What Is the Problem With Doug Wilson?

Dedicated to Doug Wilson:

“To love at all is to be vulnerable. Love anything and your heart will be wrung and possibly broken. If you want to make sure of keeping it intact you must give it to no one, not even an animal. Wrap it carefully round with hobbies and little luxuries; avoid all entanglements. Lock it up safe in the casket or coffin of your selfishness. But in that casket, safe, dark, motionless, airless, it will change. It will not be broken; it will become unbreakable, impenetrable, irredeemable. To love is to be vulnerable.” ― C.S. Lewis, The Four Loves link

“What embitters the world is not excess of criticism, but an absence of self-criticism.” – Sidelights on New London and Newer New York link

http://www.publicdomainpictures.net/view-image.php?image=43722&picture=funny-face
link

I have always admired people who are great writers. If you have read this blog for awhile, you know the next question to ask. "What does Dee mean by a "great writer?' A great writer is not one who is bogged down in peculiar meanings of words and correct sentence structure. Great writers are those who communicate their ideas in such a way that those who read their words understand exactly what they are saying. 

The Deebs care about victims of abuse. We also keep our eyes on churches and church methods that we believe can lead to abusive behavior on the part of church leadership. It brings the two of us great joy when someone writes and says "That's exactly what happened to me and I felt the same way. I thought I was the only one." We want to convey that those who have been hurt are not only not alone but are also believed and cared about.

Imagine our dismay if those who visited out blog thought our writings reflected that we don't care about those who have been abused. Even worse, can you surmise what we would feel if someone who visited our blog thought we were beating up on the abused? It would break our hearts.  If that were to occur, we would do our best to rethink how we are communicating and go our of our way to apologize. We have had to apologize on a number of occasions when our words hurt someone in a way that we did not intend.

Doug Wilson and the propriety of rape debacle.

Here is the quote that started this current dustup. Here, Doug Wilson is quoting himself in a post called Rachel Held Evans and the Anvil.

And of course, I say (and think) nothing of the kind. The wispy support for this allegation is said to be found on page 13 of Her Hand in Marriage, where I said this:

“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.”

Rachel Held Evans had this to say about that quote.

Screen Shot 2016-02-12 at 2.38.49 PM

Wilson is incensed that Evans would think that he meant such a thing. In that same post he said:

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.

No problem, right? Except, if one read the large number of tweets and comments surrounding the words *propriety of rape* one would assume that many people believed that Doug was saying exactly what RHE though he said and that includes me. However, Doug makes the claim that all who didn't understand his intent *can't read.* 

The vast anti-Reformed wing conspiracy.

Wilson then changes direction in the post and goes after Nate Sparks and his open letter to The Gospel Coalition which we republished at TWW. Note how Wilson cloaks himself with Piper, Candler, CJ Mahaney(!), etc. See, he's merely one of the good guys, unlike the rest of us who do not understand what he (and the rest of his dudebros) are saying.

In this post, he calls upon the members of the Gospel Coalition to form a circular firing squad, and methodically take care of one another, one by one.

In this post of his, an array of men associated with The Gospel Coalition are accused of a long list of dirty deeds. The list includes John Piper, Matt Chandler, Al Mohler, Voddie Baucham, CJ Mahaney, Denny Burk, and of course, me.

Doug Wilson admits that he has been told he is a *bit too exuberant* by his own BFFs. However, he doesn't seem to take them too seriously.

In our corner of the Reformed interwebs, one of the points that has been made more than once is that I draw the animus of the egalitarian intoleristas because of the exuberance of my writing. If I would only tone it down, it would become evident that complementarians are thoughtful, engaging people, and that they do not use flamethrowers in debate. But please note. I have been making the point repeatedly that the thing that makes us the enemy is any kind of principled resistance to the sexual revolution.

The difficulty in understanding Wilson

In this instance, he seems to be saying that a woman is at risk for rape if she refuses some sort of protection from a male. What exactly does he mean? Is he talking about walking you to your car in a parking garage in the city or does he want you to be a stay at home daughter like Geoff Botkin and his girls?

As a public health nurse, I traveled on the Navajo Indian Reservation by myself and also worked in some tough areas in a couple of cities up north. I learned how to protect myself and when to call for help. Does this mean that I am tacitly agreeing to the propriety of rape and engaging in the sexual revolution?

