Why Doug Wilson Should Be Like Jimmy the Greek On the Issue of Slavery

"Slavery is theft — theft of a life, theft of work, theft of any property or produce, theft even of the children a slave might have borne." Kevin Bales

wikicommons
Slaves in chains in East Africa-Wikicommons

I learned that a comment was made that TWW did not do its homework on Doug Wilson. One thing we do at the thoroughly bibilcal and gospel TWW is read a lot, far more than ever finds its way onto the blog. Today, I plan to shore up my assessment that Doug Wilson has held some disturbing views on slavery by showing you what he did NOT say or do.

Jimmy the Greek

My Russian father was quite a character. He loved sports and was not above throwing a few cents down on his favorite team, race, whatever. He admired and followed the colorful Jimmy the Greek, who would place odds on anything. If he were alive today, I bet he would have odds on the outcome of the Reformed versus Traditionalist Baptists. Here is a synopsis from Wikipedia link.

"Dimetrios Georgios Synodinos (September 9, 1918 – April 21, 1996), better known as Jimmy "the Greek" Snyder, was an American sports commentator and Las Vegas bookie."

"According to the autobiography titled Jimmy the Greek by Jimmy Snyder, Steve Herskowitz (editor), and Mickey Herskowitz, he bet $10,000 USD on the 1948 election between Thomas Dewey and Harry S. Truman, getting 17:1 odds for Truman to win. In a later interview he indicated that he knew Truman was going to win because Dewey had a mustache and "American women didn't trust men with a mustache"".

"On January 16, 1988, he was fired by the CBS network (where he had been a regular on NFL Today since 1976) after commenting to WRC-TV reporter Ed Hotaling in a Washington, D.C. restaurant that African Americans were naturally superior athletes at least in part because they had been bred to produce stronger offspring during slavery:

“The black is a better athlete to begin with because he's been bred to be that way, because of his high thighs and big thighs that goes up into his back, and they can jump higher and run faster because of their bigger thighs and he's bred to be the better athlete because this goes back all the way to the Civil War when during the slave trade'n the big… the owner… the slave owner would, would, would, would breed his big black to his big woman so that he could have ah, ah big, ah big, ah big black kid see… ”
According to the New York Times obituary, Snyder expressed regret for his comments, remarking: "What a foolish thing to say."

Now, here is what I want to emphasize, Jimmy was distraught over his statement and  he effusively and thoroughly apologized for his statement. Here is a link to Beaver County Times in which then Presidential candidate Jesse Jackson praised Jimmy for his heart felt apologies. Jimmy even vowed to send personal letters to all African American athletes, apologizing for his statement. Hang with me. I promise this will make sense shortly.

Doug Wilson's Slavery Pamphlet-1996

Now back to Wilson.  It is important to realize that the initial pamphlet called Southern Slavery As it Was, co-authored by Wilson and his friend Steve Wilkins, was published in 1996. (Thanks, Deb, for this idea-your hunch was right!) This was well before the widespread blogging era. It was not a widely distributed pamphlet and so, it was largely forgotten until 2004. That is, until blogging started and the whole stinking mess rose to the surface and a couple of professors attempted to challenge Wilson. (Note to Wilson: My small groups is standing by to receive your phone calls of protest). It is also vital to understand that Black and Tan, Wilson’s little update, was written for at least one reason: the concerns of citation problems in the original book.

Who Was Invited to Speak at Wilson's 2004 Conference?

Fast forward to 2004 which is 8 YEARS after the publication. This was mentioned in Friday’s post.  Please pay careful attention to who is invited to be at this conference. From The Late Unpleasantness in Idaho: Southern Slavery and the Culture Wars by William Ramsey link.

“Information about Wilson’s ninth annual “history conference” in February 2004 turned out to be the final straw for many residents. Wilson had scheduled himself as the keynote speaker, praising the southern racist ideologue R.L. Dabney, but he had also scheduled as co-speakers white supremacist League of the South co-founder Steve Wilkins and the anti-gay Tennessee minister George Grant, notorious for advocating the extermination of all homosexuals in his book Legislating Immorality. University of Idaho students were especially outraged that the conference was surreptitiously scheduled to take place on their own campus in the Student Union Building. “

Two Problems

1. So, his buddy Steve Wilkins,  a League of the South supporteer.is back on the docket. Why so, if Wilson was running from their co-authored book of 8 years ago? What is the League of the South?

For clarity from Wikipedia link

The League of the South describes itself as a Southern nationalist organization, headquartered in Killen, Alabama, which states that its ultimate goal is "a free and independent Southern republic." The group defines the Southern United States as the states that made up the former Confederacy.[It claims to be also a religious and social movement, advocating a return to a more traditionally conservative, Christian-oriented Southern culture. It advocates a "natural societal order of superiors and subordinates.”

2. George Grant, a troublesome individual, is also invited to be a speaker.

From the Box Turtle Bulletin link we learn about George Grant. Please note the dates of the quotes material which were well before the 2004 conference.

“Grant’s 1993 book, Legislating Immorality: The Homosexual Movement Comes Out Of The Closet. In that book, Grant compares homosexuality with pedophilia and bestiality. He also calls for the death penalty for gays, saying “[t]here is no such option for homosexual offenses” except capital punishment."

"In 1987 George Grant wrote The Changing Of The Guard: Biblical Principles for Political Action, in which he made his call for a theocratic overthrow explicit. On reading these passages, there can be no doubt exactly what Grant is calling for: Christians have an obligation, a mandate, a commission, a holy responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ – to have dominion in the civil structures, just as in every other aspect of life and godliness."

  • But it is dominion that we are after. Not just a voice.
  • It is dominion we are after. Not just influence.
  • It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time.
  • It is dominion we are after."

September 2011

To this writer, it seems as if no change  has occurred, or worse, it may have broadened. But, is there any thing more recent? You betcha! And this is the crux of my argument.

Here is a 10 minute video in which Wilson is asked by one of his pastors about his views on slavery.  Here it is: the big moment for Wilson. He can do a Jimmy the Greek or he can punt. I say he punts. In fact, the more I read Wilson, the more I could be persuaded that he consistently says things in order to have plausible deniability. I am doubting his sincerity of many fronts. See if you think that a Las Vegas gambler showed more contrition than a man who,according to Piper, SUPPOSEDLY “gets the Gospel right.”

Wilson appears to argue that the Civil War should not have been fought because it was not a “Christian” war. There is much food of thought or argument in this. But listen very, very carefully for any sign of remorse. Do not be sidetracked. Ask yourself, how would you respond if someone accused you of racism?

This is a link to a new article on the Hufffington Post. It is a remarkable coincidence considering what we are writing about here. It is called An Ex-Slave’s Letter. It is fascinating.Who knew ex-slaves could have such a cutting sense of humor?  Here is a short excerpt.

"Addressed to one Col. Patrick Henry Anderson, who apparently wanted Jordan to come back to the plantation east of Nashville, the letter begins cheerfully, with the former slave expressing relief that "you had not forgotten Jordon" (there are various spellings of the name) and were "promising to do better for me than anybody else can." But, he adds, "I have often felt uneasy about you."

He informs the colonel that he's now making a respectable wage in Dayton, Ohio, and that his children are going to school. He tallies the monetary value of his services while on Anderson's plantation – $11,608 – then adds, "we have concluded to test your sincerity by asking you to send us our wages for the time we served you."

Turning serious, he alludes to violence committed against women back in Tennessee and wonders what would happen to his own family members. "I would rather stay here and starve – and die, if it come to that – than have my girls brought to shame by the violence and wickedness of their young masters."

He asks if there are schools now for blacks. "The great desire of my life now is to give my children an education, and have them form virtuous habits," he writes.

Then he signs off with a swift, unforgettable kick. "Say howdy to George Carter," he says, "and thank him for taking the pistol from you when you were shooting at me."

I will write more on Wilson on Wednesday and include more links from his fans at the Gospel Coalition, along with some of the surprising comments by such "missional leaders."


I apologize for my atrocious spelling in comments recently. I did not realize my spell check got turned off last week and so assumed all was well without those little red, underline reminders. I will be more careful!

Lydia’s Corner :Zechariah 1:1-21 Revelation 12:1-17 Psalm 140:1-13Proverbs 30:17

Comments

Why Doug Wilson Should Be Like Jimmy the Greek On the Issue of Slavery — 176 Comments

  1. Interestingly, there are actually two great southern theologians after the end of the Civil War: R.L. Dabney, and John L. Girardeau. One (Dabney) turn bitter after the South lost. The other (Girardeau) just wanted to return to Charleston and continue pastoring the all-black congregation he had founded years before hostilities broke out.

    Dabney and Girardeau were never able to see eye-to-eye after the War; Girardeau had been advocating for years for the all-black congregation to be self-sufficient, with their own elders. Dabney could never admit that an inferior human being could sit as his equal in the courts of the church. Girardeau worked tirelessly to educate the members of his congregation regarding Presbyterian polity and practice, in the hopes that the Church could be saved; Dabney was appalled by such actions.

    If you have to sit and praise a Southern Presbyterian theologian, Girardeau is the one to pick. He was decades ahead of his time, and is still held in high esteem by the African-American community in Charleston, South Carolina.

    The difference between the two is simple: Dabney was a great theologian, and a bad man. Girardeau was a brilliant theologian, and an even better man.

  2. As a former speech writer for a U.S. Senator, and a former policy maven and speech writer for a gubernatorial candidate, I can say I have never seen such a waffle, at least three or four stages deep, to avoid saying “I was wrong.” Bury the issue in all sorts of things for people to talk about and never admit the truth. Probably written out and memorized before hand, as any good politician would do.

  3. What can you say to a guy who appears to consider the scandal of Southern slavery as a mere intelectual exercise? He compares the bondage, torture, rape and murder of blacks by racist whites to people being in “debt slavery” to big greedy banks. Seriously?!? Oy vey. Nice one, Doug.

  4. Reformed Rebel – I just learned something from you. I’d never heard of Girardeau. I’d read Dabney enough via Wilson to share your perspective on him though. Can you point me to anything more on Girardeau?

  5. “The League of the South describes itself as a Southern nationalist organization, headquartered in Killen, Alabama, which states that its ultimate goal is “a free and independent Southern republic.” The group defines the Southern United States as the states that made up the former Confederacy.”

    i.e. The South Shall Rise Again…

    [It claims to be also a religious and social movement, advocating a return to a more traditionally conservative, Christian-oriented Southern culture. It advocates a "natural societal order of superiors and subordinates.”

    …including its Peculiar Institution regarding Certain Animate Property.

    Okay, that’s well beyond any normal pride in your region and its history. That’s dancing on the edge of Ku Klux territory. “Natural Societal Order of Superiors and Subordinates”… slick way to say in code what should be a literal matter of black & white.

    (I remember somewhere one of the Northern beefs about the Southern plantation culture wasn’t so much its treatement of its underclass, it was the planters setting themselves up as the “Glittering Men” atop a new feudal heirarchy. Just like the Titled Nobility of Europe, what was to stop them from having that attitude over ALL their inferiors, black or white?)

  6. What can you say to a guy who appears to consider the scandal of Southern slavery as a mere inteilectual exercise?

    Not much different from the intellectual in my past who once described global thermonuclear war as “only a 3 point 6 gigadeath situation — insignificant”.

    He compares the bondage, torture, rape and murder of blacks by racist whites to people being in “debt slavery” to big greedy banks.

    NORTHERN banks, remember. And the above-mentioned intellectual used to make similar comparisons proving the moral equivalence of the USA & USSR. It was like Chesterton’s observation of a syncretist “who tells you how Christianity and Buddhism are at heart one and the same — especially Buddhism.”

  7. And in parts of the old South, they teach that the North was the aggressor, after South Carolina initiated the whole secession thing and opened fire on U.S. military personnel, facilities and equipment.

