Doug Wilson Retracts His Dirty Dishes Post

Good for Doug Wilson. He has retracted this post as of today. You can read his explanation, Clunkity, Clunkity, Clunk here. 

At the same time, I do think that this is a place where reasonable critics have a point. But chalk it up to inept writing, not misogyny, and file this one under retractions.

I shall also print this retraction on our post here. Maybe there is hope for all of us after all.

Comments

Doug Wilson Retracts His Dirty Dishes Post — 116 Comments

  1. Being the cynic I am I am afraid I have a different view. From his retraction:

    “At the same time, you can tell how politicized our age has gotten when an article addressing a small number of sinful wives is instantly read as “anti-women.”

    Well he admits he was not clear he was speaking of women who leave soiled diapers all over the house, run up 75K on credit cards without telling the hubby and sound like those people on hoarders or something. So he was not “clear” in original article? Sounds like it is a pretty big distinction from say, a woman who left dirty dishes in the sink for a few days so call the elders.

    Anyway, my guess is the money and recognition from the GC association is looking better and better and he best start moderating his real views. Sorry, but I read Wilson for several years and I don’t buy it.

  2. Is it just me or does Doug Wilson seem to have a problem conveying what he really, or actually, means when he writes? 😉

  3. Wilson says he “hesitates to imagine what unreasonable people might do” with his teaching. I happen to know from one wife what an unreasonable man did do. He required that she toothbrush-clean the kitchen every night before she could come to bed– and then when she did finally drag herself, exhausted, to the bedroom, he demanded sex.

    I think his retraction would have better been presented as an apology.

  4. It’s a good sign, & I can understand your joy Dee, but it’s written in that typical ‘I’ll rejustify most of it & get to the apology in my own sweet time’, i.e. ‘three-quarters of it’s about the husband’s sin….’before getting to the ‘point’. If all he meant was such extreme things why didn’t he say so before? I’m sceptical that that was his original meaning, part of me thinks it absolutely was about trivial issues, until he realised that this opinion was not popular, & only if he pushed the issue level way up the spectrum to the extreme end would people be on his side. That’s me being sceptical, of course ;)I surprised he didn’t mention the weight issue, ‘if she’s needing a mobility scooter’, & the sex issue, ‘the last time she permitted sex was last century’…but clunky? Oh yeah.

  5. Bridget wrote:

    Is it just me or does Doug Wilson seem to have a problem conveying what he really, or actually, means when he writes?

    Open Mouth, Insert Foot.

  6. “I was writing about pathological situations. I wanted the pastoral help of the church to be brought to bear in an intractable situation, especially when the alternative is divorce.”

    His “pastoral help” doesn’t work in pathalogical situations either.

  7. “remembering that he is the problem, if there is continuing failure or rebellion”

    This is more blaming the victim stuff here- except a rare case of blaming the male victim instead of the woman (who 99% of the time is the one on the receiving end of this kind of statement).

  8. @ Bridget:
    Yes, I have 0 respect for anything he has to say, but especially not about how to handle conflict in a marriage. I have a good friend who was abused by her husband and Wilson’s father shamed her and kept telling her it was her fault. And after she left he kept sending her emails to continue the shaming.

    The Wilsons make me ill.

  9. Did you ever notice when these female subordinationists get called on their tyranny they always backpedal with how “misunderstood” they are? How they “didn’t really mean blah blah blah …” or we’ve taken them “out of context.” They can’t just man up and own it.

  10. Bridget wrote:

    Is it just me or does Doug Wilson seem to have a problem conveying what he really, or actually, means when he writes?

    That’s what I was thinking.

    That and a dash of a heavy suspicion he really does mean what he says the first go round but after being called out on whatever it is says, “Er, um, no I was misunderstood. Yeah, that’s it, that’s the ticket.”

    In other cases, he offers non-apology apologies and claims his critics are being too sensitive or P.C.

  11. Jeff S wrote:

    His “pastoral help” doesn’t work in pathalogical situations either.

    Exactly! Unless an elder moves in with them to supervise his wife. :o)

  12. @ KR Wordgazer:

    Holy cow. If I was married and my spouse pulled that on me, not only would I not have sex and not clean the kitchen, but I’d tell him exactly where he could put his toothbrush.

  13. Leila wrote:

    Did you ever notice when these female subordinationists get called on their tyranny they always backpedal with how “misunderstood” they are? How they “didn’t really mean blah blah blah …” or we’ve taken them “out of context.” They can’t just man up and own it.

    Leila, When you want to get their attention just agree with them and tell them you can understand why they did not want to marry an intellectual equal. :o)

  14. Dee understands all of your reservations. Last week was hard and we did our share of apologizing as well so one can say that I am somewhat empathetic. We just posted a difficult discussion on racism and slavery which involved a dialogue between Wilson and Anyabwile. Let’s see how that is handled.

  15. @ Jeff S:
    Something about your post reminds me of a blog post I saw the other day about domestic abuse (of male against female).

    Someone quoted some Christian gender complementarian guy (it may have been Piper, I don’t recall), and there was this alarming comment where the male preacher said in some book or blog he wrote about marital problems and domestic abuse that it’s up to a husband to “change his wife’s behavior.”

    If I can find that link again (I may have bookmarked it, I’m not sure), I’ll link to it somewhere on this blog.

    But anyway, that “the husband can change the wife / the wife’s behavior” view is wrong in so many ways. People cannot change each other.

    You can maybe change someone’s behavior (influence them) in giving rewards for behavior you want repeated, or giving negative consequences for behavior you don’t want repeated, but really, you can’t change someone. You can only change how you react to them.

