On Why Christian Women Are Prettier

Sharing Options

This particular train of thought was brought to you by a comment thread a few days ago. I posted a sermon outline, Sketch of a Godly Wife, and some of the things that popped up immediately made me realize that I had to develop this thought further. I can’t really go back and cite whatever comments were involved because as of this writing there are 244 comments and I can’t find the source of my inspiration.

So let me make my observation, set out my explanation for the phenomenon, and then defend my effrontery.

I make these observations, not as some kind of creepy journalist, but simply as someone with eyes in his head. I travel a good bit, spending time in airports and the like, and I have also done hard time at Christian conferences. Having been in this place, I am in a good position to state that there is a marked difference between Christian women and women in the general population. Christian women are a lot prettier.

Years ago I debated an atheist here in Moscow. He was from Beverly Hills, and as it turned out we were able to invite him to join our family for sabbath dinner after the debate. During the course of the debate, he had made a standard unbelieving point that the Christian faith is a misogynistic affair, citing a verse from Deuteronomy, if I remember correctly. But in the course of our dinner, he said to a friend of mine seated near him that he had never seen so many beautiful women as he had here in Moscow. My friend asked, “What does that tell you?” He replied, “It tells me they don’t live in Beverly Hills, that’s for sure.”

Here is my explanation for this. The phenomenon is grounded in the order of creation, and in the purpose of redemption. What are men and women made out of? The first man was made from the dust of the ground (Gen. 2:7), and he was made to be the image and glory of God (1 Cor. 11:7). But the raw material that went into the creation of Adam was dirt. The first woman was made from the rib of the first man, not from dirt (Gen. 2:22). This means that man was made into the image and glory of God out of dirt, and woman was made out of the image and glory of God to be the glory of man (1 Cor. 11:7).

This means that with regard to the importance of source materials, there is more wisdom in old nursery rhymes than in our current academy-approved gender studies.

Because man was created before the woman, the apostle tells us that he is the head, he is the authority (1 Tim. 2:11-14). Man surpasses woman in authority. But the order of creation tells us something else as well. If we are talking about glory, and not authority, woman surpasses man.

On creation days one, two and three, God created the structure. On days four, five and six, He came back through and filled it out. On the seventh day, He rested, filling that day with Himself. On day six, He created the man, and then He came back through and filled out that day, making it complete. He filled that day with glory by creating the woman.

In this sense, the creation order tells us something important about women. As God’s work of creation progresses through the creation week, it does so with ever-ascending glory. When man is created, He is almost done, but not quite. The capstone still must be placed. The crown must still be set. The final glory touch, the woman, must be presented to the man. So when we are talking about glory, the last thing created is the most glorious. That is the finishing touch, the final flourish.

The fall did not annihilate all this, but it did smash it into quite an impressive ruin. The dislocations and suspicions that have existed between the sexes ever since are a result of that fall (Gen.  3:16). But God did not abandon us in that miserable state, but resolved to send a Messiah, who is first named in Scripture as the “seed of the woman” (Gen. 3:15). The woman, the first one tempted, will eventually have her revenge on the serpent.

Now that Christ has come, and the process of rebuilding the great ruin has begun, one of the central things that must be rebuilt is life between the sexes. Both men and women were ruined, but they were both ruined according to their respective natures, and so when they are saved and sanctified, the process varies accordingly. Men must be rebuilt in the area of authority, learning how to take responsibility as a true head, without grasping, demanding, or browbeating. This is done by imitating Christ — so that men learn that authority bleeds, and never bullies.

And women must be rebuilt in the area of glory, learning how to be a true glory, without ostentatious or seductive display.

This is why apostles in the New Testament spend a surprising amount of time instructing Christian women on the importance of being beautiful. The contrast between Christian women and unbelieving women does not consist of the former not caring about beauty and the latter caring very much. The difference is to be between caring about beauty as wise women and caring about it as foolish women.

“Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear— but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious. For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands” (1 Peter 3:3–5, ESV).

This is not the apostolic equivalent of “make sure you have a nice personality.” This is not compensation for plain looks with a vivacious spirit. This is what the Bible teaches about the source and origin of all true and lasting beauty. This is the real thing. But take care that you do not take some worldly standard, and then try to use the Bible as a means of fulfilling that false standard.

“likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works.” (1 Timothy 2:9–10, ESV).

The command is not that Christian women should not adorn themselves, but rather that they should adorn themselves in a particular way. They should do it in a way that really works. They can adorn themselves without any selfishness because when they adorn themselves rightly, they are becoming the glory they were created to be. This is no porcelain doll glory, and does not leave out the facts of real life. The good works the godly women are genuine work. This is not written in defense of the old maxim, overly precious, that said horses sweat, men perspire, and women glow. And neither am I ignoring the fact that all of us age, and that there are such things as wrinkles. I have seen two elderly women in my life who were positively radiant–one was Edith Schaeffer, delivering a talk that was filled with glory, and the other was a woman playing the piano at a Salvation Army dive in Halifax, Nova Scotia.

Unbelieving women either compete for the attention of men through outlandish messages that communicate some variation of “easy lay,” or in the grip of resentment they give up the endeavor entirely, which is how we get lumberjack dykes. The former is an avid reader of Cosmopolitan and thinks she knows 15K ways to please a man in bed. The latter is just plain surly about the fact that there even are any men.

Let me anticipate a basic objection. This is my reason for writing about this in the first place. When I posted that sketch of a godly wife, one of the reactions was to point out that some women are not in a position to “have it all together.” They have really sick kids, they are hampered by sickness themselves, life is tough, they might not have the money for a nice dress and perfume, and so on. But this immediate retreat to the hard cases is simply a technique for refusing to let the Scriptures speak to us. If I were to say, as I do say, that husbands ought to work hard and provide for their families (1 Tim. 5:8), how is it on point to start yelling about a man you know who was laid off at the factory, broke both his legs the next day, and cannot begin to look for work for another couple months yet? The standard is set for us by God, and we work toward that standard as best we can. When obstacles and trials come, as they inevitably do, we are to carry our own burdens (Gal. 6:5), but we are also to make sure we help one another in the process (Gal. 6:2).

But it is no help at all to declare war on the standard itself. That is a false comfort, a lying trick, and a snare for keeping perpetual victims in bondage. It is an empathy that kills. It is therapeutic Ophrah-speak, and all the prisoners in the penitentiary are being trained to talk that way.

All of God’s standards in this fallen world are hard standards, and in the tyranny of false sympathy we have discovered a trick that can nullify absolutely every one of them. For every hard standard we find a hard case, and then we taunt anyone who still wants to achieve the standard.

This is another way of saying that some Christian women are sadly in the process of being deprived of their glory. They are listening to the serpent again, and they have falsely muddled the serpent’s faux-sympathy with Christian compassion. And the fact they are doing so registers in their faces. They are taking, to use my wife’s pithy expression, ugly pills.

But when we receive true forgiveness, when we receive God’s grace and kindness, when imputed righteousness is declared to be ours, He then gives us His standards as a token of His sanctifying love. We are no longer under condemnation, and have been set free to pursue the standard apart from the accusations of guilt. This grace is active and alive in this world, and is working wonderfully. And that is why Christian women are as gracious and as lovely and as glorious as they are.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
625 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Hailey Jenkins
Hailey Jenkins
4 years ago

This is absolutely true!

Ministry Addict
5 years ago

You would think that God is the one who made us different from each other. And that every good thing about us came from Him. And that, since we received it all as a gift, it makes no sense to be proud of it (or to grumble about it). Hm!

Pascal
Pascal
5 years ago

Only the good came from him? How about when his ‘plan’ includes the birth of hideously deformed children? Or stillborn infants? Or miscarriages?

Why? Sinful nature of fetuses? A lesson in pain and sorrow?

Some gift.

timothy
timothy
5 years ago
Reply to  Pascal

Job learned. Read it.

Pascal
Pascal
5 years ago
Reply to  timothy

Indeed, I have read it. Have you? It proves my point exactly.

Job was a great guy who became the victim of a careless wager between God and Satan. Even though he initially passed horrific tests of his faith, he eventually fell prey to a psychopathic deity.

He should have learned that God is sadistic and unworthy of worship (before you get offended by that statement, consider everything that happened to poor Job).

timothy
timothy
5 years ago
Reply to  Pascal

At the end of Job, God gives Job a tour of creation. Job is rendered speechless.
After having lost everything–including his family–at the end of the story,

Job worships God.

Ministry Addict
5 years ago
Reply to  Pascal

I am sorry if you were given a deformed child to care for, or if you or someone you love had a stillborn infant or a miscarriage. I truly I am. However, still: God’s only begotten Son and God Himself in a body of flesh enduring the wrath of God, that the people who hate Him deserve, so that we can be forgiven and receive eternal life. “Some gift!”