  8. After sitting through nearly 11 minutes of that, I am more confused than ever as to why Doug Wilson is supposed to be so brilliant. Leaving aside the fact that he has totally re-defined the word ‘paleo’, I seriously challenge his reading of Philemon. #1 It was written in a situation where Christians had zero political power. Paul had no authority to overturn an institution like slavery, on which the whole economy depended. The only thing he had the power to do was change the people within the system, which #2, he then proceeds to do. v16 says “no longer as a slave, but, better than a slave, as a dear brother. He is very dear to me, but even dearer to you, both as a man and as a brother in the Lord.” Now, maybe I’m not understanding the English language here, but doesn’t that single statement undermine, and eventually implode, the whole basis of slavery? You don’t own “a dear brother”. You don’t enforce your will on him with a system of punishments and physical cruelties. You don’t tear his family apart for the sake of profit.You don’t take away his human dignity. In fact, if you do any of those things, you are the one who has ceased to behave like a brother in the Lord.How anyone gets any degree of endorsement of slavery from that …

  9. @EMSoliDeoGloria

    If you’d like to read more about Girardeau, my recommendation would be to acquire a copy of Dr. C.N. Willborn’s doctoral dissertation through ProQuest. The title is John L. Girardeau (1825-1898): Pastor to slaves and theologian of causes. A historical account of the life and contributions of an often neglected Southern Presbyterian minister and theologian. (Chalmers N. Willborn, Ph.D. diss., Westminster Theological Seminary, 2003).

    Other than Willborn’s work, it is next to impossible to find anyone writing about Girardeau; I believe, however, that his work Discussions of Theological Questions is still in print somwhere. You may be able to find it on Amazon.

  10. A few links for further reference:

    1) The full text of the original booklet is available online at a Reconstructionist site that does not appear to be maintained (get it while you can!): http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/slavery/southern_slavery_as_it_was.htm

    2) This rather hilarious academic rebuttal is also still up: http://mutualaffection.blogspot.com/

    3) Now, if you want to vomit a little bit, think on this. According to one website (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104×3863424#3863836), the original book was required reading for 9th graders at the Cary Christian School in Cary, North Carolina until 2004.

  11. Piper has ZERO discernment. Driscoll, Warren and now Wilson. He is leading lots of young skulls full of mush off cliffs.

  12. This is the conclusion to the prior rebuttal article I referenced above. I think it is important enough to be cited on its own.

    “One recent cultural critic has argued that the difference between neo-conservatism and fascism ‘consists merely in the fact that the latter says openly what the former thinks without daring to say.’ In this sense, Wilson and Wilkins are walking a fine line indeed. We are fascinated to observe how they formally deny any racist sympathies but then seem totally oblivious to the actual content of their work. This, we conclude, is sheer calculation. In the case of Southern Slavery, As It Was, Wilson and Wilkins insert passages to please the Klansman or neo-Confederate thinking of joining their cause, while at the same time including passages to deflect the charge of racism just in case their educational accreditation or faith-based federal funding is jeopardized. They speak with a tongue that is both forked and false. They do violence to historical fact and scriptural authority in order to serve their own hateful agenda. In public, Wilson and Wilkins may deny their racism and disavow violent intentions. But they constantly claim that racial slavery, misogyny, and violence against gays are condoned by the Bible. They then go on to claim that we need to reconstruct society along their lines of scriptural interpretation. What, we ask, do they logically expect their followers to conclude as a prescribed course of moral action?”

  13. Ok, have “…skulls full of mush…” but what about their hearts. With what are their hearts filled? That’s what frightens me!? :-(

  14. “Ok, have “…skulls full of mush…” but what about their hearts. With what are their hearts filled? That’s what frightens me!? ”

    It ain’t pretty. They are tearing churches apart with their arrogance, puffed up knowledge and anger. They really do think we are all ignorant. That is why they focus on planting churches mostly. Get someone else to pay for them to have authority over people.

  15. That Bad Dog -

    Your last quote is fascinating. What is explained there is what Jared Wilson is doing on his blog in defense of the quote from Wilson’s “Fidelity” that everyone “is having such a hard time understanding,” in his words.

    Me thinks many understand all too well.

  16. Doug has answered at least one question this evening on J Wilson’s Gospel Coalition Polluted Waters post. Don’t know if he’d go for slavery questions or not, since Jared has forbidden them, but sex and marriage should be open for discussion.

  17. This link – http://hnn.us/articles/23113.html – is to a follow-up article by one of Wilson’s original opponents in the “Southern Slavery As It Was” controversy. It details what happened in the years following, including Wilson’s somewhat amusing falling-out with the kinists as a result of dialing back on the rhetoric.

    More importantly, it addresses the changes made in “Black and Tan”, and what they actually mean.

    ‘Douglas Wilson and his postmillennial empire…appear to have reached a crossroads….Having built his appeal on the manipulation of historical evidence, he must now discredit historical evidence entirely while at the same time persuading home-schoolers and Classical Christian school students nationwide that his version of American History has some basis in fact. This is not as impossible as it seems….The mere charge of being “unregenerate,” moreover, is enough to discredit most professional historians in the eyes of Wilson’s staunchest supporters. For the rest, he needs only to create enough confusion and “controversy” to throw doubt on the academic endeavor, and he is by all appearances willing to spend a life-time playing shell-games with the evidence.’

  18. That Bad Dog

    My sentiments exactly. I have had a hard time following the logic of Wilson since he goes back and forth-right to th edge, pulls back, etc. It is my opinion, in spite of what Jared says, that you and many others are the ones with the correct reading comprehension. Many of these guys have spent their time superifically and literally reading Bibical texts. So, when a guy like Wilson comes along, the nuances arel ost on them. i will deal with this on Wednesday. 

  19. Anon1

    I contend that this stuff will not play in Peoria and, just like Amway, they will rely on bottmo feeding which is not endless.

  20. Bridget

    I wnet over there and weighed in as Dee and said I found the statement both offensive and controversial.  The sad part of this they don’t understand. They have self talked for so long that they are out of touch. I plan to deal with this tomorrow.

  21. That Bad Dog

    Ah, the old “unregenerate” charge. Andy Davis tried that on some friend of ours and, excuse the reference to canines, “that dog don’t hunt.”

  22. General
    Doug Wilson left this over at the Jared post:
    “It is also reasonable to ask who would stand a better chance of getting invited to a swank Manhattan cocktail party for the liberated literati — someone like me or the author of 50 Shades? I think that women ought to be treated with dignity and respect, so that lets me out. The author of 50 Shades thinks that deep down women want to be worked over a bit, so he is clearly still in the running.”

    My comment is simple. I would not want either of them at any gathering of Christians either. Yeah, 50 Shades is perverted. That does not negate the fact that the Wilson quote was insensitive, controversial and offensive to me as a Christian (however he has probably pronounced me as unregenerate).

    News flash for Wilson: few Christians would be invited to a liberal swank party in Manhattan. That is so astonishing? Yeah, I guess so. Christians were invited to Nero’s garden parties….as torches!!! Christians have been hunted and rejected since 33 AD. No big surprise. In fact the Bible warns us of this fact. So Wilson needs to quit his beefing.It is an honor to be rejected by those of this world for our godly lives. But not for our deliberately incendiary words.

    But, old Dee thinks there is more of an agenda here. One that believes that Christians might actually be able to usher in a glorious age, complete with execution of homosexuals and adulterers and men resembling Wilson at the helm.

    No thanks, I’m waiting for Jesus. He knows what He is doing and He does not speak with forked tongue.

  23. “The author of 50 Shades thinks that deep down women want to be worked over a bit, so he is clearly still in the running.”

    “Erika Leonard, better known by the pseudonym E. L. James (born 1963),[2] is the British author of the bestselling erotic novel Fifty Shades of Grey” – wiki

    E. L. James is a woman, just for the record.

  24. I applaud those of you who have responded to the two Wilsons on TGC blog. I read the comments and was appalled by the equivocation, backtracking, and plain old insulting they engaged in. And then they ignore questions that are inconvenient to their agenda.

    I’ve shared this song before, but I don’t think it hurts to share it again :) Joe South’s ‘Games People Play’:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAGyENr3_44

    “Oh the games people play now
    Every night and every day now
    Never meaning what they say now
    Never saying what they mean

    …People walking up to ya
    Singing glory hallelujah
    Then they’re tryin to sock it to ya
    In the name of the Lord”

  25. Dee said-

    “But, old Dee thinks there is more of an agenda here. One that believes that Christians might actually be able to usher in a glorious age, complete with execution of homosexuals and adulterers and men resembling Wilson at the helm.”

    Yes. I was reading this:

    http://theonomists.blogspot.com/2006/11/meet-theonomists.html#spm

    and found “Spaceship Moscow” which is about Wilson. Interesting.

    I agree with you about the vidoe. he is hard to follow (am sure that is MY fault) but nevertheless, just when you think he is going to make his point-he turns on you and goes a different way…then perhaps may get back to answering the question but by that time you are mighty confused.

    You just need to know him, Dee. In all his contrarian ambiguity.

  26. “Erika Leonard, better known by the pseudonym E. L. James (born 1963),[2] is the British author of the bestselling erotic novel Fifty Shades of Grey” – wiki

    E. L. James is a woman, just for the record. — Heather

    So, just like Twilight, 50 Shades is “the type of fantasy writing that usually doesn’t get sent to a publisher, if you get my drift”?

    But 50 Shades is a Best-Seller bringing the $$$ in in buckets, so everybody and their dog is trying to climb on the bandwagon. I am waiting to see the Christianese knockoff — “Just like 50 Shades of Grey, Except CHRISTIAN(TM)!!!” — hit the Lifeway circuit.

  27. I was surprised at D. Wilson’s answer to Pam. He absolutely ignored everything she said. And he is supposed to be such a great debater. Maybe that’s his secret.

    FYI – according to Twitter (as read on Boar’s Head Tavern), J. Wilson is currently in the hospital with severe abdominal pain. Prayers appreciated.

    I read the D. Wilson excerpt on J. Wilson’s blog several times, and all I can hear him saying is that God has provided all the “good” aspects of rape in a proper hierarchal Christian marriage for the enjoyment of both spouses. And somehow “50 Shades of Grey” shows that we all hunger for the those “good” things, but pervert them. Maybe I’m stupid and can’t understand them or maybe they are stupid to believe in the “good” aspects of rape. I don’t know. Stupid is as stupid does, I guess.

  28. I noticed this tweet from Jared Wilson on July 14th -

    “You can lead someone with poor reading comprehension skills to context, but you can’t make them think.”

    Thanks for that, Jared. I wonder if that was directed at me…us? Now that my confidence in my reading skills is blown…because I cannot understand the ambiguous Doug Wilson, I cannot know. If this kind of tweet is an example of how a professing Christian pastor should exhibit Christ-like behavior so that we will be persuaded by-er, I mean obey them…I think I will pass.

  29. “Within two months of the publication of Black and Tan (August 2005), one of the most virulent racists operating in the blogosphere, Badonicus, had labeled Wilson a “Lying Racist Horse’s Ass.” As proof of Wilson’s betrayal, Little Geneva published its correspondence with him during the time that the book was being revised. Some of the letters were signed “Confederately Yours.” Thus, by forcing Wilson to modify his overt strategies, we feel that we have managed to compromise his appeal among core supporters. Even moderate revisions in vocabulary and tone have cost him the support of radical admirers as he moves reluctantly toward the mainstream.”

    http://hnn.us/articles/23113.html

    THAT must have been stressful…2005…with all the Sitler activity going on at the same time.

  30. JJ

    I will be assessing said comments and how  interesting that “missonal” people can be so gosh darn anti-missional in spirit.

  31. Diane

    What? I was told that we all had poor reading comprehension which is code word for just plain dumb. Well, guess what. I can read and i do not like what i read and I will hammer home the point. And the video is my proof that clrity is not the issue for Wilson.

  32. Dana -

    They ignore the pointed questions and take the
    dialogue where they want it to go. I asked a pointed question to Jared about scripture references to Wilson’s “personal perspective” about what the sex act is like between husband and wife . . . needless to say, there was no answer to that specific question.

    I am sorry to hear that Jared is having pain . . . I will be praying for him.

    I am also sorry to see what Jared posted to Twitter on July 14th. That is another immature, arrogant, and unpastorly thing to say, especially in light of the conversation he is having on his blog. As a matter of fact, it sounds like a purposeful insult.

  33. Diane, I’ve been accused of poor reading comprehension skills as well.
    When accused, all I could do was laugh. I have, and have always had, excellent reading comprehension. I also have a good sense of when someone is b.s.ing me.
    Such a careless attempt to shut me up could not have been more obviously misplaced.

    Take heart and know that the “poor reading comprehension” insult is just something they throw out at you when you see through their group speak and are able to shake the foundations of their self-delusions.

  34. Bridget

    There is a meaness associated with the Calvinista movement. It is based in their absolute surety that they alone really,really understand the Bible and the rest of us need to shut up and listen to them.

     I know of a pastor who told his congregation that the reason the Calvinistas understand the Gospel better than others is that they spend 30 hours a week in deep contemplation and have studied and have advanced degrees. i wonder, how did the gospel ever survive without them?