Missionary women have long put themselves into harm's way to serve others. Elisabeth Elliot, for example, ventured into and served in the same native tribal group that murdered her husband, Jim. Was she agreeing to the propriety of rape? Was Elliot's service to the Quechua Indians caving into the sexual revolution? 

Doug Wilson believes that the opposition is concerned that he is getting in their way.

Does Wilson actually believe that anyone who disagrees with him is concerned that he is making things harder for them? Is he making this into some sort of war? Here is Wilson's problem. We do not agree with Rachel Held Evans on a number of things. We are not in her camp and we are not engaged in some sort of war with Doug. Our goal is simply to tell people what men like Doug Wilson believe and let them make up their own minds.

What matters to them is simply this — are you effectively in the way? If you are in the way, they will try to take you out of the way, by whatever means necessary.

You know he is getting rattled when he uses the the word slander and invokes the name of CJ Mahaney.

A couple of years ago, I wrote a post that I believe helps all of us to wrap our heads around words like slander: Slander or an Inconvenient Truth?. Here is where I am getting to the heart of my critique of Doug Wilson. I explored Bible verses and ended with this summary of slander based on the Bible.

It is vital to the discussion to understand that slander is an act of making a false statement in order to damage another's reputation, etc. It is a big fat lie, and the person making it knows it, just as Satan knows it.

Here is what Wilson says about slanderous accusations. If I were him, I would not put myself in the same camp as Mahaney but birds of a feather…perhaps?

Second, I would say this to those who love and admire the men on that list. You may be more thoroughly acquainted with some more than others, but here is the takeaway lesson. When you read slanderous accusations against someone whose ministry you know, this should help inform how you weigh that same source when they make accusations against someone you don’t know. The post in question, if you find it, contains a farrago of slanderous nonsense directed against me. Check what you don’t know against what you do. I know how these people treat evidence when it comes to situations I know about, and so that helps us understand what is likely happening when CJ Mahaney gets “the treatment.”

Dear readers: you are the problem since you misunderstand his obviously clear and talented treatises.

It could appear that Doug Wilson believes that since he is such an effective communicator that we should know exactly what he is saying. Furthermore,  it appears that, when a number of readers believe he is saying something than different than what he claims he meant, the readers are slanderers. Here is the time for me to say BALONEY! No Doug, you are the one who is not clear and it is not our fault.

It appears that only Doug Wilson doesn't get Doug Wilson.

I wish I had taken a screen shot of a tweet which I believe was written by Governor Pappy. He said something to the effect that "Only Doug Wilson doesn't get Doug Wilson." That struck a cord with me and caused me to consider that this tweet was the best synopsis of the underlying problem that is Doug Wilson.

Doug Wilson is an unsual man.

I believe that Wilson thinks that most of us who do not agree with him are slanderers and are out to get him because he is *getting in our way.* Let me try to explain this in a way that some people hiding out in the kirk might understand. Doug Wilson is not a threat to the sexual revolution. Most people outside or Moscow, Idaho, certain homeschool cliques, and The Gospel™Coalition know nothing about him.

Wilson is a bot of a character. He appears to fancy himself an Oxford Don. He set up a church, which he calls a kirk, that he fashions after the church of Scotland in Moscow, Idaho. His web address is http://www.christkirk.com

The Kirk is an informal name for the Church of Scotland, the country's national church. The Kirk of Scotland was in official use as the name of the Church of Scotland until the 17th century, and still today the term is frequently used in the press and everyday speech, though seldom in the Church's own literature. However, Kirk Session is still the standard term in church law for the court of elders in the local congregation, both in the Church of Scotland and in any of the other Scottish Presbyterian denominations.

It was observed by a commenter from Moscow that a number of Wilson's students in his college called New St Andrews (of course) are often seen wandering around Moscow wearing bowler hats, black robes, and sporting canes apparently channeling their leader's Oxford don obsession. Do you all remember Doug Phillips who also used to play dress up? Remember the *Indiana Jones in the Amazon* get up? Remember all Mahaney's followers who shaved their heads in solidarity. (We called them mini-Mahaneys.)