Pascal
Pascal
5 years ago

Thank you for your considerate reply. However, please consider that according to your theology, everything that happens is a result of God’s plan. This means that he knew he’d be betrayed by his own creation. In fact, he designed us that way. So, if we are created to ‘sin’, then we must also be punished for arriving at our own destiny? Then the son of God (but really him?), must also be brutally punished for something beyond our control? And we should be eternally thankful for this, despite our continued suffering? And, even before babies were born, God’s plan included… Read more »

Stan McCullars
Stan McCullars
5 years ago

Years ago, as new Christians engaged in pro-life demonstrations, we were always amazed at how better looking the pro-lifers were than the pro-dismemberment folks.

skinnercitycyclist
skinnercitycyclist
5 years ago
Reply to  Stan McCullars

What a pathetically juvenile bunch of people you are. Amazing.

timothy
timothy
5 years ago

Says the poster who’s discuss profile is a long train of one-liner snark. Got anything substantial to say?

skinnercitycyclist
skinnercitycyclist
5 years ago
Reply to  timothy

Something substantial to say concerning an article whose argument is that “Christian women are prettier”? Snark is as substantial as it gets for this topic.

Brian
Brian
5 years ago

I think the point has more to do with glorious redemption and fulfilling our purpose in God’s Created order, than boasting about the physical characteristics of Christian women.

Evan
Evan
5 years ago
Reply to  Brian

That’s way too deep for SCC to engage with Brian. He still thinks Jesus is an imaginary friend.

skinnercitycyclist
skinnercitycyclist
5 years ago
Reply to  Evan

And you think your imaginary friend is real. As is your right. And if you think it takes depth of intellect or character to believe in the explanatory power of a book written by multiple bronze age authors, you are simply nuts. As is your right.

I would also point out that I comment on this because it is being put out in public. I do not go around making a practice of gratuitously trashing the religious beliefs of others. And I do not go door to door insisting people believe the same way I do.

timothy
timothy
5 years ago

Well darn, I was just going to cut-n-paste your gratuitously trashing the religious beliefs of others and you made your disqus profile private before I could cut-n-paste.

Too bad I saw it, now I don’t believe you.

skinnercitycyclist
skinnercitycyclist
5 years ago
Reply to  timothy

Whut?

timothy
timothy
5 years ago

Your Disqus profile was public a day or two ago. I read some of your comments on other blogs. Nothing too offensive, but some definite ‘trash talk’ in your comment thread.

Drop it, its irrelevant to the discussion now that you have engaged elsewhere.

John F. Kennedy
John F. Kennedy
5 years ago

Do you have a problem with tin and/or copper too? Or, is it just when they are mixed together?

skinnercitycyclist
skinnercitycyclist
5 years ago

Great. Should I try the egg salad, and will you be here all week?

Evan
Evan
5 years ago

“And you think your imaginary friend is real. As is your right. And if you think it takes depth of intellect or character to believe in the explanatory power of a book written by multiple bronze age authors, you are simply nuts. As is your right”

Is this just your opinion? How do you know that is my right?

skinnercitycyclist
skinnercitycyclist
5 years ago
Reply to  Evan

You apparently have not read this document. Have a ball: http://billofrightsinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/BillofRights.pdf

skinnercitycyclist
skinnercitycyclist
5 years ago
Reply to  Evan

I see my comments are being moderated out, but you can discover that right is codified in the US Constitution under the First Amendment. You just have no clue, huh?

Evan
Evan
5 years ago

“in the US Constitution under the First Amendment”

Oh, just for Americans then?

“You just have no clue, huh?”

Maybe. Depends on what we’re talking about. 2,000 year old imaginary friends?

skinnercitycyclist
skinnercitycyclist
5 years ago
Reply to  Evan

I am an American, speaking from an American context. The US Constitution codifies the philosophy of the Declaration of Independence, which states that we have our rights on the basis of our common humanity. So, no, not just for Americans. My comment on your cluelessness was a reference to the fact that you seem unaware of the basis of our human rights. My apologies if you were being ironic somehow.

Evan
Evan
5 years ago

“I am an American, speaking from an American context”

You assumed I was an American. Are you ‘clueless’ about where I’m from? What else are you ‘clueless’ about I wonder?

“which states that we have our rights on the basis of our common humanity.”

So all humans have rights because …..they’re human?

“My comment on your cluelessness was a reference to the fact that you seem unaware of the basis of our human rights”

I am well aware of the basis for human rights which(since you asked so nicely) is the imago dei.

skinnercitycyclist
skinnercitycyclist
5 years ago
Reply to  Evan

You interpretation is “imago dei,” mine is common humanity. We can still agree that our rights are fundamental. Yes, humans have human rights because they are human. If we agree on that, why the pettifogging? You seem to be into sophistry.

Evan
Evan
5 years ago

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”

Is this a true statement?

skinnercitycyclist
skinnercitycyclist
5 years ago
Reply to  Evan

The way I take that, since I do not see any evidence for deity, is that we have rights by virtue of our status as human beings. “Creator” and other such verbiage in the DoI indicates Deism in the parlance of the time, and should not in any way be construed as positing anything other than an impersonal force from which existence springs. Understandable given the social context in which the document was written. Hope that helps.

Evan
Evan
5 years ago

*wink*. Well done. Human beings truly are masters at suppressing the truth in unrighteousness. I see you’re no exception. :)

“18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,[g] in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.” Romans 1:18-20

skinnercitycyclist
skinnercitycyclist
5 years ago
Reply to  Evan

Keep up the condescension, I find it amazingly convincing. Here is some scripture for you: “One morning, as Gregor Samsa was waking up from anxious dreams, he discovered that in bed he had been changed into a monstrous verminous bug. He lay on his armour-hard back and saw, as he lifted his head up a little, his brown, arched abdomen divided up into rigid bow-like sections. From this height the blanket, just about ready to slide off completely, could hardly stay in place. His numerous legs, pitifully thin in comparison to the rest of his circumference, flickered helplessly before his… Read more »

Evan
Evan
5 years ago

“Keep up the condescension, I find it amazingly convincing.” You err. Those aren’t my words. You are right about the condescension however. It is necessary when the Infinite communicates with the finite; or rather when the Glorious communicates with the contemptible, since the ‘distance’ between them is so vast. It is a merciful condescension though, God be praised! “Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,a 6who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant,b being… Read more »

skinnercitycyclist
skinnercitycyclist
5 years ago
Reply to  Evan

My literature is better, you lose, QED!

Evan
Evan
5 years ago

Well there it is then. I wish you the best. I’ll always remember your “humans have rights because…humans” claim. It makes smile just to mention it. :) Good day.

timothy
timothy
5 years ago

Yes, humans have human rights because they are human. If we agree on that

We do not. The source of our reasoning leads to radically different ends. If rights come from God then we order our lives one way; if not, then there are myriad ways–including an ordering without ‘human rights’.

skinnercitycyclist
skinnercitycyclist
5 years ago
Reply to  timothy

But we do agree, Timothy. You believe that humans have their rights from god, and that government may not take away such rights. I believe that humans have their rights by virtue of common humanity, and that government may not take away such rights. The essential point from the perspective of a civil society is that the government does not grant those rights and may not take them away. I understand we have a philosophical/ideological disagreement concerning the origin of those rights, but we can still agree that we have the rights and they are inalienable. Our ends need not… Read more »

timothy
timothy
5 years ago

Hi skinner. Regarding the ‘origin of rights’ that depends on if you are a materialist. If you are a materialist, then there is no such thing as a right. If you are not a materialist, then the fundamentals will be defined differently ans we will have radically different definitions of ‘rights’. Based on your understanding that the government is not the originator, but (supposed) guarantor of rights, it appears we have much in common there. However, there is another thing at work and that is God. You will not understand this and I certainty do not expect you to embrace… Read more »

skinnercitycyclist
skinnercitycyclist
5 years ago
Reply to  timothy

Also, do you ever sleep? ;-)

skinnercitycyclist
skinnercitycyclist
5 years ago
Reply to  Brian

So Christian women are more Christian than non-Christian women? That IS profound.

Monet
Monet
5 years ago
Reply to  Brian

You’ve made the point that you all are a bunch of anti-women fascists, well.

timothy
timothy
5 years ago

The subject is the sanctification of the Holy Spirit. Since you do not know God you know nothing of it. We who do know Him are discussing it. You mock what you know nothing of.
You call yourself smart.

skinnercitycyclist
skinnercitycyclist
5 years ago
Reply to  timothy

I do not think I called myself “smart,” but I will claim “educated.” And yeah, I suppose by “you do not know God” you mean I am not a Christian of your ilk, but I was raised 20 years in the Catholic Church and so know something of Xianity. I have taken courses in theology, and have read in comparative religion. I guess I can claim some intelligence, too, and actually the argument of this piece is about how Xian women are prettier. OK, so you have your own definition of “pretty,” just like you have your own definitions of… Read more »

timothy
timothy
5 years ago

Why did you ditch it?

skinnercitycyclist
skinnercitycyclist
5 years ago
Reply to  timothy

If you mean why am I no longer Catholic, because it gradually dawned on me what a load of crap it was. Why do you buy it? Not that I really care, because for most people religious beliefs are a harmless affectation for Sunday mornings. You seem to take it more seriously, though, and as long as you do not mess with other people you should be able to practice your religion as you like. There’s another restatement of the golden rule pour vous.

