The Critique of the Bluestockings

Introduction:
I have been subjected, I fear, to quantitative analysis. I have been JEDP’ed, to use an oblique analogy, and am sorely tempted to retreat into my cave to join the other Deuteronomist editors.

A couple of bluestockings over at Jesus Creed have weighed and counted my words, particularly words offered in the course of various wedding exhortations. They also quote my words, a good many of them in fact, but alas, they do not appear to have read them. You may check out the sad tale of woe here.

She subjects her legs to quantitative analysis and decides, upon reflection, that there are two.
She subjects her legs to quantitative analysis and decides, upon reflection, that there are two.

Two Kinds of Disagreement:
There are two kinds of disagreements. The first is when someone attacks you for saying x, and you, after you recover from your surprise at the assault, rally to the line, and defend the truth of x, or possibly, in these troubled times, defend having said x even although it was true. This is what you might call an old school disagreement.

Then the other kind of disagreement is when you said x,y,z, and your interlocutor multiplies what you said by six oranges, forgets to carry the two eggplants, and argues that you are maintaining m, n, and o, despite your denials, which only mean that you are now secretly maintaining them. Or perhaps subconsciously holding to them, which means you need counseling as much as you need refutation.

This quantitative treatment of my wedding exhortations falls in the latter category, and of course, I object to the methodology. At best, counting words might tell you what I was talking about, but is of no usefulness at all in determining what I was saying.

Truthy-Units
In order to demonstrate this, all I need to do is juxtapose a few of their learned conclusions with regular old quotations from me. Please note that I will not be able to chase every point down — I feel here like a German Shorthair Pointer turned loose in the middle of Happy Acres Rabbit Farm. A certain inevitable process of selection must occur.

But in these paragraphs of mine that I will cite, I will admit that I have no idea how many times any particular word in them might have been used, although I do know what I am saying. And therein lies the point.

Of course, some might ask why I am taking the trouble to answer this. This article is running a surplus of howlers, as a rudimentary quantitative analysis will reveal, and so does it not refute itself? Well, not exactly. If you go over to the Church Relevance web site to see how various blogs are positioned in their rankings, you can readily see that Jesus Creed, despite publishing stuff like this, ranks at #21 out of the top 100 Christian blogs. And my worthy efforts, despite my use of many colorful adjectives and pithy sayings, comes in at a pitiful #82. “Subject that to quantitative analysis, Wilson!” I clearly need to come up with 61 truthy-units somewhere.

An Easy Target
Dr. Valerie Hobbs and Rachel Miller start by explaining why they are taking me on, since I am such an easy target. They ask “Why Wilson?” — a question that, speaking quite frankly, ought to be asked by the important people more often. To which I reply, Why not Wilson?

“Doug Wilson is regarded by some, perhaps many, as something of an easy target.”

But having an easy target and having a formidable weapon are perhaps two different things, as the two small boys with slingshots once discovered while shooting at the side of the barn.

Juxtapositions
So let me begin our festivities with the juxtapositions I referred to earlier.

“We note that out of nearly 5,700 blog posts, containing 1,151 references to the word ‘marriage’, Wilson refers to Proverbs 31 in only one post.”

This throws the problem with their quantitative methodology into high relief. They missed a crucial post, a post that I found within minutes using a technical methodology provided by my site called “a search bar,” into which I typed “Proverbs 31.”

If you want to know what I think about Proverbs 31, then perhaps you ought to read what I write about Proverbs 31. You should not make a scientific pother about how many times I don’t mention Proverbs 31 in passages where I am not talking about Proverbs 31.

Here is what I think about it, and please note how strikingly different it is from how they represent what they assume must be my women-must-be-passive position. Here it is, and watch me go.

