Home Menu ↓

Injustice: An Open Letter to the Gospel Coalition by Nate Sparks: Part 2

This is the post that started it all. I have just posted the written content. If you wish to view the videos he included, please visit this post at Nate Spark's blog.

Nate Sparks
nate.sparks130@gmail.com
natesparks130.wordpress.com

TGC Council Members
Tim Keller, Don Carson, John Piper, et al.
The Gospel Coalition
thegospelcoalition.org

To the members of the TGC council:

I am writing you regarding an important and distressing issue within your organization.  I have been following The Gospel Coalition quite closely for the better part of a year now and have been deeply bothered by many of the things I have observed.  I have read many articles, listened to many sermons, watched many videos and I have noticed a trend developing – an environment of seemingly unchecked systemic injustice perpetrated and/or supported by influential representatives and council members of TGC.  As such, I have chosen to provide a representative list of examples, carefully cited grievances demonstrating the validity of this claim.

As you will see below, I have grouped these grievances thematically in order to facilitate easier reading and engagement.  I encourage you to not only consider my words, but the works I have cited as well.  Read carefully each cited source and decide, is this really what you are about.

What I intend to highlight are intentional, systematic injustices on which your ministry is built and from which it directly profits.  As such, I invite your response to these claims.  I hope you will see the pain you are causing and reconsider your actions.  These things have placed a stain on the body of Christ, as you have repeatedly favored the power and privilege of an elite few men over the well-being of entire congregations.

Sexual Abuse

  1. CJ Mahaney is explicitly supported by TGC and its cohorts. Mahaney has been implicated in what many have called “the largest sex abuse scandal to hit the Evangelical Church.” Multiple persons have claimed that Mahaney and his leadership team have worked diligently to actively silence multiple abuse victims within his church. He is even facing a lawsuit from many of these victims! Yet Kevin DeYoung, Don Carson, and Justin Taylor have openly defended him and no fewer than 6 presiding council members will share a stage with him at this year’s T4G conference.  

How, precisely, are you caring for the victims when two council members of the TGC and one board member of Desiring God have openly stated that the allegations against him are false? 

2. TGC has repeatedly supported Doug Wilson. You have peddled his books and one council member (John Piper) has repeatedly given him a platform to write on his own blog. Yet no one has bothered to address the allegations of abusive pastoral practicesDoug has used to enable sexual predators like Jamin Wight and Steven Sitler. This is troubling because, despite the fact that Sitler has been medically diagnosed as a fixated pedophile, Doug has refused to call him a rapist.

Equally troubling, Wilson has also openly blamed Natalie Greenfield and her father for the abuse she suffered.  Doug has issued blatantly false statements that have been openly refuted, yet he refuses to retract them.  He has even insisted Natalie and her family were complicit in a “secret courtship” instead of admitting the fact that Jamin Wight groomed and repeatedly raped a 14-year-old girl.

What, precisely, is the TGC’s take on Doug Wilsons handling of the Sitler and Wight sex abuse incidents?  

wp-1448921961263.jpg

3. While we are on the subject of Doug Wilson, here are some other interesting facts. Doug Wilson has stated that rape is God’s way of punishing women who don’t practice his flavor of female “submission”. He has called this the “propriety of rape”. Further, Doug has openly stated that rape statistics are nothing more than feminist propaganda, that by the very nature of their “agenda” they are asking to be raped. He even states that victims still need to repent of their abuse and separates their victimization from the death of Christ on the cross, refusing to draw any line of solidarity in Christ’s suffering.

Do you see Doug’s vision of the cross standing apart from the plight of victims consistent with a passage like Isaiah 52:13-53:12? Why would the TGC sell the books or feature the blog posts of a man who openly blames victims of sexual assault for their own abuse?

4. You have also enabled Matt Chandler. As president of Acts 29 and the leader of the Village Church, a multi-site network of churches, Matt has promoted membership covenants in all his churches. Within these covenants, members sign their lives away to the church, signing contracts that, among other things, forbid them to divorce abusive spouses without the churches permission. As a result of these practices, the Village Church placed a woman, Karen Hinkley (formerly Root) under church discipline for attempting to nullify her marriage to Jordan Root. Jordan had admitted to an active addiction to child pornography and, according to Karen, had admitted to committing sexual assault. Despite this, the church attempted to force Karen to reconcile to her husband and spread lies about her to their congregations. It was only after all of this was made public, and hashed out over many months, that Chandler finally repented of the actions. It seems telling that Kevin DeYoung, during the Karen Hinkley scandal, openly stated that victims should not be automatically believed, that there is nothing wrong with siding with the privileged and powerful against the weak while exercising “caution and patience” about the victim’s report. He even intimates, without explicitly naming her, that Hinkley is lying.

One is forced to wonder, is this the TGC’s official position on instances of abuse? Is the reason there were no precautions within Chandler’s ministry to proactively prevent such an incident from occurring that TGC and its cohorts accept the direct teachings of people like DeYoung regarding how to address reports of abuse? 

5. On August 24, 2014 a three-year-old boy was raped by a teenage volunteer at one of your member churches, Fellowship Bible Church of Brentwood, Tennessee. When the family reported the incident to pastoral staff, they claimed the staff attempted to silence them and convince them not to press charges. While FBC has denied these allegations, it is damning that in their official statement on the assault they labeled the perpetrator “alleged” despite the fact that he had already admitted to the crime.

I must ask, what policies and procedures does TGC require to be in place for a church to join your network? Is there a commitment to certain standards, or do you simply require financial remuneration?  If there are standards, do they include a strict policy on handling instances of abuse?  If so, how are they enforced and what resources does TGC have in place to ensure the victims and their families receive fair treatment?  DeYoung’s above cited article seems to provide a decent indication to how these questions might be truthfully answered.

Spousal abuse

6. I’m sure we are all familiar with statements made by John Piper, TGC councilman, regarding spousal abuse. In a now infamous video, Piper claimed that there is a time and place for a woman to endure being verbally or physically abused “for a season” and then tell her church and let the leadership support her and discipline him. This is an interesting approach because, as noted above, John Piper openly supports Doug Wilson, who has created an environment of unrepentant revictimization of abuse victims.

If John Piper cannot speak out against that situation, to call a friend to repentance, to what degree can we expect him to address it in his own church? Do the actions of your elders reflect the beliefs of TGC? If so, what code of conduct is there for dealing with pastors accused of abuse? In these instances, has John Piper followed this code of conduct?

7. Further, John Piper issued a clarification of his earlier video which also contained a great number of disturbing statements. Piper states that a woman seeking relief from abuse by appealing to civil authorities “May be” the right thing for her to do but she must do so with a “humble, Bible-saturated wisdom”. To be clear, he is not speaking against involving civil authorities, but given his emphasis on appeal to the church it seems clear it is not his preference. This is further supported by noting that Piper also states that such an action must be done with concern for continued humble submission to her husband. Thus he claims:

This legitimate recourse to civil protection may be done in a spirit that does not contradict the spirit of love and submission to her husband, for a wife may take this recourse with a heavy and humble heart that longs for her husband’s repentance and the restoration of his nurturing leadership.

Piper even pleas with women to go to their church before their husband ends up in jail while warning them there is no way of ensuring their church will actually care. It seems notable he does not speak at all of ways the church can be a safe haven, nor does he offer practical advice from his own extensive ministry experience. Noting his open associations with CJ Mahaney, I again find it dubious that Piper has protecting victims at the forefront of his mind here.

Do you see the way Piper, and other members of your council, have backed Mahaney and Wilson as an obvious living out of the complementarian doctrines you teach?  Do you believe that Piper’s teaching protects victims?

t4g-header

 

https://natesparks130.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/t4g-header.jpg

8. In December Jason Meyer wrote an article titles “A Complementarian Manifesto Against Abuse” (see my thoughts here). Within this article he made several very bothersome claims. First, he claims that women are equal in worth but have divinely appointed separate roles. I don’t know about you all, but the concept of separate but equal leaves a very bad taste in my mouth. Further, he claims that issues of abuse within the complementarian tradition are not due to actual complementarian teachings, but the distortion of complementarianism he calls “hyper-headship.

It seems to me ironic that he exhorts the virtues of complementarianism when Russell Moore himself has stated that your views are not creating effectively complementarian marriages. Instead people who try to love their spouse as Christ would have them do so, despite their commitment to complementarian theology, end up in functionally egalitarian marriages instead.

Further, Meyer himself states that the headship teachings of complementarianism leave women vulnerable to abuse.

Why, then, does the TGC not call out the teachings of its members that claim women are the property of their husbands/fathers and that their purity is a reflection on these authority figures?  Does not such a view of masculinity, one defined against a feminine other, lead to the type of fragility and hyper-sensitive aggressive masculinity that facilitates spousal abuse?

Why have TGC council members teamed up with men who actively silence incidents of sex abuse? Why have so many of you focused on Saeed Abedini and none (that I can find) have taken up the cause of Naghmeh, who has documented spiritual and physicalabuse in their marriage?  Likewise, if Meyers is correct about this “fringe” contingent of abusers, why is it that the leading thinkers within complementarianism, and not the fringe “hypers,” have made statements like the ones documented above?

Teachings on Women

9. John Piper has directly stated that no woman should hold any position of direct authority over a man in any circumstance. He even goes so far as to claim that a female cop pulling over a man is an affront to his masculinity and a usurping of his divinely appointed position of authority. He has stated that the serpent did not tempt Eve to usurp God, but to usurp the order in which man stood as her proper head via order of creation (my response herehere and here).

In what way is the TGC an organization which protects women and values their dignity? In what way are women “equal in value and dignity” if the men of your own council are allowed to twist Scripture in order to denigrate against them in positions of leadership, even in the secular world? Further in what way does Piper present an accurate or Christ-centered interpretation of passages like 1 Timothy 2? Doesn’t Piper’s insistence that complementarianism is necessary to understand the Gospel mean that he has placed something before Christ, that his Gospel has ceased to be “Jesus Christ and him crucified” (1 Cor 2:2)? Does the TGC believe that there is no true Gospel without complementarian theology?

10. Doug Wilson teaches that until a daughter has been courted and married she remains under the headship of her father. Her father must be the authoritative presence in her courtship who protects her. However, if the young girl should buck this system at all she is asking to get raped.

Further, the fact that she has been raped indicates a certain propriety to the occurrence of rape as a supposed consequence of rejecting the “male headship” of her father.

Does the TGC see rape as simply the consequences of non-submission? Is there a “propriety of rape” for children – even young children? Does this explain why a church like Fellowship Bible Church would call the rape of a 3-year-old alleged’, even though the perpetrator has confessed?

11. Wilson also shows that he has no respect for women. When engaging women who have disagreed with his insistence that women exist for the glory of men, he has often resorted to disgustingly misogynist language. In one particularly troubling incident, Wilson took aim at women who disagree with him by talking about their breasts, stating they are “small-breasted biddies.” Further, Wilson has openly admitted to checking out a host of women in order to determine whether Christian women are actually prettier. He then lays out his own concept of a beautifully modest woman before calling any woman who does not fit this mold an “easy lay” or a “lumberjack dyke”. That is, any woman whom he does not find carrying herself in a way he deems attractive, and thus modest, is insulted and assumed to be sexually promiscuous or a “man hater”. He quite literally treats women as property who exist for the gratification of his masculine identity.

Do you agree with Wilson here? Is it okay to speak about women’s breast size as an insult of their femininity as long as they are not submissive, “biblical women”? Might it then be okay to call a woman who has had a double mastectomy a “breastless biddie? Is calling your perceived opponent “gayer than an NPR tote bag full of rainbows” consistent with the values of the TGC? Do you see any indication whatsoever that Wilson recognizes and honors the inherent imago dei in his detractors? Do you agree with using violent, aggressive, misogynist language to silence women?

12. Voddie Baucham has made a number of strange and disturbing statements about women. First, he has stated

A lot of men are leaving their wives for younger women because they yearn for attention from younger women. And God gave them a daughter who can give them that. And instead they go find a substitute daughter…. you’ve seen it, we’ve all seen it. These old guys going and finding these substitute daughters. 

Further, he opposes women leaving their father’s home before marriage. He does not approve of women going to college unless it is through a home study program, like the conservative Christian homeschooling program his daughter completed. As if this wasn’t bad enough, he supports “training” daughters (and sons) to behave by having “an all-day [spanking] session where you just wear them out” and further states that “if you only spanked your child five times [today], then that means that almost every time they disobeyed you, you let it go”. Likewise, a child’s shy behavior should be taken as an affront to the parent and the child should be spanked on the spot and forced to talk to the person.

If someone who comes across Baucham through TGC reads this, how do you think they would handle abuse? If their young daughter were raped by a family member, and if she recoiled at the sight of that person, would she then be spanked? Is a daughter’s every action about satisfying her father’s need for attention and respect? Is this not a breeding ground for domestic abuse and the revictimization of sexual abuse victims? Why then does the TGC website proudly include several posts by Baucham? 

13. CJ Mahaney has openly stated that women are responsible for the lust of men. He has stated to them that when a man stumbles into lust, it is because she has failed him as. He goes to great lengths to shame women for their bodies and to insist that they – not men – are primarily responsible for their failings because men are “wired that way.” Is it any wonder Mahaney has been implicated in a sex-abuse cover up scandal? Does he not encourage an environment where women are treated as sex objects, breasts and butts to be ogled when arbitrary standards of modesty are violated?

Does it really uphold the dignity of women to place the weight of lust on them?    What are you doing to vet the men you associate with?  Why is there no requirement for your council to distance themselves from these men?  If men like Mahaney don’t represent the reality of complementarian theology as taught by the TGC, why have you done nothing to combat their abusive teachings

LGBTQ+

14. Doug Wilson has openly stated that being LGBTQ+ is a disease, an affliction. He openly supports reparative therapy, even though it has been proven not only harmful, but completely and utterly bankrupt as an endeavor. It has shown near zero actual results. Wilson has shown time and again, by using terms like “homo-jihadi” that he considers the LGBTQ+ community his enemy. He even uses the word “gay” as an insult against women seeking ordination!

Do you agree with Wilson’s opinion on reparative therapy? Since Kevin DeYoung openly endorsed the plagiarized content of Wilson’s A Justice Primer, do you then accept the actions and words of Wilson as just? Do you think Wilson is qualified to speak on Justice, or Love/Respect based on his open endorsement of abusive psychological practices?

15. Further, Wilson has expressly stated that transgender women are little more than rapists. He equates allowing your child to attend a public school with Lot offering his daughters to the mob. This is incredibly sad because more than half of all transgender persons report having experienced sexual assault in their lifetime. Not to mention the occurrence of so-called “corrective rape” where transgender persons are violently raped as a means of “converting” them “back”. Yet Wilson paints these persons as the enemy. He tells parents that transgender women are perverts looking to ogle and assault their daughters. He goes out of his way, as it seems he so often does, to demonize victims and try to make them into perpetrators instead.Time and again, I have shown that Wilson intentionally and with a great deal of vitriol goes out of his way to demonize entire people groups. So I feel some questions need answered regarding the close associations between Wilson and many persons who represent the TGC.

Why have you ignored Wilson’s repeated failure to obey the biblical command to “love thy enemy” (5:43-48). Why would the TGC, regardless of their opinions of same-sex attraction, promote the “biblical” teachings of a man who fails the basic test of loving neighbor by imitating Christ’s love for us (Mark 12:28-34; 1 John 4)? Why have you failed to make a public statement condemning his tactics? Why have you not removed his teachings from your website? Why do you still have links selling his books as solid biblical teaching? If a Christian is known by their fruit (Matt 7:16-20), what fruit do you see in Wilson’s ministry?

16. Albert Mohler supports the idea of developing hormone therapies to “reverse” homosexuality. He completely ignores the fact that this has been tried before. A well-known example will demonstrate the dangers. After WW2, prominent British scientist Alan Turing was found guilty of being gay and forced to undergo “chemical castration” to reverse his homosexuality. As a result of the therapy, Turing became increasingly depressed and committed suicide. Yet Mohler would apparently see nothing wrong with the way Turing was treated and even thinks that a fetus should be altered to prevent it from being gay if a test were ever developed that could demonstrate sexuality prenatally. Let that sink in, if a chemical reparative treatment ever should exist, Mohler wants to use it on children still in their mother’s womb! Perhaps this has to do with the fact that he considers being gay an illness, an infection that we need to diagnose and treat like a doctor with a cancer patient.