  16. Well, I read the two comments from “Jonathan” under Wilson’s article. He very gently points out that Wilson’s choice of issues on which a husband may take his wife to task includes no extremes of dirty diapers everywhere or racked up credit cards. Personally, I don’t believe anyone misunderstood what Wilson was saying in his first article. A retraction is noble. Maybe it would have been better if he had stated that he no longer believes as he once did when he wrote the first article? But, to say that he was misunderstood is somewhat dishonest.

  17. @ BeenThereDoneThat:
    Hmmmm. The two comments that were under Wilson’s article just a few minutes ago are gone. Deleted? There is another one there now. Will that one be deleted? Seems Wilson doesn’t receive even gentle criticism very well.

  18. Leila wrote:

    How they “didn’t really mean blah blah blah …” or we’ve taken them “out of context.” They can’t just man up and own it.

    Someone at another blog had one quote by one of the gender complementarian ladies where she said, “being a gender comp woman doesn’t mean you have to stay at home and bake cookies all day! That’s a misrepresentation of the complementarian view,” but then, in some book or blog this same lady published several months later, she faulted feminists for teaching women that they don’t have to stay at home all day baking cookies.

    She wants women to feel they have to stay at home and bake cookies all day, but when women tell her how limiting, unbiblical, or sexist that is, she says, “Oh goodness, that is not compelmentarianism, where ever are you getting this crazy ideas from?”

  19. @ Daisy:
    You are exactly right, and I lived this. I tried my best to change my ex with my love. And when it failed, I was told I didn’t love her with “agape” love. In fact, I still get this sometimes, and it still hurts.

    This is why I will no longer read any relational advice from Christian sources- the idea that it is your job to change your spouse, whether that is through submission or love, is just too pervasive. I finally figured out in the end, after a lot of trying to do things the way my elders instructed me, that I didn’t have the power, the responsibility, or even the right to change her. I could support her, but there’s no way for me to do the work to make her change. That’s what Wilson is advocating here, and it doesn’t work. And of course, when it doesn’t work you just get blamed for not doing it good enough.

  20. “At the same time, you can tell how politicized our age has gotten when an article addressing a small number of sinful wives is instantly read as “anti-women.”

    Really. The ‘sins’ listed necessitating Wilson’s method of ‘correction’ are subject to a high degree of interpretation and, at one end, could be considered petty, to whit, “spending habits, television viewing habits, weight, rejection of his leadership, laziness in cleaning the house, lack of responsiveness to sexual advances, whatever.”

    This is a far cry from what he now claims he meant “What do you do when the house is filthy, and the wife insists on leaving soiled diapers all over the house? What do you do when a wife runs up 75K on the credit cards, unbeknownst to her husband? What do you do when the kids are left in dangerous situations?”

    This doesn’t address the fundamental issue, which is that, in Wilson’s view, when a husband says “jump”, his wife is to reply with “Yes, Master”, tug her forelock, and ask “How high?”

    I am heartened by the fact that the issue apparently even raised the hackles of some people who otherwise believe what he says or he wouldn’t have fount it necessary to respond at all. Maybe there’s hope for the sheeple.

    BTW-Wilson ever written anything about what a wife is to do when her husband is sinful? Just curious.

  21. Well, I haven’t followed this one *too* closely, but I’d suggest accepting Mr W’s retraction at face value and see what pans out in the near future. Perhaps easier for me to say as a single male Brit 😉

    But I agree with Jeff S, you can’t change a spouse’s behaviour, IMO – in fact a conscious attempt at changing it will often meet resistance. Nobody, male or female, likes to feel they are being hectored or put on the naughty step. At the same time I recognise that there are situations where a husband or wife is at fault if not in outright sin – recklessness with money, whether booze, bingo or shopping, can be one problem, *sustained* disinterest in conjugal relations another. Sometimes a spouse may feel ashamed enough in such cases to want to change, but it can be intractably difficult otherwise.

    To be honest I have always understood why the Orthodox Church views marriage as a form of martyrdom…. and yet a genuinely good Christian marriage can be a powerful witness (not that I buy into the view that it “models the Trinity”, which seems to be a very recent idea that never occurred to previous centuries, correct me if I’m wrong?).

  22. JeffT wrote:

    BTW-Wilson ever written anything about what a wife is to do when her husband is sinful? Just curious.

    I think I asked this on another thread from a few weeks ago, or I wondered about it to myself.

    When is Wilson going to advise wives how to handle their sinful husbands- *slapping forehead*

    I think I already know what his reply would be:
    “Ladies, if your husband is sinning, you need to submit more to him. Cook him his favorite dinner, shower him with love…”

    I would guess Wilson’s concern would not be with the husband taking on personal responsibility for his own choices / sins, but to make the wife accommodate the husband some more and hope the coddling would produce change.

    (I base this on the many complementarian blogs pages I’ve read over the years that do bother to tell women how to handle a husband in sin, or that pertain to domestic abuse.)

    Comps are very messed up about this.

    They (depending on which specific preacher we’re talking about) either tend to

    1. hold the wife responsible for all sins and mistakes (both hers and her husband’s); or,

    2. they hold the wife responsible for the husband’s behavior, and the husband responsible for the wife’s behavior

  23. Oh, I think he has fielded how wives handle apostate husbands who go Catholic, run them by church discipline or something like that. It’d be naive to think Wilson hadn’t addressed this topic over the last decade but I can’t recall where he fielded that question at Blog and Mablog in the past. It’s easier to remember the over-confident stuff about major/minor key systems being “robustly trinitarian” because music is a modest hobby of mine and because the tonal system didn’t fully take shape until the late Renaissance/early Baroque after Christianity had been around at least a millenium.