“And when we come to the end of the book, we have a particular woman described, one who embodies the characteristics of Wisdom. And many Christians know this, and refer jokingly to the ‘Proverbs 31 woman,’ but they often do this without looking closely at what she actually does . . . Her husband delegates responsibility to her (31:11), and is not foolish in doing so (31:12); she is a weaver (31:13); she shops for food effectively over long distances, making CostCo runs to Lewiston (31:14); she cooks and provides food (31:15); she buys real estate (31:16); she starts a farm with her accumulated capital (31:16); she works hard, and manufactures quality merchandise (31:17-19); she is deeply involved in philanthropic work to the poor (31:20); she thinks ahead, and clothes her family well (31:21); she makes things for herself, and dresses herself well (31:22); she poses no threat to her husband; she does not compete with him or try to overshadow him (31:23); she is a fabric and clothing wholesaler (31:24); she is a wise woman, and a teacher (31:26); she manages her household (31:27), to the praise of her husband and children (31:28-29); and she fears God, placing no trust in fleeting vanity (31:30-31). [The Role of Biblical Women]

To their credit, in the pursuit of their extremely odd method, they do quote extensively from my wedding exhortations. They do this enough that a thoughtful reader of their article, someone who has never heard of me before, ought to stop and say, “Now wait a minute.” They plainly know they have to overcome my words and stuff so that their raw numbers can make their case for them.

“In Wilson’s writings, we observe a complexity and contradiction that make it difficult to dismiss his ideas immediately.”

Yes. I call that nuance.

“If one can overlook the inherent passivity in being identified primarily with objects rather than actions, Wilson’s connection of wives with these notions sounds like high praise indeed.”

I sound like I honor women highly, because of all that honoring I do, but don’t be fooled, sheeple! The numbers don’t lie! I wonder what would happen, incidentally, if they took that gee-whiz-analysis-software of theirs, and ran Ephesians 5 through it.

They say that I am identifying women “primarily with objects rather than actions.” I actually identify them as people, created objects who act in the world according to their creational nature, just as men do.

So here are some quotes from me about women “who do not act.”

“Women are supposed to be feminine in relation to their own husbands, and not in every direction generally. Older women are supposed to teach younger women (Tit. 2:3-4). Women are supposed to issue commands to stubborn two-year-old boys (Eph. 6:1). Women are not supposed to obey another woman’s husband (Eph. 5:22). Grown men are supposed to remember the law of their mother (Prov. 6:20). A queen is supposed to guide her husband the king into wisdom (Est. 5:2). And all this means that, if false notions of femininity are abroad in the Christian community, the most feminine wives will not necessarily be recognized as such.” https://dougwils.com/books/foundations-of-marriage-x.html

“No human authority in this sinful world is absolute, and there are times when a woman must play the role of Abigail in dealing with a blockhead husband. We have emphasized this many times in our ministry and there is no reason to rehearse it again here.” https://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-culture/patriarchy-vision-forum-and-all-the-rest-of-it.html

“Teaching headship and submission in marriage is only safe if we are also teaching women their responsibility to be an Abigail if married to a Nabal.”

How Jerks Define the Golden Life

Two Notorious Passages
In a brief aside, we must take a moment to pay attention to two notorious passages of mine. They make reference to a statement from many years ago that endorsed church discipline for a wife’s ‘neglect’ of the dishes. I am not sure, but I think they are referring to this incident.

They also cite the passage that caused such an uproar that time when Rachel Held Evans got a hold of it. You know the one, about how in sex a man penetrates, etc. I honestly don’t know what we have spending all this money on sex ed for if at the end of the day people still don’t know that in sex a man penetrates and a woman doesn’t. That was a passage that had all necessary qualifications and contextualization accompanying it and requires no further explanation at all. At the end of the day, sex is still what it is.

But then they chide me for writing Fidelity just to men. “This is visible in Wilson’s act of discouraging wives from reading the advice he gives to their husbands about sex.”

So how would the uproar caused by Rachel Held “Trigger Warning” Evans cause me to rethink this? None of the men who read Fidelity ever required a swooning couch. Maybe I put that disclaimer on there because I knew that some women are like RHE, queen of the vapors, and would create an uproar over it. And now come two more women, making that very same point for me.

