know! I was vegetarian/vegan for most of the time I was down there. I used to go to those awful food bars because I thought I could eat veg, only to find fatback bobbing around in the sea of green beans. Fatback is just fatty bacon, also called side meat.

I tried them once, and entered into a vegetarian hell. I swear I used to dream about eating huge plates of lima beans w/fatback, cole slaw and fried chicken. The guilt! The torment! The missed opportunities!

Jill Smith
Member
Jill Smith

It is hard to re-introduce meat into your diet when you haven’t had it for years, because your body has trouble handling it. Did you do it gradually? I keep trying with such unfortunate results that I get anxious about trying again. But I am getting too old to safely go on subsisting on yogurt and Kraft Dinner!

Jennie
Member

It is a different sensation for sure. There’s a strange heaviness when one first starts eating meat, and also a hyper-vigilance that probably amplifies the experience. Digestive-wise it wasn’t much of a big deal. I worked into it pretty gradually, starting with seafood. I was on the NC coast, so that was a nice way to go about it. Also added bits of protein into rice and soups. First attempt at fatty sausage is somewhat memorable, but I learned. :) I actually had more trouble with the handling of it than the eating of it. “This is dead flesh. Someone… Read more »

Jill Smith
Member
Jill Smith

I can understand that. You’re right about the hyper-vigilance which can certainly create its own symptoms. That’s a good idea to start with maybe chicken and rice.

When you’ve been anorexic, your treatment team is not happy when you go vegetarian because it can be a disguised version of your tendency to develop food rules to avoid eating. So I am going to try a little harder to get past this–but not with Taco Bell for the first few weeks!

bethyada
Member

Bacon with your pancakes or waffles?

drewnchick
Member

MUCH bacon! And a heap of grits smothered in syrup, some of them FLAKY biscuits drowning in real butter and sausage gravy, a couple of fried eggs–over hard, thank you–and a tall glass of fresh-squeezed orange juice…ahhh…

bethyada
Member

I concur. But is that really how you advise Jill to reintroduce meat into her diet?

Jill Smith
Member
Jill Smith

Kill or cure.

drewnchick
Member

What was it the psychiatrists said, the best way to overcome your fears is to face them head on…something like that?
Well, in this case, I reckon she could just go “whole hog”! ;-)

Jennie
Member

That’s hard. I don’t know which is worse; not being confident of my motivation or having others not be. Anyway, you can do it. You might also consider trying adding a little oil to your diet first. That will help with the transition and test your food rules! We have a smoothie in the morning that is 1/2 cup cottage cheese, 1 tsp – 1 Tbs flax seed oil, banana, frozen fruit and coconut milk. Stick blenders, what can they not do! That smoothie adds a bit of good oil to the diet and will make the transition to meat… Read more »

Jill Smith
Member
Jill Smith

I like the sounds of your smoothie! One of my most insane rules back in the day was that all food had to be white. Thank you for the tip; I will try it!

Jennie
Member

Great! That’s really fascinating about the white food. I’m glad you like colors now! Speaking of color, I heard recently that nasturtium pesto is amazing. It sounds really interesting and colorful.

In fact, when I was reading this blog post I thought Pastor Wilson said, “a circumstance which can always be arranged by the easily aggrieved, or by the pesto-triggered.” instead of presto-triggered. I almost snapped off a response but then I realized my mistake.

lndighost
Member

You were wiser than I was! I emerged from my vegetarian experience straight into a steak. I do not recommend that course of action. It felt as if I’d eaten an elephant.

drewnchick
Member

Don’t forget the fried green tomatoes!!

drewnchick
Member

You are making this Texan’s mouth water!

jigawatt
Guest
jigawatt

An old coffee tin works great for storing bacon grease.

Jill Smith
Member
Jill Smith

Ay-y-y!

jigawatt
Guest
jigawatt

Don’t worry, saturated fats aren’t bad for you anymore. It’s trans-fats now. Or is it gluten? Or sugar? I can’t keep up with all that, so I just eat what I want, within reason.

P.S. We also use a butter crock to keep the butter at a good spreadable consistency.

Rick Davis
Guest
Rick Davis

I read this article a few years back in praise of lard. It’s a good beginning to a lard education.

https://mises.org/library/praise-lard

drewnchick
Member

Lard, have mercy!!

Ilíon
Member

When I was a kid, I saw my Southern grandmother make and eat lard sandwiches! And this wasn’t a wee bit of lard spread on the bread as one might butter toast; this was a 1/4-1/2 inch think slab of lard slapped between two slices of bread. Talk about gross!

Jennie
Member

I’ve heard of that, but haven’t seen it. I thought peanut butter and bologna sandwiches were beyond the pale, but lard sandwiches …

Ilíon
Member

Bologna anything is beyond the pale.

Peanut butter and banana slices or peanut butter and honey mixed make for a tasty sandwich, though I haven’t indulged since I was a kid. (Got those ideas from my father)

Somehow, my brother came up with peanut butter and mayonnaise sandwiches, which sounds to me as awful as peanut butter and bologna.

bethyada
Member

How old did she live to?

(Because if it was older than 70 she gets a pass)

Ilíon
Member

I always start to think “93” … but I’m pretty sure that that number comes from her year of birth. So — I believe she was around 65 (*) when I was born (at the very minimum, 60), and I was at least 20, 21, when she died. So, she was at least 80, and probably closer to 85, when she died. And she lived on her own until just a couple of years before that. Edit: The think I most recall her saying, all the time I was growing up, was, “I’m not looong for the world!” (*) assuming… Read more »

Jill Smith
Member
Jill Smith

She probably lived to be ancient, too!

Ilíon
Member

By the time my sibs and I were born (our father was her youngest), she was as round as she was tall; she lived to be above 80, and lived on her own until just a year or two before she died.

