So in something of a prescient move, in my last post I mentioned my widening circle of irrelevance—my particular brand of toxicity is now being increasingly opposed, and out of the blue, by various important voices, modulated voices, voices of sweet reason. The latest is from Elizabeth Bruenig, a columnist with The Washington Post, who tweeted about me just yesterday.
And speaking of modulated voices, here is what she had to say:
“This is such destructive, unscholarly, psychotic theology, and it turns churches into dens of iniquity. It makes me sick to see self-described Christians spreading this poison.”
We could have a contest here at Mablog . . . what passage from what book of mine is she talking about? I know there are those out there who would argue that it is really hard to say because they know the ubiquitous darkness of my puritanical heart. Or, in a more supportive and positive vein, they might argue that it is hard to say because they know the caliber of my literary critics. In other words, it might be possible that anything I write could set them off like this. In that regard, I am kind of like all-purpose catnip for progressives.
But the passage in question has actually been through all this before. There is liberalism for you—they recycle everything. They even recycle outrage, placing it carefully in their purple bin and setting it out by the curb. The passage in question caused something of a set-to a few years ago also, that one involving Rachel Held Evans. The toxicity under discussion is from Fidelity (pp. 86-87), and when I looked at Bruenig’s footnote at the bottom of her tweet I saw the book was published in 1999, and my initial reaction was perhaps not what Bruenig might have hoped for. Where I should have blanched pale white, gasped, and checked myself into rehab, instead I found myself wondering how I could have had that much sense almost twenty years ago. I was still in my forties. Those punks don’t know anything.
In the offending passage, I argued that sexual relations are not egalitarian, and that when this reality is ignored, a perverse form of that reality comes back at you in pathological forms. In other words, if you follow their sex ed training out to the end of the curriculum, and you graduate (with honors) into not knowing what a boy is and what a girl is, the end result is that you have no defined boundaries to restrain anything anymore.
Incidentally, this is like introducing a new geography curriculum, hot and fresh out of some teachers’ college, but which, at the end of the day, leaves the students not knowing where North America is. But leave that aside for the nonce.
Back to the point at issue. Because you have no notion of wholesome authority, you find yourself lusting after perverted forms of authority. And so it is that the graduates of a generation of whatever-wave-feminism-it-is-now are the ones who caused 50 Shades to sell in the millions. So you don’t like my thesis about where rape fantasies come from? Okay. You tell me where they came from then. You tell me, o enlightened generation, where mass-media rape fantasies come from. You tell me how important Hollywood people (that bastion of sexual health) managed to release the 50 Shades movie on Valentine’s Day without picking tar and feathers out of their hair for the following three months. Surely the phenomenon requires an explanation . . .
Not only do progressives not provide any explanations for the colossal failure of their sexual project, they wheel on the normals in an attempt to make them out to be the perverts.
In the meantime, while we wait for our explanation (which—because you can’t unpack anything from an empty box—will not be forthcoming), let us deconstruct this baby:
This is such destructive . . .
I should hope so. As long as we are destroying evil things, I think we should have at it. This is an inescapable concept; it is a fight to the finish. Either normal will be destroyed, or abnormal will be. God is not mocked, and it needs to be one or the other. Whatever else Lot was doing when he fled from the cities of the plain, he was not seeking the peace of the city.Whatever else Lot was doing when he fled from the cities of the plain, he was not seeking the peace of the city.
unscholarly . . .
Naturam expelles furca, tamen usque recurret! (Horace, Epistles i. x. 24)
psychotic theology . . .
Just when you think we have turned a corner, and believe that writers in the public square have finally learned not to use the names of medical conditions for vilifying their enemies, something like this happens. This sort of business is simply just hurtful. But at least she didn’t call me a retard.
and it turns churches into dens of iniquity . . .
But isn’t that the agenda? Wasn’t that the point? Didn’t you want us to become havens of acceptance? The old way was to keep iniquity at bay, as best you could anyway. The new way is to be welcoming communities. But if you open the doors wide, and nobody is watching them anymore, all kinds of critters can come in. And I mean the kind of unclean creatures that make dens.