The bowler hat, also known as a bob hat, derby (US), billycock or bombín,[1] is a hard felt hat with a rounded crown originally created in 1849 for the British soldier and politician Edward Coke, the younger brother of the 2nd Earl of Leicester. The bowler hat was popular with the working class during the Victorian era, and later on with the middle and upper classes in the United Kingdom and the eastern United States.[2] Later in the United Kingdom, it would come to be worn as civilian work dress by former officers of the Queen’s Guard.[3] In Bolivia, women of Quechua people have worn bowler hats since the 1920s when British railway workers introduced them there.

Here are a list of issues that Doug Wilson has had to deal with. He appears to get frustrated when people do not see things his way and spends lots of time claiming that we can't read.

Over the past few years we have seen a number of people express concerns over Wilson's views on various issues. His views on slavery are particularly concerning. Tim Fall wrote a post on this today. (Doug-Tim Fall is a judge and most certainly can read.) TWW has received a number of emails from academicians who are also disturbed by his views. One seminary professor told me that Doug Wilson does not represent thoughtful Reformed thinking.

Why in the world does Doug Wilson bother with his blog?

Wilson has a serious problem. Outside of his church, his schools and the admiring leaders and followers of The Gospel™ Coalition, Wilson's thoughts are routinely found to be offensive. If, for a moment, I take him at his word and that he "doesn't mean what we think he means," then why doesn't he apologize and try to make some changes in how he communicates? Instead he comes off as some smarmy Oxford don pretender, attempting to pass himself off as the latest version of CS Lewis and GK Chesterton. However, he does not have the wit, the genius or the vulnerability that both of these men possessed. Instead he comes off as mean and arrogant.

Does Doug want to get his ideas heard in the evangelical marketplace or does he just want to miff people off? Is he willing to accept those who disagree with him as brothers and sisters in Christ? Does he want to share the love of Christ or is he in this just for the notoriety? Does he really like calling people names? Does he think this is how Jesus would treat people? Does he know how to turn the other cheek?

Let me leave you with this following Doug Wilson quote and a thought. Is it any wonder that people like myself find it hard to see the love of Jesus in Doug's words? Does he really think he will change anyone's thoughts with this sort of approach.?

Screen Shot 2016-02-12 at 2.51.14 PM

Doug: You ain't some paragon of rugged handsomeness. People who live in glass houses should not throw insults at others. Your house is liable to come crashing down all around you. Instead, try loving those who you believe are persecuting you. Also, if you have to write two posts to explain one sentence, you have failed to get your point across and that is your fault; not the fault of those who read you. Finally, try emphasizing love a bit more. I think this is the root of your problems. (2/13) Remember what CS Lewis said:

“There are no ordinary people. You have never talked to a mere mortal. Nations, cultures, arts, civilizations – these are mortal, and their life is to ours as the life of a gnat. But it is immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub and exploit – immortal horrors or everlasting splendors. This does not mean that we are to be perpetually solemn. We must play. But our merriment must be of that kind (and it is, in fact, the merriest kind) which exists between people who have, from the outset, taken each other seriously – no flippancy, no superiority, no presumption.” CS Lewis: Weight of Glory 

Comments

What Is the Problem With Doug Wilson? — 539 Comments

  1. Thanks for the shout out, Dee. I don’t know that my position qualifies me for much on the interwebz but it is true that basic reading skills are a minimum requirement. 😉

  2. It was observed by a commenter from Moscow that a number of Wilson’s students in his college called New St Andrews (of course) are often seen wandering around Moscow wearing bowler hats, black robes, and sporting canes apparently channeling their leader’s Oxford don obsession. Do you all remember Doug Phillips who also used to play dress up?

    Cosplay. I wonder if Wilson’s existence is one big cosplay?

  3. @ Nate Sparks:
    I read your post, and I completely agree. “Tacitly” and “propriety” aren’t difficult to understand and have very specific meanings. We aren’t misunderstanding what he said. He’s just back peddling.