    This thinking leads to arrogance. This also leads to a subtle understanding that they alone hold the keys to the kingdom and those of us who disgaree with them are most likely unregenerate. However, we will not let them get away with it. Blogs let us communicate our concerns.

  35. There is a meaness associated with the Calvinista movement. It is based in their absolute surety that they alone really,really understand the Bible and the rest of us need to shut up and listen to them. — Dee

    I still think the root cause of this is pushing God’s Soverignity and Omnipotent Will to the point where it crowds out everything else and leaves a God who is Infinite POWER and ONLY Infinite POWER. Until you end up with a God who is Omnipotent but NOT Benevolent. “In’shal’lah…”

    After which, becoming Godly means Worshipping POWER and POWER alone. And throwing your weight around is part of a Power Trip.

    As is making sure your boot is stamping on the faces of your inferiors, and the Calvinist corollary of Total Depravity means you can justify them as Unregenerate Totally Depraved Sinners who Deserve It. Like the God of POWER you worship, you have POWER but no Benevolence.

    And the doctrine of Election means YOU are one of the Elect, i.e. God’s Speshul Pet who “spends 30 hours a week in deep contemplation”, Predestined before the Creation of the World to Carry Out God’s Omnipotent Will. Further cosmic justification for Power Trip.

    And the only goal of POWER is MORE POWER. Without end.

  36. Regarding my poor reading skills:

    I actually do understand what Wilson is saying, I just reject his premise, since I reject complementarianism. I am also highly amused that they are so deep in their echo chamber that they cannot see that a person who is not parroting their doctrine day in and day out can perceive their argument as saying: A hankering for rape can be satisfied by complementarianism.

    Again, these are two men who make a living by communication. They need to expand their horizons into the world everyone else lives in.

  37. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/septemberweb-only/john-piper-racism-bloodlines-excerpt.html?start=1

    I’m wondering if any of you have read this before. It’s John Piper’s bio in Christianity Today about his past racism. My thoughts about it are 1. That the demons that he once agreed with on racism still influence his life, but he allows them to inform his misogyny doctrines instead. 2. If he could reject racism maybe there is hope for him to reject misogyny someday also.

  38. GBTC -

    As a side note – the new placement of the “post comment” button is bothersome when using an iphone. I have often had “oops” posts and not been able to reread for typos.

    Thanks to Deb for fixing some of those “wrong word” uses.

    Just feedback, I understand if there is nothing you can do about it. Even now I have to be quite careful because “Post” is 1/16 of an inch from “Done.” :)

  39. Another great post re: Wilson! We need this to reach a critical mass so that Wilson is compelled to renounce his old work. If he refuses to do this, as he clearly does in the video, we know where he stands. Unfortunately, I think that the conclusion that Bad Dog cited is basically correct and he he will not renounce his views on slavery largely because of his fascistic views (as I mentioned in a comment a few months ago on patriarchy, racism, Wilson, and blood and soil fascism).

    Anyone with reading comprehension ;) can see that Wilson contradicts himself. His misogynist, imperialist view of sex (It can’t be an “egalitarian pleasuring party”? Way to load the dice your way with words Dougie) and his ‘softer’ lines calculated DO NOT go together. And so it is absolutely right for people to demand that Doug clarify where he stands.

    I also think that Jared genuinely doesn’t get the negative response to the post/quotation. This, to me, says more about his bubble and his own sexual issues and hang ups than it does about the reading skills of his readers. His tweet is insulting.

    I find that Calvinista/complementarian writers are often projecting their own issues and problems with women and then universalizing them. Tim Challies does this all the time, including this recent post – http://www.challies.com/christian-living/keeping-intimate-details-intimate

    Here is a direct quote: “Let’s consider a couple named Rob and Kelly (randomly-chosen names, I assure you). As with most couples, there is a significant variance in sexual desire between the two. As is typical, but certainly not universal, Rob, the husband, is the one who tends to initiate sexual intimacy and who does so significantly more often than Kelly. However you want to measure relative sexual desires, Rob’s is the greater of the two. Kelly is generally willing to respond to Rob when he initiates, though she needs more time to prepare, more time to warm up to the idea. She finds it easier to participate and to enjoy herself when a longer period of time has elapsed between their lovemaking.”

    Like Jared (who really does think there is nothing wrong with sex as masculine conquest in which the woman is passive receiver), Challies shows his hand…again. I’ve seen Challies use this kind of example (women as less sexually desirous than men) far too many times for it to be happenstance. So many of these complementarian guys tell us more than they know and they really are baffled by dissent because they are bubble boys.

  40. Dee -

    If an advanced degree and 30 hours of contemplation a week is necessary to understand scripture and follow Christ, then (1) what is the purpose of the Holy Spirit in a believer’s life, (2) why didn’t Jesus tell us we would have to do this to walk with him, and (3) doesn’t hearing this from a pastor actually DISCOURAGE believers from seeking the help of the Holy Spirit, reading the Scripture, and growing in Christ? They claim to want believers to grow in Christ yet they basically tell them a lie that discourages that very process. It also keeps believer’s dependent on their pastors which is counter to what Paul wants for new believers. How subversive can you get? I don’t know if men are being purposeful in this or not. A “true elder” would definitely be looking at the fruit to see what the results of his teachings are.

    I would add that “good fruit” does not equal passive obedience.

  41. HUG: “And the doctrine of Election means YOU are one of the Elect, i.e. God’s Speshul Pet”

    I’ve seen more of this among calvinistas than I care to remember.
    It is really sad how people project onto God what they want, as in, “I’m saved and you aren’t,” as though they could know these things, or “As God’s elect, I know better than you.”

    It sounds a lot like the “Touch not God’s anointed” thing that went on some time back. And those that said is got to decide that they were the anointed ones and that you weren’t.

  42. My reading skills are comprehending this pretty well…with regard to convicted pedophile Steven Sitler (from a comment made last year after his marriage to Katie Travis officiated by Doug Wilson):

    “It’s so tragic! This man is on lifetime probation – another violation – and he’s going back to jail for a long time. The prosecution and parole board have already said that the terms of his probation are that he can NEVER live in the same house with minor children. So, what does Wilson and Iverson see happening here? I seriously expect that they will declare themselves above the law since it would be against their beliefs for Sitler to live apart from his wife and children. He’s going to breed future victims and she is going to live with the consequences. Oh, I’m sure that Wilson and Iverson believe all of the research done on pedophiles is “bunk” and that marriage to a good, Christian girl, will “cure” him. Then they’ll expect her and the children to be on the receiving end of his twisted appetites and put on the appearance of “normal” to proof they were right.

    I’m glad to see you say that the parole board won’t let him live with minor children, because the thing I’d seen quoted before was that he wasn’t allowed to be around minors without “competent adult supervision.” I was afraid that this poor young woman was going to be considered “competent adult supervision, when she’s been raised all her life to believe that she needs to submit to her husband completely. (Not that I think she would knowingly submit to him abusing the children, but I think that in the context of their beliefs it would be hard for her to resist him if he said, for example, that it was all right for her to go make dinner in the kitchen while he was with the kids in the living room.)

    Of course, what then, happens to Katie and her baby? Is she a pariah outcast? Is she shunned from the community because she’s an embarassment? Is her husband’s continued depravity then blamed on her because she was supposed to “cure” it by being “everything” to this man?Is her father or her grandfather (Ed Iverson is her grandpa and the one that arranged the courtship) required to care for her financially? Women aren’t supposed to live alone according to their beliefs, so does she move back in with them and will they take her? If she does have to move back to the home of such vile men, what kind of future would it be for her and her child? I cannot imagine any outcome of this that does not end in human tragedy!

    Me either. And the horribly ironic part of this is that a major justification of the “courtship” movement is supposed to be that parents have greater wisdom and discernment than young adults. They’re supposed to be able to see beyond the shortsighted urges and opinions that young people have, to encourage marriages with a greater chance of lasting success.

    The “guidance” that Katie Travis was provided by her elders is just a sick joke. What kind of person even introduces a sheltered young woman to a convicted pedophile, much less encourages her to marry him?!”

    http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/archive/index.php/t-297420-p-2.html

  43. “4. Joan said, “Doug Wilson seems to believe [he] should welcome the return of Steven Sitler not as a criminal; not as a serial pedophile; not as a dangerous man, but as a repentant sinner.” False alternative, and she is attributing views to me which I repudiate. I believe that if Steven is returned to our community, he should be welcomed as a criminal and serial pedophile and a dangerous man, as well as a sinner who professes repentance. If there is no forgiveness of sin in Christ (including horrific sin like this), then I should give up the pastorate and get a useful job with UPS or something. When terrible sinners cry out for the grace of God found in Christ, it is not a minister’s job to say “sorry, all out,”"
    http://www.dougwils.com/Moscow-Diversity-Cleansing/Joan-Opyr-Cub-Reporter.html

    “At the risk of intruding into what appears to be a two-party conversation I would like to address the issues you have raised about anonymity, Paul. In
    this particular case, it seems to me that “Concerned” was stating his/her
    opinion, about the posting of photographs of Steven Sitler along with
    related (Legally Obtained) documents. As far as I can tell, no one on V2020
    is suggesting that the anonymous author is defending Steven Sitler’s
    horrendous behavior. In fact, I agreed entirely with Doug Wilson’s
    assessment of ChoMo Sitlerm four years ago when he wrote:
    “I believe that
    if Steven [Sitler] is returned to our community, he should be welcomed as a
    criminal and serial pedophile and a dangerous man, as well as a sinner who
    professes repentance.”

    Consequently, it is absolutely astonishing that Doug and his band of merry
    men can, in the space of four years, completely transformed and reinvent Mr.
    Steven Sitler from a criminal, serial pedophile, dangerous man to a
    delightful and godly young man who will be marrying an NSA graduate with the
    blessing of the Kirk and the elders. Doug Wilson, will be officiating at the
    June 11th wedding. Who would’ve thunk it would turn out like this?

    Rose Huskey”
    http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2011-April/076176.html

    Wilson says “…he (convicted serial pedophile Steven Sitler) should be welcomed as a criminal and serial pedophile and a dangerous man,”

    I am comprehending this pretty well with my reading skills, at least I think I am. Sitler is dangerous…declared so by Doug. Doug had a hand in said dangerous man’s courtship and married him off last summer to a young woman via a courtship arranged scenario originating with him (Wilson) and some other elder(s) of Christ Church and, of course, both sets of parents.

    Yet–Sitler is dangerous. He is to be welcomed back into the community as a dangerous man. Well then, when did Sitler become non dangerous? Non dangerous enough to enter into marriage to a young woman of 23? If he has become non dangerous, when and how did Wilson know that that had occurred?

    If not, Doug Wilson thought it well and good to marry a dangerous man to a young woman?

  44. Dee–I sent several links to you in a comment a few months ago…do you still have them/save them–maybe Deb did?

    If not let me know and I can send the court docs, police records and a few other things. There are blogs too—which need, of course, to be taken with a grain of salt and read with an open mind. But there are facts that are disturbing enough.

    I am posting these things not for your regular readers, as I think most are familiar, but for any new readers.

  45. Diane

    I am losing my mind. I will look for them. If you still have a copy, please forward them to me. I definitely feel a post coming on.

  46. Jesus clearly taught how a leader is to behave, and it is not to say “I am in charge here, appointed by God from before creation, to tell you how to live.” Rather, he said his followers would compete to see who could serve the others more. And that also applies to marriage btw, serve your spouse and place them above you, whether you are male or female, make their needs and wants the priority over your own. That is the “submission” taught by Paul and it comes straight out of Jesus teaching about how to live: “let no one call you a leader”.

  47. General Comment: Dee Is officially furious!!!!

    Thanks to Diane, I have been reading some stuff on a confessed, convicted, mulitple small child pedophile Steven Sitler who was supported by Wilson. Wilson’s church then mandated some sort of courtship and married a 22 year old girl off to this pervert. She is to submit to him (and my guess is to produce many, mnay children). I am reading in horror and as our devoted readers know, nothing but nothing, gets us angrier than pedophiles. I am reading on this situation and plan to write about this tomorrow. Good going TGC. You know how to pick ‘em.

  48. Diane – thank you for trying to bring up Sitler on Jared Wilson’s post and then being so gracious when he deleted it for being off topic. Please keep being persistent with the story.

    Dee – Oh, yes, this deserves a post from TWW. It is a shocking story and every time someone says “Doug Wilson”, someone else should say “Steven Sitler”. Just like Diane has valiantly been doing.