She also “dipped” snuff for most of her life. This wasn’t “snort a pinch up your nose” as you sometimes see in historical enactments; this was “put a tablespoon or more between your (lower) lip and front teeth, and then spit

Jill Smith
Member
Jill Smith

Is snuff supposed to make you feel good like tobacco? She sounds like quite a character!

Ilíon
Member

I don’t get it, myself, neither smoking, nor snuff (whether snorted or dipped), nor chewing tobacco.

I presume that snuff, being a fine powder and applied to a thin mucus membrane (either inner lip or nasal passages), gets whatever “rush” it supplies into the bloodstream quickly.

Dipping snuff is kind of the “dainty” version of chewing tobacco. Except, there is still the disgusting spit.

FeatherBlade
Guest
FeatherBlade

Behold the priestess of the goddess feminism!

She is named, and lo, she appears!

Jane
Member

“your order that women”

Why do you think you deserve an answer when you can’t even get through two sentences without a lie?

Jennie
Member

That’s the thing, Dunsworth. She doesn’t know she is. She is absolutely sincere in her criticism and cannot see the difference between “your order that women” and ” I think that a wife and mother should…” This is why we will never ‘get along’. There is a chasm that separates us now and later. The only solution is Christ, of which I am a prime example. Feminist of feminists of the tribe of socialism. Radicalized in my first year at college. As to the righteousness of feminist ideology, found blameless. And now look at me! Praise God who can turn… Read more »

Jill Smith
Member
Jill Smith

But she still has a responsibility to think logically and to consider evidence, just as we all have. She has a responsibility not to distort what is said to suit her agenda.

Jennie
Member

What if she thinks she is responding logically? In truth, she probably does think what she said is so obvious it shouldn’t have to be said at all! She had to come here because we are so dense we don’t get it.

There’s only one way to cut through, Jilly, and that’s to expose the house of cards and then reveal Christ, exactly as Pastor Wilson has done.

Jill Smith
Member
Jill Smith

I do see your point, but I have feminist friends who struggle to be fair minded even when when their core assumptions are challenged. We all have to train ourselves to be willing to see a valid point, no matter who makes it. Facts ought to be morally neutral. Did Doug say that the glory of femininity is making biscuits? No, and nobody arguing honestly can say that he did. I don’t totally understand people who can’t accept, even hypothetically and temporarily, another person’s set of premises. We do it all the time when we read fiction. I don’t have… Read more »

Jennie
Member

I understand your friends’ framework in general, having been like that. I lived in Marin, you know! There are two main problems with expecting them to be able to accurately step into a Christian’s worldview. 1) Feminists’ very foundational presuppositions are inaccurate. That is they believe that by and large in societies throughout history men have desired to be oppressive to women and they do it because … X (where X might be because they are afraid of women, they like to dominate women, etc.). I challenge you to ask them, “Why have men wanted to dominate women throughout history?”… Read more »

Jill Smith
Member
Jill Smith

I think that my more doctrinaire left-wing feminist friends would say this: It has been in the interest of the oligarchy to oppress men; man is born free but is everywhere in chains, in the words of Rousseau who certainly didn’t believe in liberty. The oligarchy has made men’s slavery tolerable to them by giving them inferiors (women, as well as lower-caste men) to oppress and victimize. A man who feels king of his castle is less likely to rebel on the assembly line at work. Men and women are equally victims. My more normal feminist friends would probably say… Read more »

Jennie
Member

Interesting! Half your friends say, “Men have desired to oppress women because an oligarchy of men coerced them into it.” The other half would say, “Society, controlled by men, oppressed men and women by enforcing unfair gender behavior restrictions on them. This leads to men oppressing women as a societal norm.” It’s the same argument with different emphasis. Some nebulous controlling society/oligarchy of men convinced/coerced men into thinking society has to be structured a certain way, with women near the bottom. “We are broken ourselves, and only we can fix it,” is what all optimistic pagan religions and philosophies teach.… Read more »

Ilíon
Member

If your feminist friends don’t hate and despise men, then they are not really feminists, and they’ll be read out of the club soon enough.

I could see this about feminism when I was a cub 35 years ago, and it has only become more blatant since.

drewnchick
Member

Lovely personal spin on Paul’s words, JL!

Jennie
Member

I am so grateful for Paul because he sinned as much or more than I did yet God forgave him. Without his example, I would have had difficulty finding the courage to stand. (I mean that on the human level.)

insanitybytes22
Member

Dunsworth, this is not an accusation or an attack, but it is churchian women like yourself I have the most trouble with. Your propensity to call other women liars, to meet the broken and wounded with anything other than grace, does more to push women, including repentant feminists, away from the church than anything else. It simply causes women to rebel more, because no one is going to ever submit to your harsh and judgmental tone. I’m sorry, but there is absolutely nothing edifying about basically telling a woman, you don’t even deserve an answer because you’re just a liar.… Read more »

Jill Smith
Member
Jill Smith

I’m sure that Jane will cry herself to sleep over this non-accusation and non-attack. Moral criticism from one of Milo’s staunch defenders must be taken very seriously indeed.

lndighost
Member

ME, I have so appreciated your comments over the last few days. You have been a voice of calm reason in the tempest that is the comments section. So I’m astonished to see you here insulting a fellow Christian with the ‘churchian’ label. That’s what some might call judgmental behaviour. Perhaps you know Karen. Perhaps you know that her angry and confused remarks are actually covering up fear instead of hatred. But if that is the case, I think you yourself could extend some grace to those of us to whom that is not immediately obvious.

insanitybytes22
Member

I have no idea who Karen is. You are free to call me judgmental if you want, but there is simply nothing edifying about calling a woman a liar who is unworthy, not even deserving of answers. That is flat out common churchian behavior from women and rather abusive

Is it insulting to call out women’s sin? Perhaps. But keep in mind that on this very board I have frequently been accused of the precise same things, of being the liar who is not even worthy of being heard.