“Wilson further highlights women’s passive role in his portrayal of wives as knowing little about sex and even about their own bodies, requiring instruction from their husbands. The husband ‘must teach her and then teach her to teach him’ (Fidelity, p. 135), though, of course, under his guidance and authority, keeping in mind that she is likely to teach him the wrong things, such as the lesson, via lingerie or other sexual accouterments, that she is a hooker.”

Three quick things. First, I don’t think lingerie is a problem, and never did. I think that hooker-wear is a problem. Erotic and skanky are not synonyms. I will leave the grown-ups to sort that one out on their own. Second, even on their own rendering, I say, even in the passage they cite, that a husband must teach his wife, and then teach her to teach him. As a wise man once said, many men make love to a woman the way an orangutan plays the violin — an observation I have made before. Teaching him is therefore not limited to teaching him how wonderful and Solomonic he is. Hobbs and Miller assume the content of this “curriculum” because they have already assumed that they know what I must think about it. But they are wildly, erratically, spectacularly, wrong. And then third, given the fact that my comments about penetration are still giving some women the shakes, the need for some level of instruction does remain apparent.

That Word Passive
Throughout their post, they repeatedly trip over a confusion they have generated, a confusion of responsive and passive. I mostly certainly do teach that a woman is called to be responsive in marriage, but to reduce this to passive is just silly.

“However, careful scrutiny of Wilson’s teachings about marriage uncover a concerning theology of marriage wherein the woman is a passive responder, a recipient of all that the man does and brings, a glory that serves merely to reflect the splendor of her husband.”

This is a conclusion which I would hotly dispute. In fact, I have been doing so. In short, their technique prevents them from seeing things that I state in the plainest possible terms. Why didn’t they quote this?

“This is no small feat; it has been observed that Ginger Rogers did absolutely everything that Fred Astaire did, only backwards and in heels.”

What I Actually Think In Real Time
If I actually thought what Hobbs and Miller assert about me, that would in fact be appalling. I detest the picture they have painted. I reject it. We are not debating x, with me affirming and them denying. I am denying y, and they — for no good reason — are denying my denial.

“For Wilson, the wife has no self and, it seems, no voice.”

“In summary, we find Wilson’s model of the glorified stepstool wife unconvincing and his notions of wifely fulfilment hollow and hypocritical.”

“Our aim in this article was to make clear what this picture actually looks like. Wilson’s image is of wife only as passive receiver, always taught but never truly teacher, voiceless and invisible.”

I see. My picture of the biblical wife is that she is never “truly teacher.” She is “voiceless and invisible.” I would like to take this opportunity to introduce, for the very first time apparently, my wife Nancy. She is the author of six books, one of them a widely-used textbook. I like my women voiceless, but it must be added that I am really bad at making this happen. Oh, and here are my daughters — Rachel and Rebekah. Rachel has written two books, this one and this one, and is working on a third. She has also written for a publication called “The Internet,” and with a massive response from her readership, a rare thing for such voiceless women. Rebekah is the editor and author of a ten-volume series on British Literature. Not only do these voiceless and invisible women in my life do such things, but they do them with me whooping and waving my hat in the background. If there is one thing I like to do, it is fatherly kvelling.

Incidentally, the most recent thing that they wrote, at least that I read, were their emails responding to the link I sent them about my exposure to this quantitative refutation. Nancy wrote, “Very informative.” Rebekah said, “Hahahahahaha …. the worst!” Rachel said, “Well that was….precious. Hahaha!” You can see, using the very latest methods of quantitative analysis, that Bekah thought it was twice as funny as Rachel did.

71
Leave a Reply

avatar
 
30 Comment threads
41 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
40 Comment authors
RachelBarbara"A" dadJanetJ Dawes Recent comment authors

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Kamilla Ludwig
Guest
Kamilla Ludwig

Doug,

I hope you won’t mind if I note that one of the Bluestockinged gals is the news editor at the Aquila Report.

Kamilla

wtrsims
Member

Are you insinuating some sort of inherent bias?!??

PREPOSTEROUS!!!!