    And who says total serialism can’t be robustly trinitarian if Messiaen used it once or twice? 🙂

  24. JeffT wrote:

    BTW-Wilson ever written anything about what a wife is to do when her husband is sinful? Just curious.

    I’m not sure, but his chum John Piper famously said that when a husband tried to pressure his wife into group sex, she should say that it would be so sweet to obey him but she was gonna have to winsomely decline just this once, honey. Personally I would be out of there faster than you could say “scriptural divorce.” And I wouldn’t ask my pastor first if it was allowed.

    Are the moral compasses of these men are broken? I have tried to understand but their apologies don’t mean anything until they actually stop preaching the dangerous, self-serving dreck they cleverly disguise with empty theological verbosity. Driscoll, Piper, and Wilson have all shown they are capable of backpedaling when it suits their purposes but that’s not a sign of good character (one could argue that it is, in fact, the opposite).

  25. @ WTH:

    “…the over-confident stuff about major/minor key systems being ‘robustly trinitarian’ because music is a modest hobby of mine”

    I think my reaction to this is the same as your acronym: WTH?!?!?!

    I’ve heard a lot of wonky Christian statements about music but that one just might take the cake.

  26. @ Jeff S.:

    Yeah, I’m pretty sure bringing in a bunch of untrained church elders for a hoarding or any other “pathological” situation would be the worst possible strategy. Sometimes even trained psychologists who try to “fix” people like hoarders fail. Also Wilson’s recommended course of action (instruction ala child training) just plain wouldn’t work.

  27. I guess it would be entirely too egalitarian for anyone to suggest that the husband with the filthy house might begin to help out a little with diaper duty.

    I don’t follow Wilson; haven’t read any of his stuff in years, but I agree that his writing was a huge part of the problem. His choice of extreme examples wasn’t well thought out — it was all a pat-answer kind of piece. If there’s anything I have learned from being in a hyper-authoritarian church situation, it’s that there are no absolute formulas and few pat answers. If there were, we wouldn’t need Jesus.

  28. Maybe the problem of a “wife who insists on leaving soiled diapers all over the house” is an unintended consequence of the encouragement of early marriage. But I would have thought the wife would at least be old enough to be potty trained.

  29. @ Nickname:
    Regarding the situation Wilson is describing, the husband chipping in to help with chores is a non factor. And in fact, it is likely that he has been doing whatever chores are getting done.

    The fact of the matter is, you aren’t going to fix a situation like that by doing more, being better, or bringing in the elders to demand she shape up.

    Wilson is way out of his depth to speak to such a situation, as are most people.

  30. Daisy wrote:

    @ KR Wordgazer:
    Holy cow. If I was married and my spouse pulled that on me, not only would I not have sex and not clean the kitchen, but I’d tell him exactly where he could put his toothbrush.

    Daisy – a clearer-thinking person would (if you get my meaning) put the toothbrush away for him.

    Everybody wins!

    Sort of…

  31. Anon 1 wrote:

    Leila, When you want to get their attention just agree with them and tell them you can understand why they did not want to marry an intellectual equal

    Exactly.

    And Wilson has zero credibility as an intellectual, even if he wants to put himself forward as one. He does not understand intellectual honesty, he does not understand dialogue (which does NOT mean that you should agree with your dialogue partner all the time, but it DOES mean that you should be open to consider the other persons ideas and point of view, and consider that they might, just might, be right, or at least have one or a few points, even if they are not completely right. BTW – none of us are always completely right, except some puerile know-it-alls who never want argument and dialogue, but sock it to the opposition, the “enemy”, and that’s basically anybody who doesn’t always agree with them. I’ll not name any names, but you know who this is about, don’t you, Doug?

  32. JeffT wrote:

    What do you do when the house is filthy, and the wife insists on leaving soiled diapers all over the house? What do you do when a wife runs up 75K on the credit cards, unbeknownst to her husband? What do you do when the kids are left in dangerous situations?”

    I believe that this means the wife is having serious mental problems. Bipolar comes to mind along with depression, etc. Instead of the elders, I would recommend a good psychiatrist. Does anyone really think that this is a straightforward “sin” problem?

  33. Daisy wrote:

    They (depending on which specific preacher we’re talking about) either tend to
    1. hold the wife responsible for all sins and mistakes (both hers and her husband’s);

    More and more, I am coming to this conclusion as well.

  34. It would seem from his writings that Doug Wilson is deeply in love with the image of Doug Wilson.

  35. I don’t really care one way or the other whether what Wilson says is heartfelt, sufficient etc. I don’t follow him, and I don’t follow what he says or does (unless I hear it from some other site.)

    The thing that I find that is hopeful is that I believe Wilson symbolizes something here.

    It seems that a lot of these people on the fringes of evangelical Christianity speak and act with very little thought about the rightness of what they say or how it sounds outside the echo chamber they create for themselves.

    The positive sign that I see in this is that exposure of their strange views to the wider world gives them a greater perspective.

    Wilson, and hopefully others like him, will see how silly some of their views are. It’s one thing to be persecuted because you believe Jesus was God come to earth, that he suffered the cross to make forgiveness possible, and that he rose again etc.

    It’s another thing to be persecuted because you have eccentric views about the cultural application of scripture or interpretations that are weird or because you claim to have special powers or because you fleece your congregation with a 35,000 square foot home and a private jet.

    These guys understand that – in concept, but never in reality.

    All of the discussion on the internet brings it home like nothing else.