  49. I knew about Sitler, and linked to the early part of the story in another comment. I did not know about the cult-approved Sitler courtship and marriage. That is one of the most disturbing things I have ever heard, and I have heard a lot of disturbing things.

  50. Diane

    “I am losing my mind. I will look for them. If you still have a copy, please forward them to me. I definitely feel a post coming on.”

    Will do, via email, if not today then tomorrow. Thanks Dee.

  51. That Bad Dog-

    You can google –Steven Sitler Katie Travis wedding video– and see the ceremony with Wilson and others officiating.

  52. Pre-wedding, that is. I wonder how he justifies marrying these two? Has anyone ever asked him to explain himself?

  53. For all that these guys talk about their manhood, they certainly fail to exercise it on behalf of women and children.

    I understand wanting to honor God’s grace and forgiveness toward sin by believing that all can be forgiven and redeemed.

    But to wed Sitler to a naive young woman, to aid him in becoming a husband and father, shows gross arrogance and hubris.

    Let’s see. Sitler has at least of decade of confessed rape and molestation of at least a dozen children ages 2 – 12, going back to his puberty. He successfully hid this for years while functioning undetected and in good standing among Christians and within Christian churches. This implies he is manipulative and adept at deception, capable of talking a good game while keeping dark secrets. He is brazen enough to molest a two-year old while supposedly providing child care with her parents and other Christians in the next room. When caught and booted from that church, he went to another prestigious Christian organization where he molested the children of his host family. (Rumor is they were paid well by Sitler’s wealthy family to keep quiet.) He ended up at New St. Andrew’s College, where he boarded with a family. Doug Wilson, self-proclaimed patriarch/pastor/defender of the faith knew this and hid it from his congregation, putting them at risk. (And Sitler was not the only one; there is another. But Sitler is by far the worse of the two.) When Sitler was caught abusing again, Wilson did do the right thing in telling the victim’s parents to report it to the police and supplying an attorney. Sitler was somehow able to leave town and was represented in his legal proceedings by another (better) attorney connected with Wilson. Wilson counseled with Sitler in a pastoral role during this time (5 times in 4 mos.) and intervened on his behalf, asking for mercy for Sitler, saying Sitler had confessed and repented and wanted to change, and Wilson believed him. Sitler pled down to one offense on the condition that he name other victims. Life sentence turned into a short jail term and lifetime probation including never being alone with children the rest of his life except under direct adult supervision. Only after that deal was made, it was discovered that Sitler hadn’t confessed everything — just mostly what was already known by someone. Someone found an online photo album with hundreds of children, including his known victims. for that matter, within a month of his release, he violated the terms of his probation by engaging in voyeurism; he was not remanded back to custody for some reason. And THAT is the man that Wilson marries to a naive, impressionable girl who, at the ripe old age of 22,is pining away because she is not married and having babies like most of her friends are.

    Why would Doug Wilson do that? Maybe is because he places enormous confidence in his abilities and ‘rightness’ and greater value on his doctrine than he does this young girl and her future children. Maybe Sitler is his trophy that ‘proves’ the transforming power of right theology. I don’t know. I think it is evil.

  54. Dee wrote:

    “There is a meanness associated with the Calvinista movement. It is based in their absolute surety that they alone really,really understand the Bible and the rest of us need to shut up and listen to them.”

    “I know of a pastor who told his congregation that the reason the Calvinistas understand the Gospel better than others is that they spend 30 hours a week in deep contemplation and have studied and have advanced degrees. i wonder, how did the gospel ever survive without them?” Very good points.

    This is exactly what I think of the so called “New Calvinists”. I do not care if they contemplate 168 hours a week (meaning 24/7, with no food, no drinks) they, among those I know personally, have no love, no grace but a lot of arrogance. It seems they have a lot of head knowledge and advance degrees (true or false?) but no fruit to show to anyone. They bring darkness, not light to the community and I am tired of them and their “exclusive club”.

  55. Diane
    I saw that post and it is from a very reputable source. I plan to use it as a main reference source tomorrow as I retell the horrendous story of Doug Wilson and the pedophile whom he designated “marriageable material.” If this doesn’t cause TGC to stand up and take notice, then there is no question something is wrong in this organization.

  56. Sam
    I will give more fodder for Wade Burleson tomorrow.The whole Gospel Coalition allowed Doug Wilson a platform for his own post just recently. The serial “pedophile who was marriageable material” should throw anyone on the edge completely over. I swear “What are they teaching in seminaries these days?”

  57. Deb, Dee, everybody:

    Let’s call these comps/patrios/whatever what they are:

    MALE SUPREMACISTS.

    And their preaching what it is:

    MALE-SUPREMACIST PROPAGANDA, no different than Ku Klux literature being White-Supremacist Propaganda.

  58. HUG

    I have a different name but God is not pleased and I must repent. Tune in tomorrow. you think the Ian and Larissa story was used for an agenda. Howza about using a pedophile and a sweet young girl?

  59. I hope you’re ready to catch some serious flack for this one, Dee & Deb, though I commend you for your investigative reporting. Just make sure you’re in this one for the long run. Doug Wilson is a big dog with lots of cash and many devoted followers. However, no one who has protected a pedophile AND married him off to an innocent girl should be allowed to slip away quietly.

  60. Hester

    It’s not my story. It is the story of those people who are on the blogs who are telling the tale. I am merely recounting what is out there and then adding a bit of analysis. If he has a problem with the what is being said, it appears that he has a lot of people all over the Internet that he will have to contact, along with some court records that would need to disappear. As for flack, we can handle it. This is a story that TGC should not ignore.But, there was CJ Mahaney…

  61. Dee -

    I was thinking about CJ and several churches in his realm as well. TGC let that pass and some of them even endorsed him right from the start.

  62. Dee is right.

    It’s all out there…has been out there for anyone to see. The only reason it’s news for me is because of the recent wedding. Pastors hide sex scandals all the time –that is not news….well, it is, but you know what I mean. But this wedding, and the fact that so many claim Wilson is wonderful and is promoted by many …well, for me there is a disconnect. When does a pastor’s moral actions matter as much as his doctrine, getting “the gospel right” or witty/scandalous books?

  63. I was preparing to comment on Jared Wilson’s post when I saw that he had closed comments. But many others had already eloquently and ably responded.

    I also noticed that Rachel Held Evans left a reply and said that she will be addressing this issue in her blog. Good! The two Wilsons might deflect questions and belittle those who disagree with them, but they cannot shut down this conversation.

  64. JJ

    Whoo Hoo! Wade wrote about it and Rachel Evans is going to write about this. This should garner a lot of press. This needs to get around the world so that people of “superb reading comprehension” can let TGC know what they think of their latest pal.

  65. From Jared Wilson’s twitter this am:

    “When words are many, transgression is not lacking, but whoever restrains his lips is prudent.” Proverbs 10:19

    Interesting tweet to tweet. A brief commentary about the verse from which I think Doug Wilson would benefit greatly-

    “but he that refraineth his lips is wise; lays a restraint on his mouth, bridles his tongue; does not suffer his lips to utter anything rashly and inconsiderately; is sparing of his words and is careful of what he says, that it is true and proper to be spoken; and considers well the time when, place where, and persons to whom he speaks; and, all circumstances weighed, conducts accordingly: such a man is a wise, prudent, and understanding man; see proverbs 17:27″

    Proverbs 17:27- “He who restrains his words has knowledge, and a man of understanding is even-tempered.”

    “He that hath knowledge spareth his words,…. Or, “he that knows knowledge” (c); one that is very knowing, has a fund of knowledge in him, “spareth his words”; is generally a man of few words, he thinks much and says little; and though he may be communicative of his knowledge to proper persons, and at proper times, yet never speaks of it in a boasting and ostentatious way: or, he “restrains his words” (d); he puts a bridle on them; and suffers not himself to speak hastily and angrily, and in a reproachful manner, when he is provoked to it;”

    Thanks, Jared. :-)

  66. For him who has ears to hear:
    Broccophiliac says:
    Broccoli is nefariously poisoning our culture! It was created by Satan! I’m sorry the growers of broccoli can’t all be executed under our modern, permissive laws!
    Puzzled 1 says: I’m puzzled. Isn’t broccoli good for us?
    Broccophiliac: if you don’t know, no wonder you’re puzzled, and I can’t help you! Read my books!
    Puzzled 2 says: And it tastes good, too!
    Puzzled 3 says: Cite one study which indicates broccoli is harmful!
    Puzzled 4 says: The Bible says God created broccoli!
    Broccophiliac: Oh, Where’s the Poetry!! Verily, if you oafs understood Bolivian, you’d know that even my name means I LOVE BROCCOLI!!! I only want to serve it! And protect it! Under a very thick layer of sauce. I’d recommend hollandaise, but you barbarians have the specific density of osmium!

    Thanks to George H W Bush for the inspiration.

  67. Jared has a follow-up . . . why should someone with low reading comprehension even bother to try and comprehend it :)

  68. I just went over to Jared’s blog and read this:

    “No doubt there are more comments to be made. The comments on this post are closed, but my email inbox is open. Feel free to send your continued thoughts and concerns to jared AT gospeldrivenchurch DOT com . I will be grateful for the sharpening.”

    Why hide the comments in private e-mail? I get all kinds of negative comments against me on my blog for even having a blog, for publicly talking about my former pastor, yada yada. This kind of dialogue is good. It causes me to really question myself and my motives. I think when you put yourself out there publicly as he has and as I have, it’s time to put the big boy/girl panties on and deal with it publicly where it was started. What is there to hide?

  69. Julie Anne,
    He also said “The ability to say anything new has passed its use by date”.
    This just after a number of non-Wartburgians took extensive time to write lengthy, thoughtful, and very courteous comments, and not one of their points addressed.

  70. I wish I could comment over on Jared Wilson’s blog, but, alas, he won’t allow it. And I won’t bother trying with Doug Wilson. He couldn’t hear it because he is so sure he is right. Ah, the privilege of being a white male in a position of authority in the American church!

    But they are so dead wrong about a LOSS of the concept and practice of male authority and female submission leading to twisted perversions. They really should do their research.

    Let them try being a woman in an ultra-patriarchal culture and see how safe and valued and protected they are. When women are seized and gang-raped publicly on the streets of Egypt? When women in some cultures are expected to submit to sexual abuse by single (or not) male relatives as part of his right? When women in various countries and cultures can be beaten, disfigured, or even killed as a matter of male ‘honor’ while the men go free?

    Whether with Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints or Muslims or Southern Baptists or Independent Baptists or Catholics or various neo-Reformed groups like Doug Wilson’s or SGM or Household of Faith (especially if conservative Gothardite homeschooling is involved) etc., etc., etc., — it is exactly the RISE of gender-obsessed, role-driven, rule-based, repressive Patriarchy that correlates to more molestation and abuse of women and children.

    If going down the road to patriarchy far enough brings with it such possibility of perversion, such hard-hearted, selfish entitlement, then maybe, just maybe, patriarchy is the wrong road to go down!

    These guys would probably say that those examples are sinful perversions of the true ‘Biblical’ patriarchy that God intended and that we shouldn’t dismiss the genuine because of the counterfeit. In fact, the Wilsons’ claim is that such abuses, like the wild popularity of the 50 Shades mommy-porn book, just ‘prove’ that authority/submission drives are innately hard-wired in by God. After all, sexual “bondage and submission games” and “rape fantasies” are “very common,” D. Wilson says.

    Really? All sin, selfishness, fear, hate, pride, and cruelty in the world are born of God-given drive and design misapplied? Maybe. Or maybe some people want to dominate others because they are proud, selfish beings with superior size and strength and the endorsement of their surrounding social structure (or at least its complicit silence).

    Did Jesus come in power and authority to institute ‘proper’ social order, or did He come in lowliness and humility to show God’s love, mercy, grace, and compassion to the weak, the wounded, the helpless, and the needy?

    Or do these guys think they are the Second Coming?

  71. I am astounded by the lengths to which Jared Wilson goes to defend Doug Wilson’s equivocation.

    He (Jared) says that he is a proponent of ‘marriages that mutually edify’ and ‘marital sex that is mutually submissive’. Why then does he seek to justify a man who has proposed the exact opposite? Wait, it’s because he too makes opposing claims. Relationships and sex can’t be both ‘mutually submissive’ while adhering to the supposedly biblical model of ‘authority/submission’ – yet he argues for both within the same post.

    Jared and Doug both believe that ‘authority/submission’ is the standard for male-female relationships, INCLUDING sex. Jared says that ‘force and violence’ are a ‘perversion of authority/submission’, which implies that he believes authority and submission should be practiced in sex, but in their pure form.