lndighost
Member

My understanding of the term ‘churchian’ is that it refers to someone who attends church but is not a Christian. If that’s the sense in which you were using it, and if you are using it about someone who is, in fact, a Christian, it is a grievous slander. (And there’s nothing edifying about it!) It’s also important to make a distinction between catching someone in a lie and calling them a liar. We are all guilty of the first from time to time, and need to repent of every lie. The second is much more serious and refers to… Read more »

insanitybytes22
Member

“My understanding of the term ‘churchian’ is that it refers to someone who attends church but is not a Christian.” Let me answer you with Dunsworth’s response, “Why do you think you deserve an answer when you can’t even get through two sentences without a lie?” Do you see how that works? It’s not very nice. Are you lying? Are you unworthy of an answer? Because your very definition of churchian is false and running with that first “lie” you than proceed to accuse me of slander and allegedly revoking someone’s faith or something. The truth is “churchian” is simply… Read more »

Jane
Member

ME, “my understanding is…” followed by something that is not accurate is not equivalent in truth value to “Doug said” something that he neither said or meant, or can be inferred without prejudice from what he did say. One is a tentative statement of what one believes to the case, the other is a positive assertion of that which is not the case.

lndighost
Member

Unfortunately you’ve included the word ‘churchian’ in its own definition, so I am none the wiser about what you intend it to mean.

But it seems you are being challenged from several quarters so I am going to call it a day here.

Jill Smith
Member
Jill Smith

You’re quite right, Indigo. From Conservapedia: “Churchian” is a slang term used to describe someone who attends church, but who is not perceived to be a ‘true’ Christian.”

bethyada
Member

She called out a lie ME. Was it a lie?

Jill Smith
Member
Jill Smith

Of course not! It was a tender and bruised soul reaching out to us for love and validation, and only mean women like Jane and me would ever be so cruel as to think she should be held to the same standard of veracity as everyone else.

Jill Smith
Member
Jill Smith

Perhaps it was just an alternative fact!

insanitybytes22
Member

Everybody has their own perceptions of the truth, with a little “t.” There are no literal, factual, concrete statements in Karen’s comment, it is pure opinion and speculation and should be corrected as such.

If you are standing looking at the back end of an elephant, me calling you a liar because you aren’t describing tusks, eyes, and a trunk is foolish. The goal should be to get you to stop staring at the elephant’s behind and come around to the front.

adad0
Member

I’, Memi does have the ability to somewhat inadvertently rile up her cohorts. She and Jilly have managed not to do that to each other recently. I expect Memi and lady Dunsworth will reach a level as well.
????????????

John
Member

Wearing zebra stripes as you wrote this comment?

adad0
Member

Jilly, Memi and Lady Dunsworth all have good points and great minds, perhaps the dust ups come with that, although I’d like to see more immediate unity, as comments go on.

drewnchick
Member

There is a profound difference between pointing and yelling, “LIAR!” and pointing out an actual lie.

Karen said, and Dunsworth did us the kind service of quoting, “you order that women.” This is NOT a true statement of anything Wilson has actually said, making the statement, ergo, a lie. And Dunsworth pointing this out as the reason folks find it difficult to give Karen a reasonable answer is perfectly normal.

Would that Karen had stopped with her initial question. She might have gotten a wealth of useful answers.

insanitybytes22
Member

No Malachi, Dunworth flat out said, “Why do you think you deserve an answer when you can’t even get through two sentences without a lie?”

1. you don’t deserve an answer.
2. you are a liar.
3. you are unworthy to even have an opinion.
4.your perception of reality is false.

That is flat out abusive, dismissive, and unhelpful. How would you like me to say such things about you?

Jill Smith
Member
Jill Smith

Dunsworth did not flat out say anything of the kind. You may think that she implied it, but she did not flat out (i.e., literally, actually) say it. This is an important distinction to make in establishing who is telling the truth.

drewnchick
Member

You have already. It was fun.

Now, I believe the question is valid. “Why DOES Karen think she deserves an answer to her opening question when in the very next sentence she drops an absurd untruth?”

I also believe you’re stretching reality a bit to say that Dunsworth has, by pointing this out in the interrogative, done anything abusive, dismissive, or unhelpful. Her verbal parry was quite the opposite, IMO.

insanitybytes22
Member

Okay Malalchi, so let’s use Dunsworth’s response here as my response to you, “Why do you think you deserve an answer when you can’t even get through two sentences without a lie?”

Is there anything edifying about my words or are they simply contempt designed to imply you are unworthy?

drewnchick
Member

Wut? Did you take some weird pills yesterday? How could Jane’s question to Karen possibly be applied to me? Are you now accusing me of dropping a lie in my second sentence? Which second sentence? Seriously, did you bump your head last night?

insanitybytes22
Member

I’ll say it again, “Why do you think you deserve an answer when you can’t even get through two sentences without a lie?”

Do you like it? Do you find it edifying? Does it do anything to embiggen the conversation? Can you feel the love yet?

By the way, if I were a literalist, I would accuse you of having just now lied a third time, because clearly I did not bump my head last night. By your own silly rules, you have just born false witness again.

drewnchick
Member

The level of illogic you possess is astounding. Do I like your accusatory question? Well, if it had literally ANYTHING to do with reality, I would stop, perform a little introspection, go back and reread what I had written, and then fess up to some falsifying statements IF there were any to confess. But since your methods are patently absurd, nonsense, and wholly disconnected to the actual conversation, I haven’t taken the time to march through those steps. I’m too busy scratching my head in bewilderment. Do I find your tactics edifying? It’s good for a laugh, I’ll give you… Read more »

insanitybytes22
Member

“Do I like your accusatory question?”

Let me be clear, that was Dunworths’s accusatory question, not mine. I simply copy and pasted it. I am pleased to see you now recognize it as “accusatory.” That was precisely my point before you stepped into the fray and objected.