Further, Mohler claims that no practicing LGBTQ+ person can be a Christian and that no one who disagrees with him in his stance on same-sex marriage is a Christian either. He considers these people the enemies of religious liberty and persecutors of the true Christians like himself. I want to say that again, Mohler openly states that anyone who disagrees with him is an enemy of “true” Christianity (see my response here).

Is it the official position of the TGC that all persons who disagree with you on a particular topic can automatically have their Christianity revoked? Even if being gay is a sin, do you believe that sin automatically cancels out faith? Or, is being gay and exceptionally egregious “sin” which automatically makes one reprehensible and unacceptable by God? Would you support a chemical reparative therapy if it should be discovered? If so, would you want a therapy which fundamentally alters the hormonal balance of a person used on a fetus in utero? How about on a small child? 

17. Denny Burk has stated that even being gay is a sin. That is, he not only thinks that gay sex is a sin, but that their very existence is sinful. He states there is a difference between orientation and behavior, yet he equates being gay with suffering from “unnatural” lusts and engaging in “perverse” sex. He equates attraction with lustful desire and thus he refuses to recognize that the attraction and love a gay person feels for their partner has no more to do with sex than the attraction and love a straight female feels for the male she desires to marry. That is because Burk categorically defines being gay as a sex act (either of lust or fornication) while he considers being straight a default orientation. He does not believe you can be gay without engaging in illicit sex (see here for a counter argument. As a result, he even rules out celibacy as an acceptable expression of being gay, instead insisting gay persons need to be made straight by Christ – though he does oddly oppose reparative therapies).

Does the TGC agree with his assessment? Is being gay automatically an act of lust?  If so, why do you not call the attraction a man feels for a woman lust?  Why distinguish between lust and attraction among “heterosexuals” but deny the same distinction between “homosexuals?”  Why is the love between same-sex partners equated with fornication, assumed to be only expressed in sex, but the love between opposite sex partners believed to be more than mere sex?  Do you honestly believe Burk’s position is internally consistent OR that it represents a loving engagement with the LGBTQ+ community?

Concluding Thoughts

It is my opinion that the seventeen grievances addressed above, and the many like them I very well could have included, demonstrate an environment of sustained and unchecked injustice festering within the TGC.  You have commodified fear, then sold it to the weak and victimized as faith.  You have entrenched yourself in privilege, then built a god in your own image to keep the “peasants” from revolting.  And worst of all, you have built an empire which profiteers off the abuses suffered by its subjects, all the while silencing their voices of impoverished dissent.  Thus, I contend that your commitment to complementarian theology is a commitment to corruption, an adherence to a tradition in which even the leaders do not have the victim’s well-being at heart.

And so I must ask you:

 If the TGC refuses speak up against the systemic injustices inherent to those who practice its theology, in what way can it be understood to be The GospelCoalition? Can the Gospel of Christ be joined to systems of abuse and still remain “good news,” or does the cross of Christ stand against such systems in solidarity with those they oppress (1 Cor 1:18-31)?  In what way, given the multiple citations above, and the many more we both know I could have cited, is The Gospel Coalition a Christ-centered or Christ-like organization?

I enumerate these grievous offenses as a brother in Christ seeking your repentance. And thus, as a sign of good faith, I invite you to read my blog and consider its contents during your deliberation process.  Thank you for your humble consideration of each of them.  I will patiently await your reply.

In the meantime, I bid you peace and wisdom in Christ as you consider your answer.

Nate Sparks

Comments

Injustice: An Open Letter to the Gospel Coalition by Nate Sparks: Part 2 — 218 Comments

  1. @ Deb:
    I have already had several contact me and thank me for helping them give up teachers like Piper. I have had a pastor state they are going over their ministry curriculum to ensure these men are no longer supported. It has been viewed 13.5 thousand times as of this post, it was retweeted by Peter Enns, Carolyn Curtis James, and Rachel Held Evans. People are listening. Thanks to TWW for lending their platform I this incredibly important post and to everyone for reading and engaging.

  2. This right here, whatever we individually disagree on, was the point that I believe American evangelicalism truly needs to wake up to:
    “Is it the official position of the TGC that all persons who disagree with you on a particular topic can automatically have their Christianity revoked?”
    Because if we cannot hold even strong disagreements in love, we are just like the polarized world around us, and probably part of a cult, not following Christ. Thanks Nate.

  3. (Incidentally, that is why I love this blog. Iron sharpening iron.) Melody wrote:

    This right here, whatever we individually disagree on, was the point that I believe American evangelicalism truly needs to wake up to:
    “Is it the official position of the TGC that all persons who disagree with you on a particular topic can automatically have their Christianity revoked?”
    Because if we cannot hold even strong disagreements in love, we are just like the polarized world around us, and probably part of a cult, not following Christ. Thanks Nate.

  4. @ Melody:
    Thanks for all your support Melody! The importance of freedom in Christ cannot be overstated and, as you noted, systems of fear and abuse cannot offer that freedom.

  5. @ Melody:

    That is a gem in Nate’s piece that I think many of us can agree. There are parts of evangelicalism where to be a “certified” evangelical you need to buy the whole package – hook, line and sinker. So you can believe 95% of the evangelical faith, but reject that 5% and you might as well be heathen.

  6. Nate-

    Dude! Welcome to the club. 🙂 You are going to have difficulty. If you look at my blog I had a guy from my Bible study at Fairfax Community Church who attacked me. That was my welcome to blogging. Remember many will be terse, say names, block you etc..

    I wrote the following post, and Tweeted it to Carolyn and C.J. Mahaney and was blocked by them instantly on Twitter. I’ve also been blocked by Mark Dever. All this talk about being a man and yet they can’t handle another point of view? Heck I have offered to meet many of these people. I’ve meet a lot of people who read me. It’s a joy…why are some of these guys scared?

    Keep up the good work.

    https://wonderingeagle.wordpress.com/2015/07/03/how-the-sovereign-grace-lawsuit-helped-me-resolve-the-problem-of-evil/

  7. Pingback: An Open Letter to Justin Taylor | Wondering Eagle UNITED STATES

  8. Nate,

    I so appreciate your handling of detractors in your post’s comments. Although their words drip with disdain, you handle their insults and snide remarks with intelligence and aplomb, but best of all with firm boundaries and no tolerance for violation of the prime directive of WW. It’s really fun to watch 🙂

  9. @ Eagle:
    That 5% or less cost me my pastorate at a SBC church just a few years ago after having been the interim or minister at this church for 4 years. It still blows my mind!

  10. @ Sarah K:
    Thank you Sarah. I’m still getting used to identifying the people who have no intention of actual engagement. I shouldn’t have tolerated the comments jsf08 as long as I did. His final blocked comments were pretty nasty.

  11. What I see in these male dominionists is nothing but pure selfishness.

    They have created a fake theology that is no different than that of any political tyrant or dictator who sets up world with rules, laws, philosophy, and enforcers, to personally fulfill his every selfish desire.

    There is no concern, sympathy, or empathy
    for the suffering of those who pay the cost for his vain-glorious indulgences. Nor is there mercy, grace, tenderheartedness, or compassion for anyone who dares to deny the tyrant his due self-fulfillment and self-glorification.

    “Men are everything. Women are nothing.”

    Great theology for a selfish male; despicable theology for women.

    Women in these groups need to stop for a moment and realize that they are a person of value who has a right to life and all it entails and they are more than just a souless entity set on this earth to fulfill some man’s selfishness.

  12. This is glorious, I can’t say it enough. Bookmarked. I might even share it on Facebook since I have a couple old friends from a church which, just before I moved city, was starting to embrace John Piper more and more. In fact I returned for one of my friends’ wedding and, well, the sermon was on Ephesians 5 with a strong complementarian flavour. I cringed. Nowadays I pray that her marriage has stayed strong against the crap that is Piper and his female-submission obsession.

  13. Nate Sparks asks in that post: “Is it the official position of the TGC that all persons who disagree with you on a particular topic can automatically have their Christianity revoked?”

    Whether it’s the official position or not, it is a position taken often at TGC. They just posted a tweet that says if you don’t see the justice in their view of biblical gender roles (whatever that means), it’s an indication you don’t trust God’s character. That is not the hallmark of a coalition, but of a clique. (More on TGC’s abhorrent tweet is available here: Oppressing Women – a Coalition Built on False Premises.)

  14. Melody wrote:

    Because if we cannot hold even strong disagreements in love, we are just like the polarized world around us, and probably part of a cult, not following Christ. Thanks Nate.

    That is why I love the bloggers that I have come to know. We are not alike yet we have intersecting passions. I respect and love them. In fact, you fit really well into the people I love category!

  15. Eagle wrote:

    . So you can believe 95% of the evangelical faith, but reject that 5% and you might as well be heathen.

    Ain’t that the truth.

  16. @ Rob:
    Rob:

    I have been a member of the Southern Baptist Convention for soon to be 42 years and the SBC has these same “Men are everything. Women are nothing.”–Philosophy

    Great theology for a selfish male; despicable theology for women.”

    and the SBC is in a great decline and IMO this is on of the major reasons.

  17. Nate Sparks wrote:

    ’m still getting used to identifying the people who have no intention of actual engagement.

    I try so hard not to block or delete anybody-even those with strong opinions. But, there are times I have let it go on for far too long. I would say that this is the hardest decision I have to make in blogging. Some people are angry by how they have been treated by Christians. I try not to let the language or stridency irritate me. Sometimes, I make mistakes in this area.

  18. mot wrote:

    I have been a member of the Southern Baptist Convention for soon to be 42 years and the SBC has these same “Men are everything. Women are nothing.”–Philosophy

    Yet, they do not see it. They claim that they revere women. But their words ring hollow.

  19. Rob wrote:

    “Men are everything. Women are nothing.”

    As a Twitter snark reprinted at Spiritual Sounding Board put it:
    “Jesus loves Me
    This I know
    I’m a Boy
    That’s how it rolls;
    Little girls
    To me belong
    They are weak
    And I am Strong!”

    Great theology for a selfish male; despicable theology for women.

    A Gospel for wife-beaters.

  20. Tim wrote:

    Nate Sparks asks in that post: “Is it the official position of the TGC that all persons who disagree with you on a particular topic can automatically have their Christianity revoked?”

    Whether it’s the official position or not, it is a position taken often at TGC.

    Because TGC holds the Keys to the Kingdom, NOT that Satanist in the Vatican.
    Dogma Ex Cathedra.

  21. @ dee:
    In this case, he wasn’t angry about his own treatment. That I have no problem giving room to. He went from “I find this hard to believe.” to “The good of these men outweighs the bad of these accusations” to “You’re just trying to capitalize on the suffering of the victims” to “I won’t believe you unless I have absolute proof” to increasingly blatant as hominem and tu quoque attacks. He started very subtle, but by the end it was obvious he was trolling and had barely read the article and engaged none of the actual sources. He just wanted to protect his own make privilege by focusing on the “personal benefits” of TGC’s ministry.

  22. The commenter in question (jsf08) claims to be a pastor. When pastors are willing to engage in this way with strangers, I worry for their congregants.

  23. dee wrote:

    We are not alike yet we have intersecting passions.

    And that’s what makes for more than a coalition or clique. It’s what makes for family, which is what God has brought us into: A family of God in the fellowship of Jesus who are together in the Holy Spirit.

  24. dee wrote:

    I try so hard not to block or delete anybody-even those with strong opinions.

    On my blog, the only thing commenters need to do is follow the one rule from my comment page: don’t be mean.

    If someone is mean (whether they are agreeing with me or disagreeing with me), they get deleted. As to what constitutes being mean, I admit that is completely up to me to decide. But my blog is designed to honor God and encourage people, and mean comments just don’t fit. I remember deleting someone once who had really gone off on another blogger. The commenter then complained as a consequence of being deleted that they’d never been treated to shabbily. I didn’t know what to say to that.

  25. Sounds like the 1970’s Shepherding/ Discipleship Movement extremes all over again. It blow up because it didn’t listen to or heed its critics. TGC be warned: listen and heed or ignore and suffer the consequences!

  26. dee wrote:

    Yet, they do not see it. They claim that they revere women. But their words ring hollow.

    As hollow as all the adjectives about Democracy in North Korea’s official name.

  27. william wallace wrote:

    Sounds like the 1970’s Shepherding/ Discipleship Movement extremes all over again.

    Shepherding/Discipleship: a control freak’s wet dream.
    Cosmically justified by GOD SAITH!

    I was only on the fringes of a Shepherding Movement group in the Seventies, and the damage is still there.

  28. Tim wrote:

    dee wrote:
    We are not alike yet we have intersecting passions.
    And that’s what makes for more than a coalition or clique.

    Or a Collective of New Soviet Men, all marching in lockstep for The Revolution.

  29. Tim wrote:

    Whether it’s the official position or not, it is a position taken often at TGC. They just posted a tweet that says if you don’t see the justice in their view of biblical gender roles (whatever that means), it’s an indication you don’t trust God’s character. That is not the hallmark of a coalition, but of a clique. (More on TGC’s abhorrent tweet is available here: Oppressing Women – a Coalition Built on False Premises.)

    They don’t consider maybe some of us trust God’s character or justice just fine, we only disagree with TGC’s interpretation of what the Bible says about gender.

  30. I am sorry, I read this post, and knew most of it already….I broke down and cried. Seriously cried…and I don’t cry much….
    It needs to be written, but, man, it is depressing….

  31. Daisy wrote:

    They don’t consider maybe some of us trust God’s character or justice just fine, we only disagree with TGC’s interpretation of what the Bible says about gender.

    “We are the Borg. Lower your shields and surrender your ships. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile.”
    Star Trek: the Next Generation is here and now, and thumping Bibles.

  32. Nate Sparks wrote:

    I’m still getting used to identifying the people who have no intention of actual engagement

    I think once people start on the personal comments, ad hominum or criticising the poster’s style …, you can be pretty sure they have lost the argument. At the very least they are too emotionally invested in a topic to see straight.

  33. I’ve been thinking about forms of abuse and their outworking in the organizational system of a relatively informal network, association, or coalition. The group typically has some sort of doctrinal statement, some sort of membership, perhaps some formally acknowledged thought leaders or council like The Gospel Coalition does. They may even “police” their own, to ensure only those who fit are allowed to be listed.

    A key problem is that it’s designed for deflection. Any member — even if considered one of the prime thought leaders — can always say things like, “I don’t speak for the organization, but here’s my personal opinion …” Or, “The XYZ Network doesn’t have an official policy on that, but some of our members have posted articles on that subject …”

    It’s structured for everyone to promote group influence without anyone taking real responsibility or accepting accountability.

    Three thoughts about that.

    First, lack of formal policies or statements does not excuse any individual or the network as a whole from ethical culpability. I think that is core to what Nate Sparks is doing in his Open Letter to The Gospel Coalition. It isn’t a smear based on guilt by association, but a call to take responsibility as an association. To many outside The Gospel Coalition, their network “leaders” as a whole give every appearance of condoning forms of abuse. They may condemn this or that abuse — in principle — but fail to discipline alleged abusers in their own coalition cadre. If others inside The Gospel Coalition don’t want to be seen that light, as condoning abuse OR abusers, then they need to act to shine the light on their own people who actually show contemptuous attitudes that inflict harm. It isn’t enough just to give the appearance of righteousness by condemning theoretically abusive actions that someone perhaps might engage in.

    Second, the Coalition appears to have an “interlocking directory” where key members endorse and commend one another, serve on boards or speak at events or repost articles from one another. The more interconnections, in both public and private, the more difficult it is to make the claim of “I don’t speak for the organization …” It’s no longer an “informal” association, really; it’s on its way to institutionalizing the views and attitudes of the few as an “industrial complex.” This means the system as a whole now keeps certain individuals propped up, and the views of those leaders permeate and are perpetuated.

    Third, using some strategic foresight skills to create a reasoned scenario of where this trajectory could be going, I could easily foresee where the emphasis will shift from ethical to legal responsibility. This goes beyond being subjects in actual or potential lawsuits related to some form of abuse or negligence. I’m suggesting that The Gospel Coalition membership as a whole is setting things up to spend more time in the courts. (For instance, how many have used the court system to advocate their theological views, such as Douglas Wilson did in his presentation on the sentencing of Steven Sitler? How many use some form of legal contract membership covenant?) The more that local church governance and membership take on legalese forms and promote them to others, the more I think we can expect local leaders — who may also be TGC leaders — to end up in the court system as a result of their own documents and doings. And then I wonder if those supposedly informal connections may be exposed for having some legal liability implications. And, ultimately, how can that go in their favor?