    In the post, he set up a silly little straw man by saying that all those who disagreed with them were accusing the Wilsons of justifying rape. Conversely, he ignored Doug’s deeply troubling choice of words and instead characterised the excerpt as promoting ‘sexuality that serves and protects’.

    Jared said: ‘Here’s a question for critics of the piece: You want these words not to mean a forceful, degrading domination of women, yes? And here is Wilson saying he does not mean them in that way. So why not accept that?’

    This shows Jared is unwilling to actually engage with the content of the piece. He is unwilling to even concede that the words were poorly chosen. Doug Wilson says he did not mean for the words to degrade women. But whatever his personal view of women, the words DID degrade women. His declaring differently does not change that. Surely these men, with their superior reading comprehension (cough), should understand the power of words to hurt and degrade?

    (I’m glad Doug Wilson and Jared Wilson didn’t process my recent PhD applications. Had they been the ones to test my reading comprehension, I might not have been accepted into a couple of the top universities in the world.)

    Finally: Jared makes it clear that he does not advocate BDSM. But under his and Doug Wilson’s authority/submission model of sex, a woman cannot escape her role as the ‘submissive’ partner. Whether or not the actual sex involves BDSM, in this model, the man’s view of the woman is degrading. She is destined to be viewed as the one who surrenders, the one who is colonised. She is the object to the man’s subject.

    It’s an ideological form of BDSM.

  72. When women are seized and gang-raped publicly on the streets of Egypt? — Never Again

    And then honor-killed because they were such whores?

  73. Julie Anne,
    He also said “The ability to say anything new has passed its use by date”.
    This just after a number of non-Wartburgians took extensive time to write lengthy, thoughtful, and very courteous comments, and not one of their points addressed. — Dave AA

    Translation: My Yes-Men weren’t the only comments…

  74. JJ,

    Would you please, please, please e-mail your extremely well-thought-out response to Jared Wilson?

    I KNOW it’s ridiculous that we have to play this little game of talking to him over e-mail where no one can see it, but seriously, your explanation of why the post was offensive was one of the best I’ve heard, and I want the satisfaction of knowing that Jared Wilson had to read it, whether he is changed by it or responds to you or not!

    The Observer

  75. Jared Wilson wrote-

    “Now that some more high profile bloggers are squaring their sights on the post, sending more readers over to peruse it, I suppose a follow-up is in order.”

    Why is it that I feel frequently belittled by this professing Christian pastor?

    Poor reading skills, inability to understand (while the overwhelming majority of comments reveal the same outrage and come to similar conclusions–does it occur to Jared that he might be the one misunderstanding?) you can lead someone to context but can’t nmake them think…

    I was accused of gossip and character defamation by him which I explained was not true, and, if he would in fact research the “edited out” part of my comment, would find the facts for himself. Legally speaking, the definitive defense against defamation of character is that the statement is true. In fact, if a statment is true, by that very nature it is excluded from being considered defamation.

    Now that “high profile bloggers” are getting involved…he better clarify?
    Are the non-high profile bloggers unworthy of such clarification? How about mere commenters? Oh–I guess I am not comprehending again.

    I would like for Jared to consider the tweet he posted (for us all) that I referenced earlier this morning-

    “When words are many, transgression is not lacking, but whoever restrains his lips is prudent.” Proverbs 10:19

  76. The Observer -

    Well, since you asked so nicely… :)

    Thanks for the encouragement. I’ll email Jared Wilson and let you know if he replies!

  77. You folks should read the vitriol from Doug Wilson’s daughter. Apparently she has a blog (there’s a link to it on Rachel’s blog – it’s called “femina”). Rather than actually engage anything, she mocks Rachel and resort to ad hominem attacks. I was tempted to ask if she was grateful her pops didn’t marry her off to a pedophile.

  78. Never fear-all. I have something today that will define Doug Wilson’s view on women more than any one quote.

  79. I was unaware of Steven Sitler and his long criminal history of sexually abusing children. Until I read through these comments, I was unfamiliar with Steven and Katie’s courtship, marriage, and Doug Wilson’s prominent involvement. I’ve now been reading about Steven Sitler’s crimes and court records and watched some of their wedding video (which is so sad and made me cringe when he smiled and watched the flower girls coming down the aisle). I also came across a March document specifying Sitler’s court-appointed chaperones (there are three – Dave and Roxanne Sitler and Katie Sitler) and a statement that he scored as High Risk to Re-Offend. On mugshots.com, there is a mugshot posted very recently – 7/4/12 – of a man named Steven James Sitler from Latah County, Idaho. I don’t have much experience with the site, so maybe there’s nothing to it. But I personally know two men who got their mugshots posted on mugshots.com – one for assault with a deadly weapon (He was the same man who my husband and I exposed at our former church for abusing a teenager and we were subsequently thrown out.) and an assistant principal for sexual exploitation of a minor. Both of these men had their mugshots posted on mugshots.com the day of or the day after their arrests. So…. my question is does anyone know if Steven Sitler has been arrested again recently? I can’t seem to find anything else.

  80. @ScotT–

    “I was tempted to ask if she was grateful her pops didn’t marry her off to a pedophile.”

    I also do not think Doug Wilson would like his daughter married to a serial convicted pedophile (at least that is my opinion but I could be wrong). Part of my comment that was EDITED at Jared’s blog included a statement by Doug that “Rapists are hardly a good pool for selecting fine sons-in-law.” Fidelity Chapter 7 pg 84. It seems he would not deem one as a good pick.

    But serial pedophile Sitler (possibly a rapist I do not know for certain the details of his many crimes against children as he was only convicted of one count of molestation as a plea bargain) is certainly good enough for Katie Travis and her family. (Jared did not care for this part of my comment and was removed for gossip, character defamation and straying off topic.)

    Wow- is all I care to say about Doug’s daughter’s post. Well, and this-perhaps she should listen to her father’s good friend Jared Wilson’s sermon last Sunday July 15th . He says about mid-way, speaking of the Pharisees:

    “First of all, that these guys are following Him around just bugs me. Just following Him (Jesus) around just to criticize. Just to watch what he is doing, I mean, you know, it reminds me of the people on online who follow the blogs in order to point out all the specs and ?I’s? or twitter, facebook or what have you. They’re just commenting and you know it’s just gross. A critical spirit comes from the devil.”

    Wow-having read her post, imo, I detect an insulting critical spirit in her writing. She might be wise to consider repenting. If Jared has been critical of any of his commenters such as insulting their thinking or reading skills, or belittling them, he might pray about repenting as well, since a critical spirit is of the devil and that sort of thing is “just gross.” Oh–and if Jared follows blogs or uses tweets to point out specs- that should be added to the repentance list too.

    I also noticed in Jared’s sermon he stated 2 references to Doug Wilson. Of all the Christian leaders one could pick from in which to quote in a Sunday sermon, Doug got two. Jared must think quite highly of him.

  81. “Treat women right is a biblical message. Treating them wrong is bad. Oh . . . but here is the problematic part. Right and wrong are defined by God, and not by mutual consent, or by feminine insecurities, or feminist compromises, or by masculine insecurities, or by zeitgeist-riddled cultural observers, or by evangelicals desperate to be accepted with the cool kids, or by chin-stroking, Bible-surrendering academics.”

    http://www.dougwils.com/Sex-and-Culture/cloacina-goddess-of-sewers.html

    Right and wrong treatment of women should not be determined by chin-stroking bearded sorta academics either.
    Katie Travis anyone?

  82. Wendy

    I don’t know. I can’t find anything. So, I am almost finished with my post. How about I ask our readers if anyone know anything about that. Doug Wilson apporved that marriage. If one had any doubt about how he felt about women, this one is it.  TGC should be ashamed for not doing their homework.

  83. Be sure to read the Rachel Held Evans link I posted above. On Jared Wilson’s blog, Doug Wilson tries to defend himself using a Song of Solomon passage. Rachel correctly asserts that in that particular passage it is the woman who is the initiator, not the man. It’s a very good post.

    Nothing could be further from the truth! Wilson conveniently leaves out the fact that the Shulamite girl in Song of Songs initiates much of the action in the romance. She is the first to speak in the poem, declaring, “Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth” (1:1). She actively seeks out the handsome shepherd in his fields, saying “Why should I be like a veiled woman beside the flocks of your friends?” (v. 7). When the two are separated, she goes out into the streets, looking for him, and at one point is accosted by the city guards. When she finds him, she brings him into a private room. There, she says, “I held him and would not him go” (3:4). It is she who initiates a sexual encounter in a vineyard in the countryside, and it is she who offers her lover a frank invitation to drink her wine and to enter her “garden” to taste its choice fruits. Her lover confesses “you have ravished my heart, my sister, my bride.” And so the lengthiest and most detailed description of sex found in scripture is characterized by mutuality and shared pleasure, not conquering and colonization, authority and subordination. It is precisely what Wilson refers to as an “egalitarian pleasure party.”

  84. I want to ask Jared W, “What does Rev. Keller think of this? Please give me his phone number.”

  85. Just read Doug Wilson’s response….sick to my stomach. For someone alleged to be so intelligent, he’s pathetically ignorant. And his daughter’s response is pure vile & hatred. Oh, it’s lovely to see the usual TeamPyro guys chiming in support for Doug – proving once more that belligerent evangelicals make strange bed-fellows. Perhaps Frank can write an open letter to Rachel about the issue, maybe it will address Sitler and “Black & Tan.” Or do these guys pick and choose when their brother is in sin?

  86. Thanks, Diane. I ran across those photos and documents just now and noticed that the mugshot is the same one as the April 2011 photo. The March 2012 document I found states that Steven Sitler was not wanted by police at the time of his furlough to Washington. Based on what I’ve read about his extensive criminal history and multiple sexual abuse victims, having his parents as chaperones is basically setting him free and leaving him alone to do what he wants. And I agree with your concerns about his wife. If she’s been indoctrinated with patriarchy…well, this is a horrible set-up. According to the March 2012 document, numerous prior records indicate that he is at high risk to re-offend. This could end very badly.

  87. ScotT

    Turk would not address Sitler. That is to be dismissed. That is gossip. Anything negative is gossip or spreading a bad report. And slander. And character defamation.

    Just like he would not allow SGM commenters to say much in his infamous Mother’s Day Saturday (when few would be reading) post where he throws a bone to those of us with concerns about SGM. Gossip is the worst sin in the world…practically. Or, is marrying off a convicted pedophile to a young woman worse? Gossip…pedophile…gossip…pedophile…hmmm.

    You know, like Jared’s tweet that I posted in my 11:10 this am. (I personally think he meant it for Doug Wilson and now also his daughter.)

  88. re Diane (4:43)
    So we are to conclude from this that women are too dumb to know whether they are being treated well or badly? Riiight ..(said with all the sarcasm I can muster) So, when a woman complains that she’s being treated badly, she’s being deceived, because men with beards know better, and they’re the only ones who can interpret scripture and tell you that the Bible says you’re being treated well! No wonder women who’ve been told this all their lives end up switching their brains off in self-defence. They’re constantly being told black is white! Oh wait .. no.. we’re very clear about blacks and whites …
    And the angels weep.

  89. So, when a woman complains that she’s being treated badly, she’s being deceived, because men with beards know better, and they’re the only ones who can interpret scripture …

    Didn’t the Taliban force all men to wear beards (of proper Islamic Scriptural length) upon pain of death?

  90. @ Lynne T-

    “…because men with beards know better, and they’re the only ones who can interpret scripture and tell you that the Bible says you’re being treated well!”

    Well…yes!

    In his post I “comprehend” Doug to be saying this should not be the case- (even though it was for Katie Travis)…that chin-stroking men should NOT be deciding such things as right and wrong but only God does. Right and wrong are defined by God, he says…yet in the same post as his positive examples he writes-

    “Boys must grow up to be the kind of men who will be honorable in bed with their wives. They cannot do this in particular if they are unfamiliar with honor generally . . . the cultural discipline of honoring women is very important” (Future Men, p. 136, 2001).”

    “The pattern is required of all Christian leaders so that they can exhibit the definition of Christian marriage to all the followers of Christ. The disciples, in turn, are to imitate what they see. The Bible requires the elders of the church to be devoted to one woman . . .” (Fidelity, p. 10, 1999).”

    http://www.dougwils.com/Sex-and-Culture/cloacina-goddess-of-sewers.html

    Who teaches the boys this?
    Who are the Christian leaders that are exhibiting the “definition” of Christian marriage? Isn’t it Doug?