Todd
Todd
5 years ago

If your belief system doesn’t change how you go about your business, it’s not really a belief system, but a reassurance system. God demands all of us; to be Christian is to be changed from our natural state, not comforted in it. That you fail to grasp this tells me that you never were Christian regardless of how many classes you took.

skinnercitycyclist
skinnercitycyclist
5 years ago
Reply to  Todd

Ah yes, the “no true Scotsman” rejoinder. If you look at what I wrote, I said I was raised Catholic for twenty years. How much more Xian can you get? My belief system is one of humanism, and I hold it second to none, including your miserable death-cult. I am aware how conservative Xianity runs contrary to nature, and by that I mean the best in human nature. Other sorts of Xianity are more benign, and I really do not care what myths you or anyone tells himself, as long as you are not actively shoving it in my face… Read more »

Todd
Todd
5 years ago

Being a Catholic for 20 years has nothing to do with being Christian. The two aren’t mutually exclusive, but certainly not inclusive either. The fact that you say you were “Catholic” and not Christian proves my point. I was raised in the Lutheran church, but I don’t go around telling people that I’m a Lutheran, because that’s a divisive and unimportant identifier. What matters is that I’m Christian. As a Christian, I cannot “keep it to myself.” I find it very difficult to believe that in your twenty years of being “Catholic” no one told you that being Christian means… Read more »

skinnercitycyclist
skinnercitycyclist
5 years ago
Reply to  Todd

Another fundie bigot who narrows his club down till it’s just him and his dog. No True Scotsman. Your so-called arguments are tired, unconvincing.

And just to point out the simple-mindedness of your bigotry, I never said I was a “Xmas and Easter” Catholic. I was raised by hard-core Catholics, went to Mass every weekend, and was a seminarian studying theology for awhile. Have at it, Hoss.

Todd
Todd
5 years ago

First of all, if anyone is a bigot here, it is you. Do you even know what the word means? Explain to me why I am a bigot. Go ahead. I’ll wait. Secondly, as I had previously stated, just because you claim I’m using a logical fallacy doesn’t mean you’re correct. “No true Scotsman” doesn’t mean that everyone is always a member of a group as long as they insist upon it. Tell me, what does the Bible say about being a follower of Christ? What must you do? Finally, I have no idea of the veracity of any of… Read more »

skinnercitycyclist
skinnercitycyclist
5 years ago
Reply to  Todd

I called you a bigot because you seem to question whether Catholics are Christians. They consider themselves to be, and so do Mormons, so they are. If I misunderstood you, then I apologize. If I understood you just fine, then I guess you will just have to be a bigot. I understand Xianity very well, and I certainly do not need your approbation. The “no true Scotsman” comes from your doubting I was ever a Xian. It is what Xians often say about someone who used to be but no longer is a Xian. It’s tiresome and it’s stupid. Just… Read more »

Todd
Todd
5 years ago

So, to answer the first question: no, you do not know what a bigot is. Even if I did believe that being a Catholic excludes you from being a Christian (which I don’t, and never said or implied) that still wouldn’t make me a bigot. I, along with the rest of orthodox Christianity, including Catholics, do believe that Mormonism is not Christian. Neither does this make me a bigot. I would be a bigot if, because someone was Mormon, I decided that they must be stupid or sub-human, sort of like their official position on black folks until recently. Also,… Read more »

skinnercitycyclist
skinnercitycyclist
5 years ago
Reply to  Todd

To answer your first answer, yes, I do know what a bigot is. Growing up Catholic, I had many fundie Xians tell me I was not a Xian. That is bigotry towards Catholics. From your previous comment where you presumed to question my upbringing as a Xian, you implied, whether conscious of it or not, just such a view. I already wrote that I apologize if I was mistaken. As far as Mormons go, yes, you are a bigot because they call themselves Christians and you say they are not. All it does is reveal a distinction without a difference,… Read more »

Todd
Todd
5 years ago

I’m sorry you were mocked as a child because you were Catholic. You seem to have internalized that, and now take it out on anyone who would call themselves a Christian, especially those who would dare to point out that not everyone is; unfortunately that is the truth. How do I know? The Bible tells me so. You list many denominations as different ways of being Christian. That’s fine, but the Bible is very clear that there is one Church and one Body. If there is only one Church and one Body, then all Christians are members of it. How… Read more »

Jane Dunsworth
Jane Dunsworth
5 years ago

If you’re actually a German who hates haggis, you’re not a Scotsman, is not a “no true Scotsman” rejoinder. Please learn the difference between ruling people out on picayune details, and believing that groups only include people who fit the group description to some identifiable degree.

skinnercitycyclist
skinnercitycyclist
5 years ago
Reply to  Jane Dunsworth

All I can discern from your word-salad is that you deny that Catholics are Christians, am I reading you correctly? Or is this some sort of dada-esque attempt at performance art?

Pascal
Pascal
5 years ago

There is so much delicious irony inherent in the fact that anti-religious people are always more well informed about religiosity than the ‘saved’.

Familiarity breeds contempt. Ignorance is bliss.

skinnercitycyclist
skinnercitycyclist
5 years ago
Reply to  Pascal

Wanna bet, Pascal?

Pascal
Pascal
5 years ago

Ah, you’ve figured me out!

I’ll bet, but only if I can hedge it. ; )

Monet
Monet
5 years ago

You got that right.

Pascal
Pascal
5 years ago
Reply to  Stan McCullars

Meh, I always found the pro-lifers to be incredibly boring in bed.

Also, ‘pro-dismemberment’ is a sweet way of labeling young women who often get pressured into sex, usually under the influence of alcohol, and then are left with a pregnancy while they’re unfit (financially or otherwise) to raise a child.

That’s cool though. Make them feel like they tore their babies apart. Just like Jesus would blame.

Linda Stanton French
Linda Stanton French
5 years ago

Their peace and contentment shows in their demeanor and on their faces. It’s the sort of thing that’s hard to put your finger on, but when you see a woman who knows she can depend on God and her husband, she looks different.

Becky
Becky
5 years ago

That’s because she IS different. I have had conversations with other women about this; when wives follow God’s commands regarding how to be a good wife, it is amazing how well a good husband will respond. Soft words turn away wrath, for instance. I don’t yell at or emasculate my husband, either in public or in private, and we never get into screaming matches. Instead, he may show a stubborn side but I calmly and quietly tell him my thoughts and leave him to think on them. This creates so much harmony between us. And I never deny him intimacy.… Read more »

Former Literalist
Former Literalist
5 years ago

I agree, Doug. That’s why Muslim women are so beautiful. Nothing screams beauty like covering up to show how submissive you are to your husband/God.

Linda Stanton French
Linda Stanton French
5 years ago

You’ve shown your lack of knowledge and your motive now.

Tim Paul
Tim Paul
5 years ago

Cancerous and vile is who are.

Matt
Matt
5 years ago

Muslim majority countries present an interesting case for this argument. I guess they’re all just hideous.

katecho
katecho
5 years ago
Reply to  Matt

How would we know? Their glory seems to be forbidden to them, even if they actually have it naturally.

holmegm
holmegm
5 years ago

It’s funny how you get that so backward.

Muslims are like the crazy fears of anti-Christians actually come to life. Watch Handmaid’s Tale and try to tell me that it isn’t really (accidentally) about Islam, though it is intended to be a fever dream of people who are afraid of Christians.

Reformed Roy
Reformed Roy
5 years ago

After reading, I put the over/under at 3 comments before the inevitable derail.
The one trick ponies make me tired all over.

RandMan
RandMan
5 years ago

Ok, that is some serious laughable and shameful pandering Doug. I am actually surprised.

Hmmm…. Apparently you ungrateful woman weren’t satisfied with being ‘home executives’. *tosses bone* “Gee golly, christian women sure are the purdiest!” “Even an atheist can see that!”

Aw shucks Doug. All is forgiven.

Linda Stanton French
Linda Stanton French
5 years ago
Reply to  RandMan

Wow. What sarcasm. Your attitude is….well, I don’t know how to describe it, but I bet you don’t like people making negative, unknowledgeable assumptions about you.

AA
AA
5 years ago

Negative, unknowledgeable assumptions like blithely calling someone who wears an undercut and some flannel a “lumberjack dyke” who resents that men even exist?

Jane Dunsworth
Jane Dunsworth
5 years ago
Reply to  AA

Because there’s no such thing as “lumberjack dyke” style, at all, and no women who deliberately present themselves that way.

He didn’t say anything about haircuts and flannel in that paragraph, now did he? It was your choice to make that a broadcast criticism of haircuts and fabric choices, while being determined to pretend that the category doesn’t exist at all.

AA
AA
5 years ago
Reply to  Jane Dunsworth

Deliberate misreading. Certainly there is a world of style diversity. To pretend that it has anything to do with men is assuming a whole ton.