  4. Really quickly here are a couple of articles I wrote.

    The first one asks if evangelicals are changing their minds about filing lawsuits. I wrote a little bit about Gospel for Asia lawsuit.

    https://wonderingeagle.wordpress.com/2016/02/11/someone-needs-to-sue-these-bastards-are-evangelical-christians-reaching-a-tipping-point-when-it-comes-to-lawsuits-and-legal-action/

    The next article deals with an article at The Gospel Coalition calling people to serve their pastor. I ask the question if Neo-Calvinists are coddling their pastors.

    https://wonderingeagle.wordpress.com/2016/02/13/the-gospel-coalition-on-how-people-are-to-care-for-their-pastor-are-neo-calvinist-pastors-coddled-too-much-my-unique-push-back/#more-4972

  5. I know that we will always have unbalanced people among us who are attracted to loons like Doug Wilson. But it seems that there are so many folks attracted to weirdos like Wilson and Mahaney and Driscoll and Morris and Piper and …

    That speaks to a deeper issue. The American church is so unhealthy that people are eating this garbage and think it’s a gourmet meal. Instead of growing healthier and stronger, they sicken even more. So sad.

  6. “… a number of Wilson’s students in his college called New St Andrews (of course) are often seen wandering around Moscow wearing bowler hats, black robes, and sporting canes apparently channeling their leader’s Oxford don obsession.”

    Disturbing to think this man has followers … who will someday be called “pastors.”

  7. There is so little logic in what he says it’s hard to even respond. In DW’s world it seems that men are not much better than a pet tiger who may do anything and are not culpable for their actions. Meanwhile it is up to the women to tame them by respecting and submitting to their base animalistic natures. So…women are by default the more civilized gender? After all, we care about fiber intake and making sure there is enough hot water for everyone. It is always the woman who must change; there is no call for maturity for men.

  8. My philosophy professor at Carleton taught us about when we find our argument backed into a corner that we have two options:

    1) Change the subject (often times, this is too awkward to work)
    2) Draw a distinction

    See any distinction drawing? Ha.

    You would think the big wigs of Neo-Cal would be embarrassed by the positions this character projects. You would think…

  9. I was always taught that when an argument ceases to be about the topic and switches to personal attacks (you can’t read, you can’t understand, etc.) Then the argument is lost and the topic should not be assumed to be true. No one would take C.S. Lewis seriously if people kept on misunderstanding him and his answer was that they can’t read. Then again, C.S. Lewis’ education was the finely honed art of academic argument. The kind where sources are cited and plagarism is a cardinal sin that is fatal to one’s credibility and career. He should be glad that he’s in the one business where he can get away with such things and still have a following.

  10. BeenThereDoneThat wrote:

    I read your post, and I completely agree. “Tacitly” and “propriety” aren’t difficult to understand and have very specific meanings. We aren’t misunderstanding what he said. He’s just back peddling.

    Agreed. Much to the detriment of DW and his ilk, the majority have access to an education. Not only are we literate, we have dictionaries and thesauruses and we know how to use them.

    {But women who genuinely insist on ‘no masculine protection’ are really women who tacitly agree on the propriety of rape.} = {But women who genuinely insist on ‘no masculine protection’ are really women who implicitly agree on the respectability of rape.}
    Now, if DW would just abandon trying to imitate a Scottish Kirk and go for Buddist Monastery ………..

  11. Dear Dee and Deb,

    Shouldn’t this post be entitled “What isn’t the problem with Doug Wilson?” Just a grammatical fix, lol (seriously, can the guy do anything right? He’s a walking train wreck). Hope you guys are well!

  12. Somewhat of an aside: I recently finished reading and discussing The Four Loves with a handful of friends. I recommend it.

  13. Look, Wilson is always backpedaling when he deems people can’t read properly. Remember when he said Jamin Wight’s consequences for being a sexual abuser and rapist should be “measured and limited?” Then when folks called him out on it, saying he wrote that letter to the judge so the law would go easy on Wight – you know, so he wouldn’t have to suffer the consequences of his immoral and criminal behavior – Doug Wilson denied that’s what he meant. And he wrote a lengthy post at his blog explaining how others misread him. He has a persecution complex and a communication problem – among other things.

  14. All pseudo intellectuals like DW deem themselves more important and intellectual than they are. It is an ego issue .

  15. “small breasted biddies”

    Wow Doug…that’s so Junior High. I guess only largely endowed women can know the true meaning of submission and your glorious Kirk.

    What a bunch of meaningless phrases he throws together to try and sound learned and scholarly.

  16. Doug Wilson wrote:

    I have been making the point repeatedly that the thing that makes us the enemy is any kind of principled resistance to the sexual revolution.