    Back to the original idea of how informal associations are structured. Silence is just as much a statement of beliefs and values as is the doctrinal statement. I hope The Gospel Coalition leaders/Council/members decide to take actions to go beyond theoretical condemnation of abuse, censure abusers, and advocate for survivors.

  34. mot wrote:

    @ Rob:
    Rob:
    I have been a member of the Southern Baptist Convention for soon to be 42 years and the SBC has these same “Men are everything. Women are nothing.”–Philosophy
    Great theology for a selfish male; despicable theology for women.”
    and the SBC is in a great decline and IMO this is on of the major reasons.

    The SBC has rot at it’s core and is a sinking ship. I hope the good people get out and leave the ship to the rats. Have you looked into work with another denomination?

  35. Back in the day, we would have called TGC’s interpretation of gender – legalism.

    Find some scriptures, and apply them across the board, without context, without exception, and without any human understanding, or consideration of the individual.

    The gender dominionists keep insisting on the superior role of males, but deny human essence to women.

    Women are people. They deserve the chance to live their lives to the fullest, including education, autonomy, the right to make their own choices, to follow their dreams, cultivate their talents, pursue adventure, engage in sports, build careers, choose who to love and share their lives with, how many children to have, what to wear, and whatever else each and every human being deserves.

    And, they have the right not to be hit, beaten, kept prisoner in their homes, or demoted to usefullness only as sexual objects.

    Women have the right to engage in and pursue every avenue of human experience. To deny women their human rights based on gender theology, is simplistic, faulty, theological legalism.

  36. @ brad/futuristguy:

    P.S. One reason I think it’s crucial to dissect the organizational system of these informal networks-coalitions-associations, is that they are an emerging form of “virtual denomination” that happens to cross conventional denominational lines. For instance, this 2015 denominational governance chart from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary includes Acts 29 and the Willow Creek Association as types of networks.

    http://www.gordonconwell.edu/mentored-ministry/documents/DENOMINATIONALCHART2015.pdf

    We may see this form happen even more in the digital era, where many connections are established online instead of in person. The supposedly informal nature of involvement changes the dynamics of background checks, evaluating whether someone embodies the “must-have” Christlike character qualities required of leaders and doesn’t manifest the “can’t-have” behaviors. The online nature of so much information gives the appearance of transparency, but can deny the reality of accountability and taking responsibility. As I suggested in my earlier comment, this organizational form can easily be used for deflection. Which means it can also be used to give the appearance of substance — when that’s convenient — and stay silent when it’s not.

  37. dee wrote:

    Eagle wrote:

    . So you can believe 95% of the evangelical faith, but reject that 5% and you might as well be heathen.

    Ain’t that the truth.

    Purity of Ideology, Comrades.
    Especially when you factor in “More Pure than Thou” and “Can You Top This?”

  38. brad/futuristguy wrote:

    P.S. One reason I think it’s crucial to dissect the organizational system of these informal networks-coalitions-associations, is that they are an emerging form of “virtual denomination” that happens to cross conventional denominational lines.

    Like formal physical denominations are on the X Axis while these “virtual denominations” are on the Y Axis. Result: a 2-D grid.

  39. Ken wrote:

    I think once people start on the personal comments, ad hominum or criticising the poster’s style …, you can be pretty sure they have lost the argument. At the very least they are too emotionally invested in a topic to see straight.

    So true…so true.

  40. Nancy2 wrote:

    Daisy wrote:

    They don’t consider maybe some of us trust God’s character or justice just fine, we only disagree with TGC’s interpretation of what the Bible says about gender.

    “We are the Borg. Lower your shields and surrender your ships. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile.”

    Star Trek: the Next Generation is here and now, and thumping Bibles.

    And once you’ve been Assimilated into the Church of Borg (or Order of St Borg), it’s a LONG way back. Just ask Captain Picard or Seven of Nine.

  41. Nate – allow me to come back at you re: Douglas Wilson.

    I only know of Wilson through his blog. I sometimes agree with him, sometimes not; he can be witty and affable, at other times opinionated and get on your nerves. He is undoubtedly very clever, and very clever at using words. In particular, he knows how to wind up those who disagree with him.

    Under your section 3 above, you make statements about Wilson and give links. I’m afraid none of the links actually substantiate as far as I can see what you claim he says/believes. I’ve watched him, for example, take RHE apart for her comment he thinks women ‘deserve to be raped’. He clearly doesn’t.

    He seems to believe feminists are being ‘tacit’ enablers of a rape culture, without in any way taking responsibility away from the rapist. He may or may not be right about this, but claiming he thinks women deserve to be raped doesn’t follow from this.

    In the link about victims needing to repent of their abuse, he is talking about victims – notwithstanding having been terribly oppressed – not being excused the need to repent of their own sins, and extend forgiveness to those who have trespassed against them. The cross needs to do its work in both perpetrator and victim, each for their own sins and not each other’s. At least that is how I understood him.

    Is your link to Doug has openly stated that rape statistics are nothing more than feminist propaganda the right one, as there are no statistics in it?

    I have watched from halfway around the world the internet strife over Wilson and the Sitler abuse, and imo he won the propaganda war on this, not least because his detractors were inaccurate in their criticism of him in the sense of bringing in factors irrelevant to the issue.

    Now Wilson may have made a catastrophic error of judgment in his dealing with abuse in his own church. The internet is not a source of unbiased information about this. Nevertheless, the prejudicial nature of some of the criticism of him may be allowing him to avoid the issue.

    The slightest inaccuracy or misrepresentation of him allows him to be clever with words, and therefore backfires.

  42. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Like formal physical denominations are on the X Axis while these “virtual denominations” are on the Y Axis. Result: a 2-D grid.

    2-D or not 2-D … that is the question.

    As I think we’ve seen from various forms of “Christendom Industrial Complex,” it can turn out authoritarian and self-protective, whether it is a formal or informal type of organization, and whether it is centralized or decentralized. Something we need to watch out for, regardless of what kind of governance or infrastructure we’re involved with.

  43. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    And once you’ve been Assimilated into the Church of Borg (or Order of St Borg), it’s a LONG way back. Just ask Captain Picard or Seven of Nine.

    Many are trapped in the Borg maturation chambers.

  44. Pingback: Linkathon! | PhoenixPreacher UNITED STATES

  45. brad/futuristguy wrote:

    Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
    Like formal physical denominations are on the X Axis while these “virtual denominations” are on the Y Axis. Result: a 2-D grid.
    2-D or not 2-D … that is the question.

    I first came up with that 2D grid in a SciFi context (Eighties-vintage “recreational thinking” in SF litfandom) — the rise of multinational corporate states and how they would relate to established nation-states. The idea was political nation-states form an X Axis and the corporations a Y Axis; each nation-state could overlap with many corporate states and each corporate state could exist in many nation-state territories.

    So it wasn’t much of a stretch to make formal physical denominations an X Axis and virtual denominations a Y Axis, overlapping and interpenetrating the same way in a many-to-many relationship.

  46. brad/futuristguy wrote:

    As I suggested in my earlier comment, this organizational form can easily be used for deflection. Which means it can also be used to give the appearance of substance — when that’s convenient — and stay silent when it’s not.

    Brad, I appreciate your ability to describe articulately what we’re seeing. I have struggled to describe for myself and others exactly what I see. I feel less crazy knowing that people smarter than me see it, too. Thanks.

  47. Nate Sparks wrote:

    The commenter in question (jsf08) claims to be a pastor. When pastors are willing to engage in this way with strangers, I worry for their congregants.

    You needn’t worry, Nate, they are well cared for and loved (and so are you, by the way, from the distance of cyberspace). I will let people read our exchange on your blog and reach their own conclusions. I am sure many on TWW will agree with you that I was out of bounds and should have been blocked, but perhaps not all. By the way, I have read many of the articles you cited in your post already, so it was really inaccurate to accuse me of not having done any research on these things. I am a long time reader at TWW and understand most of these issues pretty well. I often agree with TWW and have said so on here. I have learned from TWW and consider what they are doing a valuable thing.

    Many people here have interacted with me. I don’t comment much but when I do it usually revolves around this idea of associating everyone within a movement with the actions of a few individuals or with making a case that a particular theological perspective (usually gender comp) fosters abuse.

    I am sure many here do not like what I have said in the past and some probably think I am a troll but I can assure you I am not.

    I was disappointed that you blocked me on your site. Your reasons for doing so seemed to lack substance. I don’t think there was any microaggression, but you did, and it’s your blog, so whatever. It just seemed like the very thing you accuse TGC of doing. The way you set yourself up as the cross defender and me as the one weighing everything on scales just ticked me off, frankly. And that may just be pride, I acknowledge that. But I also felt that you were taking a simple idea of evaluating something (like an organization such as TGC) by observing its good and bad qualities and made it into a paradigm by which we view all of life. I was talking simple discernment, simple evaluation, but you painted me as a Pharisee and yourself as defender of the cross. Again, your prerogative, but hardly indicative of the truth of my heart as I know it.

  48. @ Ken:
    Ken,

    I appreciate the comment. I know you and I don’t see eye to eye on things. I am thankful for the advice. I try to be a charitable person even with those that disagree. Sometimes it doesn’t work out so well.

    Ironically, the person whose comments I blocked has threatened to post his thoughts here 🙂

  49. You have commodified fear, then sold it to the weak and victimized as faith. You have entrenched yourself in privilege, then built a god in your own image to keep the “peasants” from revolting. And worst of all, you have built an empire which profiteers off the abuses suffered by its subjects, all the while silencing their voices of impoverished dissent.

    THIS. So much this.

    This is 2-Timothy-chapter-3-ville. TGC claims it wants to make disciples of Christ, but all it’s making is frightened, immature and dependent followers of their brand. The fruit here is profit, celebrity and power – not Christ.

  50. @ js:
    I did not seek to paint you as anything. I pointed out that the metaphor you used of “good outweighing bad” is one that implies a scale must be balanced. Such balancing acts make the victims a utility. When I read a passage like 1 Cor 1:18-31 I don’t see that metaphor as consistent and I stated that. God help us all the day the cross of Christ needs to be defended, let alone by me.

    I said you didn’t do the research because you asked for direct quotes that were already included in the sources.

    Here is the thing, when I tried to explain why the logic was troubling you doubled down, attacked my character. Even here you resort to tu quoque.

    I have no ill will toward you, but your comments on my site were out of bounds.

    As far as your congregation, I am glad to hear you would not respond to a congregant the way you replied to me. But frankly, I found the way you responded to me, knowing that you are a pastor, troublesome.

    If it was a moment of ego getting the best of you, that is fine. We can agree to disagree and move on.

    I’ll let you discuss the post with others if they wish to discuss.

    Peace to you.

  51. Nate Sparks wrote:

    @ Ken:
    Ken,

    I appreciate the comment. I know you and I don’t see eye to eye on things. I am thankful for the advice. I try to be a charitable person even with those that disagree. Sometimes it doesn’t work out so well.

    Ironically, the person whose comments I blocked has threatened to post his thoughts here

    This is a misrepresentation. I did not “threaten” to post my thoughts here. I told Serving Kids in Japan, who engaged me on Nate’s site, that since I had been blocked on Nate’s site that I might dialogue further with Serving on TWW if there were still things which needed to be discussed. I don’t even think Serving saw that comment because I was blocked but Nate did and made it sound here like I had made some threat I never made. I had no intention of engaging my interactions with Nate on TWW whatsoever, until he brought up my posts on his site in this comment thread. I only intended to deal with Serving Kids in Japan on the particular issues raised between us.

  52. I just noticed today- tried to comment at previous post on this but my internet bumped me off and I think lost it…in any case, it

    hit me today realizing that Kevin DeYoung compared sex abuse advocates to “weeping prophets” in a dismissive manner. Old news, I know, but the arrogant audacity of it. Think about that throw-away comment in light of the context of Jeremiah, of the unethical lack of accountability at the Gospel Coalition, and what side spiritually in the equation Kevin DeYoung is putting himself on (unintentionally, I hope) by such a derogatory comparison.

    It is the highest honor for a believer to be like the prophets speaking truth without partiality. (“blessed are you when…”- Jesus in Luke 6:22)

    That post “about no particular issue” that DeYoung wrote, like Justin Taylor’s passive aggressive tweet, was a way of winsomely winning the ordinary evangelical who trusts TGC, over to the preferred narrative of the three signatories of that despicable statement of support for CJ Mahaney.

    It is deceptive, and they need to stop lying to themselves about that.

    We don’t wrestle against flesh and blood, but principalities and powers, for sure, because that line of thinking is truly evil.

    There’s a practical atheism over there at TGC- God can’t see nor judge me; I’m a man and I know theology. I want to say, “Whatever dude”, but I fear for them. Glad for this group, and for our differences.

  53. Nate Sparks wrote:

    @ js:
    I did not seek to paint you as anything. I pointed out that the metaphor you used of “good outweighing bad” is one that implies a scale must be balanced. Such balancing acts make the victims a utility. When I read a passage like 1 Cor 1:18-31 I don’t see that metaphor as consistent and I stated that. God help us all the day the cross of Christ needs to be defended, let alone by me.

    I said you didn’t do the research because you asked for direct quotes that were already included in the sources.

    Here is the thing, when I tried to explain why the logic was troubling you doubled down, attacked my character. Even here you resort to tu quoque.

    I have no ill will toward you, but your comments on my site were out of bounds.

    As far as your congregation, I am glad to hear you would not respond to a congregant the way you replied to me. But frankly, I found the way you responded to me, knowing that you are a pastor, troublesome.

    If it was a moment of ego getting the best of you, that is fine. We can agree to disagree and move on.

    I’ll let you discuss the post with others if they wish to discuss.

    Peace to you.

    You have attacked my character in many ways, both on your site and here, but I can take it. I will respond in full to your post on my own blog in due time. It will take a while, but it will get done. Most of my posts are devotionals or sermons or articles, so it will be a new thing for me to engage these issues in a blog format, but I believe your perspective deserves a more proper response than a comment thread can provide. Again, my output will be slow because I work full-time, but it will get done. I hope we can interact more cordially in the future and I apologize for any way my words contributed to a lack of cordiality between us. I don’t want to stand for what I believe with a defensive or harsh tone because I believe God calls us as brothers to peace with one another personally, even if we disagree deeply on some matters of truth.

  54. @ js:
    First, I’m not here to argue with you.

    Second, you included within your comment to SKIJ the passive aggressive statement that I wouldn’t approve the comment (because you had already been informed I as drawing the line) and that you would take your thoughts to TWW.

    Perhaps I misinterpreted that as a threat, but the amount of passive agressiveness you leveled at me for blocking you made the comment about TWW sound like it was aimed at me (especially since you aknowledged that you didn’t expect SKIJ to see the comment). Since you feel I have misinterpreted your words, I apologize for the misunderstanding.

    BTW, I encouraged them to contact you via email if they wished to continue the conversation. I encourage that conversation between the two of you in whatever venue, but due to the repeated tone of your comments I ask that it not take place in my comment thread on my site.

  55. @ js:
    You are welcome to respond to me as you see fit. I will be happy to share the post as a response of you ping it back to my page when you finish it.

    Your character has never been in question for me. Your words, however, betrayed a defensiveness and an unwillingness to engage with respect. I don’t know you except by your comments and those did not represent to well. As I said, it may very well have been an off day or whatever. I accept the apology. I also offer an apology that my words made you feel your character was in question. I will be certain to more clearly distinguish my future engagements to ensure that impression is not given.

    Thank you for stepping back to offer a more respectful and even tone here. I will await your post, but want to be clear I’m not looking to get into blog wars here. I didn’t write this to make a name for myself or start a war with the TGC. I wrote this to address very real abuses that have gone unaddressed for many years within an organization that constantly insists it protects women and other victims. I stand beside this post as a well-cited documentation of systemic problems within the TGC from the top down. You can say what you wish about me or the post, but I want to be sure you understand, I’m not going to respond to the post.

    I wish you nothing but the best with your blog and your congregation.

    Peace to you,
    Nate

  56. Daisy wrote:

    They don’t consider maybe some of us trust God’s character or justice just fine, we only disagree with TGC’s interpretation of what the Bible says about gender.

    God’s character eh? And of course they’ll decide what that character entails.

    Voltaire had this to say:

    “Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.”

  57. Nate Sparks wrote:

    @ js:
    First, I’m not here to argue with you.