Jane Dunsworth
Jane Dunsworth
5 years ago
Reply to  AA

You seriously don’t believe there are women out there who choose an aggressively unfeminine look because they have issues with men?

The requirements of rhetorical necessity don’t, and never have, limited the ways in which people can be weird, resentful, or messed up.

RandMan
RandMan
5 years ago
Reply to  Jane Dunsworth

I guess it is a really slow burn?

Steve H
Steve H
5 years ago
Reply to  Jane Dunsworth

Oh Snap! AA got burned!!

DCHammers
DCHammers
5 years ago
Reply to  Jane Dunsworth

AA should just give up and go home after that one. He is totaled.

RandMan
RandMan
5 years ago

Need I point out that this is a blog post? There is nothing really to assume.

Tim Paul
Tim Paul
5 years ago
Reply to  RandMan

Mocker. You’ll have your day, soon.

Matt
Matt
5 years ago
Reply to  Tim Paul

Actually, it’s you guys that keep losing. Maybe take a hint?

timothy
timothy
5 years ago
Reply to  Matt

You keep using that word. It does not mean what you think it means.

Matt
Matt
5 years ago
Reply to  timothy

All part of your master plan then.

JohnM
JohnM
5 years ago
Reply to  Matt

Matt, If you really believed that you wouldn’t bother here. Get your goat, do we? Now ask yourself how a bunch of losers can do that.

Matt
Matt
5 years ago
Reply to  JohnM

On the contrary, it’s precisely because I believe that that I bother.

Well, that and the entertainment value. It is splendid.

Tim Paul
Tim Paul
5 years ago
Reply to  Matt

Matt speaks from the perspective of the natural man. “Losing?” What does losing actually mean given your atheistic assumptions? Ethical and epistemic judgements have no basis in your quasi- Darwinian world. Matt’s a despicable leech that uses Christian worldview epistemic capital to make his denouncements of Christianty meaningful. Parasite alert.

guester
guester
5 years ago
Reply to  Tim Paul

“Matt’s a despicable leech”
Whoah. Some Christlike namecalling, there.

"A" dad
"A" dad
5 years ago
Reply to  guester

I thought it was more like Daffy Duck?

Jane Dunsworth
Jane Dunsworth
5 years ago
Reply to  guester

I’m not big into name calling, but you’re right, viper would have been more Christlike.

Literally.

guester
guester
5 years ago
Reply to  Jane Dunsworth

Oh, you mean Jesus’ name-calling of the scribes and Pharisees? As I’m sure you know, Jesus used the word “viper” to describe hypocritical religious leaders.

It’s in Matthew 23 ““Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites!…
33“You snakes! You brood of vipers!”

So your name calling is only Christlike if Matt is a hypocritical religious leader. I don’t know, is he?

Jane Dunsworth
Jane Dunsworth
5 years ago
Reply to  guester

That assumes that the name calling is justified in that situation, and that one only. I don’t know, is it?

Maybe, for example, it applies to anyone who is disingenuous or rebellious, like the hypocritical religious leaders were?

guester
guester
5 years ago
Reply to  Jane Dunsworth

That would be a non-literal interpretation of the text, but if that’s how you like to interpret Scripture, fine.

Jane Dunsworth
Jane Dunsworth
5 years ago
Reply to  guester

It’s not non-literal, it’s just not completely narrow. It simply doesn’t assume that one salient characteristic out of all the possible common characteristics of a group, is the one that is being targeted by the rebuke. What, precisely, within the literal reading of the text, leads you to the conclusion that the characteristic of “hypocritical religious leader” is the exclusive characteristic of the Pharisees to which Jesus objected? Scripture as a whole has harsh language for the proud, false, and rebellious, which sometimes take the form of hypocrisy, and sometimes other forms. That’s called “intelligent” interpretation. In this case, it’s… Read more »

guester
guester
5 years ago
Reply to  Jane Dunsworth

The problem with your argument, Jane, is that Jesus certainly came in contact with other people who were disingenuous and rebellious. But he used the word “viper” only for the scribes and Pharisees.

Jane Dunsworth
Jane Dunsworth
5 years ago
Reply to  guester

Yeah, but He didn’t hold back in the Old Testament, through the words of the apostles, or in Revelation.

guester
guester
5 years ago
Reply to  Jane Dunsworth

Jane says “What, precisely, within the literal reading of the text, leads you to the conclusion that the characteristic of “hypocritical religious leader” is the exclusive characteristic of the Pharisees to which Jesus objected? Well, in Matthew 23 it’s probably the fact that Jesus actually used the word “hypocrite” seven times? Did you read the passage before you wrote this comment? While you can certainly connect the sins of hypocrisy to other sins of pride and rebellion, Jesus’ focus in the passage is quite clear. And he lists very specific hypocrisies within their religious practice, so the focus on their… Read more »

Jane Dunsworth
Jane Dunsworth
5 years ago
Reply to  guester

Why are they hypocrites? What does “hypocrite” mean? Disingenuous, self-serving people who use rules to exalt themselves over others, rather than as a measure for themselves, maybe?

I wasn’t suggesting that Jesus wasn’t targeting hypocrisy — the point is that it’s not required by the context that merely the hypocrisy of “religious leaders” is in view. Maybe anybody who’s hypocritical or otherwise partakes of the things that make the Pharisees hypocritical might come in for similar rebuke?

guester
guester
5 years ago
Reply to  Jane Dunsworth

Jane says “Why are they hypocrites? What does “hypocrite” mean?””

Oh, do just read the passage Jane. While you can certainly find other minor readings of the text, Jesus’ main focus on the hypocrisy of religious leaders is quite clear, and he defines what he means by hypocrisy right at the beginning! “for they say, and do not”, which is where we get the modern idiom of “doesn’t practice what they preach.” I don’t see the point in arguing this any more.

Jane Dunsworth
Jane Dunsworth
5 years ago
Reply to  guester

Precisely. So why can’t one criticize anybody who “says and does not” with the same language that Jesus uses? Disingenuous self-exaltation by means of rules is really just a more wordy way of saying “say and do not.” So I was wordy — my bad, and a particular failing of mine. I am not saying that Matt “says and does not,” I’m saying that your standard of “you can only name call hypocritical religious leaders” is inaccurate. So the question of whether Matt is a hypocritical religious leader was the wrong question. If you’d asked whether he was guilty of… Read more »

guester
guester
5 years ago
Reply to  Jane Dunsworth

I will say one more time, please. read. the. passage, Jane. It is all about the scribes and Pharisees, and specifically targets their practice as religious leaders. Jesus himself does not extend the condemnation of his words to *anybody* who says and does not. If you would like to do so on the basis of some other passage or justification, you are extending this discussion well beyond your own original context of your use of the word “viper”, which is specific to Matthew 23. I’m not particularly interested in that discussion, so you’re on your own. As to your assertion… Read more »

Dunsworth
Dunsworth
5 years ago
Reply to  guester

Again, per the Old and New Testaments, unless you’re going to throw out the inspiration of scripture and the doctrine of the Trinity, Jesus used all kinds of language and devastating condemnation against all kinds of people.

Matt
Matt
5 years ago
Reply to  Jane Dunsworth

I find viper kind of flattering. Who knew you people were so threatened by some comments on the internet?

guester
guester
5 years ago
Reply to  Matt

But are you truly a hypocritical religious leader, Matt? Are you? Huh?

Matt
Matt
5 years ago
Reply to  guester

Is there another kind?

guester
guester
5 years ago
Reply to  Matt

Well, yes. I am proud to have a very kind and deeply sincere pastor as a Dad. But he doesn’t blog or lord his authority over others so perhaps to this crowd he’s no leader at all. Cheers to you, Matt.

Jane Dunsworth
Jane Dunsworth
5 years ago
Reply to  Matt

I’m not threatened and like I said, I generally refrain from the name-calling. But if someone is going to pull the Jesus card, I’m going to call foul when they misuse His name to make a point that He actually doesn’t agree with.

Matt
Matt
5 years ago
Reply to  guester

I’m more annoyed that he seems to think Christians invented the idea of losing, and that before Christianity no one had any idea what that was.

guester
guester
5 years ago
Reply to  Matt

Ha! Multiple usages of the word “epistemic” do not an argument make. I honestly couldn’t figure out the point of his word salad.

RandMan
RandMan
5 years ago

Spit-take of the day:

“Unbelieving women either compete for the attention of men through outlandish messages that communicate some variation of “easy lay,” or in the grip of resentment they give up the endeavor entirely, which is how we get lumberjack dykes.”

Finally someone had the courage to voice out loud what we have always known to be the only two behavioral options open to non-christian women.

Rob Steele
Rob Steele
5 years ago
Reply to  RandMan

Don’t forget “ugly pills”. Wait, you’re being sarcastic, aren’t you? I’m not. I think “ugly pills” is the best thing I’ve read in a week.

RandMan
RandMan
5 years ago
Reply to  Rob Steele

Shrug. Short for pillock. Which in England back in the day was a rederence to anatomy, also beginning with p. Probably far enough removed for a pastor’s wife to get away with as a slur.