Kamilla Ludwig
Guest
Kamilla Ludwig

Oh dear, no, or at least I’m not sure ;-)

Aquila Report is, or was, supposed to be friendly to conservatives. But seems to have been less so since Rachel Miller took up her post there.

Daniel Foucachon
Member

Aquila Report is somewhat of a joke. They do things like make a practice of deleting any comments from dissenters on their blog and FB. I questioned (very politely and respectfully) some assertions they were making in an article about someone I personally know, and the response was to be blocked from their FB page.

klockheed
Guest
klockheed

“For Wilson, the wife has no self and, it seems, no voice.”

They don’t know you, your wife, or your daughter very well, do they?

ashv
Guest
ashv

Aha, another anti-science post from Wilson. NUMBERS DON’T LIE.

(seriously though, where do they find these people?)

Thomas Achord
Guest
Thomas Achord

I subjected their article to quantitative analyses and found the following results:

They used the word:

– Wilson 143 times
– Marriage 43 times
– Wife 43 times
– Wive(s) 26 times

Therefore, my quantitative, philological analysis leads me to conclude that the writers of this article wish to become the Wife (Wives) of Wilson in Marriage.

Brandon Klassen
Guest
Brandon Klassen

I’m dying over here.

Pure gold!

Peter Jones
Guest

A Rachel G. Miller gave a one star review to Doug’s book “How to Exasperate Your Wife” over at Amazon ten days ago. Here is her full review, “If I could give zero stars I would. Doug Wilson is the last person I’d go to for advice on marriage.” Same Rachel Miller?

Nonna
Guest
Nonna

Aye aye! Especially when said minister supports the marriage of a serial pedophile to a naive, docile young lady and encourages them to have children. Of course, now we know how that worked out.

Rob Steele
Guest
Rob Steele

I like how you sort of objectify your critics. They stick you under a microscope and you exhibit them in a bell jar. You have to give them credit for at least making a pretense of being objective in their objectifying. They use quantitative methods, though the tools must have felt clunky to them.

Moor_the_Merrier
Guest
Moor_the_Merrier

Doug, your daughters and wife have no doubt prospered in spite of you and your teachings, and are not now decrying you and your teachings because they are too cowed by your Patriarchal, chauvinistic, and authoritarian manner, while at the same time exercising their relative independence in a way that undermines what you teach. All of this merely serves to highlight just how wrong you are, and how commendably they have handled themselves under your tyrannical rule, from which they perhaps should bravely break free for good (but are perhaps not for the sake of helping others? like an underground… Read more »

Adam Puma Borsay
Guest
Adam Puma Borsay

I can not tell if I should be chuckling at your clever sarcasm or chuckling at your boorishness…..

Jane Dunsworth
Guest
Jane Dunsworth

Those of us who have observed Moor from of old authorize you to chuckle heartily out of joy rather than contempt.

Ben Brown
Guest
Ben Brown

LOL!

Nord357
Guest
Nord357

Perfect!

mikevanmeter
Member
mikevanmeter

You could have just responded with the last 2 paragraphs and it would have been sufficient.

Brandon Klassen
Guest
Brandon Klassen

But everything leading up to the dagger was SO much fun!

adad0
Member

Some folks are generous, and do more than sufficient.

Benjamin Bowman
Guest

It was the 3rd of September, a day I’ll always remember yes I will. Cause that was the day that Hobbs and Miller cried.

Nathan Smith
Member

This is great. Congratulations. Oh, to have someone write these things about me. You must be doing something right.

Who was it who said that feminists usually throw like girls?

adad0
Member

Hold on to your “specks” Doug! A raft of “planks” is trying to fall on you! Also, nice job on those noble girls you and your wife raised! They sound like the “trees” “Jerry” talks about! Jerry 17:8 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? 10 “I… Read more »

bethyada
Member

Our discussion is based on analysis of 63 (out of 68) wedding exhortations extracted from Doug Wilson’s blog The problem with this is that it confuses occasional addresses with methodical teaching. If I write a systematic theology it may be far broader than what I teach to an individual. (Now to an extent all teaching is probably occasional, eg. in our culture, a biblical formulation of marriage may spend more time discuusing divorce, polygamy, sodomy, etc than a work 1000 years ago because of our current climate.) But they confuse what Doug thinks in general with what he thinks a… Read more »

Tom
Guest
Tom

My question is what was in the missing five.

bethyada
Member

While I have serious concerns with their analysis (the how and the presentation), this was not one of them.