    So I am hoping that this indicates more discipline and self censorship is on the way in a lot of quarters, and that the Gospel will be the main focus and not as a jumping off point to a lot of weirdness.

  36. Dee, (you can edit this if you need to)

    If I were a single woman attending Doug Wilson’s church, I would hike up my skirts and flee out the door after reading his article on how to treat wives who haven’t done the dishes.

    I know housekeepers who are treated better than that.

    No sensible intelligent woman would put up with that kind of control freak behavior. Is this why Calvinistas have their own dating sites?

    I accept his apology, but for him to have written this — and his ridiculous comment about slavery — shows how weird his thinking is. These are creepy and extremist opinions, not a mere slip of the pen.

    On a happier note, here’s a good article on love versus control: http://www.stufffundieslike.com/2013/04/love/

  37. Anonymous

    From your lips to God’s ears! Blogging is an interesting business. You open your self up to the opinions of the world and you must take your hits, change and grow or become increasingly irrelevant. I have had to do this a lot. I might intend something to be one way but many others interpret it differently. I can either stomp my feet and shake my fist ot the world or i can learn to say it differently and better. This arena is most humbling and I am changing as a result of it.

  38. Clay

    Yoy are not the first to say that. He laughs at his own jokes while people are trying to get through to him on important, life-altering issues. Such was the case in his discussion with Anyabwile. I gave an example of this in the post.

  39. Daisy – yes, you should put the tootbrush away for him. After you used it to clean the toilet.

  40. dee wrote:

    @ Nick Bulbeck o you mean that your comment was held. It must have come through since I can’t find it in the comment queue. Let me know if it didn’t.

    Success – it’s been posted the noo.

  41. Anonymous wrote:

    It’s one thing to be persecuted because you believe Jesus was God come to earth, that he suffered the cross to make forgiveness possible, and that he rose again etc.
    It’s another thing to be persecuted because you have eccentric views about the cultural application of scripture or interpretations that are weird or because you claim to have special powers or because you fleece your congregation with a 35,000 square foot home and a private jet.

    “It’s one thing to be persecuted because you believe Jesus was God come to earth, that he suffered the cross to make forgiveness possible, and that he rose again etc.
    It’s another thing to be persecuted because you have eccentric views about the cultural application of scripture or interpretations that are weird or because you claim to have special powers or because you fleece your congregation with a 35,000 square foot home and a private jet.

    Needs repeating, IMO/ The latter is not persecution but the natural consequences of bad behavior. When Christians equate the two, it is an ominous sign that they think themselves to be God.

    Christians do not suffer persecution here in the US. There is pushback for nastiness and the occasional “I don’t see how you can believe in a god–how stupid are you?” which is not persecution but normal (if rude) disagreement that commonly occurs in a multi-cultural society.

    Some Christians don’t live in society but in walled compounds where the sun always shines on their ideas. “Mah poor palpitatin’ heart”, they moan when someone uses vulgar words about the state of their mansion. “Shed that corset, dear, and get off the plantation.” hah

  42. IMO, Doug has displayed a more Gospelly and Biblically Robust attitude than Tim. Both read negative posts about themselves here. One retracted his article and and refocused his thoughts toward the more serious situations he ought to have thought of before. The other said, basically, “Well! I’m never gonna read NUTTIN Dey write dere never again! Dey never writes NUTTIN nice about me!”
    Since you are still a reader here, Thanks Doug.

  43. @ dee:

    Nancy Wilson teaches women to win their husbands without a word for train wreck marriages. This is a marriage with a “big problem, a tragic, difficult situation.” (She addressed abuse and says we are not doormats and women should have an escape plan.)

    I remember watching this Ask Nancy video 2 years ago and it struck me as putting quite a burden on the wife to solve the problems. I was hoping this disturbing advice was no longer on the website. The theme Nancy emphasizes in counseling a woman in a Christian train wreck marriage (I presume she is speaking of both parties being Christian) is 1 Peter 3:1 — win them by your behavior. But that verse speaks of the husband being an unbeliever. ??? That was not mentioned in the video.

    When the husband is being unkind, ugly and ungrateful to you, you respond sweetly. That is the way to really get to this man-if he hits you, don’t hit him back. Be sweet and make him his favorite dinner. Smiles, kind words and whip up his favorite dessert, she says. 🙁

    http://www.canonwired.com/ask-nancy/when-marriage-is-a-train-wreck/

  44. @ Diane:

    The husband is to call the elders in to help with the unruly wife, but the wife is to win the harsh husband over with her meek, loving, and submissive self. Hmmm . . .

  45. Bridget wrote:

    Is it just me or does Doug Wilson seem to have a problem conveying what he really, or actually, means when he writes?

    Doug writes in such an obtuse way that so that later on he has the “wiggle room” to claim that he really meant something else or that his readers have a comprehension problem. Whether he does this on purpose or not, who knows? But the truth is, he knows what he really meant and his readers know what he really meant and the obfuscating language is there for his own protection.

  46. @ Mara:
    Do they even care if it is damaging and abusive. At least for the duration of my christian life–39 years–some of the most hurtful people have been church folks. It has really damaged my trust level of people.

  47. @ mot:
    I think a lot of these folks don’t believe abuse is a real problem or that people really get hurt. It’s like a hard core version of “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me”- except they are OK with broken bones. It’s more like “Wrong theology may send me to hell, but any other pain is good for me”.

    It seems that a lot of churches in the U.S. today minimize real pain and suffering- likely many are insulated from it and what it feels like.

    The pastor at my current church lost his wife to cancer within a year of its diagnosis. They had 4 children together. He and I have talked about what it means to hurt, and while he doesn’t understand my situation exactly, he understands what real pain feels like and he is able to empathize. It makes such a difference in the way he interacts with people.