I don’t find Douglas intentionally funny. Bordering occasionally on farcical, but not really that witty.

JakeJ
JakeJ
5 years ago
Reply to  RandMan

Are you 13? Methinks you’re trying too hard to find dirty references.

guester
guester
5 years ago
Reply to  JakeJ

Umm, that’s the actual etymology of the word, Jake. Maybe look it up. Doug prides himself on superfluously ornate vocabulary, so surely he knows the origin of the word pill. He must, mustn’t he, being so clever? And an Anglophile, too? I assure you that graduates of the *real* St. Andrew’s (that one in Scotland) would.

JakeJ
JakeJ
5 years ago
Reply to  guester

Charitably, I think you guys are missing the beginning of the sentence. He says, “They are taking […] ugly pills.” It does not say, “they are […] ugly pills.” Given what he said, I see no connection between a pill you take and a pillock or other word that begins with p. If I’m missing something obvious, feel free to point it out.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=pill

katecho
katecho
5 years ago
Reply to  JakeJ

I think what we are witnessing is desperation from guester and RandMan.

RandMan
RandMan
5 years ago
Reply to  katecho

me terribly desperate.

guester
guester
5 years ago
Reply to  JakeJ

I think it was just RandMan being witty, Jake.

JakeJ
JakeJ
5 years ago
Reply to  guester

Oh good. You guys had me worried there. Glad we cleared that up!

Dave
Dave
5 years ago
Reply to  guester

Wow man! You should take a chill pill.

guester
guester
5 years ago
Reply to  Dave

Ha! Pills are everywhere now.

Rob Steele
Rob Steele
5 years ago
Reply to  RandMan

Pretty sure Mrs. Wilson means medicine. Wouldn’t make sense in context otherwise.

"A" dad
"A" dad
5 years ago
Reply to  RandMan

Randi, did you really have to make me think of that Monty Python song? “She’s a lumberjack and she’s OK……….; – )

denise njim
denise njim
5 years ago

Today’s reading from Utmost says it pretty well. To have a Master and to be mastered is not the same thing.

katie
katie
5 years ago
Reply to  denise njim

Elisabeth Eliot has said that only a woman who is master of herself can truly *willingly* submit herself to another. Jane Eyre taught me that too.

PerfectHold
PerfectHold
5 years ago

To your atheist debate partner’s observation:

Not to borrow too much from Freud, but the unwarped, or rather less-damaged, males find “mother essence” to be the highest form of sexual attractiveness.

When we see something close to idealized motherhood, we see glow = purity, dedication, joy, other-centeredness, obedience to God, love.

I suggest that rape can be man’s desperate and warped attempt to capture & contain & devour rather than extinguish such glory.

Drihtnes
Drihtnes
5 years ago

The heathen Libanius, the enthusiastic eulogist of old Grecian culture, pronounced an involuntary eulogy on Christianity when he exclaimed, as he looked at the mother of Chrysostom: “What women the Christians have!”

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc1.i.VIII.46.html?

Matt
Matt
5 years ago

This was a good troll. I had been wondering if you still had it, but I think you’ll get them with this one. The combination of utter conjecture, rampant confirmation bias, and disparagement of those outside the tribe…9/10 sir.

jesuguru
jesuguru
5 years ago
Reply to  Matt

“good troll… utter conjecture, rampant confirmation bias, and disparagement of those outside the tribe”

Impressive unintentional self-reference…11/10

Matt
Matt
5 years ago
Reply to  jesuguru

What, that’s it? “I know you are but what am I”? You sadden me, sir.

jesuguru
jesuguru
5 years ago
Reply to  Matt

What more would you want? You get what you give, which in your OP was very little. And technically, it’d be more akin to “I know you are but what is he?” Hope that cheers you up. Sir.

Sandra Koke
Sandra Koke
5 years ago

Lovely stuff – thank you very much. So thankful for the way you support women.

timothy
timothy
5 years ago

Observe how a post on Beauty brings out the ugly in the comment section. In the same way evil hates good because it is good, so it hates Beauty for being Beautiful. Truly, Beauty is of God.

Pastor Wilson, a fun experiment would be a post on all the Virtues just to see the principle in action.

BTW, Roger Scruton has some good modern work on the subject https://vimeo.com/112655231

RandMan
RandMan
5 years ago
Reply to  timothy

Deepity: Something that sounds profound but intellectually hollow.
Usually has the following characteristics. 1. True but trivial 2. False but logically ill informed. 3. Usually a use-mention error

timothy
timothy
5 years ago
Reply to  RandMan

Dippity: A modern American who thinks History started with him.
Deepity Dippity: The type of modern American who thinks he profound but is intellectually shallow.
Deepity Dippity Do: The reaction of the typical Deepity Dippity to any idea greater outside his experience.
Deepity Dippity DipShit: the sort of man who does not question where all his blessings comes from and who thinks that civilization and nice things are the given in life, are solely the product of man’s reason and will always be there getting better.

guester
guester
5 years ago
Reply to  timothy

What is it with you Dougites and the cussing? Is that something Christ Church promotes?

timothy
timothy
5 years ago
Reply to  guester

It is something I need to stop. There is seldom need for it and in this case I should have found a better word; DipStick did not have the required “oomph”.

guester
guester
5 years ago
Reply to  timothy

Appreciate your honesty, Timothy. Cussing generally detracts from the point you might wish to make.

RandMan
RandMan
5 years ago
Reply to  timothy

timothy

Yes, if you edit the above for content I won’t hold it against you.

The language is fine with me. It’s the lack of imagination that I find disappointing. Try again!

timothy
timothy
5 years ago
Reply to  RandMan

You are not my Judge and you are not the Holy Spirit who prods my conscience. What you just witnessed, in this series of comments it the work of the Holy Spirit. He constantly works to Sanctify me into His image. With me, He is quite gentle and quiet; its akin to dawn on the horizon–“look at what I have for you” is the sense–there is no consternation, rather a chuckle and a skip along the way. God delights in His children–of which I am one–and He is a Joyful God–like hanging out with a fellow 10 year old. Beware,… Read more »

RandMan
RandMan
5 years ago
Reply to  timothy

Huh.

timothy
timothy
5 years ago
Reply to  RandMan

What I admired about the late atheist Christopher Hitchen’s was his courtesy in understanding the position of those he debated.

He know the principles of The Gospel and Sanctification.

You repeatedly demonstrate you lack his courtesy. Furthermore, Hitchen’s was capable of quite a bit more than snark and smugness.

Why should I take you seriously RandMan? You have yet to give me a reason to.

Are you interested in these ideas? Do you understand them? Or you just prefer to strut?

Nonna
Nonna
5 years ago
Reply to  timothy

“You repeatedly demonstrate you lack courtesy.”

You, Timothy, who insult people using vulgarity and profanity have the audacity to admonish Randman for lacking in courtesy? Oh, the irony of it all! Someone who defends his potty mouth has the nerve to be the arbiter of what courteous is. Surely you must see the absurdity.

timothy
timothy
5 years ago
Reply to  Nonna

Nonna,

Another day, please ask me why I sometimes employ blunt, forceful language. I do it purposefully during pretty specific circumstances. I am too tired from today’s labor to think anymore so I will not engage further tonight.

Also, please pray for me and ask God about me.

Blessings.

t

RandMan
RandMan
5 years ago
Reply to  timothy

The gospel is fairly easy to understand. So yes, I understand it. I am very interested in ideas. Both good ones and bad ones.

I do not require you to take me seriously or even consider me at all. Feel free not to.

I just wanted you to be a little more creative if you are going to try an burn me with a poetic reconstruction exercise. I like a good burn. Who doesn’t? Lighten up.

timothy
timothy
5 years ago
Reply to  RandMan

I just wanted you to be a little more creative if you are going to try
an burn me with a poetic reconstruction exercise. I like a good burn.
Who doesn’t?

I enjoy the banter too.

Lighten up.

No. Ideas are much more fun than banter; There is great joy in learning and doing difficult things. Smack talk is just for relaxing; like playing fetch with a puppy.

The gospel is fairly easy to understand. So yes, I understand it.

Please tell me what it is. Think Gollum and Bilbo in the cave playing the game of riddles.

RandMan
RandMan
5 years ago
Reply to  timothy

timothy my precious, you can have your cave and your riddles. I’ll stay out here. You are welcome to join me!

timothy
timothy
5 years ago
Reply to  RandMan

You are welcome to join me!

Frivolity bores me so no thank you.

Its interesting how you use rhetoric to evade and avoid.

Michael Hutton
Michael Hutton
5 years ago

This is an interesting observation from an impartial atheist. And not to take anything away from the theologydeveloped, in fact to reinforce it, but is it also as simple as we are all “prettier” when we smile. And Christians who know the joy of sin’s weight lifted have a lot to smile about, and as they cultivate a character of gratitude to God they find even more???

skinnercitycyclist
skinnercitycyclist
5 years ago
Reply to  Michael Hutton

You are buying into their premise and it is bullshit, reinste Kuhscheiße.