It makes me sick . . .
With the state American health care is now in, I am sorry to hear that.
to see self-described Christians . . .
So I do self-identify that way. I heard that you could be anything you wanted to be. I want to be a Christian. The kind that believes the Bible. The kind that goes to Heaven. The kind that loves Jesus.
spreading this poison . . .
Again, major regression. If certain positions are rejected flat out, treated as poisonous, then that means relativism cannot be the case. But if relativism is not the case, then that means some form of ethical absolutism is the case. However, if we are now living under a new-fangled absolute code, one that overarches us all, and one that defines the beliefs of Christians over the course of millennia as toxic poison, then surely some apostle should stand up and tell us the name of their new god. What book did he give us? Why is he in charge of us? Did he create us? Does he love us? Did his son die for us? And how are we to know these things are true?
In short, ma’am, define poison please.
Look. If instead of holding to my destructive theology, I abandoned my post here in the opposition, told the world I was very sorry, and came out in favor of little boys having their penises cut off by money-hungry surgeons, would you be willing to stop calling me destructive then? Suppose I was desperate to be accepted as one who would never purvey poison, and consequently signed off on dismembering little children in the womb, and selling the pieces into the American economy? Could I stop being poisonous then? Imagine I acquired that progressive lust for flattery that characterizes so many, and insisted that not only should Planned Parenthood be allowed to keep their iniquitous profits, but that American taxpayers should continue to surrender their honest profits so that Planned Parenthood could continue to grow rich by trafficking in baby bits. Would you admit that I was nice then?
Anything to not be thought of as destructive. Anything to not be treated as psychotic. Pleeeeeease?
She has a point you know. Your theology destroys hers.
Two things:
1. For those of you who did not Google “Naturam expelles furca, tamen usque recurret! ” It means, “You may drive nature out with a pitchfork, but she will keep coming back.” Wonderful stuff.
2. I recently read William Faulkner’s Nobel Prize acceptance speech in which he makes the point that a writer who ignores “the old universal truths” will end up writing “not out of the heart, but of the glands.”
And with that, I will drop the mike.
You know, I wish you were my next door neighbor. We would have a good time.
High praise indeed. Thank you duellsquimby.
Well deserved.
DQ – Ditto…(plus I have my own “dead animal” hat)
This was funny up to that last paragraph.
There, I get on our knees for how I have supported them.
Poor baby, look on the bright side, there’s no such thing as bad publicity. Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.
Wait, someone was offended for being jokingly called “Croucho” — and is now calling someone else “poor baby”? I’ve heard it all now!
“Feet of Clay”
And
“Croucho snarks”
Were also rejected. ????
adad0 – It’s not the name calling that bothers me. Believe me, I’ve been called worse. It’s that you use childish name calling to deflect and dismiss. Can you see that?
Perhaps thou do’st protest too much?
Clay?
For instance “Randi” is a contraction nickname, which is not childish, deflecting or dismissive.
It’s more in the realm of friendly and familiar. And Randi is pretty familiar. ????
Since some of your comments sound like Groucho Marx,
I thought “Croucho snarks” was perfect!
Um, do you smoke cigars?
(Workin’ on the thought bubble here.)
Anthony Weiner is enjoying all that good “bad publicity” as we speak!
????
For some, after sowing the wind,
They give birth to wind.
Liberalism is a good example of this concept.
adad0 – you seem to have a fixation on Anthony Weiner. Care to elaborate?
Anthony is the monument du jour to “ outcome based liberalism”.
Both a comic and cautionary case.
A true “wind birther”. ????
Who would be on your list of monuments du jour to outcome based conservatism?
John Adams. ????
Well… ok, Jesus.
Your blindspot is showing.
Well, if you are looking for a Republican who is in trouble, Dennis Hastert would work.
The thing about the Libs these days is the really long and growing list of alleged lounge lizards, cover ups and settlements included. Conservatives do have some lounge lizards, though I doubt their list is as long.