Jane
Member

I did not say she didn’t deserve an answer. I asked why she thought she did — that is NOT the same thing, and I did not intend it as the same thing. I did not say she was unworthy to have an opinion. And her perception of reality IS false, if she believes 1) that Doug ordered women to do anything relating to biscuits and 2) “A Handmaid’s Tale” is the measure of how the world is ordered, rather than the ordering of the world being a measure of the narrative authenticity of “A Handmaid’s Tale.”

Dave
Guest
Dave

ME, Jane was just being straight up — a straight right to the jaw if you ever watched boxing. I don’t think it was abusive or dismissive but rather straight to the point of showing Karen’s incorrect ideas. I hope this helps you understand what she was poking at.

insanitybytes22
Member

Baloney. She was being rude and dismissive in an attempt to put someone down so as to elevate her own perceptions of herself. Buy a clue, Dave.

Jane
Member

I don’t think I’m able to take to heart the idea that I shouldn’t call out lies for what they are because I should acknowledge the effect a fictional account has had on someone’s view of reality, I really don’t. I really don’t see how failing to confront the question of whether Karen’s position is materially true, and playing along with her desire to make a fictional and inauthentic dystopia the measure of how real situations work, is extending respect and charity to her. I know we’ve disagreed on this before. If my tone is harsh and judgmental, that’s something… Read more »

Jill Smith
Member
Jill Smith

Jane, you are not the problem, and there is nothing wrong with your tone. It is clear after so many fruitless exchanges that we are faced with an irrational dislike either for our personalities or our ideas, and there is no point appealing to the voice of fairness and reason. After ME’s last attack on me, I reflected that no one in my entire adult life has spoken to me with that kind of loathing and venom. It is frightening because it is incredibly disproportionate to the dislike an average person might feel for a stranger on an internet board.… Read more »

drewnchick
Member

Amen, Sister.

Jennie
Member

No dearie, that’s Islam.

drewnchick
Member

Predictable…

My Portion Forever
Member

As a woman, I find the biblical calling to be beautiful and Christ-like. I did not understand it at first, but we are called to obey, even if we don’t understand. In obedience we find blessing and greater understanding. “For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks intently at his natural face in a mirror. For he looks at himself and goes away and at once forgets what he was like. But the one who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, being no… Read more »

B
Guest
B

I hate to say that I missed the point of the Potiphar parable almost completely (and I’m pretty sure it was my own fault that happened). So helpful to read this explanation. Amen and blessings on you.

Dave
Guest
Dave

Satan does not attack God directly. Satan attacks God only one way: he uses women to attack the authority of men, of God’s representative on earth. But …. Women of God will glorify men and men will glorify God [ICor11:7], for “The tabernacle of God is with men.” Rev 21:3 It is no coincidence that men have been attacked and ‘of no reputation’ since the beginning of time. They represent Christ on earth. But God is breathing across the dry bones of men, stacked for centuries, in the valley below the high and illicit post of women; He is raising… Read more »

Jennie
Member

Amen! I see it too.

He is doing wondrous works. I am excited!

Dominic Jones
Guest
Dominic Jones

Doug, I love you!

connie
Guest
connie

When I read the gospels, I see the kind heart of Jesus towards women. All kinds of women. And He said if we see Him, we have seen the Father. Meanwhile Doug keeps attacking certain women because he will not face the fact he supported more than one sexual predator while doing the opposite to those they hurt. How many people are going to hell because they did not see Jesus in you, Doug? Because they mistook your views for His? God is not impressed with wordplay or cleverness, by the way. He is gracious, compassionate, slow to anger and… Read more »

Jill Smith
Member
Jill Smith

If any pastor’s failures and sins are responsible for casting souls into hell, surely the problem is with excessive dependence on the pastor. People can influence me for good or for evil, but the responsibility for my soul’s welfare is ultimately my own.

connie
Guest
connie

Well, that is certainly true in one sense but does not mean Doug will not also be held accountable.

Dave
Guest
Dave

Connie, how big is your God? Is he big enough to save the sinner and change the sinner’s life? Mine is. Mine can change the heart of the murderer, the homosexual, the adulterer and yes, even the molester. How big is your God? How strong is your faith? Is your faith strong enough to work with those saved murderers, reformed homosexuals, repentant adulterers and molesters? How strong is your faith? Is it strong enough to worship with those sinners on Sunday morning or must you go somewhere else? Is it strong enough to pray for those in severe need of… Read more »

connie
Guest
connie

To your last point, material facts are not in question. To your other point, if someone claims to repent but fruit says otherwise, you do not do that person a service by rescuing them from the consequences of their actions. Not to mention the gross evil of making a way for them to prey on others. And even if repentance is real, consequences must be faced. I have worshipped with all kinds of folks including those you mentioned. I have known many fine pastors who know how to deal wisely with those under their care. That is why I have… Read more »

bethyada
Member

if someone claims to repent but fruit says otherwise, you do not do that person a service by rescuing them from the consequences of their actions. Not to mention the gross evil of making a way for them to prey on others. And even if repentance is real, consequences must be faced. I suspect that we are at somewhat different poles with this post, and several other of Doug’s writings. But I just wanted to say that this the principle you have espoused here is extremely valid. And something minimised in many churches. I do not think that subsequent sin… Read more »

Dave
Guest
Dave

Connie, your information is still incorrect and when these messy subjects show up you keep to a story line that just isn’t true.

Please pray for all involved in these messy situations.

connie
Guest
connie

I have seen messy situations handled with finess, love, great wisdom, and protection for others….it is one thing to wield a sharp scalpel at the direction of The Great Physician and quite another to attempt heart surgery with a sledge hammer.

I have said what I came here to say.

Dave
Guest
Dave

Connie, God bless you and help you understand what is actually happening. No hammers involved here.