Leslie
Leslie
5 years ago

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. And it is a subjective topic. Some groups or mind sets consider one type of woman to be beautiful, while beauty to another group or mindset might be quite different.

timothy
timothy
5 years ago
Reply to  Leslie

If does have characteristics and it was the object of serious study in Greek Philosophy (iirc).

"A" dad
"A" dad
5 years ago

Or as God said, about godly women and men……. Jeremiah 17:7-9 7 “But blessed is the one who trusts in the Lord, whose confidence is in him. 8 They will be like a tree planted by the water that sends out its roots by the stream. It does not fear when heat comes; its leaves are always green. It has no worries in a year of drought and never fails to bear fruit.” 9 The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it? And Hey! This passage even has a part about trolls! (and the… Read more »

andrewlohr
andrewlohr
5 years ago

Awhile back I noticed the same thing–Christian women tend to be prettier–and made it the basis for a gospel tract “How to look 30% prettier.” Here’s a link: http://yakjam.com/how-to-look-30-prettier-why-christian-ladies-are-prettier-than-non-christians/

(yakjam must have copied it, which is fine with me, before my version vanished from the web, but I wrote it. I can’t find mine at my wordpress blog. It might be in “Look to Jesus” on a web archive that includes my dead website http://www.lohr84.com .)

Kelly M. Haggar
Kelly M. Haggar
5 years ago

A Protestant minister’s take on the creation of woman; slightly over 300 years old: “The woman was made of a rib out of the side of Adam; not made out of his head to rule over him, nor out of his feet to be trampled upon by him, but out of his side to be equal with him, under his arm to be protected, and near his heart to be beloved.” As to all the “Pastor Doug won’t confess” to- and fro-, I briefly toyed with making a few points but have instead decided to follow another minister’s thoughts, also… Read more »

Becky
Becky
5 years ago

One of the biggest arguments between believers and non believers stems, I think, from the lack of understanding of the idea of men being the head of the family, and of women submitting to that. For me, this means that the husband has a responsibility before God to lead his family, to ensure their understanding of scripture, to guide them towards righteousness, to steer them from poor choices, and to provide for and protect them. A woman is instructed to submit to her husbands instruction, to be his partner in raising righteous, God fearing children, and to display the attributes… Read more »

guester
guester
5 years ago
Reply to  Becky

“One of the biggest arguments between believers and non believers stems, I think, from the lack of understanding of the idea of men being the head of the family, and of women submitting to that.” This is mostly a source of significant disagreement *within* the church: between believers. Most non-believers (at least in the west) just reject the idea and move on; they don’t feel inclined to debate Scriptural interpretation when they’re not even of the faith. Believers, on the other hand, significantly disagree on the interpretation of Scripture on this issue and many others, and always have. Note for… Read more »

Sara
Sara
5 years ago
Reply to  Becky

“I think Christian marriages are much more equal than those of non believers, where in this day and age the wives rule the roosts more often than not.”

I think you are wrong about that. I am surrounded by secular, non-Christian couples and nobody “rules the roost” in those relationships. They strive for partnerships where communication and mutual love and respect are valued. It isn’t about who has authority over who, it’s about equality.

Barnabas
Barnabas
5 years ago

When the feminine virtues are denigrated, hotness is all that’s left.
http://freenortherner.com/2015/03/15/hotness-is-all-thats-left/

Barnabas
Barnabas
5 years ago

The secular left is now anti-beauty. You could look at this story as an example http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/protein-world-are-you-beach-5621257
..or you could take a stroll through MOMA. Why would the secular left cede beauty to religion or the right wing? Its the logical outcome of the transition from a dignity culture to a victim culture that Jonathan Haidt described. Weakness is strength. Signaling against beauty or health signals victim status making moral and political claims on the larger society.

guester
guester
5 years ago

Excellent link, thanks. When Wilson reduces “unbelieving women” to either easy lays or lumberjack dykes, he is talking about people’s mothers and grandmothers and daughters and sisters. That’s a really, really ugly thing for him to do. Doug Wilson says: “Unbelieving women either compete for the attention of men through outlandish messages that communicate some variation of “easy lay,” or in the grip of resentment they give up the endeavor entirely, which is how we get lumberjack dykes. The former is an avid reader of Cosmopolitan and thinks she knows 15K ways to please a man in bed. The latter… Read more »

Steven
Steven
5 years ago
Reply to  guester

That statement by Wilson really bothered me as well. I *think* I get what he’s saying: a naturalistic worldview will, taken to its logical end, recognize that beauty is an important means to the end of sexual fulfillment (and all that may mean). Tautologically, I guess, being attractive is the best way to attract a desirable mate. Some people will embrace this to the extreme, and will, as a result flaunt their plumage in order to lure any prospective mate in. Others will reject the paradigm, wholesale, though, and as a consequence, there will be those who kick against the… Read more »

RandMan
RandMan
5 years ago

Yes, Doug is radical and punching through barriers of understanding here. He takes timeless ancient wisdom and expands it outward in one big intellectual push: madonna, whore and (drum roll) lesbian. Seriously, thank you for the personal touch. “I guess he must be describing my mother because she is not a Christian — but I am not sure at what point in her life she quite fitted this description. I must have missed it. When she married, still chaste, at 20? Throughout her 46 years of faithful, devoted marriage to dad? When she patiently and lovingly nursed him through his… Read more »

Benjamin Bowman
5 years ago

Joy is attractive.

timothy
timothy
5 years ago

In all the talk of “authority” keep in mind this attribute of it. It is very hard to do and humbling. The Christian virtues are paramount in getting the job done correctly and a leader who will not or cannot or does not know to delegate will pay the price. Yest, at some critical times the leader must choose–and sometimes they choose wrongly–yet most of the time the happiest thing for all involved is teamwork and mutual support and help. It looks like the “Authority/Submission” topic brings out the same sort of “either/or” views that “Love/Judgement” does. They dynamic is… Read more »

Lucinda
Lucinda
5 years ago

This is the most ungodly thing I’ve ever read, from one of the most ungodly men on the planet. Congratulations.

Job
Job
5 years ago
Reply to  Lucinda

Will you be serving us barefoot at the celebration?

ashv
ashv
5 years ago
Reply to  Lucinda

I recommend reading salon.com for a few days to get a better perspective.

mike
mike
5 years ago

You brother, with all due respect, pick fight after fight, which leaves you in constant conflict. Which at some point, you have to ask yourself “have I completely forgotten to keep the main thing the main thing?” When you’re always at the center of debate/conflict, maybe you are the biggest of the problems/issues?

ashv
ashv
5 years ago
Reply to  mike

The battle doesn’t stop when people run away from it.

Job
Job
5 years ago
Reply to  ashv

Exactly. Wilson wouldn’t always be out there fighting by himself if the rest of the line had held.

guester
guester
5 years ago
Reply to  mike

“When you’re always at the center of debate/conflict, maybe you are the biggest of the problems/issues?”

An apt description of Doug Wilson.

Jane Dunsworth
Jane Dunsworth
5 years ago

As I posted on the other thread, I need to let this rest. I think I’ve answered everything directed specifically to me so far (I apologize if something has slipped by) and I’m pretty sure I’ve said what I needed to say. Until another thread….

Nord357
Nord357
5 years ago
Reply to  Jane Dunsworth

I appreciate the work you put in here Jane. God bless.

DCHammers
DCHammers
5 years ago
Reply to  Jane Dunsworth

Doug said an EPIC post was on the way and this was truly epic. And to Jane Dunsworth goes the title “Troll Killer,” as there was nothing left of their arguments after her devastating responses.

Urthman
Urthman
5 years ago

It seems a more likely explanation is that your community tends to drive away women who don’t measure up to your beauty standard.

Nord357
Nord357
5 years ago
Reply to  Urthman

Something like, “You cant be a member at Christ Church if your wife or daughter doesnt match the beauty standard”?

Valerie (Kyriosity)
5 years ago
Reply to  Nord357

We have a brown paper bag test. If you look better with it over your head, your membership is denied.

Nord357
Nord357
5 years ago

I was going to suggest that Urthman write an opinion letter to the Lewiston Tribune to that effect. I don’t get nearly enough comic relief out of that. And now I am off to tell my wife and daughter that I have objective proof of their beauty.

Reformed Roy
Reformed Roy
5 years ago

That actually rings somewhat true. Any scripture to back it up?

Urthman
Urthman
5 years ago
Reply to  Nord357

There are lots of ways, subtle and overt, intentional and unintentional, that communities let people know that they don’t fit in and don’t belong. This article by Wilson is one of the more overt ones.

Nord357
Nord357
5 years ago
Reply to  Urthman

I would say it requires uncharitable reading bordering on malicious intent to get that out of this post.