    Second, you included within your comment to SKIJ the passive aggressive statement that I wouldn’t approve the comment (because you had already been informed I as drawing the line) and that you would take your thoughts to TWW.

    Perhaps I misinterpreted that as a threat, but the amount of passive agressiveness you leveled at me for blocking you made the comment about TWW sound like it was aimed at me (especially since you aknowledged that you didn’t expect SKIJ to see the comment). Since you feel I have misinterpreted your words, I apologize for the misunderstanding.

    BTW, I encouraged them to contact you via email if they wished to continue the conversation. I encourage that conversation between the two of you in whatever venue, but due to the repeated tone of your comments I ask that it not take place in my comment thread on my site.

    Understood but I was genuinely unsure as to whether SKIJ could see my reply because you said any future posts from me would go into the spam folder. There was no swipe at you intended, just uncertainty.

  58. Nate Sparks wrote:

    @ js:
    You are welcome to respond to me as you see fit. I will be happy to share the post as a response of you ping it back to my page when you finish it.

    Your character has never been in question for me. Your words, however, betrayed a defensiveness and an unwillingness to engage with respect. I don’t know you except by your comments and those did not represent to well. As I said, it may very well have been an off day or whatever. I accept the apology. I also offer an apology that my words made you feel your character was in question. I will be certain to more clearly distinguish my future engagements to ensure that impression is not given.

    Thank you for stepping back to offer a more respectful and even tone here. I will await your post, but want to be clear I’m not looking to get into blog wars here. I didn’t write this to make a name for myself or start a war with the TGC. I wrote this to address very real abuses that have gone unaddressed for many years within an organization that constantly insists it protects women and other victims. I stand beside this post as a well-cited documentation of systemic problems within the TGC from the top down. You can say what you wish about me or the post, but I want to be sure you understand, I’m not going to respond to the post.

    I wish you nothing but the best with your blog and your congregation.

    Peace to you,
    Nate

    My plan is to evaluate each bullet point item you posted and give a different perspective where one exists. No personal attacks and certainly no blog wars.

  59. Jenny wrote:

    Brad, I appreciate your ability to describe articulately what we’re seeing. I have struggled to describe for myself and others exactly what I see. I feel less crazy knowing that people smarter than me see it, too. Thanks.

    Thanks, Jenny. I do what I can to put words to the thinking process I go through. I think it helps in doing a “discernment MRI” on a situation to hear the “read” that different people have from their perspective and spiritual gifting.

    And on that line, I’d suggest there are at least three kinds of discernment.

    One is intuitive, which is more about taking in the situation and “feeling” / “sensing” something is amiss, even if you can’t exactly put your finger on the specifics. It comes from the gut/heart, tends to be more immediate, and motivates to advocate caution, initiate action (or avoidance, if need be). Maybe sounds more along the lines of what you experience.

    Another kind is intentional, relying on experiencing and/or observing the situation, noting details, dissecting them, figuring out what held them together, interpreting it, and describing it. It comes more from the head, tends to be a slow processing, and likewise can motivate to advocacy, activism, avoidance. This is more what I tend to do. [So, that apparently “clear” statement of mine you quoted actually is the result of some 8 years of in-depth studies of toxic organizational systems and distilling it down over and over!]

    If each of those types of discernment throws a different spotlight on a situation where we feel or see that something is “off,” then the third kind of discernment is where those two spotlights overlap. I think that’s more where those who have a spiritual gift of discernment function. From what I’ve heard through talking with friends who seem to have that gift, they can both identify trouble spots intuitively and also discern the details intentionally.

    But, I don’t see that we’re let off the hook from our responsibility to think things through just because someone’s got a spiritual gift to do that at a higher level than we can. No, discernment is a general responsibility of every disciple … “being a Berean” and checking things out for ourselves. But we often forget that many New Testament mandates are address to “you” in the plural — to groups of disciples. So, I believe this overlap zone of intuitive plus intentional gives us a practical framework for precisely where the Body can get together to listen to those two different kinds of individual discernment, and put things together for community discernment that leads to wise decision-making and follow-through. This means it isn’t about what our analytical/mental IQ or emotional/intuitive EQ is, but our SQ … following the Holy Spirit.

  60. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    I first came up with that 2D grid in a SciFi context (Eighties-vintage “recreational thinking” in SF litfandom) — the rise of multinational corporate states and how they would relate to established nation-states. The idea was political nation-states form an X Axis and the corporations a Y Axis; each nation-state could overlap with many corporate states and each corporate state could exist in many nation-state territories.

    Also perhaps relevant from the ’80s gaming industry: *Axes and Allies* … okay, I know I misspelled it …

  61. @ js:
    Sounds good. Again, good luck with your post. I will read it when it comes out. I am genuinely interested to see how you interpret specific sources. Take care and God bless.

  62. @ brad/futuristguy:

    Brad, you discerned my discernment discerningly! 🙂

    I test INFP on Myers-Briggs every time. My family is comprised of analytical types who think I’m away with the faeries most of the time. However, even they will admit that my indefinable gut sense has helped us avoid danger more than once. When the Holy Spirit says “Run!”, I grab His hand and don’t ask questions. At least not until I’m a safe distance from the wolves.

  63. Bret Barbar posted an article on SBCVoices a day or two ago concerning rape/abuse/faculty neglect at Baylor. The comments run the gamut. Some say something must be done, while others say “innocent until proven guilty”, as in never take woman’s word for anything. Paige Patterson and Jerry Vines have been mentioned in the discussion.

  64. @ Nancy2In my interactions with SBCVoices IMO unless you stay in a certain vain of thought as in be in agreement with the “bosses” at this place your comment will not be posted. Also any criticism of certain SBC figures-Patterson and Vines is not allowed. All is well in the SBC in spite of the many declines occurring.

    They say they are SBCvoices but they are not.

  65. @ Ken:
    I haven’t commented much recently, but I think I’ll make this a 3-parter. I agree with much of your comment. First, one section where I think the link well-substantiates what Nate says Wilson believes. Nate wrote, “Further, Wilson has expressly stated that transgender women are little more than rapists. He equates allowing your child to attend a public school with Lot offering his daughters to the mob.”
    I’m pretty conservative and likely take a more traditional stance on transgender issues than Nate– but I find Wilson’s assertions both appalling and absurd.
    Doug writes———–
    “Just within the last week, Washington State instituted their new “No Perv Left Behind Act,” which allows any male student who self-identifies as a creep to use the girls’ locker room at the neighborhood government junior high school near you — in order to get a better view when ogling your daughter. And our heart really should go out to that poor girl. She has quite a hard go of it — she has a creep for a stalker/suitor, mountain orcs for civil magistrates, and idiots for parents.
    Am I being too hard on those parents who (having a choice) even nowwillingly subject their children to the government school system, what one wit called the State Indoctrination Network (SIN)? Let me think about it, no. For as long as I can remember, modern Christians have been tsking about that regrettable story in the Old Testament — you know, the one where Lot offered his daughters to a street full of rapists? This is a problem passage, we say. It displays a problematic deficiency of moral sense, and is not worthy of a holy book. Says a generation of Christian parents doing the very same kind of thing.”
    ———– https://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-culture/110104.html
    I’ll attempt to follow the logic without claiming to read Doug’s mind.**********
    A: When I was a *normal* (heterosexual) young lad I’d have done just about anything to get lucky by ogling girls in the locker room.
    B: Some other young lads are pervs, creeps, stalkers, or rapists.
    C: Therefore: Young lads who identify as female are just *normal* pervs, creeps, stalkers, or rapists doing just about anything to try to get lucky.
    D: (From a more recent post) Don’t be an idiot parent– *protect* your daughters by sending them to my school (NSA) instead of dat ebil University of Idaho.********
    I’m likely being a bit unfair with this, of course. Anyone with a clue as to why Wilson identifies “stalker” with “suitor”– I’d appreciate enlightenment.

  66. Ken wrote:

    Under your section 3 above, you make statements about Wilson and give links. I’m afraid none of the links actually substantiate as far as I can see what you claim he says/believes. I’ve watched him, for example, take RHE apart for her comment he thinks women ‘deserve to be raped’. He clearly doesn’t.
    He seems to believe feminists are being ‘tacit’ enablers of a rape culture, without in any way taking responsibility away from the rapist. He may or may not be right about this, but claiming he thinks women deserve to be raped doesn’t follow from this.

    Okay, first of all, Nate didn’t use the word “deserve” but said that Doug believes unsubmissive women “are asking” to be raped. That is true. I read Doug’s piece on Slut Walks AND his book excerpt on marital submission and while he didn’t make it sound like rape is morally justifiable for unsubmissive/”immodest” women (which is what we think when we hear the word “deserve”) he very clearly made it sound like the behaviour of said women has rape as a consequence of their actions. In other words, “asking to be raped.” From his book excerpt on marriage:

    But women who genuinely insist on “no masculine protection” are really women who tacitly agree on the propriety of rape. Whenever someone sets himself to go against God’s design, horrible problems will always result.

    Remember that by “masculine protection” Doug means that whole “Umbrella of Protection” thing he subscribes to, which teaches that women are protected from harm if they submit to their husbands. So please, try to tell me again that Doug is not saying unsubmissive women are asking to be raped. Even in the context of the whole page, it’s EXACTLY what he is saying.

    If that’s not enough for you, let’s have a look at his weirdly thought-out but still offensive SlutWalk article linking women’s dress to rape. It’s perhaps the worst attempt at rationalising rape I’ve ever seen, and ANY attempt at rationalising rape is bad by default. He makes his obligatory “I’m not excusing rapists” line then proceeds to blame sexual assault victims for their assaults. Beginning with a hot waffle about “shared moral standards” and how there are always two “moral agents” in a “moral argument” (in which case I think he means those who think how a woman dresses does not invite rape and rapists themselves) he says:

    The standard that overarches us all is the character of God, otherwise known as the moral law. But because we are sinners, and frequently in conflict with one another, we find ourselves lured by that seductive voice that wants the moral law to apply to the other, so that I might have grounds for my grievance, but in my own case to reject its authority, or ignore its authority, or assume my righteous compliance with its authority. Law for him, license for me.

    The theology of a slut walk, however, by its outrageous embrace of slutty dress, behavior, and thought, absolutely and definitively rejects any level of moral responsibility for anything. Now lest I be misunderstood at this point — which I understand has happened before! — let me hasten to add that I am not seeking to minimize or excuse violent sexual behavior, or otherwise absolve rapists in any way. If somebody kidnapped and raped the most outrageous organizer of the worst slut pride event ever, I would want to see that rapist punished to the fullest extent of the law. I am not defending the rapist. I am simply pointing out that his victim was a person who had given herself to organizing events built on a theology that, when applied consistently elsewhere, fully justifies rape. I do not justify rape; she does.

    He then goes on to argue that since “feminist women” (as he describes them) have rejected their side of the “shared moral standard” by insisting on dressing how they want to and made the prospect of modest dress an “expression of personal will” (i.e. optional) instead of “an appeal to a common standard” (i.e. “moral law” according to Doug’s interpretation of God’s character) then logically, the “shared standard” between rapists and feminists is broken, rape is now also just an optional moral standard, and thus rapists can rape an immodest women with reason.

    Imagine a criminal with a philosophical turn of mind. The woman he kidnapped had a sign that said, “No matter how I dress, rape is always wrong!” The rapist, before taking what he wants, asks her, “Why is rape wrong?” What standard, he wants to know, overarches the two of us? If there is one, what is it, and how can we know? If there is no shared standard, then might makes right. What I have the power to do and get away with, I have the right to do. Wouldn’t you agree? And this, incidentally, is exactly the same thing that you were doing with your marches. Denying that there is any standard common to us all, you organized an event to impose your personal will on others. And in this, I have to say, you were more successful than I because you have organized five marches, and this is only my third rape.

    He is saying that the statement “rape is always wrong” is an expression of personal will, and not an appeal to a common standard. If it were an appeal to a common standard, the kind of appeal that a Christian woman would make, it would have been made in a way that plainly accepted the responsibility to behave in a moral way herself.

    He has pretty literally compared SlutWalks to rape itself. And argued that without modest dress, rape is open season for these women according to their “denial of a shared moral standard.”

  67. @ Ken:
    I respectfully disagree with your statements. I’ve never been violated in the sense that some of the victims have. We all sin, but there’s sins and then there’s sins. When the abuse a child has occurred and focus is on forgiving the abuser, when the culture is based on the subjugation of 52% of humanity, when the organization is run on bronze age values or like a medieval fiefdom, something is badly broken (not least the congregants of such churches – how come there are so many “evangelical” survivor websites?)
    God becomes a stick to beat others with. An austere, hateful being to whom we have no more value than ants in farm or fish in a tank. No freedom of thought, no compassion, no love. Just shut up and serve.
    If this is the Lord that is followed, then there is no hope for anyone.
    Real Christians are out there in the trenches helping people and I know more than a few. They are tolerant, they don’t pick apart others or try to control their lives.
    In a TGC heaven I’d have no place. And I wouldn’t want one.

  68. Dave A A wrote (quoting Doug Wilson):

    Doug writes———–
    “Just within the last week, Washington State instituted their new “No Perv Left Behind Act,” which allows any male student who self-identifies as a creep to use the girls’ locker room at the neighborhood government junior high school near you — in order to get a better view when ogling your daughter.
    And our heart really should go out to that poor girl. She has quite a hard go of it — she has a creep for a stalker/suitor, mountain orcs for civil magistrates, and idiots for parents.

    Well now. Why is Douglas Wilson being sympathetic to this hypothetical young lady in a locker room for possibly being sexually assaulted by a man wearing a skirt?

    Wilson just wrote a post about week ago where he said women who don’t properly submit to men or defer to male leadership are asking to be raped, or deserve being raped (I forget the exact wording, but contrary to any quibbling from Wilson, it’s all the same thing: blaming women he disagrees with for being raped, if they are).

    Maybe someone could ask him, “But supposed the young lady in the school gym locker room was biblically submissive to her father, shouldn’t you be arguing that God should have protected her from being fondled by a guy in a skirt”?

    I am curious as to how he would attempt to reconcile the two views.

    I’d also like to say that while I’m not a supporter of allowing biological males to enter into lady locker rooms or restrooms, I find Wilson’s choice of words in how to discuss the topic unnecessarily inflammatory and rude.

  69. To an alcoholic, if one drink is good, then two is better.

    To the male dominionists, if a little submission is good, then more submission is better. And on and on it goes.

    This puts a lot of women in a pickle. They believe the Bible does teach female submission. So they submit. And they submit some more. They can not resist without being “rebellious”. They find themselves being crushed with ever more stringent and harsh requirements. They find themselves in so deep they can see no way out. And, they never will as long as total submission is expected.

    At some point, women need to recognize their own self-worth, and throw off the oppressive burden being forced on them. Women deserve the same freedom as men, should not be coerced by heavy-handed authoritarianism, should stand up and refuse to play along in this theological charade.

    And, let the male power-hoarders cry rebellion. Just let ’em.

  70. I do not consider the following comment to be partisan politics.

    Since christianity in the US is in such trouble right now, and since the NH polls will soon close followed by numerous primaries in the next few weeks, and since Lent begins tomorrow I intend to repent of everything I can think of and probably some things I have to make up for the entire time. Just in case. Before the church, the nation, and my eternal soul sustain too much damage.

  71. js wrote:

    movement with the actions of a few individuals or with making a case that a particular theological perspective (usually gender comp) fosters abuse.

    I don’t see how gender complementarianism helps women who are in abusive marriages – or husbands who are being abused by wives.

    I can, though, see how gender comp, even the more lukewarm versions of it, can contribute to creating an abuser, but most certainly perpetuating abuse.

    Gender comp can make young ladies susceptible to attracting abusers, as it’s nothing more than codependency.

    Comp teaches girls and women all the common traits of codependent behaviors, such as, but not limited to: lack boundaries, don’t enforce boundaries if you are attacked or treated disrespectfully, be un-assertive, don’t say “no” to people. All of those behaviors make it easier for abusers to manipulate and control a female.

    Gender comp gives a sense to girls who grow up in it (as I did) that they are “lesser” than men, God loves men more.

  72. Daisy wrote:

    Wilson just wrote a post about week ago where he said women who don’t properly submit to men or defer to male leadership are asking to be raped, or deserve being raped (I forget the exact wording, but contrary to any quibbling from Wilson, it’s all the same thing: blaming women he disagrees with for being raped, if they are).