Kilgore T. Durden
Guest
Kilgore T. Durden

Dave, I truly appreciate the comment. But could you point me to those former child molesters? I have to look far and wide to even find those repentant homos. There are a number of former lesbians, but former homos, not so much. More often than not, we get former, former homos and molesters. I am not opposing what you say about the gospel, at all. I am a Calvinist after all. But honestly, the bible does point out that God has limits (Romans 1), and He gives them over to their depraved lusts. I have a hard time thinking that… Read more »

Dave
Guest
Dave

Kilgore, we don’t know what God’s limit is for each person. Some he hardens their hearts quickly and gives them over to their lusts and others he softens heart and knees allowing them to kneel at the foot of the cross. We see evidence in the life of the saved individual. In today’s America, we don’t see the demons that are obvious in Africa or parts of Asia and we don’t see those who worshiped the false god, cutting off people’s heads and killing Christians but now calling out joyfully to Christ because He saved them from eternal damnation. We… Read more »

Jennie
Member

Nicely written.

“In today’s America, we don’t see the demons that are obvious in Africa or parts of Asia …”

I’m surprised to see this, as I have noticed this in my travels and had decided I was just overly imaginative. Do you have any understanding why this is?

Dave
Guest
Dave

God is very gracious to us here in the USofA is the only reason that I know of.

Jennie
Member

That is true, no doubt.

If we Christians continue on the present course though, we will see them again, I think.

Protestors disrupt town hall opening prayer (hear especially 1:45 and following):
https://youtu.be/lNQnJdCRato

Kilgore T. Durden
Guest
Kilgore T. Durden

We are used to nice, tidy, neat package sins that are easy to solve and not the brutal, messy ones that God takes care of also. We also have rapists, child killers, torturers, etc. all here in the US of A. I believe wholeheartedly in the immense grace and forgiveness of our Lord. He can and does forgive immense sin, mine included. But we have to be honest. I see truly repentant murders. Paul is a great example. I see truly repentant terrorists. What I don’t see or at least haven’t seen much is a truly repentant kiddie abuser, and… Read more »

Nathan Anderson
Guest
Nathan Anderson

“… the bible does point out that God has limits (Romans 1)”

To paraphrase Inigo Montoya, “you keep citing that verse. I do not think it means what you think it means.” :)

So you think that child molestation is the one unpardonable sin?

Kilgore T. Durden
Guest
Kilgore T. Durden

I said nothing about unpardonable sins.

But, can you point me to the repentant child rapist who is not in prison?

insanitybytes22
Member

There are many, Kilgore. The vast majority of child rapists are not in prison and some are even repentant. I certainly believe in repentance, BUT just as I wouldn’t put a former alcoholic in a bar, I would never put someone attracted to kids around kids. Sometimes God heals us completely, but sometimes he leaves us with thorns.

A genuinely repentant child rapist is going to understand his need to never be alone with kids.

Christopher
Member

“A genuinely repentant child rapist is going to understand his need to never be alone with kids.”

Well, our need to not allow him to be alone with kids.

insanitybytes22
Member

True. But I think in order to be truly repentant, he must also have a desire to avoid ever being alone with kids, to empathize with his victims more than he does himself. If he cannot even recognize that he is the nature of the problem,then why would we think he was repentant at all?

adad0
Member

Mark 7 24 Jesus left that place and went to the vicinity of Tyre.[g] He entered a house and did not want anyone to know it; yet he could not keep his presence secret. 25 In fact, as soon as she heard about him, a woman whose little daughter was possessed by an impure spirit came and fell at his feet. 26 The woman was a Greek, born in Syrian Phoenicia. She begged Jesus to drive the demon out of her daughter. 27 “First let the children eat all they want,” he told her, “for it is not right to… Read more »

Chic Robertson
Guest
Chic Robertson

I’ll admit confusion to the new writing style of the Potipher’s wife post. But in my typical style, it was a flick of the thumb and I kept on scrolling. Not much beyond that, perhaps a thought of “What is this? Slipping towards dementia?” However, that’s on my radar because my father is dealing with terminal brain degeneration. Everything is a nail, when you’re a hammer.
What a thought provoking post this is. I tend to be a note taker, and went back and wrote quite a bit of this down.

Gary
Guest
Gary

I grant the rhetorical points, but still hold that satire of that particular subject was not exactly the wisest way to make your points…

Darwinian Arminian
Guest
Darwinian Arminian

Thank you for writing your clever (and honest) original post;
But thank you even more for your refusal to apologize for it in this one.

Daniel Fisher
Member

Sir, may I proffer an alternative – Might it be plausible that so many might have been up in arms over your original post due to a pervasive biblical illiteracy? That is, one will only recognize the satire if one is familiar with the original narrative of Potiphar’s wife – if someone, completely ignorant of the source story, reads your parable, it is unsurprising that the satire will be lost on such – they would have no way of recognizing that you are in fact critiquing a false accusation, rather than an actual abuse survivor. Granted, that opens up all… Read more »

John Peterson
Guest
John Peterson

/*facepalm*/

Andr
Guest
Andr

Hi Doug, I believe part of engaging the culture in a way that they can hear you, is to speak to what is genuine in their concerns. Feminists are concerned with social justice (and often other good things, such as environmental stewardship). Merely pointing out where they are wrong will lead them to think Christians have no concern about these things! Perish the thought. Try telling a feminist how God is angrier even than they are about the abuse and oppression women have suffered throughout the ages, and is working to bring about justice and freedom for women through all… Read more »

insanitybytes22
Member

“Try telling a feminist how God is angrier even than they are about the abuse and oppression women have suffered throughout the ages, and is working to bring about justice and freedom for women through all the earth,..”

Amen! That’s really well said. Grace has the power to heal and we often seem to forget that.

BDash76
Guest
BDash76

God was so angry about it, yeah…
How come not a single man in the bible was rebuked for not being feminist and Gender equal enough…

Urthman
Guest
Urthman

Pastor Wilson fails to address the actual reason people were upset with his satire. Many, many women say that they have had the experience of being sexually assaulted and not believed when they try to tell anyone about it, or that police and other authorities have sought to wave away the assault as of no consequence, or have been far more concerned with protecting the reputation of their institution or community rather than protecting the women who they have the authority and responsibility to protect. Many who listen to these women find their testimony credible and consequently believe that our… Read more »

Farinata degli Uberti
Guest
Farinata degli Uberti

Because women never commit the sin of lying?