Former Literalist
Former Literalist
5 years ago

So if I’m a non-Christian woman, either I’m asking for it or I’m a hideous lesbian? That explains a lot about your theology on non-Christian women, actually. As well as your theology of abuse. (Doug’s obvious response: poor soul, can’t take a joke, must be a hideous lesbian or a twinkie in a tight push-up bra).

Reformed Roy
Reformed Roy
5 years ago

You were absolutely asking for it. Just look at what you were wearing.

connie
connie
5 years ago

So is my unsaved mother a whore, or a dyke? If you want to be a humorous essayist/philosopher, go do that but these sorts of posts are unbecoming one who holds the position of Christian minister. If our conversation is to be gracious, seasoned with salt, can you see where this essay fails the test? I am trying to be gracious and respectful but I am thankful my own pastors would never say these sorts of things. It isn’t just unsaved folk who are disturbed by your writings. Why not consider our objections soberly? Better now than before the judgement… Read more »

April Fiet
5 years ago

If following Jesus teaches us much of anything, one of the major things should be that it’s not the outside that conveys the truth nearly as much as what’s on the inside. Why does it matter how pretty a woman is?

Steve H
Steve H
5 years ago
Reply to  April Fiet

It matters in the same way (but more) as it matters how ripe a tomato is.

DCHammers
DCHammers
5 years ago
Reply to  April Fiet

We have many plain appearing women in our church who are beautiful. This beauty isn’t Cosmo beauty.

Sara
Sara
5 years ago

Well, it’s good to know that as a non-Christian woman I’m either a shallow, sex-obsessed person who reads nothing but Cosmo or a “lumberjack dyke.” Funny, I find myself not fitting into either category. Additionally, I’d like to think that I have more to offer the world than just how “pretty” I am anyway. I take a certain amount of pride in my appearance, but at the end of the day I’d rather people think I was smart or interesting or funny rather than just another pretty face. I’m a human being, not an ornament.

DCHammers
DCHammers
5 years ago
Reply to  Sara

Couldn’t agree more Sara. But given that one of the biggest industries in our country is that revolving around the appearance of both men and women, physical appearance is obviously a big deal. However, my point above is that beauty in human beings is so much more than physical appearance. I think that was likely the point of Wilson’s post as well. There is no statistical reason to think that there would be more physically attractive people inside or outside the church.

Sara
Sara
5 years ago
Reply to  DCHammers

If beauty in human beings is so much more than physical appearance then why does Doug Wilson insult people who aren’t conventionally attractive, such as the so-called “lumberjack dykes” he references above? I know people who I think probably fit that description and I certainly do think that they are lovely people even if they don’t conform to societal expectations of female beauty. But I doubt Doug Wilson would agree.

guester
guester
5 years ago
Reply to  DCHammers

Actually, Wilson emphasizes the fact that he is referring directly to physical appearance. “I make these observations, not as some kind of creepy journalist, but simply as someone with eyes in his head. I travel a good bit, spending time in airports and the like, and I have also done hard time at Christian conferences. Having been in this place, I am in a good position to state that there is a marked difference between Christian women and women in the general population. Christian women are a lot prettier.” The “eyes in his head” are looking at the physical appearance… Read more »

Charlie Zulu
5 years ago

These sorts of posts are like meat thrown to hungry dogs; polarising bait for a fight. Do the apostles speak to beauty? Yep. Do they say that Christian women are more beautiful than non? No. So, is it Doug or the Apostles? I mean, can this get more cra-cra?

“Comparisons are odious”. — Aristotle.
Better yet, “We do not dare to classify or compare ourselves with some who commend themselves. When they measure themselves by themselves and compare themselves with themselves, they are not wise.” — Paul the Apostle

guester
guester
5 years ago
Reply to  Charlie Zulu

You always bring great logic to the discussion Christopher. Thanks for pointing out that Doug takes the Scripture to an extreme that is crazy-out-of-the-Milky-Way from its original intent.

timothy
timothy
5 years ago
Reply to  Charlie Zulu

Yep. Do they say that Christian women are more beautiful than non? No.

Does St. Paul list the fruits of the Spirit for comparison and contrast? Does the human mind draw conclusions that the fruits of the Spirit may actually work and produce beauty? Yes, yes it does.
Did Pastor Wilson do that? Yes. Yes he did.

Did you miss the point by a country mile? Yes, yes you did.

Charlie Zulu
5 years ago
Reply to  timothy

“Prettier”. Last time I checked my lexicon this was a comparative word. Depends on the human mind, because the Apostle’s wasn’t on that point. Any way, grrrr; grab your side of the meat stick boyo.

timothy
timothy
5 years ago
Reply to  Charlie Zulu

So is “debased” as in “God gave them over to a . Your lexicon is correct, you are not. Eat your own meatstick, meathead.

Charlie Zulu
5 years ago
Reply to  timothy

Timothy, The nature of your response proves my initial point. You have decided, because I take issue with Doug’s approach to interpretation, that I am outside of the fold of God. This kind of elevation of an issue to Doctrine is what makes for cults and spiritual fiefdoms, not “one, holy, catholic and apostolic church”. I assume you are not one who God has given the Keys to make such an assertion (are you a lawful minister of His church?); but you take it upon yourself to make a sweeping judgment of that nature. And you don’t see the irony… Read more »

timothy
timothy
5 years ago
Reply to  Charlie Zulu

I have decided no such thing. I have determined your analysis is wrong and that your criticism of the use of muscular Christianity in the service of Him is wrongheaded.

I hope you continue to comment here and to contribute. Iron sharpens Iron. Your tepid tin has no such effect.

God bless.

Charlie Zulu
5 years ago
Reply to  timothy

So why bring up “debased” mind as it makes no sense as a comparative word? You were making a point —albeit oblique—, as men do, and so you should stick to it, own it. I get the feelings you may have for Doug, but to suggest that Doug is the representative of muscular Christianity is a stretch. There is a big world out there, and centuries of Christian witness that carries a different spirit than the one Doug proposes, or you for that matter. Ever ask Doug about his “ordination” or whether he is actually a lawful minister of the… Read more »

timothy
timothy
5 years ago
Reply to  Charlie Zulu

So why bring up “debased” mind as it makes no sense as a comparative word? Paul was comparing and contrasting those who acknowledged and worshipped God with those who do not. Pastor Wilson is comparing and contrasting the exact same thing, but using “pretty” as the starting point for an analogue of St. Paul’s argument that shows the ‘re-basing” of the woman who does worship the Creator. As for his ordination, I don’t care. There are so many “professional” Pastors out there who make warm spew look like good brew that to hear the Gospel boldly proclaimed against this reprobate… Read more »

Charlie Zulu
5 years ago
Reply to  timothy

I get what Doug is doing here. But it’s like saying that Christian’s have better DNA than non. It’s not a moral or ethical judgment (like what Paul is doing). Doug’s antitheses are superficial, and he mixes up relative experience with Scripture.

If you don’t care about ordination, which is Scriptural not some kind of “professional” thing, then you abandon Apostolic teaching. It’s funny how dogmatic people want to be on their “issues” (Christian women are prettier, etc), and how easily they dismiss ones that the Scripture makes fairly clear. Swallowing a camel comes to mind.

timothy
timothy
5 years ago
Reply to  Charlie Zulu

I get what Doug is doing here. But it’s like saying that Christian’s have better DNA than non. You confuse Pastor Wilson’s rhetoric for dialectic. His posts are meant to create and emotional response–which they do in spades. That response brings souls–many atheists–to hear the Gospel. To their surprise, Christianity is not the caricature that so many credentialed pastors have made it into. If you don’t care about ordination, which is Scriptural not some kind of “professional” thing, then you abandon Apostolic teaching. Ok, that’s fair. The integrity of a denomination is important. However, I am not of Doug’s denomination,… Read more »

kevin47
kevin47
5 years ago

This is horrible. I hate that this is being said in the name of Christ. Shame on you.

Sara
Sara
5 years ago
Reply to  kevin47

Yeah, I definitely can’t imagine Jesus talking about people this way. Stuff like this only serves to push people further and further away from Christianity.

guester
guester
5 years ago
Reply to  Sara

It is very sad to me that those outside the faith might stop by here and see the rhetoric of Doug and his followers and think that’s what the Bible says, or what Jesus is like.