    There is a coldness in a lot of preaching today, and almost the idea that if you have feelings then you are in danger of not being true to scripture. This idea needs be challenged- the scripture tells us that God uses experience to grow us- those who have not suffered ought to be listening to those who have.

  48. @ Brian:

    Brian –

    I probably agree. Yet, for a man who claims a desire to be “biblical”‘about all he does, I find his approach falls short. I could find many scriptures to addess what he is doing with words, and they wouldn’t support his obfuscating ways. In fact, I don’t believe Jesus or Paul (if one needs a Pauline justification) would interact with people in such a way. Their goal was to be clear and bring understanding, without question; not confusion and a means of escape.

  49. Anonymous wrote:

    So I am hoping that this indicates more discipline and self censorship is on the way in a lot of quarters, and that the Gospel will be the main focus and not as a jumping off point to a lot of weirdness.

    I would prefer they be who they really are. We have enough vague phony Christian leaders that it takes years to figure out what they really believe. Wilson never retracted what he “believed” he just said we misunderstood the “degree” to which he was referring to it. The elders still need to be called to discipline your wife for you. So now we are supposed to think this is might be an area of self censorship cos the masses are reading it? So basically the weirdness goes underground? Quite frankly, I think we should be more concerned for truth and being truthful, not how we “sound” to the masses so we will be more accepted.

  50. @ Patrice:Rumor has it that some in SGM think the lawsuit is due to persecution for their faith. Why can’t we admit that sometimes people don’t like us because we sometimes act like jerks?

  51. Anonymous wrote:

    I don’t really care one way or the other whether what Wilson says is heartfelt, sufficient etc. I don’t follow him, and I don’t follow what he says or does (unless I hear it from some other site.)

    I care cos lots of young men at seminaries are following Piper close and now the GC has embraced Wilson. I know how easily influenced these young followers are and how they love to emulate their heros. Piper and the GC basically affirmed Wilson. I am concerned about the people in the pews who get sucked in without really realizing what is going on. Our job is to warn them about Piper, Wilson and the rest and what they really teach.

  52. Diane wrote:

    The theme Nancy emphasizes in counseling a woman in a Christian train wreck marriage (I presume she is speaking of both parties being Christian) is 1 Peter 3:1 — win them by your behavior. But that verse speaks of the husband being an unbeliever. ??? That was not mentioned in the video.

    They always leave out that part about the husband being an unbeliever and how Peter is talking about the different areas of life were believers are interacting with unbelievers. they also leave out the 1st Century context which is important since an abused wife escapte to the Ephesus women’s shelter with her kids when she is being beat up.

    Why would a believing wife need to win over her believing husband? Wasn’t the Cross enough for him?

  53. Jeff S wrote:

    He and I have talked about what it means to hurt, and while he doesn’t understand my situation exactly, he understands what real pain feels like and he is able to empathize. It makes such a difference in the way he interacts with people.

    My daughter’s brain tumor did the same thing for me. It goes from the theoretical to the gut. I have often said that I didn’t realize who physically painful emotional pain was. It felt like someone had punched me in the gut.

  54. @ Jeff S:
    Excellent. “Wrong theology may send me to hell, but any other pain is good for me”. Because all suffering shares in Christ’s suffering and since everything is under God’s control, it is good for me. Therefore consider it all joy when I suffer anything anywhere at any time for any reason. Haha ouchhaha “Thank you sir may I have another?”

    “…almost the idea that if you have feelings then you are in danger of not being true to scripture.” Well, at least those worldly “negative” emotions.
    Groaning = you’re not understanding that it’s good for you
    Whining = ditto
    Anger = ditto
    Despair = ditto
    Grief = well, as long as you don’t overdo it because then, ditto…

    “There is a coldness in a lot of preaching today, and almost the idea that if you have feelings then you are in danger of not being true to scripture.” Don’t you know that for those who love God, all things work together for good? Besides, God will never give you more than you can handle so you should be ashamed of yourself. Go read your Bible and repent of your sin.

    “When they said repent (Repent REPENT)
    I wonder what they meant”

    🙂

  55. @ Anon 1:

    If retract means to formally reject or disavow a formerly held belief, usually under pressure (freedictionary.com), then, like Anon 1 wrote, what did Wilson retract? He clarified his currently held belief.

    “I don’t need to retract the point I was making at all, but I certainly should have done a better job making it.” From Clunkity Clunk

  56. mot wrote:

    Do they even care if it is damaging and abusive. At least for the duration of my christian life–39 years–some of the most hurtful people have been church folks. It has really damaged my trust level of people.

    They do not see it as damaging and abusive. It is for your own good to them cos they know best and are the experts. Nothing is worse than “tyranny for your own good in the Name of Jesus”. The problem lies with them. Us wanting them to change is a fruitless exercise. The goal is to warn folks who allow them influence that this ain’t Christianity as defined by Jesus Christ.

    It is all about their “system” they have created. Everything is about that system and their image/influence/power. The big mistake many make is thinking because it has a fish slapped on it and Christianese is used, it is Christian. Our goal is to go to Jesus Christ and look at Who He was in the flesh, how he interacted, what he did and did not do and come to realization we have the indwelling Holy Spirit He promised us.

    The biggest fear guys like Wilson have is that folks will realize they don’t need him. And if they mature they will realize it. They are kept captive with rules and roles and tons of snark interspersed with his brand of love that people will crave to feel special. It is all about breaking the spell and that is done by KNOWING Jesus Christ.