    Found it. https://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-culture/110222.html

    Now I do understand why someone might argue that I am an over-protective throwback. I disagree, but at least it is a coherent criticism. But when I insist on the duty of Christian men to be a wall of protection for the women in their lives, and I lament the fact that many women have abandoned any such protection, how is it possible for Rachel Held Evans to think that I say that unsubmissive women deserve to be raped? Mark her use of that word deserve.

    Say a woman — for some egalitarian and very foolish reason, declines to have her dinner date walk her back to her car in some urban center after dark. Let us say she is raped and murdered. According to what RHE says, my response is going to be some variant of “served her right.” Now you would have to be a fool not to see the connection between her refusal of an escort and what happened to her, but you would also have to be pretty vile to say that walking to your car deserves the penalty of rape and murder…One consequence of rejecting the protection of good men is that you are opening yourself up to the predations of bad men.

    In true Doug Wilson style, he picks apart one word of RHE’s critique to make her look like the bad guy for accusing him, then proceeds to prove her point exactly. “I didn’t mean that she deserves raped, as in rape is a justifiable penalty!” he cries. “No no, I meant that when a woman is unsubmissive to a man then rape is surely headed her way! She should have had a male guardian, then it would have been avoided.”

  73. Ken wrote:

    I’ve watched him, for example, take RHE apart for her comment he thinks women ‘deserve to be raped’. He clearly doesn’t.

    If he doesn’t believe that then he should be more careful with his choice of words. But Wilson prides himself on his choice of words.

    Women inescapably need godly masculine protection against ungodly masculine harassment; women who refuse protection from their fathers and husbands must seek it from the police. But women who genuinely insist on ‘no masculine protection’ are really women who tacitly agree on the propriety of rape.

    http://moscowid.net/2016/01/13/the-propriety-of-rape/

    So women who don’t agree with his ideological bent of masculine covering are agreeing to rape? Hmmmm . . . patriarchy or rape . . . patriarchy or rape . . . which to choose?

  74. Religious institutions are not the only ones where there is evidence of sexual abuse. The AAAS flagship publication SCIENCE has a report: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/02/sexual-misconduct-case-has-rocked-anthropology primarily on just one such case in a particular field of science. There are parallels with the many cases of sexual abuse in the evangelical community so frequently reported here in TWW. Senior faculty, principle investigators and others in academic leadership have enormous control over the careers of students and young researchers attempting to start careers as independent scientists. This can lead both to abuse and reticence in reporting it to the appropriate authorities. I interpret this article as suggesting that science and professional organizations may be more inclined to accept and investigate allegations of sexual abuse than appears to be done with large prestigious evangelical churches.

    Still, sexual abuse appears to be a general societal problem, not just one affecting churches. I for one, would like to see the institutional church take the lead in dealing with and correcting such problems rather than be the last ones to acknowledge it.

  75. Anne wrote:

    he cries. “No no, I meant that when a woman is unsubmissive to a man then rape is surely headed her way! She should have had a male guardian, then it would have been avoided.”

    Don’t the Wahabi in Saudi say the same?

  76. Rob wrote:

    To an alcoholic, if one drink is good, then two is better.

    “And the Constitutional Right to My Next Drink cannot be infringed.”
    — Steven King, recovering alcoholic

  77. Muff Potter wrote:

    God’s character eh? And of course they’ll decide what that character entails.

    And if you’re a True Believer Calvinista, God’s character is that of a Cosmic Caligula, whim after whim after whim.

  78. Outstanding, Nate. Each point needed to be said. TGC boys remind me of those corrupt, Middle Ages popes, concerned mainly with their personal power and wealth.

  79. @ Headless Unicorn Guy:

    These men create God’s character in their own image, it’s clear to see. How else does God mysteriously agree with every little detail of their doctrine, even if it goes directly against Scripture itself?

    God is God, and he said himself “I Am that I Am.” But sadly, we all have the potential to see God as what we make of him. To TGC he’s a petty dictator, when it couldn’t be further from the truth. Sigh.

  80. @ Ken:
    Ken,

    First, you are right on the denial of rape statistics citation. I’m not sure how it happened. I think it was a copy and pasting error when I rearranged/rewrote the in the final editing stage. I appreciate you noting the error. Here is the link I meant to cite.
    https://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-culture/down-a-grassy-esplanade.html

    As far as his “takedown” of RHE, I am unconvinced. Doug has a habit of writing things in obscure language so he can always have deniability. But his defense of this requires tacit to be a passive, not an active, word and for pdropriety to be defined to mean something it doesn’t mean.

    I have written a follow up piece specifically on that quote (as it generated a lot of controversy) here.
    https://natesparks130.wordpress.com/2016/02/02/a-controversy-of-propiety/

    Thank you again for noting the citation error. You are right, Wilson is a master of deflection and obfuscation and a single misstep only empowers him to redirect. His readers are so into him, they never realize the misdirection.

    I will update the post on my sight to correct the error.

  81. @ Nate Sparks:
    He really does use fluffy obscure language to try and disguise what he means. But even if it take multiple readings of his articles to try and decipher his main points, it becomes clear that they are the awful attitudes you thought they were at first glance. He’s not stupid, hence the word-play. The problem is that he either thinks his opponents are, or tries to tell us so when we call him out on his evil words.

    This may be a harsh thing to say, but I firmly believe that Wilson is a metaphorical cancer in the Body of Christ. There is no good that has come out of him so far.

  82. Daisy wrote:
    Maybe someone could ask him, “But supposed the young lady in the school gym locker room was biblically submissive to her father, shouldn’t you be arguing that God should have protected her from being fondled by a guy in a skirt”?
    I am curious as to how he would attempt to reconcile the two views.

    He might reply that our heart should go out to her, not because she got groped by man-in-skirt, but because God ordained she have an idiot Dad. Dad’s the real culprit for sending her to the SIN school, rather than a Wilson-approved academy. But why discuss hypothetical young women? Let’s consider a couple real ones and their idiot Dad.
    One more Wilson quote, from his recent “Courtship and Rape Culture”:
    Daisy wrote:

    Maybe someone could ask him, “But supposed the young lady in the school gym locker room was biblically submissive to her father, shouldn’t you be arguing that God should have protected her from being fondled by a guy in a skirt”?
    I am curious as to how he would attempt to reconcile the two views.

    Just guessing here– in this case he might feel sorry for her but blame her father. She’s biblically submitted to her father but God needs a biblical man to protect her, and Dad’s an unbiblical idiot. Why? Dad sent her to the SIN school rather than a Wilson-approved school!
    Let me discuss a couple real-life daughters and their idiot Dad. Wilson prompted his college and dissed the U of I in his recent “Courtship and Rape Culture”:
    “Let us say, for just one example, that a young NSA freshman has been flirting his head off with a particular girl for a couple weeks. His roommate takes him aside and says, “Have you talked to her dad?” Now out of 100 instances of this kind of “intervention” in our circles, I am quite prepared to grant that a certain number of these incidents are legalistic, fussy, unnecessary, officious, or just plain jealous. Great, and let’s take that as an encouragement to not be that guy. But now let’s take a trip across town to the other college, the land where nobody would ever dream of asking such a stooopid question. We are talking about the land of abortion, STDs, serial crack-ups, and lots of therapy for mangled daughters. We are talking about the land that fathers forgot — and it is truly a miserable land.”
    The idiot Dad had 2 daughters st “the other college” back around 2001-5. By providence, miracle, or strange twist of fate, they avoided all the horrors Wilson descibes. No doubt exceptions to the rule, and therefore irrelevant. Unfortunately, being an idiot, Dad also recommended they attend Christ Church. If they’d followed his advice, they would have had fellowship with Mr Sitler and Mr Wight. Now which, do you think, would have posed the greater danger— a creep in the university locker room pretending to be a transsexual, or a wolf in the Kirk boarding house pretending to be a seminary student? Yep…. I’m an idiot… I confess.

  83. Doug Wilson said, “But women who genuinely insist on ‘no masculine protection’ are really women who tacitly agree on the propriety of rape.”

    Propriety- decorum, decency, respectability, correctness.

    Is he saying that women who do not place and keep themselves under a male “covering” are saying, “Hey, if you rape us, it’s the decent and respectable thing to do because we don’t submit to a male overlord.” ???

  84. So, let me get this right, in fact what Doug Wilson is saying is that if I: don’t cover up, go out alone, God help us live alone without any male protection, have in fact a normal life then I deserve to be raped.
    Hummmmm, welcome to Afghanistan!

  85. @ Nate Sparks:
    Morning Nate!

    Let me correct one sentence of yours upstream to we don’t see eye to eye on everything. 🙂 The point being its easy in a discussion of this sort to forget what you have in common compared to what you disagree about.

    I’m neither a defender nor detractor of Douglas Wilson.

    I think the problem with the RHE type criticism is it enables Wilson to dodge criticism he might well be advised to take more seriously. As others have pointed out here, he is clever, and clever with words. Daisy rightly said he uses inflammatory language, but RHE was every bit as bad in her tweet.

    The criticism btw that your links didn’t prove your assertions about Wilson came from a commenter on Wilson’s blog. Hence I looked them up. Wilson has of course used this in essence to say if the accusations against him are that inaccurate, then you can take with a pinch of salt the accusations against all the other ‘big names’ of the TGC. An ardent devotee of TGC can say ‘nothing to see here, just move on’, whereas there might well be something they do need to see that they don’t want to.

    Living in a continent that imo is being stifled with political correctness, I like Wilson’s ‘political incorrectness’, but that is certainly not a blanket endorsement of everything he says.

  86. Nancy2 wrote:

    Is he saying that women who do not place and keep themselves under a male “covering” are saying, “Hey, if you rape us, it’s the decent and respectable thing to do because we don’t submit to a male overlord.” ???

    What he actually says is:

    So then, I do not say that women who are unsubmissive deserve to be raped. Why would I say that when I don’t believe anything like that? I say that women who reject the protection of men will find themselves, at the end of the day, unprotected by men. This is not what they thought they were signing up for, but the results are destructive just the same. They will find, when their world comes crashing down around their ears, that it is easier to get many men to stop being protective than it is to stop many other men from being predatory. This is not what they thought they were doing (I said “tacitly agree”), but they have helped create a world in which it is easier for unscrupulous men to get what they want than for honorable men to do what they ought.

    I think he has a point in his last sentence that needs more careful consideration than ‘he’s blaming the victim’. I might add that this is not all theory, having a daughter who is in a university town which will now have its share of muslim young men which includes those with their attitude that western girls are fair game for groping and molestation, if not worse. It’s a cause for conern, not least because the authorities seem to be blinded by political correctness on this issue, and are not taking the concerns of the public seriously.

    It will never be possible even to attempt to try to deal with these problems if political correctness or progaganda (feminist or otherwise) makes aspects of the problem off limits for discussion.

  87. js wrote:

    I told Serving Kids in Japan, who engaged me on Nate’s site, that since I had been blocked on Nate’s site that I might dialogue further with Serving on TWW if there were still things which needed to be discussed. I don’t even think Serving saw that comment

    I didn’t see your comment, JS, but Nate informed me of it, and offered to connect the two of us by e-mail. I’m glad that you’re interested in discussing these matters, and I would like to read your response.

    I don’t want to derail the thread, but if Dee and Deb don’t mind, I’m willing to carry on our conversation here, as much as I’m able. If we do, other commenters are likely to chime in, which is fine by me. On the other hand, if either you or the Deebs would prefer that we continue our discussion in private, I’m comfortable with Nate giving you the e-mail address I used on his site (which is different from my address here).

    Either way, our interaction might be a bit disjointed, since I work full time and in a different time zone. I can’t make any promises as to how frequently I’ll be able to comment. Just to let you know.

    P.S. I didn’t realize that you were the same JS who comments occasionally here. The slightly different nickname threw me off. My apologies for not “recognizing” you.

  88. I apologize for my post earlier. I was getting cross-wired.
    The school district I retired from announced lay-offs. The census just is not what it once was. Texas is growing, but not in a rural areas of East Texas.
    Several veteran teachers I taught with were told their services were no longer needed.
    While some were eligible for retirement, others were not.
    Once again, I apologize for my emotional post earlier.

  89. Ken wrote:

    I say that women who reject the protection of men will find themselves, at the end of the day, unprotected by men.

    What proof is there of this statement? What does he actually mean by “women who reject the protection of men?” Is he speaking of Patriarchal-type relationships that he believes in or women rejecting any protection from any man? He is not clear about anything and makes a statement with no proof to back it up. Ken wrote:

    This is not what they thought they were doing (I said “tacitly agree”), but they have helped create a world in which it is easier for unscrupulous men to get what they want than for honorable men to do what they ought.

    And this –

    Ken wrote:

    but they have helped create a world in which it is easier for unscrupulous men to get what they want than for honorable men to do what they ought.

    Really, women who refuse his way of thinking have helped created this world? How so? Where is the proof of this? Again, he makes statements with no proof.

    For many women, the mistreatment they have received at the hands of men (even in his comp/patriarchal world) has caused them to refuse the protection of men.

    There are many good men and women in the world who would protect any man or woman if they saw them in harms way. One does not need a comp/patriarchal father or husband for this to happen. One needs friends or fellow human beings who care as Christ would care, and I have seen many of these even outside the household of faith.

    Wilson’s statements bear no truth in my thinking.

  90. Ken wrote:

    having a daughter who is in a university town which will now have its share of muslim young men which includes those with their attitude that western girls are fair game for groping and molestation, if not worse.

    Has there been alot of this actually happening? Are the police ignoring it because of political correctness in this university town?

  91. Ken wrote:

    What he actually says is:

    Do you think we are unable to understand what he actually wrote? Let’s insert the definitions of the words Wilson chose and see how it sounds.

    Women inescapably need godly masculine protection against ungodly masculine harassment; women who refuse protection from their fathers and husbands must seek it from the police. But women who genuinely insist on ‘no masculine protection’ are really women who tacitly [expressed or understood without being directly stated] agree on the propriety [behavior that is accepted as socially or morally correct and proper]of rape.

    In other words, “women who genuinely insist on ‘no masculine protection’ are really women who” express without stating directly that they “agree” that rape is morally correct and proper. That’s what he actually said.

    Comparing what he wrote to the European problem of dealing with Syrian refugee gangs is comparing apple to oranges. Wilson is purportedly speaking about the general male populace of his own country. No woman in the US is agreeing that rape is morally correct if she doesn’t have masculine protection. That is blaming the victim.

  92. @ Ken:
    “But women who genuinely insist on ‘no masculine protection’ are really women who tacitly agree on the propriety of rape.” This a a direct quote from Doug Wilson’s “Her Hand in Marriage”. What if we substitute a synonym for “propriety” in that statement? What if we say, “But women who genuinely insist on ‘no masculine protection’ are really women who tacitly agree on the respectability of rape.”

    I think I can understand your concern for your daughter’s safety – my daughter is an “army brat”. But, what does a parent do? Do we teach our daughters to be watchful? Do we advise them not to walk into certain situations? Do we teach them to be prepared to defend themselves? Do we teach them to protect themselves?
    Or, do we follow Doug Wilson’s advice and homeschool our daughters …….. insist that they get their college degrees through home study programs? Do we teach our daughters that they must have the protection and supervision of a male to make it through life?
    Was my military husband neglecting his authority and Doug Wilson style protection over me, my daughter, and our property all of those times when he was deployed for months at a time? Was he willfully exposing me to evil when his truck broke down on an interstate, 450 miles from home, and he called and asked me load tools in my car and come help him in the middle of the night? Would Doug Wilson approve of that, or would he berate my husband for having faith in me and my abilities and for being foolish enough to depend on a woman?
    What do you think Doug Wilson would say about your daughter, and you?

  93. I am running late in approving moderated comments. I just brought home my stepdad from his skilled nursing facility and now have run to another appt. Please bear with me.

  94. brad/futuristguy wrote:

    Second, the Coalition appears to have an “interlocking directory” where key members endorse and commend one another, serve on boards or speak at events or repost articles from one another. The more interconnections, in both public and private, the more difficult it is to make the claim of “I don’t speak for the organization …” It’s no longer an “informal” association, really; it’s on its way to institutionalizing the views and attitudes of the few as an “industrial complex.” This means the system as a whole now keeps certain individuals propped up, and the views of those leaders permeate and are perpetuated.

    Just speaking from my own vantage point, this seems to be the blueprint for the modern “church.” All of the perks and hero worship and none of the responsibility.