BDash76
Guest
BDash76

women do not sin, period…

Melody
Guest
Melody

Obviously you don’t remember the Congressional trial of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and that silly woman who accused him of truly silly things. – And she got celebrity status

Jane
Member

Did anyone, anywhere, claim it was a matter of “more”? Is the implication that someone did, a result of charitable reading of what was said, or of a prejudicial approach to the assumed motives of the author?

valerieab
Member

The Potiphar’s wives of the world are among the chief reasons women who have been really abused/assaulted are not believed. They are the girls who cried wolf, but there were no wolves except themselves. Real victims should be outraged and disgusted with them the same way real black people were outraged and disgusted with Rachel Dolezal. What doesn’t make sense is that people are outraged and disgusted with Pastor Wilson.

jigawatt
Guest
jigawatt

Urthman But his little satire about Potiphar’s Wife seems to be siding with those who oppose efforts to get law enforcement and others in authority to take women’s claims of being assaulted more seriously. His story seems to be encouraging skepticism toward such claims. Wilson Now mark me carefully here, ye who would ignore this part. Whenever a woman reports a crime against her, she should be heard with sensitivity and care, she should be treated respectfully, and her claims should be thoroughly investigated, in all seriousness. She must not be blamed for reporting the assault, or treated as though… Read more »

Daniel Fisher
Member

I work very closely with many (mostly women) that have suffered such sexual abuse, and I am all too familiar with the dynamic you mention, where women are not believed, ignored, or even blamed. Many women I know are extremely reluctant to report sexual abuse for that very reason. But false accusations, made for myriad motivations, is a real problem as well. At least much of the unfortunate skepticism toward real victims is a result of the existence of such false accusations. So I dont see the connection to the post under discussion. Pastor Wilson simply called out false accusers… Read more »

Urthman
Guest
Urthman

The part that’s missing is this question of whether our authorities have a pervasive problem with failing to take women seriously when they report these crimes. And if so, does Pastor Wilson’s satire help or exacerbate the problem. We never listen to people with minds that are blank slates. The stories we tell and consume matter; they shape our character and habits of mind. We’re always going to be at least a little bit more disposed to belief or skepticism. If there is a pervasive problem of too much skepticism (and I think there is quite a bit of evidence… Read more »

Daniel Fisher
Member

To paraphrase your words and rationale, note that I could just as easily say: “If there is a pervasive problem of a rush to judgment (and given the Duke lacrosse case and others I am personally familiar with, this is indeed a problem), then putting our energy into talking about and satirizing true accusations is going to skew our disposition to be even less likely to discern the truth.” So, would you say that Pastor Wilson ought not have made his blistering condemnation of the heartless mindset of a rapist (in his post on Amnon), because that might skew someone… Read more »

Urthman
Guest
Urthman

I would say that is a false equivalence because sexual assault is much more common than false accusations of sexual assault and that it does not serve the truth to pretend that the two problems are equally pervasive. And that false equivalence hinders efforts to hold accountable those leaders and institutions that have failed in their duty by turning a blind eye to sexual assault.

Daniel Fisher
Member

I fear I just don’t follow your point – I of course concur that these two crimes are not equally prevalent (what crimes are?). But both are real and relatively common, so how does it follow that we should not deal seriously with both? Or how does it follow that dealing seriously with one (either one?) inherently results in neglect of dealing with the other? For instance – we live in a world of terrible crimes of racial hatred; we also live in a world where, for whatever motivations, people fabricate and stage false hate crimes. Investigating, exposing, and denouncing… Read more »

Jill Smith
Member
Jill Smith

The issue that everyone shies away from is consent. It is easy to prove rape when the Night Stalker crawls in to your bedroom window, or when a woman is clearly unconscious before the assault. But when there is consensual sexual activity to a certain point, we are asked always to believe the woman’s testimony that she told the man to stop or otherwise indicated her unwillingness. To appear to doubt this testimony is to invite a storm of outrage to descend upon your head. If we believe that rape is a wicked crime with appallingly destructive consequences for its… Read more »

insanitybytes22
Member

“….those are the kind comments I have heard about when a victim is being dismissed by leadership. It isn’t that they don’t believe it, so much as they don’t believe it is really that bad….” One reason why you may not understand the concern is because women especially have been dismissed, demeaned, dehumanized since forever, as a way of justifying sexual abuse against us. She’s just a slut anyway, right? And deceitful and a liar. Nor really a full a human being.That is the history and the kind of thinking that lies behind what you describe as leadership refusing to… Read more »

Daniel Fisher
Member

First – I followed you and agreed largely with what you describe as a sadly pervasive attitude toward women. But then, you conclude from this that castigating false accusers somehow contributes to a lack of concern over sexual assault? Non sequitur – I’m just not seeing how that can follow. You’d have to explain the reasoning more. The only thing I can fathom is you’re suggesting that it reinforces a stereotype that women are (more often?) liars? But that leads to a more significant concern: Secondly – Are you unfamiliar with sexual violence against men, either throughout history or in… Read more »

insanitybytes22
Member

“The only thing I can fathom is you’re suggesting that it reinforces a stereotype that women are (more often?) liars?” Yes, precisely. You want me to treat sexual abuse as if all things are equal, but nothing is ever equal in the world. Of course men are victimized, and usually by other men. Sexual abuse by women is rare, although not unheard of. So the vast majority of rapists are male, there is no “equal” there. The vast majority of violent crime is committed by men too,so there is no equal there, either. There is also nothing “equal” about the… Read more »

katie
Guest
katie

Sexual abuse by women may not be as rare as one would think. I ran into a few articles recently about this.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/11/the-understudied-female-sexual-predator/503492/