  57. Anon 1~

    “Why would a believing wife need to win over her believing husband? Wasn’t the Cross enough for him?”

    Well, there ya go. That’s what I was wondering. 🙂

  58. Diane wrote:

    If retract means to formally reject or disavow a formerly held belief, usually under pressure (freedictionary.com), then, like Anon 1 wrote, what did Wilson retract? He clarified his currently held belief.
    “I don’t need to retract the point I was making at all, but I certainly should have done a better job making it.” From Clunkity Clunk

    Diane, I have no proof of this except my experience around these types of players. My guess is that there is some pushback to Wilson from WITHING certain Reformed circles and this “retraction”, which was a non retraction retraction, was to keep some of them from going off the reservation about Wilson completely. (Think Driscoll and that kerfuffle with the GC guys) If that is what it was (cos Wilson is not known for this sort of retraction in the past) then they will have to keep one step ahead cos there is a ton of stuff out there from Wilson that will send some folks reeling!

  59. Dee wrote:

    Rumor has it that some in SGM think the lawsuit is due to persecution for their faith.

    Yes, it’s an element that seems to run through some circles. I read in Kevin De Young’s blog this morn. Underlying any controversial issue is a frisson of eager fear, a longing to be able to whisper “Persecution!” They seem to desire it as a mark of their extraordinary righteousness. Humbug!!

    I never hid my Christianity when at grad school and teaching at secular art college. People sometimes teased me, but when it became clear (over time) that I was not an a** but had genuine love for them as well as art and education, they stocked it up to eccentricity. And students asked about it sometimes.

    Once, a fellow prof came to my office with a couple cups of coffee and said she wished with all her heart that she could believe in something that lovely because it would make her feel so much better about life. That made for a long conversation—-I don’t know how she worked it out, in the end, but see? Somehow, I’d managed to stay out of the way so God could show Him/Herself. Nothing to do with my own righteousness—just the privilege of playing the position of conduit. Woot!

    That is the actual place of Christianity in US culture these days. But this way of being/living scares the bejeezus out of some Christians. It’s so soily and they are much too foily to be that available.

    They’re simply afraid to live. All that manliness is pomp and circumstance. IMO, it’s a rejection of the life of God in His/Her Kingdom. Who knows how God will settle it in the end? I am glad to leave it with Him/Her because I’m too small to bring adequate judgment. But I do have my opinions lol

  60. dee wrote:

    JeffT wrote:
    What do you do when the house is filthy, and the wife insists on leaving soiled diapers all over the house? What do you do when a wife runs up 75K on the credit cards, unbeknownst to her husband? What do you do when the kids are left in dangerous situations?”
    I believe that this means the wife is having serious mental problems. Bipolar comes to mind along with depression, etc. Instead of the elders, I would recommend a good psychiatrist. Does anyone really think that this is a straightforward “sin” problem?

    I agree wholeheartedly, That’s one of the huge tragedies of sin-centric brands of Christianity like Calvinistas – so much ‘wrong’ behavior is blamed on sin that there’s virtually no room for mental illness. Instead of seeking medical and/or psychological treatment, suffers are subjected medieval practices as accusations of willful sinning, nouthetic counseling and, in some circles, demon exorcism.

  61. @ Diane:

    “Nancy Wilson teaches women to win their husbands without a word for train wreck marriages. … The theme Nancy emphasizes in counseling a woman in a Christian train wreck marriage (I presume she is speaking of both parties being Christian) is 1 Peter 3:1 — win them by your behavior.”

    Doug Phillips said some similar stuff on the CD I’m reviewing right now. It’s two parts and the first part is already up (which gets into it a little bit but I’m going to get into it more later). Pray and submit seems to be the rule of the day.

    http://scarletlettersblog.wordpress.com/2013/04/15/the-wise-womans-guide-to-blessing-her-husbands-vision-the-blue-half-tbb/

  62. @ Numo:

    Weren’t tritones considered “the devil’s interval” or something like that back in the day because they were so dissonant?

  63. Anon 1 wrote:

    and now the GC has embraced Wilson

    Even TGC is distancing themselves from Wilson. I noticed that Kevin DeYoung has removed him from his blogroll. I guess he’s become more of a liability to them than an asset.

  64. Hester wrote:

    Weren’t tritones considered “the devil’s interval” or something like that back in the day because they were so dissonant?

    I learn so much reading comments. Demon chords now.

  65. @ AJG: I am hoping that such things might prompt a change in demeanor. Look, all of us need to reassess from time to time. The Internet is a good medium, at least for me. It forces me to look very hard at myself. I learn more from those who come here than they do from me. It is a humbling experience.

  66. @ JeffT: Oh, I don’t think “sin-centric” xtianity is confined to Calvinist circles by any means! I’ve encountered it in a variety of churches where the theology and practice was light-years off from anything Calvinistic.

    (Includes focus on demons and derision for mental – and physical – health problem, fwiw… I’ve been told flatly that my physical health issues are due to unconfessed sin and demons, though thankfully, I’m no longer in those circles!)

  67. numo wrote:

    I don’t think “sin-centric” xtianity is confined to Calvinist circles by any means! I’ve encountered it in a variety of churches where the theology and practice was light-years off from anything Calvinistic.

    To true – I just mentioned Calvinistas are the most popular and visible of the lot. There are sadly too many of these movements around, some of which are much scarier than anything some Calvinists have dreamed up. The sickest and most heartbreaking examples are those that occasionally turn up in the crime pages involving things done to ‘sinful’ or ‘demon-possessed’ children by their parents and the ‘church’ they belong to.