  95. Hi NATE SPARKS,

    I want to thank you for putting this into words I can frame my discomfort about CBMW with:
    “..a view of masculinity, one defined against a feminine other …”

    I have been very troubled by the attitude of some over at Denny Burk’s blog towards women, wives, and daughters;
    but I couldn’t express my discomfort clearly other than to think that it appeared to me that there was a THEOLOGY being expressed that no longer celebrated our common humanity as made in the image of God;
    and INSTEAD had created an idolatrous view of the ‘masculine’ human as superior and therefore worthy of controlling, subjugating, ruling over, ‘protecting’, and patronizing the women in their lives who were meant to be submissive (ie. ‘keeping sweet’) rather than celebrating their own humanity as made in the image of God. In short, this man-made theology appears to me to be one of male idolatry, out of which OF COURSE a model of abusive treatment towards women and children has been enabled.

    So THANK YOU for your specific words about ‘a feminine other’ . . . you have nailed in that one phrase the separation that male idolatry must impose on women in order for women to be ‘lesser humans’, unworthy of dignity as human persons in their own right.

    No disrespect here is meant towards Denny Burk, who allows people of different opinions to express their views as long as it is done respectfully. But some of the comments and some of the posts disturb me as I feel I am observing the development of a new theology built around maleness, not around Our Lord at all.

    You are a good ‘word person’, NATE. 🙂

  96. Ken wrote:

    I say that women who reject the protection of men will find themselves, at the end of the day, unprotected by men.

    Actually 4 out of 5 assaults are committed by someone the victim knows

    and 47% of rapists are a friend or acquaintance of the victim

    https://rainn.org/statistics

    All 4-5 assaults (either sexual or dv) I experienced were by those I knew and trusted. So much for protection….:(

  97. siteseer wrote:

    Just speaking from my own vantage point, this seems to be the blueprint for the modern “church.” All of the perks and hero worship and none of the responsibility.

    I remember a humor piece in an old business magazine from the Eighties. About how the ideal goal of any business organization is to maximize Power while minimizing Responsibility. Until the goal of the Ideal Organization is reached: Infinite POWER and Zero responsibility.

    Type examples of this ideal include Caesar Caligula, Caesar Eleglabius, and Dear Leader Comrade Kim Jong-whatever.

  98. BeenThereDoneThat wrote:

    No woman in the US is agreeing that rape is morally correct if she doesn’t have masculine protection. That is blaming the victim.

    That is Shari’a Culture.

  99. Ken wrote:

    I think the problem with the RHE type criticism is it enables Wilson to dodge criticism he might well be advised to take more seriously. As others have pointed out here, he is clever, and clever with words

    Semantics, My Dear Wormwood, Semantics.

  100. Anne wrote:

    He has pretty literally compared SlutWalks to rape itself. And argued that without modest dress, rape is open season for these women according to their “denial of a shared moral standard.”

    Too bad that in the real world, modest and submissive women are the targets of rape and rapists don’t give a rip about anyone’s moral standards. So much for his analogies, they are all cerebral rationalizations for his own belief system.

  101. Nancy2 wrote:

    Is he saying that women who do not place and keep themselves under a male “covering” are saying, “Hey, if you rape us, it’s the decent and respectable thing to do because we don’t submit to a male overlord.” ???

    This is ISIS-level Shari’a.

  102. Bridget wrote:

    Ken wrote:
    having a daughter who is in a university town which will now have its share of muslim young men which includes those with their attitude that western girls are fair game for groping and molestation, if not worse.
    Has there been alot of this actually happening? Are the police ignoring it because of political correctness in this university town?

    This hasn’t gotten a lot of press here in the states, but the British news site The Daily Mail has reported quite a bit that the general feeling in Germany is that the German police and government are covering up refuge crimes like the attacks in Cologne because of political correctness. The public appears to be getting fed up with the government.

  103. Christiane wrote:

    I have been very troubled by the attitude of some over at Denny Burk’s blog towards women, wives, and daughters;
    but I couldn’t express my discomfort clearly other than to think that it appeared to me that there was a THEOLOGY being expressed that no longer celebrated our common humanity as made in the image of God;
    and INSTEAD had created an idolatrous view of the ‘masculine’ human as superior and therefore worthy of controlling, subjugating, ruling over, ‘protecting’, and patronizing the women in their lives who were meant to be submissive (ie. ‘keeping sweet’) rather than celebrating their own humanity as made in the image of God. In short, this man-made theology appears to me to be one of male idolatry, out of which OF COURSE a model of abusive treatment towards women and children has been enabled.

    Complementarians talk of egalitarians letting the sinful world influence their theology. Since women have been so persecuted and looked down on since time began, the comps are actually the ones letting the world affect their theology, and they think they’re being holy in their views! What they think is holy, I say is sin and a perversion of what the Bible says.

  104. siteseer wrote:

    Too bad that in the real world, modest and submissive women are the targets of rape and rapists don’t give a rip about anyone’s moral standards. So much for his analogies, they are all cerebral rationalizations for his own belief system.

    Doug Wilson is saying that we live in a rape culture because many men fail to exercise their God-ordained headship, and many women fail to submit to men.

  105. @ Ken:

    Wilson’s views on this are very victim blaming, though. He is in a round about way claiming that women who do not live life as he deems suitable do deserve to be raped, are asking to be raped.

    Wilson also fails to take into account that some women are widowed, divorced, never married, have no male relatives to act as a covering, and do not attend a church.

    I for one have no interest in some man I am not related to who works as a pastor or elder telling me how to live my life. Some of these same church men have affairs on their views or view dirty sites online. I am more morally upright than these men are. Who are they to guide me or tell me how to live?

    His view, like your version of gender comp, infantilizes women, and attempts to place all women into the same box. Not all women fit into that one, little box.

  106. Daisy wrote:

    men have affairs on their views or view dirty sites online

    Correction:

    “Have affairs on their WIVES” – not ‘views.’

  107. BeenThereDoneThat wrote:

    Ken wrote:
    What he actually says is:
    Do you think we are unable to understand what he actually wrote? Let’s insert the definitions of the words Wilson chose and see how it sounds.

    Ken is man-splaining Douglas Wilson’s man-splaining. 🙂

    It’s Meta Man-splaining. It’s a Matryoshka doll (Russian nesting doll) of Man-splaining, if you will.

  108. BeenThereDoneThat wrote:

    (Doug Wilson wrote):
    Women inescapably need godly masculine protection against ungodly masculine harassment;

    I agreed with what you had to say about all this, BTDT, but I wanted to address this part of it.

    What do “godly” and “ungodly” even mean in this quote by Wilson?

    I’ve seen too many stories of so-called godly men (men who profess Christ, who may work as preachers, teach Sunday School, who read their Bible weekly, however one wishes to define it) who sexually assault women too, or who verbally and physically abuse women. This very blog sometimes covers such stories.

    I consider gender complementarianism and Christian patriarchy to be “godly forms of sexism and harassment of women.”

    And I don’t like the godly form of sexism any more than I do the ungodly, secular type of sexism.

  109. @ Ken:

    Another though occurred to me.

    Wilson is basically advocating that patriarchy is the, or a, solution to all / most violence against women.

    Problem is, most cultures over thousands of years have been patriarchal in nature by default, with men ruling over women, and that did not cease violence or discrimination against women, it only kept it a bit more hidden from public view.

    Some branches of Islam hold very similar views and practices towards women and marriage that Christian gender comp does, but maybe a bit more extreme in some parts (e.g., honor killings of sexual assault victims, etc.) – and that certainly has not turned all factions of Islam into a pro-woman, safe haven for women.

    That Doug Phillips guy was a huge advocate for Christian patriarchy, but all the while, he was fondling his teen-aged nanny, Lourdes.

    How did this “women need male protection” romantacized malarky help Lourdes the nanny? (It did not. It actually played a role in her abuse.)

    Backwards, sexist views about women and “male protection” haven’t historically helped protect females in the past, and they’re not helping now, either.

    In some instances or contexts, these religious patriarchal views you seem so fond of, and that Wilson enjoys promoting, can actually perpetuate violence or sexism against women and girls.

    (And I’m not a left wing feminist saying this.)

  110. Daisy wrote:

    Wilson also fails to take into account that some women are widowed, divorced, never married, have no male relatives to act as a covering, and do not attend a church.

    My first husband died in an auto accident when our daughter was 6 years old, only a few months after my mother had gotten fed up with the way my father abused her and filed for divorce. My only brother was 19 years old at the time, and my dad was lashing out at everyone who didn’t take his side. What would a man like DW have told me to do in that situation?
    Later, I married a soldier. He was away a lot …… taking training courses and risking his life to serve our country. What would a man like DW say to a married male soldier like my husband?

  111. @ Nancy2:

    All this talk about Wilson’s quote about women rejecting the protection of men, or however he put it.

    I have read so many news stories of women who defend other women. A lot of lady Christians start ministries rescuing women out of sex trafficking, or providing shelter and food for impoverished women. Some women who may be Non- Christian also rescue other women.

    ‘Walking Dead’ Actress Helps Rescue Colombian Sex Slaves
    http://www.rollingstone.com/tv/news/walking-dead-actress-helps-rescue-colombian-sex-slaves-20141019

    Oct 2014

    Laurie Holden, who played “Andrea” on the zombie drama, part of real life sting mission that brought down notorious sex trafficker

    … The former Walking Dead star was recently involved in an undercover sting operation in Colombia to take down a notorious sex trafficker.

    According to ABC News, the mission, dubbed Operation Underground Railroad, was the creation of former CIA and Homeland Security agent Tim Ballard, who recruited “a ragtag group of volunteers” that featured two CrossFit instructors from Utah, a door-to-door salesman, and Holden, who portrayed “Andrea” on The Walking Dead for three seasons.

    On another note, I don’t think women object to men’s help with stuff per se. I think that is where guys like Wilson misunderstand.

    I am a woman. If I were in the middle of getting my purse snatched on the street, I would not mind if a male police officer came around and got my purse back for me and smacked the bad guy over the head.

    That’s not what women are objecting to.

    What I would object to is someone like Piper or Wilson arguing things like:

    -I, a woman, should not learn Karate and self defense to defend myself (I should just passively wait about, hoping that some big strong man rescues me, which may not happen);

    – that women should not become police officers, so I should not expect a woman cop to save me;

    – I should never leave home at all (women should stay at hearth and home all day, cooking biscuits and gravy);

    – the assumption that every woman in every situation is feeble and helpless and MUST have male assistance;

    – the implied assumption that all women at all times are weakling little children who need men to guide them in all matters of life, as a dog might need a master
    ——–
    I could probably come up with a few more bullet points, but I think that will probably suffice.

  112. Regardless of any amount of “wordsmithing,” I find Doug Wilson’s basic idea to be flawed, that if we lived according to his “godly” principles, women would be protected and the world would be a better place.

    He is appealing to the same type of people that Bill Gothard appealed to a generation ago. People who are frightened of what they see happening in the world, who are looking for some kind of assurance, some kind of system that promises them safety.

    There is no such system.

    These are people who see a report of an extreme and disturbing incident on the news and assume it is the norm that is happening everywhere. They live their lives in distress and fear. The more they separate from the world, the more out of touch they become with what is really happening around them.

    They want to have a deal with God: give me rules I will obey and, in exchange, you protect me from harm.

    Perhaps this is why the old testament appeals to them so much.

    God offers no deals.

    His promises are for our spiritual welfare regardless of our circumstances in this world.

    Secondly, speaks as though the gospel is a system that can reform the world.

    He offers the idea that if only the world would operate by “Christian” principles (which are actually his own biases, but regardless) the world would be a safer and better place. There is no truth to this. Guess what. It has been done. There was a time when state churches were the norm, when you had to belong, be brought up in, and be trained by the religious principles of a Christian church. Was the world a better place then? Were people automatically regenerated because they “belonged” to a church? Did the teachings of the church prevent crime, rape, war, abuse?

    Back in the 70’s this idea began to gain ground as “Christian” apologists started teaching the world used to be a better place. They rewrote history, leaving a whole lot of it out, in order to support the idea. “The good old days” is a concept that appeals to human beings in general, and this idea really appealed to a lot of Christendom.

    Nevertheless, it is a failed idea. God regenerates those who turn to him in faith. It is not something that can be administered or brought about by a system of teachings or rules. Unregenerated human beings trained in “Christian” principles are still unregenerated human beings.

    God never said the gospel would reform the world. He said to seek to enter by the narrow gate which *few* find.

    Further, his teaching that patriarchy is safer for women is laughable. Patriarchal societies are the most dangerous for women.

    I also find it very strange, the concept that it is normal and expected for a man to rape.

    This page contains a good collection of sources for statistics on rape in patriarchal societies and other rape myths:
    http://thehathorlegacy.com/rape-statistics/

  113. @ Nancy2:

    I am so very sorry for your loss.

    You are right, sometimes married couples where one or both are in the military may go on deployment, means that the wife will be left without the husband around at some stage.

    Gender theology by guys like Wilson often fail to take into account any and all exceptions, so their theology is a huge fail.

    I was just telling Flag Ken above that not all women fit nice and neatly into the little boxes the gender comps try to cram us into.

    The usual gender comp / Christian patriarchy assumption is that all women are married (or will some day marry, or that all WANT to marry), and/or have children and/or be a stay at home person.

    The reality is, some women are infertile. Some continually miscarry.

    With other women, if they do marry, the husband passes away, deploys overseas, or divorces the wife.

    Some women don’t fit the dainty, feminine flowery gender comp version of womanhood (staying at home all day wearing pink and baking pies), but prefer watching football, fixing cars, and other pursuits considered “masculine.”

    Above, where I said,
    “Gender theology by guys like Wilson often fail to take into account any and all exceptions, so their theology is a huge fail.

    What gender comps do at that stage, if this is shoved in their face, is to insist on shoving a square peg into a round hole even more.

    They will argue that their view on gender is the only godly, biblical one, so, for example, if you are a woman who doesn’t want to marry or have kids, you are, they claim, stepping outside God’s design for women and are therefore a feminist harlot Jezebel or a selfish pig.

    It’s all circular reasoning on the gender comp’s part – they can never prove – ‘from the Bible’ – that God designed all women to want to have kids, bake pies all day, etc.

  114. siteseer wrote:

    Regardless of any amount of “wordsmithing,” I find Doug Wilson’s basic idea to be flawed, that if we lived according to his “godly” principles, women would be protected and the world would be a better place.

    He is appealing to the same type of people that Bill Gothard appealed to a generation ago. People who are frightened of what they see happening in the world, who are looking for some kind of assurance, some kind of system that promises them safety.
    There is no such system.

    … I also find it very strange, the concept that it is normal and expected for a man to rape.

    This page contains a good collection of sources for statistics on rape in patriarchal societies and other rape myths:
    http://thehathorlegacy.com/rape-statistics/

    Everything in your post was right on. Excellent post!

    I just read an interesting blog post(*) a couple of weeks ago talking about something similar, how some Christians come up with a list of rules or biblical principles, and they think if you just follow those rules, nothing bad will ever happen to you.

    So, if something bad does happen to you, it’s all supposedly your fault, because you obviously weren’t following the rules well enough.

    And that isn’t really what the Bible is saying.

    The Bible conveys that bad stuff will and can happen to even “good” people, Jesus Christ perhaps being the ultimate example of that, but look at Joseph in the Old Testament, too.

    Or Job, from the book of Job. You can be a great guy as the day is long, but that’s no guarantee that your brothers won’t sell you into slavery, you won’t be thrown unfairly in jail on false charges, or God won’t permit your health to go south, etc.
    ——-
    (*)I think the blog post I read about this was linked to by one from the “Under Much Grace” blog.

  115. Nancy2 wrote:

    Doug Wilson is saying that we live in a rape culture because many men fail to exercise their God-ordained headship, and many women fail to submit to men.

    Problem is,many men who apparently are into “exercising their God-ordained headship” are actually abusing women and many women who are submissive and modest do get assaulted. In the real world, there’s no connection.

    If he is saying the entire world must adopt these principles before we can see if it works, then I guess it’s just an exercise in dreaming.

  116. siteseer wrote:

    d: give me rules I will obey and, in exchange, you protect me from harm.
    Perhaps this is why the old testament appeals to them so much.
    God offers no deals.
    His promises are for our spiritual welfare regardless of our circumstances in this world.

    Agreed. God give us all free will – the power to make our own choices, for better or for worse. I think of this in the same way that I think about driving an automobile. Being a safe, cautious driver who obeys all of the laws will not always protect you from the stupid or careless decisions of other drivers.