Five exhortations on the site were excluded because they do not include individual exhortations to the bride and groom.

Jane Dunsworth
Guest
Jane Dunsworth

That’s a fair point, but on the other hand…

who says more general comments shouldn’t be factored in when trying to analyze the thrust of his writing and teaching? I know you’re on his side here but even that makes certain assumptions that only person-specific teachings are relevant to the issue. Including more general exhortations arguably dilutes the force of what he says to individuals and makes it less definitively about the differences in their roles, which would weaken the point they’re making that the differences in roles are exaggerated in his scheme.

bethyada
Member

Agreed. The method of analysis seems unwarranted. Then they go off and use other quotes of Doug to support their thesis but ignore quotes that refute it. But if we are to refute others, best to do so in their errors. Excluding in studies is frequently warranted. If one is going to analyse speeches of Fred that discuss A, then collect all speeches of Fred (make sure all the data set is available) then exclude not-A (narrow down to relevance). So while I don’t mind that they excluded 5 speeches, I object to them saying, Wilson averages 217 words in… Read more »

Jane
Member

Again, fair point, but it doesn’t seem warranted to predetermine that within the set of wedding exhortations, the only ones with relevance are the ones that directly address the husband and wife. The others are still wedding exhortations and still bear on the subject of marriage. It’s possible that the exclusion is warranted, but by no means obvious that the basis for exclusion does justice to the subject matter. I agree that counting words as such is pretty close to meaningless and treating the difference between 217 and 208 as significant is almost risible, so there are deeper problems. But… Read more »

David Henry
Guest
David Henry

By “church infiltrated by feminism,” do you mean Christ Church, or the church generally?

bethyada
Member

Your comment amuses me.

I have never attended Christ Church, so I can’t say, but somehow I doubt it.

I meant the (Western) church at large.

Nonna
Guest
Nonna

Feminism in some Patriarchal circles means women using their common sense and refusing to be silent.

holmegm
Guest
holmegm

Did you even read this? Or are you some sort of kvetch-bot?

Jane Dunsworth
Guest
Jane Dunsworth

And it’s not just what they need to hear, but what is appropriate to proclaim as part of the liturgy of marriage. What’s the content of the many hours of counseling and all the hours of teaching that people married at Christ Church hear?

Rob Steele
Guest
Rob Steele

One wonders how they settled on that particular data set. Did they look at the whole corpus and find it not incriminating enough?

bethyada
Member

I assume it is some specific methodology, perhaps some newfangled postmodern literature analysis. The problem I have is not trying to bring new ideas to gain insight, it is using them to make unwarranted conclusions. It is not like Wilson lived 500 years ago and we only have his wedding exhortations extant. The authors have much more material available, they can ask Doug about things that are not clear, and they spend too much time trying to read between the lines that they remain ignorant as to the actual lines.

Rob Steele
Guest
Rob Steele

I expect they tried it several ways and published the one they liked best.

Philipp
Guest
Philipp

Why the Spartans? Their women had a reputation for being much more independent, financially capable, and physically robust (exercise in the fresh air!) than the average Greek upper-class woman. I imagine they might have found Rahab and Abigail rather easier to understand than, say, most Athenians.

bethyada
Member

Perhaps I am wrong. The point being excessively submissive wives need to be reminded that husbands are not God. And rebellious wives that submission is appropriate to authority if the authority is not making you sin. (Our culture has both problems, but submission is probably the more needed message.)

Nonna
Guest
Nonna

“….if the authority is not making you sin.”