  68. Anon 1 wrote:

    The biggest fear guys like Wilson have is that folks will realize they don’t need him. And if they mature they will realize it. They are kept captive with rules and roles and tons of snark interspersed with his brand of love that people will crave to feel special. It is all about breaking the spell and that is done by KNOWING Jesus Christ.

    AMEN x 10,000!!!

  69. dee wrote:

    I wish I could blame demons for the dust in my kitchen!

    LOL! That dust is actually the traces of demons masquerading as dust bunnies!

  70. Please allow me to stir the original pot a bit more. The retraction (that wasn’t a retraction, as another commenter pointed out, since he wrote “I don’t need to retract the point I was making at all”) was in reference to an article posted in 2009 on the Reformed Singles website. In that location, it bears the title, “Not Where She Should Be”.

    It greatly interested me that such an experienced writer as Doug Wilson would describe an earlier work of his as “formulaic, clunkity, clunkity, clunk”. I have no trouble comprehending anything I’ve read from him. He writes clearly and to the point. He does not use unwieldy vocabulary words or needlessly lengthy sentences. He strikes me as an accomplished wordsmith who knows what he wants to say and conveys it effectively to the reader. The original article did not seem to me clunky or poorly expressed in meaning at all.

    Curious as to what books he had published around the same time as this “decade and a half” old article, I looked up his published list. A precise decade and half ago would be 1998. I will assume he may have meant “about” a decade and a half, give or take.

    Book titles from that era include 1995’s Reforming Marriage, 1997’s Her Hand in Marriage: Biblical Courtship, and 1999’s Federal Husband.

    Years ago I had read some of Reforming Marriage. I turned to Amazon online to skim a little of the other two. And there it was, on p. 25 of The Federal Husband. It was the original article in question, verbatim as printed on the Reformed Singles website. Except it was in a longer chapter in 1999’s The Federal Husband, which was titled “Not Where They Should Be”.

    I remain unconvinced that Mr. Wilson wrote a clunkity article a long time ago that didn’t express what he really intended at the time to convey, and that it was actually addressing some “pathological situations”. I believe that he wrote what he meant and he meant what he wrote. A “reasonable person” (his phrase) reading it would conclude the same. To try to gloss over it as just “inept writing” (his phrase) in an apparently one-time article, dashed off with little thought as to how it could be wrongly perceived, simply strikes me as quite disingenuous.

  71. @ Hester:

    Where does the Bible tell women that one of their pursuits is to be a blessing to their husband’s “vision” !? As a wife, I love my husband and will encourage him in the desires of his heart. I expect he will do the same with me. But this propping up of the husband, as if he should be the center of the wife’s world, turns into worship of the wrong type. Only insecure men would demand (to the point of writing books and papers about “how” women should do this) such attentions from their wives.

  72. dee wrote:

    Hester wrote:
    Weren’t tritones considered “the devil’s interval” or something like that back in the day because they were so dissonant?
    I learn so much reading comments. Demon chords now.

    Well, Demona interval back then- it was a while ago that people thought this way.

    The first two notes of the song “Evenflow” by Pearl Jam are a tritone- I guess it’s the devil’s music 😀

  73. @ Tree: This was an excellent comment and analysis. i recommend that all of our readers read it. Thank you for your thoughtful rebuttal of Wilson’s retraction.

  74. Thank you, Dee. I’ve so appreciated TWW over the last few years.

    And Bridget, I don’t really know what to make of his non-retraction article, except that apparently the orderly world-according-to-Doug has been ruffled significantly enough to provoke response.

  75. @ Dee:

    I’m pretty sure you hear one every time you encounter a dominant 7th chord…which is a central part of that “good old fashioned orderly harmony” (i.e., Baroque/Classical and not all that OMG SCARY MUSIC!!! post-1900) that every fundy preacher nowadays wants us to return to. I bet they had no idea they were holding up demonic harmony as the height of godliness.

  76. @ Bridget:

    Phillips pretty much states flat out that her husband should be the center of a woman’s world. She should dress only for him, etc. Apparently even when they have guests over she’s supposed to defer to him and tell the guests that it’s only because of “the generosity of her husband” that they can come over. “Lord of the home” and all that jazz. Women don’t have their own “missions” in life and are not supposed to be the “visionary” of the home. Also Doug never actually defines “vision” (see my article linked in my comment to Diane for more detail on this point) – which in the original Hebrew is actually referring to prophecy, not some nebulous “spiritual plan” that the husband comes up with.

    @ Diane:

    I went through some of 1 Peter 3 in the article I linked to and will get into it more this weekend.

  77. @ Hester:
    There’s a wikipedia entry on the tritone: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritone

    The dominant 7th isn’t used THAT much in modern P/W music, though it’s definitely used a lot in the old hymns. It’s not really an issue because no one consideres it devilish now- it’s really just a matter of creating tension to be released.

    In my own music I don’t use the dominant 7th that often, so likely there aren’t many tritones. What you’ll be looking for on Wednesday is the song “Not Yet Home”- it’s the only example on the first album where I can recall using a dominant 7th (and therefore a tritone). So for that song you can cue up the Monety Python “Burn the witch” segment!

  78. Jeff S wrote:

    There is a coldness in a lot of preaching today, and almost the idea that if you have feelings then you are in danger of not being true to scripture.

    I agree. At our former church (an FIC), several families were really into these S.M. Davis (what a legalist he is!) teachings about anger. He is one of those people that teaches that ALL anger is ALWAYS wrong. They must think it was okay for Jesus to be angry about the money changers at the temple because he is God and that we mere mortals aren’t capable of righteous anger. They take James’s words about being slow to anger and anger not accomplishing God’s work way too far. They turn it into “If you feel even a little angry, you are sinning. Ignore the injustice you and/or others are experiencing.”