  91. Based on what I’ve read about his extensive criminal history and multiple sexual abuse victims, having his parents as chaperones is basically setting him free and leaving him alone to do what he wants. And I agree with your concerns about his wife. If she’s been indoctrinated with patriarchy…well, this is a horrible set-up. — Wendy

    I wonder if Sitler gets the hots for little girls or little boys.

    If the former, that explains why the Calvinistas hath been Predestined to give him a free pass — he’s NOT homosexual!

    “DUDE! YOU! HAVE! SEX! WITH! CHILDREN!”
    South Park, end of “Cartman joins NAMBLA” episode where the NAMBLAns are tearjerking about Persecution because They Were Born This Way and the Beauty of Love

  92. CLOACINA Goddess of Sewers? Whisky Tango Foxtrot?

    That sounds like one of those Trendy baby names you see over at “Baby’s Got a Bad Bad Name”!

  93. “First of all, that these guys are following Him around just bugs me. Just following Him (Jesus) around just to criticize. Just to watch what he is doing, I mean, you know, it reminds me of the people on online who follow the blogs in order to point out all the specs and ?I’s? or twitter, facebook or what have you. They’re just commenting and you know it’s just gross. A critical spirit comes from the devil.”

    So Jared Wilson = JESUS (at least in his own mind)?

    That would explain a lot…

  94. Ooof, those comments by Jared Wilson/Doug Wilson in the comments section are emabarassing to read. How is it that the majority of readers seem to be so lacking in comprehension? How hard can it be to say, ‘oh, I thought I was clear, obviously not’, instead of choosing the tack of, ‘you’re all oversensitive ignoramuses’…
    Doug Wilson very clearly chose to use terms that are loaded with physical power & force, & it is simply no good for him to turn round & tell us we’re misreading him. His vocabulary sets a scene, as much as anything else he is using in his writing. He is shirking responsibility, and those of us well acquainted with the study of language and literature could very easily rewrite his article to read according to what he ‘claims’ it actually means…
    I’m troubled by the way in which some of these Reformed guys seem to want everything to read as though it was written in a cage fighting magazine, so that the real men (nudge nudge, wink wink, all boys together) will be attracted to the faith.
    And I have read all 3 books in the 50 Shades of Grey trilogy…I work with teenagers and sexual health & anything this popular will trickle down into their thinking sooner or later. My one star review can be found at Amazon.co.uk. Doug’s views are barely more edifying.

  95. If Jared is reading, I wonder what he thinks of his friend Doug Wilson’s daughter’s post today regarding Rachel Held Evans’ article? (In light of Jared’s sermon last Sunday with him saying a critical spirit comes from the devil and all.) I could hardly read it due to its critical and recklessly rough nature against Rachel. Do Christians really talk like that on their blogs? Do they not care how those words look in writing to fellow believers?

  96. “I’m troubled by the way in which some of these Reformed guys seem to want everything to read as though it was written in a cage fighting magazine, so that the real men (nudge nudge, wink wink, all boys together) will be attracted to the faith.”

    At least he did not call us who are calling him out for that quote a “sucking chest wound.” That is one phrase I have seen him use. I have actually seen a sucking chest wound and it is not pretty. It is quite horrible. I wonder what prompts someone-a pastor-to make such comments.

  97. I read the Wilson post.

    Here is all you need to know: Doug Wilson equivocates.

    Even saying this is something of a tautology, as Doug Wilson has equivocated so often, about so many matters, as to now himself be a kind of synonym for equivocation. He has equivocated about slavery, pedophiles, every single doctrine involved in the Federal Vision, and pretty much everything else. I would not be at all surprised if he equivocates about his pizza order at the restaurant. Even John Piper understood this, though for reasons known only to John Piper he chose to call it “[being] ambiguous…which he always does.”

    In the future, rather than saying that someone has equivocated, we will say that they have Doug Wilsoned. In fact, I recommend that we all become early adopters.

    I also read Frank Turk’s comments. This was more revealing. Mr. Turk is clearly a Wilsonophile. (He is also clearly a jerk, but that’s another matter). That Mr. Turk loves all things Wilson is is the last piece of information I ever need to know about him or the Pyro blog. If Mr. Turk is not only not appalled by Doug Wilson, but actually finds him to be truly worthy of the kind of casual adulation found in his comments, I am uninterested in his views regarding anything, as he clearly lacks even a pittance of discernment.

    It is a sad day when people who purport to be Reformed have to be shown what is wrong with the likes of Doug Wilson. It is an even sadder day when they prove unable to see it, and attack the messengers as evil.

    Ichabod.

  98. In all states, any penetration of any orifice of a child (under 17 or 18 in most states) with any object, other than in the provision of medical or dental services, is rape. Consent cannot be given, so it is rape. In some states, fondling of the breast, labia or anus of a child, without penetration, is also rape. Some states have an exception for mouth to mouth kissing involving the tongue. Most states have an exception if there is less than a year difference in ages between the parties.

  99. Hence, almost all sexual abuse of a child is rape, and the perpetrator is a rapist, by definition.

  100. The Bad Dog -

    Thanks for the response. The comments at that site are pretty appalling. Since I am the Bridget that commented at Jared’s blog, I am one of the many in need of improving my reading comprehension :)

  101. Well, OK. I’m coming in quite late here, but I did eventually find some thoughts. I’ve wanted to comment and just haven’t been able to get what I wanted to say straight in my head. The thing for me is this. On the one hand, Mr. Wilson says the purpose of sex is to conquer the woman. On the other, he says the whole object is her protection. And then there is the assertion that we have misunderstood him and don’t know what he means. I’ve been puzzling over this since yesterday morning, and asking myself, how can it be that we have misunderstood him? There are 4 possibilities: 1) as has been asserted, the readers do not understand what they are reading because of poor comprehension skills; 2) the readers do not understand what they are reading because of poor writing skills on behalf of the author: he just isn’t clear, his own thoughts are muddled, and he is ambiguous; 3) he is giving mixed messages, for what reason we could only speculate; 4) he is perfectly clear and means exactly what he says but wants what he says to mean something other than what people would normally understand, or wants to change how we view the words we use.

    Frankly, in reading everything everyone has written on this the past couple of days I don’t think the problem is that the readers don’t get what they are reading. I think option 1 is the least likely to be true.

    What of the others then? Well, I don’t agree with him, but it seems to me Mr. Wilson is a fairly smart fellow and has the ability to make himself understood when he wants to.

    In fact, when I read what Wilson wrote I felt I was following along pretty well myself. Then I got to one word in particular that I found quite jarring: the word I mentioned above, conquer. Now, I may be a bit simple, but I’m pretty sure I know what conquer means. At least I thought I did. But in case I was wrong, I decided to look it up. So I went to the handy Merriam-Webster dictionary online and found the following definitions for conquer:

    1. To gain or acquire by force of arms.
    2. To overcome by force of arms.
    3. To gain mastery or win by overcoming obstacles or opposition.
    4. To overcome by mental or moral power.

    Then there is the Merriam-Webster definition page for English language learners, which I take it means all the possible ways a non-English speaking person is likely to encounter this word so they know by context how it is being used:

    1. To take control of (a country, city, etc.) through the use of force.
    2. To defeat (someone or something) through the use of force.
    3. To gain control of a problem or difficulty through great effort.
    4. To become successful (in a place, situation, etc.).
    5. To succeed in climbing (a mountain).

    OK. They have one more set of definitions, which is defining the word conquer for children:

    1. To get or gain by force of arms.
    2. To defeat by force of arms.
    3. Overcome, subdue.
    4. To be victorious.

    On the page for children they also have synonyms which they helpfully explain:

    conquer, vanquish, overcome, overthrow mean to defeat by force or planning.
    Conquer suggests gaining control over another after a lengthy struggle and then more or less permanently. Vanquish stresses a complete overpowering. Overcome suggests defeating with difficulty or after a hard struggle. Overthrow stresses the bringing down and eventual destruction of those already in power.

    Back on the adult page we find these helpful synonyms:

    Dominate, overpower, pacify, subdue, subject, subjugate, subordinate, vanquish, defeat, reduce, overcome, and overthrow.

    There are quite a few more on the comprehensive thesaurus page. They also had related words, which I found to be quite interesting. Here are some of them:

    Annihilate, beat, clobber, crush, defeat, mow (down), enslave, silence, smother, snuff (out), and repress. There are quite a few more if anyone cares to investigate.

    And now some antonyms:

    Emancipate, free, unbind, release, unfetter. There are more of these also.

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conquer

    Now I did have to suppose, in the interest of fairness, that perhaps the Merriam-Webster dictionary doesn’t have as great a grasp of the English language and they are all wrong about the meaning of conquer since Mr. Wilson seems to think conquer is supposed to be protective of the one conquered and certainly does not imply use of force against the conquered/protected one. So I consulted other dictionaries to see what they said. Here’s the Oxford English Dictionary which I have in my home:

    1. To acquire (by effort).
    2. To acquire by fighting, win in war; to make a warlike conquest of; to subjugate.
    3. To gain or win (a battle or victory).
    4. To gain or win by struggle in which opposition or obstruction is overcome.
    5. To overcome (an adversary), gain the victory over, vanquish, subdue.
    6. To get the better of, to master, overcome
    7. To be the conqueror, make conquests, gain the victory, be victorious.

    So far Mr. Wilson’s protective understanding of conquest isn’t showing up. Perhaps if we try another dictionary. This time I’ll try the Oxford American Dictionary that I have at home:

    1. To overcome in war, to win.
    2. To overcome by effort.

    Hmm. No luck there. Well, perhaps Roget’s Super Thesaurus will show some way in which conquering would naturally lead to protection of the conquered…:

    Vanquish, defeat, overcome, overpower, overthrow, subdue, master, beat, dominate, win, triumph.

    …Or not.

    Well, I give up. I just don’t get from any English speaking source I’ve consulted from either side of the pond that the protection is where conquering naturally leads. Rather, it seems there is conflict and opposition, and therefore the need of effort or force for the conqueror to prevail. It is a struggle, or contest of sorts, against…well, I guess in this case it would have to be the man’s wife.

    Now, I don’t know about anyone else, but if I have to think of the marriage bed as a place of struggle, effort, contest, and conquest, the first thing I am going to associate that with is NOT protection. Why would it be? Don’t we want protection from those who desire to conquer us? Unless we are suffering from Stockholm syndrome (does Mr. Wilson think THAT situation is Biblical?) we struggle against a would be conqueror because they are by definition NOT protecting us but seeking to harm us! And when we want someone to protect us, they do not need to conquer us. More likely, we run to them!

    Now, it seems the whole debate centers around the fact that Mr. Wilson wants people to read him favorably and if we are offended then we must have misunderstood him. That is, he wants us to understand this idea about penetrating, planting, conquering, etc. and find joy and gladness in it since it is for our (ladies) protection. It is for our good, apparently, and we are supposed to see this and rejoice in it. The problem is, the overwhelming meaning of conquer at the very least implies a contest against an opponent, whether animate or inanimate, that the conqueror wins by force, to the point of subjugation and enslavement. Force or effort is intrinsic to the concept as is the defeat of the vanquished/conquered/subjugated er…wife. It does not include or imply the concept of protection of the subdued, but rather repels it.

    It seems to me the trouble here is, Mr. Wilson wants conquer to mean something it doesn’t mean. He wants it to be a happy, joyful, edifying, positive experience for all concerned parties, and especially the woman since this is about protecting her. That’s kind of him, I suppose, but no English speaking source I’ve consulted from either side of the pond has shown that the protection of the conquered is a reasonable concept or normal expectation. Conquer means “I win against (you),” not “I protect you” and it seems the entire English speaking world, except Mr. Wilson, agrees on this.

    So are we misunderstanding Mr. Wilson, or did he go ambiguous, or is he giving mixed messages, or is he trying to reinvent the English language?

    I’m not sure, but I am quite convinced the problem does not lie in reader understanding. Rather, there is a congnative dissonance in what Mr. Wilson is saying.

    Just my thoughts at this late point in the game.

  102. @ScotT

    Perhaps Frank can write an open letter to Rachel about the issue, maybe it will address Sitler and ‘Black & Tan.’

    LOL, my friend. Yeah, it’s too bad this didn’t all go down two years ago, when, about 8 months into the year, it became obvious that Mr. Turk had run out of viable “open letter” recipients. It really got pathetic toward the end. I think the “Open Letter to the International Dateline” was probably the tipping point.