And who, pray tell, determines that? Remember now, the man has the final say in everything – or so I’ve heard it said among many a Comp/Pat proponent.

bethyada
Member

It is well established Christian doctrine that a person is not to obey an authority who tells us to sin. We are answerable to God. If we genuinely don’t know then we can ask others for advice. A wife can ask the elders if her husbands requests are encouraging her to sin. And even if they are not, the leadership may want to encourage him to have a marriage with more dialogue and less demands. They are one flesh after all. Does he really think that he has nothing to learn from his wife? Headship rightly understood is quite daunting.… Read more »

Kamilla Ludwig
Guest
Kamilla Ludwig

I made my once-yearly comment on Scot McKnight’s blog and it’s been deleted.

I guess it was a violation of commenting rules to point out that Hobbs and Miller called something a contradiction when it is really a paradox. Or maybe my violation was to imply they are feminists?

Sigh.

JohnM
Guest
JohnM

If you’ve had a comment deleted from Scot McKnight’s blog I believe congratulations are in order. Keep up the good work.

Jane Dunsworth
Guest
Jane Dunsworth

LOL Kamilla has an entire wall of plaques commemorating places she’s been deleted or banned (for all the right reasons.)

Kamilla Ludwig
Guest
Kamilla Ludwig

Including CBMW and TGC. I was blocked by TGC before it was cool ;-)

Occidoxy
Guest

I especially enjoy the conclusion.

Janet
Guest
Janet

The part where Mr. Wilson brags about the wife and two daughters who, by brilliance and independent spirit, have authored 20 volumes? Or the part where he neglected to mention his own publishing house, Canon Press, published them all?

James
Guest
James

Hope you’re proud of yourself:

http://www.correctionsone.com/corrections/articles/9369232-Idaho-sex-offender-allowed-to-return-home-with-child/

“contact resulting in actual sexual stimulation”

Is this another one of the sins you cover up for a living?

Tom
Guest
Tom

Hmmm, let’s see…no profile, random link, insinuation of heinous criminal activity…troll.

bethyada
Member

Neither approving nor disapproving of the situation, I think it concerning that the courts use polygraph tests.

valerieab
Member

Did you know that “bluestocking” was Merriam-Webster’s word of the day?

Rob Steele
Guest
Rob Steele

Today it’s “affront”. Marvelous.

Chris Hart
Guest
Chris Hart

Can one earn a Doctorate Degree by solely utilizing this quantitive analysis method to study the material? Also when my wife and I exchanged wedding vows she only said “I do” once, was this enough and did she really convey that she wanted to be my wife? This is such a game changer….

Jane Dunsworth
Guest
Jane Dunsworth

If she had also said “I do not,” it would have counted “I do” twice, too.

Fighting_Falcon
Guest
Fighting_Falcon

Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

GloriouslyIrrelevant
Guest
GloriouslyIrrelevant

“I have been JEDP’ed…” That line won the internet for the day.

drewnchick
Member

Quote of the day:
“I wonder what would happen, incidentally, if they took that gee-whiz-analysis-software of theirs, and ran Ephesians 5 through it.”

Hilarious!!

Monte Harmon
Guest
Monte Harmon

If authorial intent can be interpolated by simply counting words and
their combinations, why not process scripture in a similar fashion?
It’s very clear that there are at least two different Gods who authored
the 66 books considered canonical (maybe this could be reassessed by the
algorithms developed) , and both have significant mental deficiencies,
are arrogant, have anger problems, and are obsessed with death, blood,
and sex, as well as walking, water, bread, seeds and mountains.

Monte Harmon
Guest
Monte Harmon

Both the original article and Wilson’s response are quite humorous, the difference being that the original (and it’s supposed importance) is meant to be taken seriously, and like much of what my three year old says is anything but insightful (though similarly it gives me insight as to how his mind works), while Doug’s delightfully goofy response is a gentle swat on the back with a foam blade.