  117. BeenThereDoneThat wrote:

    Right? Also, remember when Jim Bob Duggar admitted that patriarchal families have a molestation problem?
    http://www.rawstory.com/2015/06/did-jim-bob-duggar-admit-that-fundamentalist-families-have-a-sibling-molestation-problem/

    It’s begging the question to assume that Godly men always protect.

    I thought Jim Bob’s response was really strange at the time, too!

    And, btw, Michelle’s face in that video clip… just, wow… says it all.

  118. @ BeenThereDoneThat:

    If you look at the Wilson comment again:
    “Women inescapably need godly masculine protection against ungodly masculine harassment”

    The qualifiers are so unsettling and odd, as though in Wilson’s world, there is, or should be, such a thing as “godly masculine harassment.”

    So, if a guy harasses or beats a woman in the name of Jesus, or while quoting Bible verses at her, that makes it acceptable or moral, because the abuse is “godly”?

    That sort of sounds like what he’s saying, or it could be inferred from his comment.

    It reminds me of what I read here:
    “Control: The Reason The Gospel Coalition and CBMW Cannot Actually Condemn Spousal Abuse”
    http://fiddlrts.blogspot.com/2016/01/control-reason-gospel-coalition-and.html

    I’m equally put off by sexism and violence against women regardless of the world view or religious beliefs of the man who is engaging in it.

    Well, I might be a bit more angry over Christians who do this stuff or who excuse it, because I find their religious justifications of it – using the name of God, or saying God designed men and women to be this way, or citations of Bible verses that supposedly support their views – to be even more revolting.

    Wilson comment again:
    “Women inescapably need godly masculine protection against ungodly masculine harassment”

    By the way, if I am being mugged on the street, and an atheist, Hindu, or Muslim guy (all of whom Wilson would likely dub “ungodly” men) wants to come to my rescue, I would not turn my nose up at him / them.

    Could you imagine some guy coming to assist you and you quiz him first: “I need to know what your religious beliefs are. Wait. You’re an egalitarian, Arminian Baptist? Buzz off, creep!”

    Or,
    “Oh, I’m so sorry Mr. Atheist, I’m waiting for a card carrying member of a Southern Baptist church to save me.”

  119. Ken wrote:

    So then, I do not say that women who are unsubmissive deserve to be raped. Why would I say that when I don’t believe anything like that? I say that women who reject the protection of men will find themselves, at the end of the day, unprotected by men. This is not what they thought they were signing up for, but the results are destructive just the same.

    You know, it almost comes off sounding like a threat. ‘You better let us “protect” you, or else…’

    What he is failing to understand is that women have found themselves unprotected by men under his system as well as others. Statistically, women are safer in egalitarian systems.

    How much research did Wilson do on crime statistics before he came up with his concept? How many women did he interview and read, in order to know their experience and perspective?

  120. Daisy wrote:

    I am so very sorry for your loss.

    Thank you, Daisy. But, that loss served to make both me and my daughter stronger …… much stronger. It took my daughter a long time to come to grips with what happened. But, by the time she was 16, she was using her experience to help other young people deal with the loss of close family members.
    Daisy wrote:

    Some women don’t fit the dainty, feminine flowery gender comp version of womanhood (staying at home all day wearing pink and baking pies), but prefer watching football, fixing cars, and other pursuits considered “masculine.”

    Snort. My daughter’s best friend (female) is a guard at the county jail. On the job, she has a county issued billy-club and a 9m clip-load. Off the job, she has a license to carry concealed. She works out and takes self-defense classes. She has overpowered and subdued male inmates a couple of times – yeh, they don’t mess with her anymore. She makes biscuits and gravy, too!

  121. BeenThereDoneThat wrote:

    Women inescapably need godly masculine protection against ungodly masculine harassment

    Women need the protection of just law and enforcement of those laws, the same as men do.

  122. Anne wrote:

    “I didn’t mean that she deserves raped, as in rape is a justifiable penalty!” he cries. “No no, I meant that when a woman is unsubmissive to a man then rape is surely headed her way! She should have had a male guardian, then it would have been avoided.”

    Gosh, wouldn’t it be great if laws required men to protect women in this way? I wonder if such laws exist in any countries where modesty is truly valued. Maybe the women could have special uniforms to show their modesty. Ooh, and their devoutness! /sarc

  123. siteseer wrote:

    Nancy2 wrote:
    Doug Wilson is saying that we live in a rape culture because many men fail to exercise their God-ordained headship, and many women fail to submit to men.
    —————
    Problem is, many men who apparently are into “exercising their God-ordained headship” are actually abusing women and many women who are submissive and modest do get assaulted. In the real world, there’s no connection.

    If he is saying the entire world must adopt these principles before we can see if it works, then I guess it’s just an exercise in dreaming.

    I also think he’s over-thinking things.

    Jesus said all sin comes from inside each person’s heart.

    Wilson’s view seems to be making factors outside a person the issue.

    One thing I learned in recovering from codependency is that you cannot control other people. All you can do is control you and how you react.

    Wilson seems to suggest that women can control the behavior of men, even “ungodly rapists” if only women would do X, Y, and Z.

    I don’t see the Bible as endorsing this type of codependent view, but seems to fall more on the side of personal responsibility.

    I don’t see the Bible supporting the view that “all rape exists because women reject their God-given roles.”

    There are a few verses which seem to contradict that view, such as:

    “And if your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell” (Mark 9:47)

    In those types of passages, Jesus is speaking to the individual, asking them to take steps to deal with their sin, not putting the burden on others to keep you from sinning by modifying their behavior across the board.

    This verse does not talk about abandonment of gender roles as being a cause of sin:

    You desire but do not have, so you kill. You covet but you cannot get what you want, so you quarrel and fight. You do not have because you do not ask God. (James 4:2)

  124. siteseer wrote:

    He offers the idea that if only the world would operate by “Christian” principles (which are actually his own biases, but regardless) the world would be a safer and better place. There is no truth to this.

    Guess what. It has been done. There was a time when state churches were the norm, when you had to belong, be brought up in, and be trained by the religious principles of a Christian church.

    I just noticed something else about your post I wanted to add.

    Yes, godly or biblical principles have already been done – the Ten Commandments come to mind, as many standards taught by Paul and Jesus.

    Jesus pointed out nobody can perfectly live out the Ten Commandments all the time on every point, hence the need for his substitution as the perfect sacrifice on humanity’s behalf.

    It’s not that I am against Christians trying to follow some kind of Bible based code of conduct per se, but I think the Bible shows that nobody can live out a list of rules perfectly all the time, that it’s not an ultimate solution for sin and failure.

    But guys like Wilson come along and try to recreate some of what the Bible says (they are re-inventing the wheel) and put it all in a blog post or book, or they spin their interpretation of what it says, into a new list of Ten Commandments.

  125. Jenny wrote:

    When the Holy Spirit says “Run!”, I grab His hand and don’t ask questions. At least not until I’m a safe distance from the wolves.

    Now that is how we, as believers, are told by Scripture, to respond to the Holy Spirit! I have about had it with these guys who keep trying to put themselves into the Godhead. Even at the price of evicting the Spirit.

  126. OldJohnJ wrote:

    Still, sexual abuse appears to be a general societal problem, not just one affecting churches. I for one, would like to see the institutional church take the lead in dealing with and correcting such problems rather than be the last ones to acknowledge it.

    Amen, brother!

  127. Anne wrote:

    This may be a harsh thing to say, but I firmly believe that Wilson is a metaphorical cancer in the Body of Christ. There is no good that has come out of him so far.

    I believe that you are right! And you said it so well, too!!

  128. Women in Company Leadership Tied to Stronger Profits, Study Says
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/10/business/women-in-company-leadership-tied-to-stronger-profits.html

    Feb 2016
    Having women in the highest corporate offices is correlated with increased profitability, according to a new study of nearly 22,000 publicly traded companies in 91 countries.

    The study, released Monday by the Peterson Institute for International Economics, a nonprofit group based in Washington, and EY, the audit firm formerly known as Ernst & Young, found that despite the apparent economic benefits, many corporations are lacking in gender diversity.

  129. Anne wrote:

    @ Christiane:
    Great comment! Christian Patriarchy is nothing short of heretic idolatry.

    Wow. I agree, Anne, but I had never thought of it that clearly. The problem is, patriarchy and ideas about male/female “roles” are part of the fabric of modern evangelicalism, along with authoritarianism and a little ESS. Which means that evangelicalism is becoming increasingly heretical.

    Which would explain why so many “Dones” have left the church to salvage their walk with God.

    Scary.

  130. @ Bridget:

    Or we could believe the women

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35250903

    In my work with refugees, they tend to be very tight knit communities when they get here and word travels fast in them. . The other refugees most likely know who the attackers and thieves are. They would help more by turning them in than a PR campaign giving out Tulips

  131. Nate Sparks wrote:

    @ Sarah K:
    Thank you Sarah. I’m still getting used to identifying the people who have no intention of actual engagement. I shouldn’t have tolerated the comments jsf08 as long as I did. His final blocked comments were pretty nasty.

    A good friend of mine recently advised me about speaking up when the result is some kind of backlash: “People revealing who they really are is never a bad thing.” Blessings.

  132. @ Lydia:

    Very much agreed Lyds. Spock used to say that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one. When Muslim communities both here and abroad ignore Spock’s wisdom and shield individuals who commit (or are planning) crimes, they are doing themselves no favors. Did you know that the statement I just made would brand me as an Islomophobe on some progressive ixtian blogs?

  133. DW’s words about masculine protection and rape strike me in a slightly different way…it just seems like the promises of purity culture repackaged. Masculine protection = virginity and marriage and security. Going outside of that = everything bad that can happen. Even if you take away the heinousness of the rape inference, he’s just making promises that he can’t keep. Just ask Anna Duggar. Or Natalie Greenfield. Or the countless others who bought into “masculine protection” and ended up raped, cheated on, abused…

  134. Muff Potter wrote:

    Did you know that the statement I just made would brand me as an Islomophobe on some progressive ixtian blogs?

    Never mind under the beheading knives of the future Global Caliphate…

  135. Daisy wrote:

    But guys like Wilson come along and try to recreate some of what the Bible says (they are re-inventing the wheel) and put it all in a blog post or book, or they spin their interpretation of what it says, into a new list of Ten Commandments.

    A new list that They and They Alone can keep Perfectly, thus Proving Their Righteousness.

  136. Daisy wrote:

    I agreed with what you had to say about all this, BTDT, but I wanted to address this part of it.
    What do “godly” and “ungodly” even mean in this quote by Wilson?

    Simple:
    Godly(TM) means Agreeing 1000% with God’s Anointed Doug Wilson and The Kirk.
    Ungodly(TM) means anything and everything else.

  137. @ Muff Potter:
    Fundamentalism is not a “muslim” thing or “christian” thing, it’s a “human” thing.
    Both Wahabist Muslim thought and modern Christian fundamentalism arose around the same time as some of the most amazing advances in scientific thought – including natural selection, metallurgy and astronomy. The world was challenged by the fruits of the Industrial Revolution, the abolition of slavery, sufferage – lots of change that continued into the 20th and continues in the 21st century.
    Take a step back and the Inquisition had it’s heyday around the time of the printing press and the renaissance (another time of expanding consciousness)
    When change occurs that contravenes or even invalidates what we believe we know of the divine then the reaction is to cling even more ferociously to those beliefs. And when you have a perceived mandate from heaven then nothing is off the table.
    This Calvinista “revolution” is fruit from the same tree. They are frightened of the changes in the world, scared of a universe that may not care about them as much as they thought it did and wanting to control those within the sphere ever more severely – “their” women and children. The Bible (Koran, Torah, Buddhist Scroll) becomes an all or nothing battlefield – pretty weak faith when you think about it.

  138. @ Lydia:

    Don’t know why the BBC is playing down the women’s statements in the earlier article while publishing the following in the later article.

    “Cologne police are now investigating 21 people over the attacks – almost all for non-sexual offences.

    Eight are in detention awaiting trial, public prosecutor Ulrich Bremer said. Most are accused of theft.”

  139. @ Bridget:
    Precisely Bridget. I think my brain blew a fuse reading all that. Wilson would hate me as I am absolutely a woman who has rejected the ‘protection’ of a man, my estranged husband. Am I being preyed on as a result? Noooooooo.What on earth does he think of men who get raped by other men?
    Does he live in a time warp, another dimension or a combination of both?

  140. Bridget wrote:

    @ Patriciamc:
    Covering up crimes for political correctness would be wrong. I hope that is not happening.
    This article seems to state something different about the attacks in Cologne if you read more than the title which is confusing.
    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35348949

    While The Daily Mail can be sensalionalistic, it’s also had some of the best coverage of the attacks.. Unfortunately, “the Beep” is known for being politically correct above all things. The guy who wrote Downton Abbey said that he never shopped the series at BBC because he’d have to make too many and historically inaccurate changes in order to fit BBC’s world view. By the way, look into what one German official said about women needing to stay away from certain men so they wouldn’t be attacked. She got a lot of heat for that instead of focusing on the attackers.

  141. Patriciamc wrote:

    By the way, look into what one German official said about women needing to stay away from certain men so they wouldn’t be attacked. She got a lot of heat for that instead of focusing on the attackers.

    From the little I’ve read, it appears that the natives are getting upset with the stupidity of government officials.

  142. @ Victorious:
    Thanks for highlighting another one of Wilson’s presuppositions. This is one reason why I don’t take him seriously – he spends a lot of time parsing words (mostly to try and weasel out of something atrociously stupid he has written), when all one really needs to do is step back and look at what Wilson is presuming to be true in his theological alternative universe. For example, he is presuming it to be true that males are supposed to – and in fact do – protect females. What a load of bull-shit. There isn’t a single study in the history of science correlating protection with gender. Wilson just – as usual – assumes his fantasy to be true, and reads it into his “argument”. Yawn.

  143. @ Tim:

    “On my blog, the only thing commenters need to do is follow the one rule from my comment page: don’t be mean.”
    ++++++++++++++++

    so I can say @$s & horse$h!t?

  144. @ Rob:

    “Women are people. They deserve the chance to live their lives to the fullest, including education, autonomy, the right to make their own choices, to follow their dreams, cultivate their talents, pursue adventure, engage in sports, build careers, choose who to love and share their lives with, how many children to have, what to wear, and whatever else each and every human being deserves.”
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    i think i love you. (platonically) (am i allowed to say this?)

  145. siteseer wrote:

    You know, it almost comes off sounding like a threat. ‘You better let us “protect” you, or else…’
    What he is failing to understand is that women have found themselves unprotected by men under his system as well as others. Statistically, women are safer in egalitarian systems.

    Under his system, “protection” is just another form of abuse in that it’s hyper-controlling and restricts the women.

    Why are so many groups so obsessed with controlling women?

  146. siteseer wrote:

    BeenThereDoneThat wrote:
    Right? Also, remember when Jim Bob Duggar admitted that patriarchal families have a molestation problem?
    http://www.rawstory.com/2015/06/did-jim-bob-duggar-admit-that-fundamentalist-families-have-a-sibling-molestation-problem/
    It’s begging the question to assume that Godly men always protect.
    I thought Jim Bob’s response was really strange at the time, too!
    And, btw, Michelle’s face in that video clip… just, wow… says it all.

    Michelle’s family have been reported as saying that she’s in a cult. I’d love to see some of those kids break free.

  147. Rob wrote:

    Women are people. They deserve the chance to live their lives to the fullest, including education, autonomy, the right to make their own choices, to follow their dreams, cultivate their talents, pursue adventure, engage in sports, build careers, choose who to love and share their lives with, how many children to have, what to wear, and whatever else each and every human being deserves.
    And, they have the right not to be hit, beaten, kept prisoner in their homes, or demoted to usefullness only as sexual objects.

    Thank you so much. This is how true Christians view women.
    Women have the right to engage in and pursue every avenue of human experience. To deny women their human rights based on gender theology, is simplistic, faulty, theological legalism.

  148. Jack wrote:

    Fundamentalism is not a “muslim” thing or “christian” thing, it’s a “human” thing.

    Most certainly true. I hope I didn’t give the impression that fundamentalism is confined to Islam, or that I am indeed deserving of the ‘islamophobe’ label.

  149. Muff Potter wrote:

    Did you know that the statement I just made would brand me as an Islomophobe on some progressive ixtian blogs?

    Given some of your statements poking orthodoxy I can see why you mentioned being banned from some sites. Muff the heretic or Muff the reactionary, either end of the spectrum has little interest in questioning their shibboleths. It is one reason I groan when someone comments here, gets blowback and then thinks they get mistreated, my goodness where have they been?