  103. I just read Doug’s response to my comment. So I’m a tinfoil-eared Nazi who needs ESL classes. I want to send him a response but right now I’m just livid, I need to regain composure first.

  104. The Observer

    I emailed Jared Wilson with a slightly edited version of my earlier post and he replied immediately. We’ve exchanged a few emails, and in our correspondence I’ve found him to be measured and civil. In my view, Jared Wilson seems to have a different spirit to the openly-hostile and insulting Doug Wilson.

    To summarise: He genuinely does not understand what’s motivating the vitriol levelled at him, especially because he has said many times that he does not promote violence against women. So it has been overwhelming and confusing for him to find hundreds of responses saying that he does promote this. Because his critics’ accusations differ so greatly from his personal convictions against violence and abuse, he therefore concludes that people have misunderstood what he wrote.

    I’m baffled, though, that he still affirms Doug Wilson’s excerpt as being respectful to women. (I said so in a subsequent email to Jared.) His recent stated views – of mutual edification and submission – are opposite to the sentiments expressed by Doug Wilson. Why then continue to defend him?

    Jared understands that the excerpt triggered painful memories for many readers, but – and I think this is important – he doesn’t seem to realise that the excerpt was also particularly offensive because of the general view of gender relations it presented.

    But I appreciated the spirit in which he replied to me.

  105. Oh, anonymous…how I love thee!

    P.S. Have you tried a complementarian dictionary for the BIBLICAL meaning of those words? Thought not, you pagan dullard.

  106. JJ

    I think he was nice to you because he is starting to get concerned about the anger over the quote. I do not think Jared promotes rape. However, his condescending attitdue towards his critis-quesitoining their reading comprehension, recommending ESL, etc shows that under the veneer he is meanspirited. Can you imagine beingi n his church and you happen to diagree with him on something? I think this has more to do with a touch of arrogance that is present in all those who really, really, know that they are right, always.

  107. Pam

    I saw that response. Deb is going to go after the handling of comments by Calvinistas. I am travelling with my elderly mother and her husband for two days and will be checking in. There needs to be apologies for those comments.

  108. P.S. Have you tried a complementarian dictionary for the BIBLICAL meaning of those words?

    No wonder I can’t make conquer mean protect! I didn’t use the secret complimentarian decoder dictionary! I just used the regular English language dictionaries that everyone else uses. Silly me!

  109. You know, after a couple of days of reading about the two Wilsons it strikes me that this kerfluffle does makes something clear: Pushback against the Calvinistas will press them into a corner where they can all high-five each other. Eventually they will be as influential as any other fundamentalist sect.

    Lesson learned: Pushback is important.

  110. Pssst Anonymous: it’s in the Up is Down, Black is White section. It opens backwards & reads from right to left. It may be booby trapped & explode if a woman (gasp) opens it…

  111. I just want to say…

    Wow.

    That Jordon guy? If I was single and in 1860-whatever, I would marry him. WHAT A GUY.

  112. Few things that might help us understand Doug Wilson a bit better…

    In the ancient Roman world, sexuality was tied to power. “Conquered” subjects were depicted as women being ravaged. These subjects were “colonized” and Roman imperialism was graphically depicted through the male phallus (they put statues of these things up everywhere along the road). Likewise, the whole master/slave dynamic was connected to the male sex organ. There were no rules, save for the restriction that a master could not be the passive recipient. He could have sex with anyone he wanted – wife, slave boys, slave women, etc. He could not, however, do anything but be the “penetrator.” Daniel Kirk does a brilliant job of summarizing this information on his blog (it’s in a footnote to the post).

    Now, Doug Wilson claims to be a student of the classics & a teacher of Latin. I find it incredibly hard to believe he’s not intimately familiar with the first-century dynamics of sex and power. The vocabulary he chose was deliberate and purposeful. The husband is the master, the colonizer, the penetrator. And,make no mistake, he has the power. So, I’m personally unwilling to extend an olive branch his way & pretend that he used unloaded terms. If he’s anything like the professor of theology he claims to be, he’ll know exactly what he was saying and continues to deny.

  113. Oh, I see why everyone’s making comments that aren’t about the post. Because only registered users can make comments over on Doug Wilson’s sewage-infested post. Where he claims that Rachel Held Evans (and all his critics’) problem with him is that HE HATES BDSM BUT THEY LIKE IT.

    Wow. That lying liar lies. Or maybe he just has poor reading comprehension skills.

    I just had a very civil email conversation with Jared Wilson. He is a decent guy and I don’t think he thought this thing over enough before he posted it. It would be more impressive in a guy to admit publicly where he was wrong but it’s dang hard to do, I will cut him some slack. I explained to him why I hate what Doug said BECAUSE I hate BDSM (and Doug left-handedly legitimises it, implying that women are natural submissives and there is some kind of “godly” submission that would answer that type of desire) and he understood what I was saying.

    I don’t think I’ll attempt the same with Doug Wilson. You can smell the bad faith coming off that post of his and it smells like a sewer. I don’t want to track anything into my house.

    Hi, Deb and Dee, by the way. I’m a long-time lurker and you may see me around more often now.

  114. Oh. And Jared says that his reading of “Authority and submission are an erotic necessity” was that God is the authority and the married couple submit to him. I about fell out of my chair.

    I really believe he is telling the truth, but also that he’s completely mistaken in Doug. Because of exactly the stuff you just explained so well, ScotT.

    Well… I guess that explains a lot. I do hope he thinks over whether he should really be listening to Doug.

  115. In a weird way, this whole situation is giving me some hope. It’s throwing into stark relief the differences between patriarchy and complementarianism – or lack thereof, depending on your perspective – and this time, people appear to be standing up and noticing. It’s gotten more press in the past 2-3 days than all of Doug Phillips’ various shenanigans put together. Plus Wilson phrased his theological nastiness in an alliterated, almost slogan-like fashion (“penetrates, conquers, colonizes, plants”), so hopefully that will help people remember. However, every effort must still be made to solidify the connection between patriarchy and Wilson’s disgusting comments. We can’t let Wilson slip quietly away into the dark to construct a new closet for his skeletons.

  116. @ Heather:

    I’m pretty sure that “submission is an erotic necessity” was taken word-for-word out of That Hideous Strength by C. S. Lewis. Don’t know what that means. He has plagiarized before.

  117. Pssst Anonymous: it’s in the Up is Down, Black is White section. It opens backwards & reads from right to left. It may be booby trapped & explode if a woman (gasp) opens it…

    Oh, Beakerj, you must be mistaken! Surely Wilson wants women to read and understand his materials!

    Oh, wait….

    No he doesn’t. :/

  118. Heather Munn

    Where did you see that quote? Somehow I missed it. I am falling out of my chair as well…..

  119. That Jordon guy? If I was single and in 1860-whatever, I would marry him. WHAT A GUY. — Heather Munn

    If things had been different (and he’d been literate), Jordan Anderson could have become a “black Mark Twain”, he had such a way with words. (Either a Mark Twain or a Malcolm X; both could weave words to the point you didn’t realize the point they were making until it whopped you up side the head.)

    “Say howdy to George Carter, and thank him for taking the pistol from you when you were shooting at me.” — Jordon Anderson

  120. Likewise, the whole master/slave dynamic was connected to the male sex organ. There were no rules, save for the restriction that a master could not be the passive recipient. He could have sex with anyone he wanted – wife, slave boys, slave women, etc. He could not, however, do anything but be the “penetrator.” Daniel Kirk does a brilliant job of summarizing this information on his blog (it’s in a footnote to the post). — Scott

    Dennis Prager made a similar point in a Web essay years ago (that got him in a lot of trouble), “Why Judaism Rejected Homosexuality.” Prager’s thesis was that before Torah, sex was not defined between male & female but between Penetrator and Penetrated. The impression I got was Penetrator & Penetrated in an Animal Forced Dominance Display, and Torah made that taboo as part of a process to force the Jews to Transcend the Animal. (The common belief that the Canaanites — the goyisha tribes around the Jews — did it “doggie style” adds to the Animal Forced Dominance image, with the Penetrated crouching in submission before the Penetrator.)

    You get a similar dynamic in prison rape, where only the Penetrated is the “punk” or “Fag” and the Penetrator is viewed as even more of a man because “He made a WOMAN out of him”. Again, one Animal forcing Dominance on another Animal.

  121. Dee, the quote was in the original excerpt from Fidelity. First line of the fourth paragraph. Turns out it’s actually “True authority and true submission are therefore an erotic necessity.”

    Hester, now that you mention it, I remember that line in That Hideous Strength… that aspect of Lewis always used to drive me nuts, but those were his bachelor days. In A Grief Observed, the only place he talks about his actual marriage experience, he comes off *really* egalitarian. I always thought the guy’s heart was in the right place.

    HUG – on Jordan Anderson–also, he ASKED HIS FORMER SLAVE-MASTER FOR HIS BACK WAGES. Zowee, that is GUTS and STYLE.

    On the prison-rape etc thing, that is exactly the dynamic you see in the Sodom and Gomorrah stories. Their customary treatment of strangers was showing them “who’s boss around here.” They weren’t gay. That many gay guys could easily have paired up among themselves, if that was all they wanted.

  122. Re: That Hideous Strength
    I’ve been thinking of that book through this whole Wilson thing, due to the massive twisting of language coming out of Belbury and Moscow. I already have a tab open with a PDF. Let me look…
    “And then first he really listened. “We shall not,” Jules was saying, ” we shall not till we can secure the erebation of all pros-tundiary initems.” He looked round again. Obviously it was not he who was mad -they had all heard the gibberish. Except possibly the tramp, who looked as solemn as a judge. He had never heard a speech from one of these real toffs before, and would have been disappointed if he could understand it.” Still looking for a certain quote in Latin, since D Wilson is fond of that.

  123. Ah, there it is, from Merlin:
    “Qyi Verbum Dei contempserunt, eis auferetur etiam verbum hominis.”
    “They that have despised the Word of God, from them shall the word of man also be taken away.”

  124. THS begins, “”MATRIMONY was ordained, thirdly,” said Jane Studdock to herself, “for the mutual society, help, and comfort that the one ought to have of the other.”
    Later, Ransom says “obedience– humility– is an erotic necessity.”
    Doesn’t look like Lewis was saying these were gender-specific, and of course no citation by D Wilson.

  125. @ Dave:

    Good – I was wrong about the exact wording. But I still find the appearance of the phrase “erotic necessity” to be a little too coincidental. I’m not saying Wilson plagiarized, but why did he choose that phrase? It’s not like it’s common parlance or anything. I find it especially interesting that the phrase appears in That Hideous Strength in a conversation about marriage and gender relations, and whose basic point (if I recall correctly) was in the direction of women submitting in some way. Does anyone know if Wilson is a big Lewis fan? If he is, that could have influenced his wording here.

    (Also, I don’t intend any of this to comment on Lewis’ views about marriage, only on Wilson’s odd choice of words.)

  126. Hester,
    Doug Wilson quoted Lewis to “close out” the Gospel Colation Polluted Waters comments, so likely he’s a fan. I had specifically asked him twice about the “erotic necessity” phrase, and IF he’d said something like, “I read that phrase somewhere and thought it sounded good to use in a book, but in hindsight, a chapter about Rape wasn’t a wise choice” maybe…maybe a little of the outrage would have been assuaged.

  127. ScotT,

    Thank you for your comment on Roman history. If more people studied ancient history they would recognize how paganistic these guys really are. It is NOT of Christ. And Piper is not stupid. He goes along for a reason.

  128. Hmmmm well that’s pretty clear. I’m always suspicious of people who cry “racist” at every opportunity.

    But sometimes it’s just a bit to freakin’ obvious
    “the league of the south?” Racists.

    Grant just looks like a disciple of Rushdoony to me (and Rushdoony was, of course, very definitely a racist)

  129. @ Dave:

    That would explain it then. Not sure how somebody can be a fan of Rushdoony and Lewis at the same time, but that’s a different can of worms.

  130. I posted a comment on Jared Wilson’s latest blog post (‘On Authorial Intent’). In that post, he implies that his critics are imposing an unfair meaning onto Doug Wilson’s writings, which he did not intend. It’s worth reading in its entirety. My comment is still awaiting moderation and since I’m not sure it’ll show up there, I’m sharing it here:

    ———

    Hi, Jared.

    We’ve exchanged a few emails on this topic, but I feel compelled to reply to this new post, since you’ve made it open to comments. I sympathise with the stress you and your family have gone through recently.

    But I am still confused by your continued justification of Doug Wilson’s words.

    I don’t believe that you condone, or call for, violence against women. Many of your critics did not accuse you of this, and your responses to our legitimate concerns have been inadequate.