Irene
Guest
Irene

The criticism wasn’t about you describing sex as a man penetrating a woman. We all know that the man does the penetrating. The criticism was that you said it isn’t an “egalitarian pleasure party” and that you suggested penetration=dominance/conquering. What if the woman was on top and the man was laying there? She’s penetrating herself with his body, and she’s in the dominant position. He’s receiving her body. Why can’t sex be an “egalitarian pleasure party”? Doesn’t a woman’s sexual pleasure matter as much as her husbands?

holmegm
Guest
holmegm

Yes, I’m sure that Doug is appalled and disappointed anytime his wife accidentally experiences any pleasure. Most men are you know …

adad0
Member

If anyone has not already, please read the C.S. Lewis short story “Ministernig Angels”. Link below.

It is about another fictional pair of “bluestockings” pursuing an equally absurd idea.

https://ia700809.us.archive.org/35/items/MinisteringAngels/MinisteringAngelsByC.S.Lewis1958.pdf

Nonna
Guest
Nonna

Mr. Wilson, The Wartburg Watch has you pegged! All this outrage about Feminism and homosexuality. What about PEDOPHILIA? What about supporting marriage to a serial pedophile? And should you take offense that it’s just some *gal* bloggers, me thinks they have stated the facts from reliable sources. I guess it’s time to hunker down in the Kirk.

adad0
Member

Nonna, Gods Word has us pegged,and Wartburg as well.
James 411 Brothers and sisters, do not slander one another. Anyone who speaks against a brother or sister or judges them speaks against the law and judges it. When you judge the law, you are not keeping it, but sitting in judgment on it. 12 There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy. But you—who are you to judge your neighbor?

Nonna
Guest
Nonna

Slander? Slander means a false statement meant to ruin someone’s good reputation. Think again before you use that word.

adad0
Member

Oh, I thought about it in the first place, and left it in the verse out of respect for complete context of the verse. My point was juding, aka condeming, your neighbor. You are not a lwagiver or judge anymore than I am. That was my point. Try to think more about that part. I understand that S. Sitler is a convicted criminal and the state is dealing with him. S. Sitler is also a confessed sinner and a Church is willing to deal with him. Do you understand that part? “Think again” is always a good idea for everybody!

mikebull1
Member

Feeding somebody’s written works into wordle.net and pointing out the BIG words isn’t analysis. This assessment reminded me of the claim that the church is always talking about SEX, which is akin to claiming that the WWII Allied armies were obsessed with WAR. Like idiot progressives, since they have no answer to your various propositions, they assert their authority over you by putting you on the couch — a strategy that Ann Coulter, who clearly does not use wordle.net in her research, noted this week. http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2015-09-02.html The worst part is how LAZY and DISHONEST these women must be, passing off… Read more »

J Dawes
Guest
J Dawes

Thanks for the laugh, Doug! I haven’t enjoyed a post that much for a while.

adad0
Member

Dr. Hobbs, Per Professor McKnight’s request, my name is Jason Springer, aka “A” Dad, my Discus handle. Could you please post or send to Prof. McKnight a formal copy of your and Ms. Miller’s Wilson lexical analysis of Wilson for peer review? No, I am not a PHD in language, but I can find someone who is. In the mean time you might consider a lexical analysis of the web site “Femina Girls”. This is the site run by Wilson’s wife, daughters and daughter-in-law. A lexical analysis of their words ought to confirm how “step stool”, “silent”, “invisible” and not… Read more »

Barbara
Guest
Barbara

Mercy, what a headache. I work in a human services field in which data has become king and it is almost always out of touch with reality and requires constant “weed pulling” to get to the real issues. To choose a man to pick apart who happens to be a pastor because he is an easy target, and choosing to do it with data, and then choosing to publish the skewed and highly in charitable outcome as if it were fact without seeking to confirm anything as true…. Doesn’t the 9th commandment mean anything anymore?

Rachel
Guest

I find this all baffling on multiple levels. First of all, it is absolutely mind-boggling that your wife and Debi Pearl are consistently painted as apparently voiceless and stifled <emwhile people are throwing fits over their published works. That this even needs to be pointed out calls into question the critical thinking skills of the critics. But getting back to the primary subject matter of this post…why would anyone expect to find Proverbs 31 heavily-referenced in discussions of marriage? It isn’t about marriage. True, it is about recognizing what sort of qualities to look for in a woman, so I… Read more »