Daniel Fisher
Member

C. S. Lewis once said the following about a different aspect of sexual ethics, but I think it applicable to this discussion: “If I object to boys who steal my nectarines, must I be supposed to disapprove of nectarines in general? Or even of boys in general? It might, you know, be stealing that I disapproved of.” I think one could similarly say, “If I object to women who lie about sexual assault, must I be supposed to disapprove of women in general? Or even of implicitly supporting sexual assault in general? It might, you know, be lying that I… Read more »

insanitybytes22
Member

“I just cannot fathom why anyone would take issue with giving this behavior appropriate condemnation”

I do not object to that, I object to an over cultural narrative that soon begins to portray all women as evil. Wilson is only a tiny drop in the bucket, but consider the nature of his last few posts, women as potiphar’s wife, women as false accusers, women as the goddess evil who want to destroy the world. Make that message pervasive enough out in the world, and it becomes justification for treating us as if we were the enemy.

Daniel Fisher
Member

Well, in the spirit of fairness, if we are to consider the nature of his last few posts, we can’t forget his post on Amnon and Tamar – so we should add “men as the cruel and heartless rapists” and “women as the innocent victims of men’s perverse lusts” to the list of messages you see Pastor Wilson as helping spread to the world. But I would think it obvious that is in no way his intent, to equate Amnon with “all men.” It is equally obvious to me he was not equating Potiphar’s wife, any false accusers, or the… Read more »

scttsmmns
Guest
scttsmmns

A good sermon. Unfortunately many Christian women have formed partnerships with feminists simply because Christian men refuse to stand up and protect them. Take for example the privacy initiative in Washington last year. With over an est. 1000 adherents in the CREC membership in Washington state Exactly 1 man was actively involved in gathering signatures that were turned in. Perhaps when the CREC men actually show up to protect their women and daughters they won’t have to partner with feminists.

melody
Member
melody

How dare you state that women need to be protected by men?

insanitybytes22
Member

“….many Christian women have formed partnerships with feminists simply because Christian men refuse to stand up and protect them.”

He makes an excellent point, however. Women do seek the protection and leadership of men. Just from what I know of Pastor Wilson’s words and the behavior of many people who comment here, a woman would have to be insane to turn to any of them for help. She’s be revictmized all over again.

So, many women will turn to those who will hear them instead and that happens to be feminists.

I dislike seeing that truth, but it’s real enough.

Kimberly Corley Tavernier
Guest
Kimberly Corley Tavernier

Do you really not comprehend why that post was hurtful to women who have actually suffered sexual abuse? Frankly, it’s hard for me to follow how this post is a response to the OP at all. Seems more like a lofty and wordy attempt to avoid personal responsibility and call anyone who would challenge you an idolater who worships “the goddess.”

Is it possible that you might be wrong on this one, Mr. Wilson?

Mark Hanson
Guest
Mark Hanson

If no woman ever lied about sexual abuse, we would not need due process and the presumption of innocence. Arrest him and lock him away. But because a few women do lie about it (and God’s Word provides the example Doug used), we cannot short-cycle Biblical and human justice, no matter how it makes the women involved in actual abuse feel. Doug’s story shows how a guilty woman can co-opt the modern language of abuse to justify herself – and cast blame on a man who did nothing wrong in his dealings with her. The fact that several women are… Read more »

Daniel Fisher
Member

Kimberly, I can easily comprehend why someone who fabricates stories of abuse are hurtful to those (men and women) who have actually suffered sexual abuse. It is not as clear to me why someone calling out those who lie and fabricate such stories, and who catalog the tactics such liars use, is hurtful to actual abuse survivors. For instance, it is very plain to me how the false accusations made in the Duke Lacross rape case would be so hurtful to those who suffered real, rather than fabricated, abuse. But I fear I don’t follow how any criticism of the… Read more »

Kimberly Corley Tavernier
Guest
Kimberly Corley Tavernier

The OP was unclear to readers who may not be familiar with the story and could have been presented with the details that would have prevented misunderstanding.

His response makes no attempt to show gentleness or compassion to those who clearly misunderstood. In fact, it comes off as hostile, instead.

Daniel Fisher
Member

then if i understand you correctly, you do not find anything particularly objectionable about Pastor Wilson’s original post per se, only that he did not spell out clearly that Potiphar’s wife was in fact not a genuine victim but a false accuser? If so, I hear you, but at the same time 2 observations: First, He was making a clear reference to a Biblical story, one that would be very familiar I imagine to most of his readers. I recognize the responsibility to write clearly, but this was a biblical reference by a pastor to readers of his Christian blog;… Read more »

Jill Smith
Member
Jill Smith

Very well said. I understand why it would be so much easier to pretend that false accusations never occur. But they do, and unless they are dealt with properly, they will be used to detract from the credibility of genuine victims. This should not be a hard concept to grasp.

adad0
Member

Not to mention they detract from the credibility of the falsely accused! ????

Eagle_Eyed
Guest
Eagle_Eyed

Back to the kitchen, Kimberly

Billtownphysics
Guest
Billtownphysics

I think he adequately addressed your concern above. He said that when a woman makes an accusation, she should (must) be taken seriously, and the incident investigated seriously. But what his satirical post on Potiphar’s wife was about was the false religion that ALL women by definition are innocent victims and ALL men by definition are rapists. THAT is the false religion of the feminist goddess and if you can’t see that, you may be worshipping her without realizing it.

Michael Snow
Guest

Sad to say, most folk in this day will have no clue as to what the “vocative” is.
Thank you for a sobering and wonderful word for today.

Jill Smith
Member
Jill Smith

That’s because only a few of us oldsters had the “pleasure” of five years of mandatory Latin. It is one of the six cases (12 in all when you include plurals) that determine the ending of a noun. I wonder if any schools other than classical ones even offer Latin nowadays.