In contrast to our host here, who properly reported per mandate, credible allegations of wrongdoing to the law, when the crimes became known.
Nothing “blind” about the above is there Clay?
Liberal or conservative has little if anything to do with men doing evil things.
There are those who would dispute your claims regarding Mr. Wilson’s handling of those incidents. I believe his on religious organization had some serious issues with his judgment and the appropriateness of his wordsmithyness. Let’s not waste our time debating that again.
“Liberal or conservative has little if anything to do with men doing evil things.”
Doesn’t this kind of depend on what the evil thing is?
It’s hard to blame conservatism for the sin of abortion, or using the government as a mechanism of theft.
Justin – The list of sins encompasses far more than just the two you listed. I’d bet a fair number of conservatives have had or paid for abortions. During his two terms, Ronald Regan significantly raised taxes and increased the national debt. Wouldn’t you agree that all men, regardless of political or religious persuasions are capable of doing evil?
Okay, I guess I’m a bit confused. Though admittedly I have never attempted to ascertain Clay’s exact religious or political views, just a casual reading of many comment threads gave me the impression he was a liberal non-Christian. Now he is asserting that abortion, raising taxes, and increasing the national debt are all sin?
soylentg – Your research is either lazy or lacking. I have over the last couple of years made my position known. For the record, I’m a politically moderate Christian. I was simply using Justin’s two categories to suggest that you can’t so easily pigeonhole folks into neat categories. Do you deny that all men, regardless of political or religious persuasions are capable of doing evil? That’s a simple question.
Clay Crouch says, ” Your research is either lazy or lacking ….” Uh, no. My research is neither lazy nor lacking. My research (concerning Clay Crouch) is non existent; just as I said initially. To answer your simple question, no I do not deny that all men, regardless of political or religious persuasions are capable of doing evil. I would have to agree that categories tend not to be neat, though they can be useful in general conversation. Generally Christians tend to be conservative, though being conservative says nothing about one’s religion. Generally liberals tend not to be Biblical Christians.… Read more »
I would have assumed you identified as a progressive. Tell me about politically moderate. That could imply a position between what you regard as two extremes. Is politically progressive/liberal one of the extremes? Does your Christian faith compel you toward what you consider politically moderate?
Clay,
“For the record, I’m a politically moderate Christian.”
Indeed, since there are no hard and fast definitions for conservative, moderate, or liberal, the categorizing is moot.
soylentg has the opinion that you a “liberal non-Christian”. I suspect that, if a poll were taken here on this blog, the vast majority, including me, would agree with soylentg. I think your opinion of your own place on the political spectrum is less important (and perhaps less accurate) than where others consider you to fall.
” The list of sins encompasses far more than just the two you listed. ” Yes. Obviously. My post not only acknowledged this to be the case, but required it to be the case for my point. ” I’d bet a fair number of conservatives have had or paid for abortions.” That’s moving the goal posts. We were talking about ideas. Of course all men sin. What’s in question is to what degree men are sinning *because* of their political ideology. A Christian conservative who has an abortion is doing so in spite of their ideology, not because of it.… Read more »
“Ronald Regan (sic) significantly raised taxes…”
That’s very misleading. He both cut and raised taxes at different times, but the overall effect was to lower taxes:
https://www.quora.com/How-many-times-did-Ronald-Reagan-raise-taxes-during-his-administration-and-how-did-it-affect-the-U-S-economy
Please define and quantify “fixation.” A good starting point would be comparing the number of adad’s posts on AW to the number of Jonathan’s posts on Roy Moore.
I hope that even you can see how silly your claim is. I didn’t talk about Moore before the story that broke this week, and I don’t repeatedly bring him up at inapproprite times in confusingly unrelated contexts.
I hope that you also notice that the number of my posts in the previous couple threads tripled or quadrupled when people like you kept using my name in the course of making false claims which I then corrected. If you weren’t replying to me and just making up stuff, I’d have a lot fewer replies back.