    You have stressed the importance of context. I agree. Context is essential, which is why the last paragraph of Doug Wilson’s excerpt did not negate the demeaning view of women presented in the paragraphs which preceded it. It is not sufficient to point out the phrase “serves and protects”. Given the context in which this phrase occurred, it was insufficient to qualify the argument leading up to it.

    Because, like you, I did not separate Doug Wilson-as-author from the text he wrote, the excerpt led me to conclude that Doug Wilson believes:

    - The ideals of mutuality and egalitarianism in sex should be superseded by other principles. “The sexual act cannot be made into an egalitarian pleasuring party.” What should be the priorities in sex? The “erotic necessity” of “true authority and true submission”.

    - Society has, to its peril, not sufficiently adhered to the concepts of male authority and female submission in sex. “We have sought to suppress the concepts of authority and submission as they relate to the marriage bed… When it is denied, the result is not ‘no authority,’ but an authority which devours.”

    - How should the male and female roles in the sex act be characterised? “A man penetrates, conquers, colonizes, plants. A woman receives, surrenders, accepts.”

    I have quoted directly from the excerpt. I haven’t accused Doug Wilson of saying anything other than what he has said.

    Since I (and other readers) don’t know you or Doug Wilson personally, how else are we to know your intent but by your words? And how else is an author to convey their intent but by their words?

    So when those words are deeply hurtful and problematic, it was either the author’s intent to be hurtful, or they did a very poor job at expressing their intent.

    There is a corollary that you’re ignoring. You don’t want readers to impose meaning onto texts. But what about authors who impose flawed meanings onto words? You cannot say that the connotations of “colonise” and “conquer” are positive merely because you declare it so. And you cannot say that the words, “the sexual act cannot be made into an egalitarian pleasuring party”, actually mean that sex should be egalitarian, equally enjoyable to both partners, and that men and women are equal agents in sexuality. You cannot claim that the sentence, “true authority and true submission are therefore an erotic necessity”, actually means that sex should be mutually submissive. The internal logic of Doug Wilson’s extract presents a demeaning view of women, whether or not you insist that it doesn’t.

    It appears that, in this instance, you are the one imposing a meaning on the text that simply isn’t there.

  131. @ Hester, re: whether Douglas Wilson is a C.S. Lewis fan.

    Mr. Wilson, his parents, and his siblings had a major influence through CCM (Community Christian Ministries) bookstores in Moscow, Idaho, and Pullman, Washington (two university towns just 8 miles apart). In the 1970s and ’80s, as I recall, one had a room called “Aslan’s How” and if I remember right, CCM coffeehouses/concerts with Christian musicians used a “Dawn Treader” theme. So there’s that, as a possible clue …

  132. Never Again

    Do you know what startled me about Ethan’s comment, above all else? He suggests Tom Whiye was a martyr! I am in absolute shock. A little girl is hurt and her abuser is a martyr. I have news for all who think this way. There have been great martyrs in this world who died providing light for Nero’s graden parties, suffering in Soviet prisons, etc. To put this incident in the same category is vacuous and unbiblical.

  133. Hester and Brad/futurist guy,

    Wilson is definitely a Lewis fan. He mentions him in a list of his influences in “Black and Tan.” He also names Tolkien…oh, and a number of pro-Confederate theologians from the 19th century. You see, Mr. Wilson believes himself to be in the “Southern intellectual tradition”.

    Since Wilson is always telling people to ‘read his books’ before they criticize him. So I’ve read all of Southern Slavery and Black and Tan – and my opinions have only been buttressed by what I read.

  134. As a P.S. to what I wrote earlier about the ministry of the extended Wilson family and the use of C.S. Lewis, I thought some readers here might be interested to gain some glimpses into the spiritual climate of Moscow and its surrounds.

    From 1973-1986, I lived in Pullman, WA, and Moscow, ID – two university towns just eight miles apart. I found out about the abusive spiritual environment of the region in that era and afterward from both personal experiences and those of close friends, plus some update research in the years since I moved and the experiences of friends still in the area. My conclusion: The larger region of eastern Washington and northern Idaho has long been a haven for malignant disciples-leaders-ministries-churches, Christian sects, and sociological/theological cults. For at least 40 years, there’s been significant trouble from:

    WORD OF FAITH churches and campus groups. Some of them have been at the more extreme end of things, epitomizing the evils of the Shepherding Movement. For instance, one friend of mine aligned himself with what his discipler-overseer “ordered,” and got married to a woman he’d only met for the first time six weeks earlier. It was disastrous. Another friend was told to stop talking to or associating with people who didn’t go to his church … which made it rather difficult, since he was a housemate with myself and three other guys. He eventually moved out physically, but he was gone in every other way before that, and left behind a lot of judgment and condemnation.

    Strongly LEGALISTIC teachings. Many of these were based in different versions of the sinful nature of believers. The approaches included perfectionism, eradication of the sinful nature, one-naturism that allows for the possibility of achieving sinlessness, and a two-nature view with extreme “mortification” of the sinful nature. Sometimes a combination of views. What do you do if you have a sensitive conscience and cannot lie to yourself about the realities of your human frailty or white-knuckling ability in order to uphold such doctrines? Or, if you could, you’d be proud of yourself, wouldn’t you? So many of my friends were deeply hurt by these teachings, but wounding is inevitable when there is only conviction without compassion, “truth” without love.

    CHRISTIAN IDENTITY and the so-called British Israelism doctrines, which suggest that “real” Christianity has roots to the so-called “lost tribes of Israel” which happened to be the forebearers of the Brits. While I didn’t run into too many followers of the “Christian Identity” movement, I did meet a few and they were quite studied about their beliefs and evangelistic in attempting to charm young believers especially toward this doctrine and convert us.

    An even more extreme version of the Christian Identity doctrine is found in the white supremacist group ARYAN NATIONS, which was headquartered in Hayden Lake, not so many miles north of Moscow. I found Aryan Nations literature in my neighborhood once. Freaked.Me.Out! It included a large booklet that explained how non-whites were sub-human. In later research I did on Nazi propaganda, there was hardly any difference between the two. And if I remember my history of Germany correctly, many proponents of this Aryan versus subhumans theory in the late 1800s and early 1900s were highly educated intellectuals, including university professors.

    AUTHORITARIAN leaders and churches. Small university towns are often known for transience, and that seems to apply to at least some of the malignant ministers and ministries. Several clearly abusive churches burned out, merged, or otherwise disappeared. Some leaders left the area, others stayed and moved to other roles or organizations. But it is obvious that what was in seed form decades ago has survived and found enough human fodder on which to thrive into a new century. But is that so very different from other areas? It seems to be more on the surface in the Pullman-Moscow region, and thus perhaps more noticeable.

    Also absolutely worth noting: There were also numerous MATURE, BALANCED CHRISTIANS in several different churches who understood the importance of offering acceptance and healing to the many MANY disciples who’d been wounded by these creepy doctrines and cultic churches in the area. They “got it” about the debilitating doctrines of legalism and the crushing effects of spiritual abuse, especially on those of us who were relatively young in the faith back then. They showed us grace and mercy, shared truth and wisdom, and promoted nurturing toward realistic spiritual growth.

    I don’t know that I’d still be following Christ today if I hadn’t been taken under their wings after a notorious church split in the late 1970s and another damaging church experience on the rebound a few years later. I pray these men and women and the next generations of healers after them here and elsewhere are strengthened always to help those like me who were victims of spiritual abuse. They help us become transformed into survivors, supporters, and advocates.

  135. Brad said: I don’t know that I’d still be following Christ today if I hadn’t been taken under their wings after a notorious church split in the late 1970s and another damaging church experience on the rebound a few years later. I pray these men and women and the next generations of healers after them here and elsewhere are strengthened always to help those like me who were victims of spiritual abuse. They help us become transformed into survivors, supporters, and advocates.

    Amen, to the above, Brad. I am so thankful for you and many others who came along side me in my plight.

  136. Wilson is definitely a Lewis fan. He mentions him in a list of his influences in “Black and Tan.” He also names Tolkien…oh, and a number of pro-Confederate theologians from the 19th century. You see, Mr. Wilson believes himself to be in the “Southern intellectual tradition”. — Caleb

    Lewis? Tolkien? Southern Intellectual Tradition?

    When did Oxford get annexed by the Confederate States of America?

  137. HUG,

    I was wondering the same thing myself. Perhaps I should have been more clear that I would not put Tolkien and Lewis in some kind of Southern tradition.

    You see, I think that Lewis and Tolkien get tacked on for the sake of credibility. If one rattles on about how great Robert Lewis Dabney and Robert E. Lee were, and then proclaims the undeniable and timeless integrity of the “Southern intellectual tradition”, it will be hard for one to be taken seriously. So you throw in two widely recognizable Christian thinkers that it is hard to hate and…voila…credibility. Or so Mr. Wilson seems to think.

    He discusses all of this in Black and Tan, which I was flabbergasted to find in my university library!!

  138. I sure hope he didn’t put Lewis (an Anglican) and Tolkien (a Catholic) in the “Southern intellectual tradition.” What’s next? Was Dietrich Bonhoeffer part of the “Southern intellectual tradition,” too? …Oh wait, that’s not possible – he’s not “Anglo-Celtic”!

  139. Also, while we’re on this topic, here’s a (sort of) related article called “What You Should Know About the Author of the NYT Bestseller, Politically Incorrect Guide to American History.” It has lots more info on the League of the South and some of their disturbing statements. Not all the “PIG” guides (enormously popular in conservative circles) are written by the same person, but this one is clearly a doozy.

    http://hnn.us/articles/10007.html

  140. For clarity’s sake, from page 114 of Black and Tan:

    “I am a paleo-conservative. In my views on politics, government, social order, I have been affected in a thoroughly jumbled way by Augustine, Edmund Burke, Anselm, Russell Kirk, King Alfred, John Calvin, T.S. Eliot, John Knox, Thomas Jefferson, C.S. Lewis, J.R.R. Tolkien, G.K. Chesterton, and Robert E. Lee. I am not an ideologue – that is one of the things that principles conservatism stands against.” I should add the Jefferson is there because he favored decentralized government…not for his religious views :)

    Earlier Wilson quotes himself in a letter to Tracy McKenzie (a Christian historian who took exception with Slavery As It Was and interacted with Wilson) saying “there really is a southern intellectual tradition and I am in it.” For explanation, he says “McKenzie then summarized Weaver’s (Richard Weaver – The Southern Tradition at Bay) view that the Southern tradition had four pillars, which were feudalism, chivalry, the idea of the gentleman, and religious faith. Now there was much more to Weaver’s book than this, but let’s take this as a very basic treatment. For more extended discussion on this, and much else, consider my views on medievalism, chivalry and the idea of the gentleman, and religious faith.” For each of these Wilson, unsurprisingly, cites his own books: Angels in the Architecture, Recovering the Lost Tools of Learning, Reforming Marriage, and David Hagopian’s “Back to Basics”.

    Throughout the book he repeatedly cites from RL Dabney and Eugene Genovese. Genovese is a former far left Marxist historian of renown in the academy. In the mid-1990s he converted to Catholicism and now takes a very conservative position on the South. I find it very interesting that Wilson uses so extensively (for credibility, despite always giving the impression that he loathes the academy and does not care for its agreement or approval) a famous historian who became famous for views and methods that Wilson opposes and who has since repudiated those positions.

  141. Brad,
    Personal note– I was in Pullman 72-75 and volunteered a few times at OneWay books/Aslan’s How. I believe Michael Adeney was managing the store, as he still does today in Seattle. I also remember his wife Miriam, now on the reference board of CBE. Though I barely knew them, I remember them both today as Hebrews 13:7 type Christian leaders to me. I can’t remember Doug Wilson at all. Shook his hand after a sermon at the Kirk around 10 years ago. Can’t remember the sermon at all. I guess there was nothing crazy in it. I was frequently visiting Moscow from ’98 to 2009, with only that one Kirk experience. Do I remember aright that CCM ministered (s) a great deal to international students of
    diverse color and national origin, in contrast to a “southern intellectual” viewpoint? A couple days ago I appealed to Doug on the Polluted Post to remember both his parents, who I don’t remember as “southern
    intellectual” types. My memory may be faulty, but he didn’t respond to this. I thought he believes in patriarchy…..

  142. “But it is dominion that we are after. Not just a voice.
    • It is dominion we are after. Not just influence.
    • It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time.
    • It is dominion we are after.”

    Dominion as in Draka?