Sara
Sara
5 years ago
Reply to  guester

I am someone from outside the faith. And yes, this is what keeps me away from Christianity as a religion even though I do have a great deal of respect and admiration for Jesus himself. I also know that not every Christian agrees with views such as this though. I just wish those people would speak up more because it is the hateful and judgemental ones that seem to have the loudest voices. And they do so much harm.

guester
guester
5 years ago
Reply to  Sara

Thanks for your honest testimony here, Sara. There are a few of us from “inside the faith” who express dissenting views on blogs like this one in hopes that people like you can still find a tiny trail of breadcrumbs of true Christian faith and practice. Thanks for being an encouragement to me this evening. Please accept my blessings and prayers. “The wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, reasonable, full of mercy and good fruits, unwavering, without hypocrisy. And the seed whose fruit is righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace.” James 3:17. Amen,… Read more »

Sara
Sara
5 years ago
Reply to  guester

I appreciate your words, guester, and thank you for speaking up. I understand why more progressive and moderate Christians don’t because I’ve often noticed that they automatically get accused of not being “real” Christians by the patriarchal fundamentalists like Doug Wilson and his ilk, but it’s always encouraging when people are brave enough to stand up against this sort of alienating and harmful rhetoric. Jesus never insulted people by calling them sluts and dykes and he certainly never insinuated in any way that physical beauty was the most important thing about a woman. That kind of thinking NEEDS to be… Read more »

guester
guester
5 years ago
Reply to  Sara

Yes, I agree. It is unimaginable that Jesus would have categorized the women to whom he sought to minister as either easy-lays or lumberjack dykes. And when Christian people start accepting their leader saying words that would be blasphemous if they were attributed to Jesus, they have definitely placed their leader above Christ himself. I hope you’ll keep considering the real Jesus, Sara. I have found him to be a true and unfailing friend.

RandMan
RandMan
5 years ago

For those of you who do NOT follow Douglas’s twitter feed. While I don’t usually (I am not Strunk enough for the 140 ch limit…and prefer the blog) It’s not that bad!

https://thenewblogproject.wordpress.com/2015/09/22/keeping-it-on-point/

Kamilla Ludwig
Kamilla Ludwig
5 years ago

Can we be at 301 comments already and not one single soul has mentioned Roald Dahl’s “The Twits”?

Oy vey!

Sarah Flood
Sarah Flood
5 years ago

I’m actually shocked that you set up the false dichotomy of women who are not Christians being either followers of Cosmo trying to desperately attract as many men as possible or “lumberjack dykes”. You do know that there are women out there that enjoy dressing in a way that makes they themselves happy, whether their particular taste happens to appeal to you, without considering men much at all? To paraphrase a one woman: beautiful clothes look and feel nice and make a woman feel good. If a man happens to like them, that’s simply an added bonus. I personally find… Read more »

River
River
5 years ago
Reply to  Sarah Flood

I don’t believe that he can conceive of a world where a woman’s decision does not center around him, or his eyes…or his penis

Tanya Marlow
5 years ago

Whatever happened to ‘Man looks at the outward appearance, God looks at the heart?’ To suggest that God’s ‘standard’ is for women to look beautiful (by – presumably – the author’s own definition and preferences) is on shaky biblical ground, to say the least. Neither do I see any biblical warrant for suggesting that women are more ‘glorious’ than men (or that that means they need to keep themselves looking attractive when the plain meaning of 1 Peter is the opposite of that).

timothy
timothy
5 years ago
Reply to  Tanya Marlow

The inner man has profound effects on our demeanor. God creates wonder and beauty. When a woman is transformed by the Holy Spirit, that beauty shines forth.

You are thinking like a cosmo-girl.

BDash76
BDash76
5 years ago

what is a Christian woman
based on most christian women blogs they are either feminist- RHE or closet feminists – most complementarian female bloggers…

rather an honest woman who is open about not believing the bible than one who manipulates the word of God

timothy
timothy
5 years ago

Pastor Wilson, have you any experience with the ideas of the Puritan writer, Martin Madan? His book Thelyphthora, or A Treatise on Female Ruin came up in another debate I am having.

thx

p.s. “No I haven’t and I have no intention of ever” is a very good answer, btw. (:

Redeemed
Redeemed
5 years ago

Unsaved women are either sex tarts or butch lesbian? Are you serious?? Dude, you’ve been hanging around the wrong people if you think that observation is true. You’ve insulted a WHOLE bunch of women and their offspring/spouses.

Sarah Flood
Sarah Flood
5 years ago
Reply to  Redeemed

Yeah that puts in a nutshell my exact feelings about this article. Are all unsaved men unwashed slobs or effeminate boy-toys? Because that’s not true either. And it would be a gross generalization in several senses of the word.

timothy
timothy
5 years ago
Reply to  Redeemed

heh. What is it with reading comprehension and feminists? All the raging blood in the eyes must affect the brain and the vision. Here is the paragraph: Unbelieving women either compete for the attention of men through outlandish messages that communicate some variation of “easy lay,” or in the grip of resentment they give up the endeavor entirely, which is how we get lumberjack dykes. The former is an avid reader of Cosmopolitan and thinks she knows 15K ways to please a man in bed. The latter is just plain surly about the fact that there even are any men.… Read more »

Autumn Smith
Autumn Smith
5 years ago

You’re a shallow, empty-headed, delusional, misogynistic, homophobic fool. Please defenestrate yourself at your nearest convenience.

Cicely Duke
Cicely Duke
5 years ago

Trying to remember where Jesus Christ ever preached about women’s physical appearance. By the way, how’s Baby Sitler doing these days?

Sarah Flood
Sarah Flood
5 years ago
Reply to  Cicely Duke

Never, I’m pretty sure.

Yep, never.

RandMan
RandMan
5 years ago

“Doug’s pulled this distraction before, numerous times, commenting on e.g. “clueless women … who are themselves pushy broads, twinkies in tight tops, or waifs with manga eyes.”

This works as a distraction because he then makes a big show of correcting the people who inevitably draw the conclusion that he’s being pretty insulting to women. Because, you see, he’s not insulting all women. He’s just insulting some women. He pats himself on the back for thus schooling the masses in logic.”

http://kbotkin.com/2015/09/23/why-men-who-submit-to-authority-are-prettier/

Antecho
Antecho
5 years ago
Reply to  RandMan

From the link posted above: “Doug did not leave the church, which forced two of the elders to resign instead.” How does Doug not leaving the church (as a pastor/elder), “force” two elders to resign? That seems very silly, like saying … since one U.S. Supreme Court Justice (or member of Congress, etc.) didn’t resign his office, then two other U.S. Supreme Court Justices (or members of Congress, etc.) were FORCED to resign their offices. Sounds like another instance by recent critics of this blog where in at least one case “force” is thrown about to mean “(eventually, or at… Read more »

RandMan
RandMan
5 years ago
Reply to  Antecho

Doug said he would leave over a doctrinal dispute. One that was ethically compelling enough that the elders asking him for his resignation. Douglas agreed but then reneged. I would think that a call for resignation from all the elders that was (edit for clarity) disregarded would basically be a line in the sand that required stepping down for anyone serious enough about their christian doctrine. Its just politics and its understandable. Douglas seems to like to power play.

And sorry, what are you referring to in your last sentence exactly? Be more specific please.

Antecho
Antecho
5 years ago
Reply to  RandMan

RandMan, even granting all that you wrote, doing the so-called “required”/right thing, especially in a context of “politics,” still implies voluntarily doing that right thing by “force.”

In this case, such so-called “force” is a deceptive cover word for the typically opposite notion of actually being responsible for voluntarily deciding to do the perceived doctrinally right or politically expedient thing.

guester
guester
5 years ago
Reply to  Antecho

Antecho, there is a more complete summary of the elder resignation here:

https://web.archive.org/web/20060718005123/http://terrymorin.com/

Terri
Terri
5 years ago

So Christian women are prettier, I guess by virtue of being Christian. And *all* women were created to be the glory of God. If that were true, all women *would* be pretty. I feel sad for you that you only know stereotypes — the Cosmopolitan magazine woman, the good Christian woman, and the “lumberjack dyke.” There are SO many more real women out there that don’t fit into any of those categories and are beautiful. Your male eyes don’t determine beauty except for yourself. God created a wide variety of both men and women because our eyes are all different… Read more »

Sarah Flood
Sarah Flood
5 years ago
Reply to  Terri

This right here. Doug is expressing his taste in women, which he has every right to do. What he doesn’t have a right to do is put down women who do not fit his subjective ideal.

Carmenalex
Carmenalex
5 years ago

Ha, the superficiality of the Christian.

guester
guester
5 years ago
Reply to  Carmenalex

Wow, fascinating. Thanks for posting. A key quote: “Doug’s financial shenanigans had been an issue in this church as well — he’d borrowed money from the church to pay his tax debts, something the elders were not happy about. In an elders’ meeting, they instructed him on how to pay the debt back, and to stop self-allocating church money. Doug complicated the issue by drafting a set of fake minutes from this elder’s meeting in an attempt to show a different story, which was subsequently posted on the Christ Church website years later when all this came to light. When… Read more »

Duells Quimby
Duells Quimby
5 years ago
Reply to  guester

And this is slanderous.

guester
guester
5 years ago
Reply to  Duells Quimby

Then take it up with the author, Duells. I’m just quoting. Your proof of slander?

mirele
mirele
5 years ago
Reply to  Duells Quimby

I believe you meant “libelous.” Slander is spoken libel. This is in written form.

If Doug Wilson has a problem with it, surely he can file suit against Katie Botkin and they can hash it out in discovery, which is, of course, a two-way street.

–Deana Holmes, former attorney

mirele
mirele
5 years ago

I’m just reminded of what Jesus had to say about external appearances versus internal realities:

“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence.”

Matthew 23:25

External appearances aren’t everything.