J’-bot, A common thread and context in these parts, could be articulated as: “Who is the scumbag?” Our host here responds to some who say elsewhere, that our host is the scumbag. Weiner, Weinstein, Clinton, Edwards, Gore, Toback etc. all tend to get mentioned in response, because it would be hard to believe a guy was that scummy, were it not for the established fact of their documented scummy behavior. Then, before their respective exposures, many of these busted libs had a large portfolio of outrageous virtue slithering as a veneer over their slimey and often criminal behavior. Our host,… Read more »
““This is such destructive, unscholarly, psychotic theology, and it turns churches into dens of iniquity. It makes me sick to see self-described Christians spreading this poison.”” I suppose that means ALL Christian’s are now psychotic, which isn’t surprising considering this is the leftist playbook, toss out the exact opposite of a person’s true meaning in order to cast doubt on their latest target. You could say the “sky is blue” and they would torture that as “you hate green.” It’s getting to the point that it’s not worth the time to engage these people (although praying they adjust their worldview… Read more »
“Anything to not be thought of as destructive. Anything to not be treated as psychotic.” Well, who more qualified to offer you some encouragement than someone who just calls herself insanitybytes and cheerfully accepts being forever labeled, crazy, delusional, psychotic, a bunny boiler, and even a retard? However, I am still concerned about the deep seated anger and resentment towards women, the theology that often encourages dehumanizing us as if we are permanently cursed descendants of Eve, ideas that promote women as all powerful feminists who have conquered the world while at the same time allegedly being deeply inferior and… Read more »
^^^^^^^ Triggered. Don’t take the bait. Hijacking alert.
I’m not triggered at all. Just cheerfully observing the truth and trying to make sense of it all.
As we speak, I’m looking for the Gorilla Glue to incapacitate my fingers.
ding!ding!ding!…winner!
All men and women are descendants of the cursed Adam and Eve and it is only by grace that any of us come out of that. The only thing permanent in the mix appears to be the chip on your shoulder which is beginning to look quite fatal. If you were truly trying to make sense of it all, how about stop shoe honing your pet project into every discussion and listen a bit more? I am not sure if you actually want to have a discussion or just troll.
horning…wish there was an edit.
gabe, it appears that the ability to have a discussion is not among Meme’s gifts. Some of us have resigned ourselves to that.
In better news, becoming a member will allow you editing privileges.
Become a member and there will be an edit.
It’s easy to find complaints with someone’s beliefs when you make them up on their behalf.
My complaints are valid, well researched, and shared by many others. You yourself recently carried on about the curse of Eve stuff. So don’t tell me I make anything up, because I don’t, and your false accusations and chronic projections are foolish and weak.
How precisely do you determine to what claim I was objecting?
I’ll just leave this here.
http://i.imgur.com/fp3WeFM.gif
I think this kinda misses where Elizabeth Bruenig is coming from, she’s attacking you from a certain type of Roman Catholic position, not a standard progressive one. She’s already deleted the relevant tweets (I believe she thought the subject was getting too explicit for a public venue), but in my conversation with her she kinda endorsed Augustine’s (to my mind weird) speculation on marital relations in his book on Genesis (he suggested the physical mechanics of sex might have been different but for the fall). So (with regard to your reply) I’m sure Mrs. Bruenig is opposed to abortion and… Read more »
I like Elizabeth Bruenig. Such a shame that being a Christian wife and mother doesn’t protect you from being perceived as “nubile” and therefore subhuman and subject to endless rape threats. Quite a few red pills where ticked off at her over this piece.
https://newrepublic.com/article/121138/mark-driscoll-and-macho-christianity
” Such a shame that being a Christian wife and mother doesn’t protect you from being perceived as “nubile” ” Of course it doesn’t. Nothing anyone does gives real protection them from the perceptions of others, particularly when it comes to attractiveness. “and therefore subhuman and subject to endless rape threats. ” I assume you meant to connect this to Wilson’s previous piece? That’s certainly the implication, and if so it’s a lie, putting words into his mouth to slander. Nobody said being nubile makes you “subhuman”. It’s feminists treating their opponents as gutter trash, not worthy of basic honesty,… Read more »
“Nothing anyone does gives real protection them from the perceptions of others…”
Christian wives and moms who share the majority of your Christian values damn well better be protected from rape threats coming from so called Christian men.