Kilgore T. Durden
Guest
Kilgore T. Durden

Nearly every curriculum I looked at for my homeschoolers had Latin. I still cannot understand why it is such a focus. I skipped it with my kids. I know Doug likes to show off his Latin skills, and for the life of me, I cannot think of how it can be used for anything beyond that or being an ancient Latin translator. I figured it would be better to give my kids some actually useful skills. If I were going to work that hard to learn a language, I would hope it would be one I could use today in… Read more »

lndighost
Member

I suppose the Latin goes with the focus on history that the classical model tends to have. And there is enough of it in our science terms to make it useful in that field. My GP father has often been thankful for his years of Latin. At any rate, it makes learning French an absolute breeze by comparison!

Jill Smith
Member
Jill Smith

This is probably heresy, but I do not see value in teaching Latin to children. Memory training is important, but it can be achieved by learning any foreign language. It is simply not true that Latin grammar is “more logical” than others–every language has its own logic. Learning any language seems to light up a portion of the brain, and I think foreign languages should be introduced while the brain is still very plastic. But I would much prefer the time and effort to be spent on a language the child can use. It is not the Latin that makes… Read more »

Daniel Fisher
Member

I am a huge proponent of teaching classical language to children. But I for the life of me I cannot understand the preference of Latin over Greek. Teaching Greek to children would accomplish near everything Latin is touted for, but then includes three obvious additional benefits: 1. It is still a live language. A student can use, and deepen, their knowledge of that language with people in the world for whom modern Greek is their first language. 2. It gives students exposure to reading and writing a non-latin alphabet, albeit one that is still significantly similar – a perfect opportunity… Read more »

lndighost
Member

I chose Greek for reason 3. It has been really helpfuI, especially in frightening away Jehovah’s Witnesses who come to the door…

“The original Greek says that? Really? Hang on, I’ll get my Greek bible and you can show me.”

Re: 1, I wonder how different modern Greek is from ancient. There was a Greek man in my Attic Greek class who didn’t seem to have any advantage over the anglophones.

Jill Smith
Member
Jill Smith

I read somewhere that it is about as similar as modern Italian is to Latin. I noticed, however, that native speakers in some of my German classes did not do significantly better than those who were learning it as a second language. They often excelled at conversation but, like the rest of us, struggled with grammar and composition.

Jane
Member

Reasons for Latin (or so I presume): You don’t have to learn a whole new alphabet, which means you can start more simply and gradually at younger ages. Yes, learning a new alphabet has advantages, but not having to has advantages if you want to make it a simpler undertaking that takes less time away from other areas of learning, or can progress faster. The grammar is more congruent with English. Also, you can’t have “it is still a live language” and “you can read the Bible in its original language” at the same time, really. They’re two pretty different… Read more »

Farinata degli Uberti
Guest
Farinata degli Uberti

The reason for learning and teaching Latin is the same as the reason for learning and teaching anything: Latin is beautiful. There are wonderful and noble things to be read in it, and a grand and glorious and infamous history that stretches back thousands of years. If you are a Christian in the Western Tradition, it is your history and heritage, whether you know it or not. Might as well ask if it is worthwhile to meet your grandparents.

Michael Hoffman
Guest
Michael Hoffman

This is certainly a major statement, largely because it nails the goddess abomination and because it is a clarion call to courage. This is heartening because I am often impelling myself to stand up against interest on profit from loans, which was for 1500 years almost unanimously regarded in Christian civilization as violating the law of God. This dogma held until German Catholic nominalists (this is while Calvin was still a child) and Italian-Catholic bankers, got their man on the papal throne (in the form of Medici Pope Leo X), and then incremental permission for profit on loans (usury) began… Read more »

John Warren
Member

Wut?

JK. Well spoken, Pastor.

Bryan Johnson
Guest
Bryan Johnson

I love the smell of burnt Doug Wilson.

adad0
Member

Is that smell similar to “burnt Marshwiggle?” Or “napalm in the morning?”
Or are they all about the same? ????

Tim Brenner
Guest
Tim Brenner

“False gospel invites you to blow sunshine at the goddess in the hope that she accepts you for now.”

This is a beautiful and particularly damning summation of what I see happening in so many Christian circles around me. It sticks in my craw, to be sure.

Ginny Yeager
Guest
Ginny Yeager

Thank, thanks, thanks, um wut?
This goddess is cruel and, above all else, a slave-driver. It (do devils have gender?) lies about Christ, saying He is a dictator, abusive, and controlling, when really it is IT who is those things. Please, pastors, keep hacking at this tree of feminism, root and branch as so many women are running faster and faster on the treadmill of feminism and want to get off, but don’t know how.

FeatherBlade
Guest
FeatherBlade

I’m sure that a devil can identify as whatever gender it wants.

Jill Smith
Member
Jill Smith

But if angels are all male, and devils are fallen angels, then they must be male as well. But, as FeatherBlade says, they can appear as anything.

Ryan Richetto
Guest
Ryan Richetto

Okay, who else had to google “vocative”? Be honest now…

melody
Member
melody

Feminists loudly proclaim that they they need no protection from men, thank you very much; and then at the first sign of trouble go running to the men they despise for help. At this point the men must be totally confused. What, exactly are the men supposed to do? For them, it seems a no-win situation – dammed if you, dammed if you don’t.

Jane
Member

Yes! But the answer to what the men are supposed to do, is whatever the feminists tell them and then apologize anyway.

melody
Member
melody

Yup.

steve poling
Guest
steve poling

I have another term for the Voices of Moderation (VOMs): concern trolls. They are as much agents of the enemy as the VOOs. When our Savior says, “get thee behind me, Satan,” he addressed his closest disciple who was offering helpful advice to moderate that extreme talk of suffering and dying on the cross.

msatty
Guest
msatty

Best thing I’ve read in 2017! Thanks, Doug!

Alex Spike
Guest
Alex Spike

Insightful and clear. Thanks for writing, for including the bolded clarification, for sharing the gospel with such clarity, and for showing the stark contrast between God and this vile goddess.