    Reading posts from years back it has been a joy to read your thoughtful input over those years, I wish more commenters were as gracious.

    As far as Islomophobe goes, there is much to discuss and few sites have hashed through it. It is hard to discuss without getting labeled either an Islamaphobe or a Muslim. As Lydia often says, Sheesh.

  150. Nancy2 wrote:

    I think I can understand your concern for your daughter’s safety – my daughter is an “army brat”. But, what does a parent do? Do we teach our daughters to be watchful?

    I don’t want to exaggerate the problems over here re: muslim refugees. It is not as though molesters are now hiding under every bush and before the influx everything was sweetness and light. But I am concerned that in university towns and elsewhere female students will be restricted as to where they go out of fear of being groped etc. That they can’t go anywhere alone. To date my eldest has been able to cycle home from the centre of town at midnight alone without having to worry. I hope it stays that way.

    This year’s carnival season has been hampered by security fears. Paris is still fresh in people’s minds.

    If things get worse, there are courses for women (and men!) on self-defence, or strategies to spot and avoid trouble before it gets to being physically attacked – where Wilson is right, women are on average always going to be at a disadvantage if it gets to that stage. I’m not a John Piper in this regard, a woman being able to take care of herself is hardly a sin, and might be a sensible precaution.

    I think members of the armed forces are ultimately the greatest possible protection of home and hearth, in that when the real trouble starts they put themselves in harms way in a way the rest of us don’t.

    As for home-schooling, in the UK the law requires children to be educated, but without saying how. The vast majority go for state schools, some private schools, and a few at home. In Germany it is illegal not to send your child to a state school or a school approved by the state, with very heavy fines for not doing so. The state, for its part, allows for conscience when it comes to religious instruction, and pupils are not obliged to attend if parents are unhappy. Very few parents are bothered by it, there is no attempt at indoctrination, and I’ve never had any qualms about it.

    If the Christian faith has any backbone, surely it should withstand a ‘secular’ education?

  151. @ Patriciamc:
    No-one accepts the Daily Fail as a source of anything other but a failure to report anything accurately. It may have more reports, longer reports, whatever, they will still be heavily agenda’d biased reports. This is the paper that supported Hitler back in the day, & it’s blatant daily hypocrisy on so many fronts is staggering. Go somewhere else for actual news, all it’s good for is bias confirmation.

  152. @ Beakerj:

    I believe we were asked to eschew political references in a previous post and I fear you speak with a degree of partiality. Perhaps the Liberal Independent might be more to your liking. You will note that it reports essentially the same thing. There is similar report in the Guardian. Even better are the German papers.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/cologne-sexual-assaults-police-chief-wolfgang-albers-sacked-as-anger-mounts-over-new-years-eve-chaos-a6802736.html

  153. Ken wrote:

    I think members of the armed forces are ultimately the greatest possible protection of home and hearth, in that when the real trouble starts they put themselves in harms way in a way the rest of us don’t.

    Nope, not here. But then, we have the second amendment and I am thinking that most of us would put ourselves in harms way in a flash to protect our families. This is workable partly because we have droves of now civilian military veterans, and partly because people who ‘believe in’ the second amendment are not limited to military age males, and partly because we are just like that.

    And you said, “…..If the Christian faith has any backbone, surely it should withstand a ‘secular’ education?

    It is not about the christian faith, it is about the individual child/adolescent/young adult. But here I am betting that schools in Germany have been hugely different from schools in the US, mostly because I bet that the national philosophies of Germany are different from ours and the demographic has been different, and the religious attitudes have been different, and the politics have been different…..

  154. Bridget wrote:

    The quotes are Doug Wilson’s but my comment is addressed to Ken because he seems to agree with what Wilson says.

    Yes, there are several ‘Ken says’ quotes that unforunately are actually the words of Douglas Wilson!

    In short, critics of Wilson do themselves no favours when they put words in his mouth or assume the worst interpretation of anything he writes. There seems to be a lot of this going on, and he is adept at pointing this out. I also think there is a legitimate discussion to be had on whether feminism is in fact inadvertently aiding a rape culture, but this is very difficult due to the emotive nature of the subject. It’s pointless if you can never get beyond thinking that if the way some women dress and behave is ‘asking for trouble’ this is the same thing as saying they ‘deserve trouble’. Asserting a right to be left alone is dangerous if you are dealing with predatory males who do not recognise such a right.

    I sometimes agree with him. He is very good at pointing out the folly of modern secular culture in its attitudes to sex and gender, meaning gender confusion. He has done some good stuff on Dawkins as well.

    I tend to part company with him over his rather pompous tendency to use flowery language as a means of winding up his opponents. The ‘propriety of rape’ is a classic example. It’s asking for trouble and he surely knows that. I also don’t like his tendency to line up free market economics with the bible. He may well be correct the left are often envious of the rich, but is this all we have to say on the grotesque distribution of wealth across the population? What about the sin of greed? Obvioiusly my own background and biases come into play here.

    I also part company with him linking an absence of submission – which regardless of how you understand it is surely largely how a husband and wife live together in private – with vulnerability to sexual molestation outside of the home. Pretty tenuous connection. What about single women who are often the target?

  155. I looked at what Doug Wilson had to say about a fourteen-year old girl,
    and I thought ‘there it is, he doesn’t understand that in our nation, a fourteen-year old girl is considered a CHILD, and even if she were to consent or encourage a sexual encounter, our law calls this what it is: RAPE OF A CHILD

    I feel sorry for these men who so despise women, but then I think, perhaps they are so insecure in their ‘manhood’ that they cannot abide for women to be strong and honorable and capable human persons. For me, this says that ‘patriarchy’ is an institution that harms men also, and panders to their insecurities. God have mercy on all of us.

  156. Beakerj wrote:

    No-one accepts the Daily Fail as a source of anything other but a failure to report anything accurately. It may have more reports, longer reports, whatever, they will still be heavily agenda’d biased reports. This is the paper that supported Hitler back in the day, & it’s blatant daily hypocrisy on so many fronts is staggering. Go somewhere else for actual news, all it’s good for is bias confirmation.

    But what about all its Kardashian news??? LOL. Yeah, I agree. As for the Cologne attacks, those details were carried by many other outlets. I do though wish the media here in the US did stories with as many details as the DM does. In that way, the DM does shine.

  157. @ Lowlandseer:
    Landseer, that wasn’t a political reference so much as a quality assurance warning about the Mail. Yes, all papers have agendas & of course I prefer the more libertarian & left wing ones being a card carrying member of the Labour Party. But everyone has an agenda, look at the Torygraph…but unlike the Mail it has decent journalists who could explain their positions. I didn’t, & am not, saying these things didn’t happen. And I’m not sitting here typing in my hijab either. Please understand that all I’ve asserted is that your reading od issues of Islamisation here is not that of most educated Brits. There are less doom laden explanations than the one you tout. I know you say you just gave sources but they do not speak for themselves without a British context to interpret them in.

  158. Patriciamc wrote:

    But what about all its Kardashian news???

    🙂 I find their obsession hilarious.
    They have run some shocking stuff though, a few months ago they ran an article about how awful it was that hard working British tourists were having their holidays ruined by ‘having to look at’ refugees who’d fled & come ashore there. How awful it was to sit in a restaurant & have your meal ruined by breastfeeding refugee Mums sheltering outside who looked at them beseechingly. Even their own comments section went wild, & it was re-edited within hours to give an entirely different perspective on these ‘selfish’ British tourists…

  159. Christiane wrote:

    I looked at what Doug Wilson had to say about a fourteen-year old girl,
    and I thought ‘there it is, he doesn’t understand that in our nation, a fourteen-year old girl is considered a CHILD, and even if she were to consent or encourage a sexual encounter, our law calls this what it is: RAPE OF A CHILD

    I feel sorry for these men who so despise women, but then I think, perhaps they are so insecure in their ‘manhood’ that they cannot abide for women to be strong and honorable and capable human persons. For me, this says that ‘patriarchy’ is an institution that harms men also, and panders to their insecurities. God have mercy on all of us.

    Since Patriarchy relies on keeping women as dependent dumb little children yet sexually available on the Man’s demand, I’d expect some sort of pedo angle.

  160. Beakerj wrote:

    Noooooooo.What on earth does he think of men who get raped by other men?

    Since they’re The Penetrated, see one Fred Phelps.

  161. Jack wrote:

    When change occurs that contravenes or even invalidates what we believe we know of the divine then the reaction is to cling even more ferociously to those beliefs. And when you have a perceived mandate from heaven then nothing is off the table.

    Reaction to Future Shock.

    Into the Void, boy…
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fLXH50hA1Y

  162. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Der Speigel IS closer to the action than any other source cited

    Yup, & I think those events need to be thoroughly investigated, dealt with judicially, & the laws of the land made clear to anyone who is expecting to be welcomes as a refugee or immigrant.

  163. @ Beakerj:
    Hmm. (Not to mention LOL, though i feel bad for him, if he actually believes this and it’s not an elaborate spoof of some kind.)

  164. I was driving home today and there was a car wreck. There were two cops out in the middle of the road. One was a woman cop. 🙂

    Every time I see women cops now, I think of John Piper and the foolishness that is gender complementarianism.

    I saw another lady cop a few months ago- she and another cop (a guy) were directing traffic. I think the woman cop I saw today was different – she was shorter and had dark hair, the other lady cop was a bit taller and had blond-ish hair.

    I just find it amusing to come across women in real life who are doing or living careers and lives that the Pipers of the world say they should not be.

  165. @ Daisy:
    Yep! There’s a female cop in Oak Grove, KY – Oak Grove buttresses Ft. Campbell. This female cop drives the unmarked Camero! I’ve seen her in action. She nailed a man who passed me and the car in front of me on a dangerous curve! We just happened to be meeting the Camero on that curve. She did a screeching u-turn, caught him, and wrote him up. She handles that Camero like a pro!

  166. @ Daisy:
    Hehehe. Y’know, every now and then I think about how the way I live my life would antagonise patriarchs, and smile. If you ever need to feel better about yourself for a bit I guess you could do the same! 😛

  167. @ Daisy:
    There is a fantastic documentary on Netflix about the history of patriotic women who served our country in all its wars.

  168. Beakerj wrote:

    They have run some shocking stuff though,

    Lately, they’re also obsessed with gross stories. How many stories can a publication run about bugs being pulled out of people’s ears? Ick! The DM icon disappeared when I got rid of the cookies on my iPad, so I haven’t read the DM in several days, very peaceful days too. No bugs have been in my ears either.

  169. Woman faces jail time for not doing her housework
    wtnh.com/2016/02/10/woman-faces-jail-time-for-not-doing-her-housework/

    “SONNINO, Italy (WTNH)– An Italian woman is facing up to six years in prison after her husband accused her of not doing enough housework.”

  170. @ Beakerj:
    The Daily Mail says it. I believe it. That settles it.

    Some of the comments on the article were better than the article itself!

  171. @ Daisy:
    Well Daisy, if she gets sent down for 6 years, who is going to have to do all of the housework for that time? …

  172. Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:

    Christiane wrote:

    I feel sorry for these men who so despise women

    You mean a man who so despises children? I mean he is a blatant misogynist, but when it comes to 14 year old girls…that’s about hating children.

    Remember this was the same Douggie with the pet pedo Court Favorite.

    Maybe he drops the Age of Consent below 14 so she’s not REALLY a child?

    Some types of X-Treme Islam drop it to 9, citing Mohammed’s second marriage as precedent — “IT IS WRITTEN!” (Though others have cited Islamic scholars as saying that in the tribal culture of the time, 9 was the age at the time the marriage was ARRANGED and the actual marriage waited until she came of age.)

  173. you know, these men who look down on women as weak need to understand that there comes a time in a marriage when it may be the WIFE who lifts and carries and bathes her husband who is now disabled from a stroke or a terminal illness . . . it is not uncommon that in the ‘sickness’ part of a marriage, a husband may depend on the physical strength of his wife who takes on the role of caretaker. . .

    I think some of these men who look down on their wives now may someday live to have to look up at them . . . what goes round comes round and smugness and hubris can sometimes be dealt a healing blow by the humiliation of needing the strength of a person once viewed as ‘unable’ to cope. God teaches us in our foolishness . . . the smug arrive at old age and are given lessons in humility that they never saw coming . . . this may be a part of God’s plan for healing their pride and giving them a new perspective.

  174. Christiane wrote:

    you know, these men who look down on women as weak need to understand that there comes a time in a marriage when it may be the WIFE who lifts and carries and bathes her husband who is now disabled from a stroke or a terminal illness . . . it is not uncommon that in the ‘sickness’ part of a marriage, a husband may depend on the physical strength of his wife who takes on the role of caretaker. . .
    I think some of these men who look down on their wives now may someday live to have to look up at them

    I’ve seen this happen with some of my own family members. My grandmother had to care for my grandmother when he became very weak and feeble.

    I think this blog may have covered a story (I forget where I read this), where the husband was injured serving in the military overseas. He is now brain damaged, in a wheelchair.

    So, his wife had to take over all his pre-injury roles and duties.

    Still, some gender complementarian, (maybe John Piper, I can’t recall who), still pointed to this couple as a model of “male headship” even though for all purposes, the wife was fulfilling the role of the “male head” as comps define it.

  175. Daisy wrote:

    My grandmother had to care for my grandmother when he became very weak and feeble.

    I meant my grandfather.

    My grandmother had to care for my grandfather when he got very old and sick and was bed-ridden

  176. Ken wrote:

    Well Daisy, if she gets sent down for 6 years, who is going to have to do all of the housework for that time? …

    The problem as I see it is that some men seem to feel that a woman is to be the house-cleaner.

    This is how American gender comps visualize women: to only be Stay at home wives /moms who bake cookies all day, and clean dirty laundry.

    There’s nothing preventing men from getting off their butts and doing housework, except for Laziness and/or sexism.

  177. @ Daisy:
    Exactly. And oh good grief, some of the comments under that article. Looks like neanderthals still walk the earth, huh?

  178. Daisy wrote:

    This is how American gender comps visualize women: to only be Stay at home wives /moms who bake cookies all day, and clean dirty laundry.

    Some facts about today’s fathers here:

    http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/06/18/5-facts-about-todays-fathers/

    I found this one particularly interesting:

    Dads’ and moms’ roles are converging. As the share of dual-income households has risen, the roles of mothers and fathers have begun to converge.

  179. Daisy wrote:

    There’s nothing preventing men from getting off their butts and doing housework, except for Laziness and/or sexism.

    If both husband and wife work or if there is a stay at home mom (or dad) with small children, then yes. Both spouses need to help with the rest of the duties. If husband (or wife) works, kids are grown, the other spouse is home, then the spouse at home should keep the home up, etc. They should not expect the working spouse to come home and do laundry and cleaning. There are, of course exceptions, like a spouse home do to serious illness. There are no fast and hard rules and everything isn’t always 50/50. I have found it to be more like 100/100 – both give their all.

  180. Daisy wrote:

    By the way, if I am being mugged on the street, and an atheist, Hindu, or Muslim guy (all of whom Wilson would likely dub “ungodly” men) wants to come to my rescue, I would not turn my nose up at him / them.

    Well said. I believe exactly the same thing.

  181. Husbands, Submit to Your Wives
    http://www.missioalliance.org/husbands-submit-to-your-wives/

    Snippet:
    —-
    …In Paul’s letter to the Ephesians, Paul writes about a life that is utterly characterized by the Spirit. In 5:21, Paul urges all Christians to “submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.”

    Note that it does not say some Christians submit to some Christians. In other words, Spirit-filled and Spirit-led Christians are impelled and propelled to submit to one another out of their love for Christ.

    …Furthermore, when Paul urges all Christians to submit to one another, how is it possible for there to be a more powerful or privileged party in view (Not to mention Galatians 3:28)? Could it be that husbands, too, should submit to their wives out of love and sacrifice?
    —————
    Although, regarding this part of the page:

    The fall turned the woman to seek dominance over the man, and the fall turned the man to seek dominance over the woman.

    I disagree with this part of the page.

    God said that the man would rule over the woman – and the woman would actually desire this in a way.

    Women have been looking to men to play God for them for ages now; women look to a husband to provide stability, financial security and protection, and some even look to a husband to provide a sense of identity or purpose.

    Unfortunately, a lot of men exploit this tendency of women to be dependent on them to treat women like dirt and treat them like slaves.