And 14 yr old girls damn well better be protected from accusation of being “nubile.” Men who don’t get that fact are not men at all,and whether or not they even know Christ is somewhat questionable too.
“Christian wives and moms who share the majority of your Christian values damn well better be protected from rape threats coming from so called Christian men.”
A threat is not a “perception”. You are capable of reading yes? I can protect my wife from rape. I can’t protect her from someone finding her attractive.
This post is a fine example of why I frequent this site.
Post -yes
Comments – not so much
Yeah. Me, too.
Well, that was pretty funny Clay.
????
“So you don’t like my thesis about where rape fantasies come from? Okay. You tell me where they came from then. You tell me, o enlightened generation, where mass-media rape fantasies come from.”
They come from the shame based, punitive sexual teachings of traditional Christian conservatives who seem to confuse dominance with destruction, authority with abuse, and masculinity with something perverse, toxic and ugly.
for every idle word and deed you will have to give an account MeMe…
Why don’t you go make some cookies and stack some firewood?
My words are not idle nor do I fear giving an account of them.
You won the comments today! I’d like to say the award is a plate of cookies and stack of firewood from MeMe, but I can’t guarantee it. It might be a nice, juicy personal attack instead.
LS: Reminds me of that dismissive line from Sweet Home Alabama, “Why don’t you go back to your double-wide and fry something.”
Full Disclosure Note: My wife’s preferred “Jenny Craig” approach is to go out with her chainsaw (yup, hers) cut a tree down, buck it up, then split and stack it. If I want cookies I bake them, but your point is well taken.
(Now I will patiently wait while bdash lambastes me for being an un-Christian “tranny” Beta male because I “let” my cowgirl wife cut and stack firewood.)
MeMe: 7 down votes, doesn’t bode well for one’s complex. On the plus side, it’s always helpful to gauge the argument by hearing the “other” side in matters of import.
In serious critique Pastor Wilson, I strongly suspect a healthy portion of your negative press comes from you deliberately and enjoyably using phrasing in your points that you know will cause progressives to turn into a blind rage. That’s not to say it excuses their slander and refusal to honestly assess and reproduce your views. It’s just not as sympathetic of a case when you seem to enjoy it.
Justin – There is another, perhaps more straightforward way to consider Mr. Wilson’s crudeness: Out of the abundance of the heart, the pen writes.
I didn’t say he wrote crudely. I said he wrote in a way that offended a specific set of people. They aren’t remotely the same thing. Though even if I did think he wrote with crudeness, it would be directly anti-Biblical to run the assumption that it’s the result of his heart rather than other, not morally condemning alternatives.
That wasn’t my assumption, it was Jesus’ assertion. Look it up.
Which assumption are you talking about here, that he’s crude, or that his perceived crudeness is the result of his heart? Because I have a hard time picturing any verse at all that makes the point you want it to. The closest examples are statements along the lines of “By their fruit you will recognize them” but that requires you’ve *already* concluded that the crudeness is not a product of cultural misunderstanding or limitation in the communication skills of the speaker. Benefits of the doubt you’re required to give him. That’s if we’re assuming he speaks with crudeness, which he… Read more »
Luke 6:45, “A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh.”
Oh the irony…
‘Folly is an unruly woman; she is simple and knows nothing.’ Proverbs 9:13
You’re much better at dealing with MeMe in this “by proxy” manner. I’m quite glad she insisted you not talk to her.
On the plus side, when a discussion breaks down to scripture quotes,
That is typically an improvement to the comments on any blog!????
????????
“Wisdom crieth without; she uttereth her voice in the streets: She crieth in the chief place of concourse, in the openings of the gates: in the city she uttereth her words, saying, How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge?”