    Now, add to this, the following teachings popular at that church:

    -Anything but chaperoned courtship pre-approved by the dad is a sin and leads to “giving your heart away.” (AKA – Being attracted to someone is a sin. Crushes by teenagers are sin.)

    -Children must obey, “All the way, right away, in a joyful way.” (AKA – Obeying immediately without complaining isn’t enough. You must be happy about it.)

    -Wives must always be cheerful, Debi Pearl says, or else your husband will want to leave you. (Again, anything but being filled with the “joy of the Lord” is an “illegal” feeling.)

    King David should be glad he didn’t know people who believed all this stuff. They would’ve been all over him for his emotional highs and lows.

    Does the patriarchy crowd remind anyone of Vulcans with the way they deny feelings? Except these same people are often filled with anger and contempt, and like Vulcans, refuse to acknowledge the feelings everyone around them can plainly see.

    As a logical person, I used to look down upon feelings. Then life happened. And then I read about a man who had some sort of brain trauma in an accident that caused him to stop having any emotions. Rather than being able to easily make decisions, using strictly logic, as I would have expected, he became completely indecisive. Without his emotions, he was unable to make even simple choices.

    The “deny all non-happy feelings” crowd must not think much about why we evolved or were given (depending on your view of creation) all these other feelings. If they were always a negative, they probably would have been weeded out of the gene pool, right?

  79. Bridget wrote:

    @ Hester:
    Where does the Bible tell women that one of their pursuits is to be a blessing to their husband’s “vision” !?

    Doug Phillips teaches men they need to have a 200 year vision for there families. Yes, seriously! The people at my former church were really into Vision Forum garbage.

    I am a generation younger than most of the parents there, but even I have lived long enough to know that it’s hard to predict or plan what will happen tomorrow or this weekend. How they think they can plan for 200 years, I don’t know. (It would be much simpler if it were “invest financially for several generations” or something, but that isn’t the goal.)

  80. Hester wrote:

    @ Bridget:
    Phillips pretty much states flat out that her husband should be the center of a woman’s world. She should dress only for him, etc. Apparently even when they have guests over she’s supposed to defer to him and tell the guests that it’s only because of “the generosity of her husband” that they can come over. “Lord of the home” and all that jazz.

    That’s also what S.M. Davis (pushed by Vision Forum) teaches. In one teaching (probably on not becoming prideful), he stated that if a guest thanks the wife for cooking good food, she should say something like, “Well, my husband is the one who earned the money to buy the food.” They think we are always to pass on the praise. But of course, I don’t think the husband is ever instructed to say, “Well, XYZ company was generous enough to give me the job to earn the money.)

    What’s wrong with just say, “Thanks. I like the cook.” The “passing on the praise” bit sounds like false modesty to most people.

  81. JeffT wrote:

    There are sadly too many of these movements around, some of which are much scarier than anything some Calvinists have dreamed up. The sickest and most heartbreaking examples are those that occasionally turn up in the crime pages involving things done to ‘sinful’ or ‘demon-possessed’ children by their parents and the ‘church’ they belong to.

    The ones where the kid is literally abused to death in the name of Exorcising the DEMONS?

  82. Brian wrote:

    Doug writes in such an obtuse way that so that later on he has the “wiggle room” to claim that he really meant something else or that his readers have a comprehension problem.

    This is commonly called “Plausible Deniability”.

  83. Online articles about Doug Wilson depict a smug arrogant man with serious problems:

    According to articles, he was accused of plagiarizing 22 passages from a 1974 by Dr. Nicholas Gier, a professor at University of Idaho in 2004; he’s part of a pro-slavery neo-Confederate group that is being watched by SPLC; AND he allegedly has a history of covering up years of child sexual abuse by at college student at his New Saint Andrews College.

    Please do a search yourself. It’s much worse than what I’ve posted here. (And apparently he has a pattern of calling his critics names and coming up excuses that he’s been misunderstood.)

    I’m no big fan of SPLC, but this is pretty serious. And their articles name names.

  84. @ Hoppy:

    I’m going to end up doing a lot of S.M. Davis in my Big Box series (ongoing at my blog). I know one of them is about scorn and mockery and most of the rest are about courtship and child training. Would you be interested in doing a guest article about the real life fallout from his teachings when I get to him?

  85. Daisy wrote:

    @ KR Wordgazer:
    Holy cow. If I was married and my spouse pulled that on me, not only would I not have sex and not clean the kitchen, but I’d tell him exactly where he could put his toothbrush.

    What if you were told that your submission to his every whim was God’s will and you were in danger of losing your salvation if you dared even question it?

    God’s name is used as a weapon to keep women in “voluntary” submission. The real woman in this situation did eventually come to understand that this wasn’t God’s will– but “telling him exactly where he could put his toothbrush” really wasn’t something she could do– and not because she was weak, but because something stronger than her was used to hold her hostage.

  86. Anon 1 wrote:

    Leila wrote:
    Did you ever notice when these female subordinationists get called on their tyranny they always backpedal with how “misunderstood” they are? How they “didn’t really mean blah blah blah …” or we’ve taken them “out of context.” They can’t just man up and own it.
    Leila, When you want to get their attention just agree with them and tell them you can understand why they did not want to marry an intellectual equal. )

    This is great! I’m filing this quote for future reference.

  87. VelvetVoice wrote:

    When you want to get their attention just agree with them and tell them you can understand why they did not want to marry an intellectual equal. )

    Hysterical.