It holds the same problem MeMe, it requires you’ve *already* done the work necessary to determine whether what he’s brought forth is good. You need to first establish that he’s “crude”, and then that this crudeness means that that which he brings forth isn’t good. THEN you can use this verse. The requirements I refer to happen first, which both you and Clay have failed at.
Clay, that comment is just as wrong as your assertion that scripture and today’s social justice are compatible.
Justin Parris wrote: It’s just not as sympathetic of a case when you seem to enjoy it. Joy may be implied in Elijah’s taunting of the Baal worshipers, or in Christ’s labeling of the Pharisees as blind guides of the blind, but we should be careful not to be dismissive of such methods. Their barbs were sharp and precision aimed, and their goal was God’s glory and victory over wickedness. If we can keep our own ambitions in check, remember to leave some space for a miracle of repentance in every case, and keep our eye on the higher goals,… Read more »
“I don’t think there will be any fault for taking a little pleasure in the delivery of well crafted satire.” I wouldn’t say I was finding “fault” per se. Just that “the media is misinterpreting me” carries less weight when you know your phrasings will be misinterpreted before you use them. You can change your wording to be more clear, but choose not to. There’s nothing morally wrong with it. If anything, there’s an argument in favor of using language that forces people to actually read thoughtfully. It just doesn’t engender much support for “they’re misreading me” as a separate… Read more »
“In short, ma’am, define poison please.”
Dismissing sexual abuse on account of young girls being “nubile” would be one form of poison. Promoting the idea that all women are like Potiphar’s wife and lie about rape would be another.
MeMe, whoever believes that is a troglodyte, good thing no one around here believes that.
There are many Troglodytes here who believe exactly that.
I’m going to start lobbying the session to change the name of the congregation to Den of Iniquity Reformed Evangelical Church.
With its sister church, Fleshpots of Egypt.
Anybody else here notice how adept someone is the comments section is at slaying straw men? Valiant warrior, indeed!
Rape fantasies are not “the beliefs of Christians over the course of millennia.” What the hell is wrong with you.
You didn’t follow the paragraph. He didn’t say that rape fantasies are the beliefs of Christians over the course of millennia.
Doug Again, major regression. If certain positions are rejected flat out, treated as poisonous, then that means relativism cannot be the case. But if relativism is not the case, then that means some form of ethical absolutism is the case. However, if we are now living under a new-fangled absolute code, one that overarches us all, and one that defines the beliefs of Christians over the course of millennia as toxic poison, then surely some apostle should stand up and tell us the name of their new god. What book did he give us? Why is he in charge of… Read more »
Maybe from MeMe’s comment #211450 “They come from the shame based, punitive sexual teachings of traditional Christian conservatives who seem to confuse dominance with destruction, authority with abuse, and masculinity with something perverse, toxic and ugly.”
“However, if we are now living under a new-fangled absolute code, one that overarches us all, and one that defines the beliefs of Christians over the course of millennia as toxic poison…”
As Heather, myself, and many, many others have observed, rape fantasies do not and have not defined the beliefs of Christians over the course of millennia. The “toxic poison” is the demeaning of women and the promotion of rape culture, not Christian beliefs.
Did you notice that Russell Moore “liked” Elizabeth Bruenig’s tweet? I predict Russell More will repudiate complimentarianism and embrace egalitarianism, perhaps within a year’s time.
look at his staff
and their blogs
he encourages the female staff to go travelling and encourage their husbands to show leadership by taking care of the home and kids….
Ugh. But maybe this is part of Moore’s plan to single-handedly unify Catholicism and Protestantism into one milquetoast, SJW-lite body.
Sir, as much as I enjoy reading your posts, I rarely burst into laughter as I did with your quote from Horace. Well played, sir.
Can people please give a rest to the whole crazy leftist idea? I’m pretty far on the left politically, and I’m still a conservative Christian. How? Because the bible never says that one should be anti immigration, or not take care of the environment, or not limit guns. You can be left on the spectrum and still a Christian. Also I’m very against abortion. So please spare the “crazy leftist” tirades. It’s ridiculous. You can disagree in a more intelligent and courteous way.