    This comes a few sentence after he refers to “egalitarian intoleristas,” to which I presume he means Christian gender egalitarians. It appears he feels that Christian egalitarians accept the so-called “sexual revolution.”

    By “sexual revolution,” I take it to mean he refers to secular, American, left wing feminists of the 1960s and beyond? If so, Wilson appears to be equating secular, left wing feminists with Christian gender egalitarians, which is a mischaracterization of both groups.

    Christian egalitarians and secular, left wing feminists do not agree on everything. Christian gender egal. is not the same thing as secular, left wing feminists. It is dishonest of him to equate the two.

  17. Different things strike me about this post about Wilson that I don’t know if I can fit it all into one post.

    One thing that strikes me about Wilson is that I think he lives in a bubble surrounded by people who think exactly like he does, or who agree with him on most issues.

    If he would get out of his Reformed, thinking- sexism- is- biblical, etc, bubble, and get to really know people who aren’t Reformed, he might start to view them more charitably.

    Since my own brush with doubt, I’ve been knocked out of the evangelical Bubble I was in for many years, and for the first time, I see that some of the points that Christian critics make about the church or the faith have some real merit.

    I’m also struck by how Wilson so readily makes caricatures out of so many different groups of people.

    Just looking at how Wilson routinely refers to feminists (especially secular ones), it’s like he’s going with the standard, cliched, bra-burning, doesn’t- shave- her- arm pits, hates- all- men feminist, who maybe only registers as Democrat.

    In my life, yes, I’ve seen some segments of feminists who are like that, but certainly not all.

    I sometimes visit blogs and sites by people whose political, religious, etc. views are the polar opposites of mine to just lurk.

    I have some friends whose views are totally opposite of mine. You come to find out that not all of the people are like the caricature you may have previously associated with them before.

    I do agree with the Original Post that when a person claims to be misunderstood as Wilson is or has, the problem is not with his readership (as he often claims), but with his writing.

    If so many people regularly take offense at your words, and you find yourself always saying, “I’m being misunderstood” and writing these new posts clarifying what you meant in the previous one, the problem is probably with you or your writing.

    I have wondered before if Wilson enjoys all this, if he intentionally words his views in such a way knowing dang well how they will come across to other people.

    Then Wilson can sit back and watch the fall out, as his blog or Twitter erupts in outrage at his latest offensive commentary. Then he tries to wiggle out of it all at a later date by writing a follow-up post claiming the disgruntled readers didn’t read his post closely enough.

    In such a post, Wilson then may be likely to play the persecuted victim who everyone is out to get. Maybe he thinks all these antics will drive his blog hits up; maybe he’s after higher readership numbers.

    I normally do not visit Wilson’s blog and usually only hear about his latest obnoxious remarks on blogs like this one or on social media.

    Part of me does suspect Wilson enjoys riling people up and that he goes out of his way to do so.

    I really wish Wilson would own his odious, objectionable views and be straight up about them and state them plainly, rather than all the back-tracking or hiding his views behind indirect, flowery wording, or by trying to sound clever by way of obscure or genteel- sounding witticisms.

    I don’t know if this amounts to anything, but as Wilson seems to doubt the intellect of anyone who disagrees with him:

    I am college educated, and I earned straight A’s in most classes I took; I earned a “B” in one or two classes. I don’t care to say what my major was or what career I went in to. My point is, my reading comprehension is usually just fine. 🙂

    This may also be relevant to Wilson(?), if he read this blog: I’m right of center on politics, theology, and many social issues. (I’m not a left wing, secular feminist, which seems to be one group he really dislikes.)

  18. Julie Anne Smith wrote:

    I predict a new blog post by DW against the Deebs trying to once again clarify himself. Nobody understands DW. Poor DW. Wah…Wah Cry me a river.

    Yeah, I agree with this.

    When Wilson gets a whiff of this blog post, I will pretty much expect him to write an insufferable, stuffy post about it (likely claiming victimhood and/or “I was misunderstood”).

    I’ll be very surprised if he ignores the whole thing and does not blog about it.

    It will only remain to be seen if he drags gender into the equation, making some kind of dig about how lady bloggers should shut up, or aren’t qualified to critique Christian men.

    Doug Wilson is what kids today call “thirsty” (desperate for attention, attention seeking).

  19. EricL.–

    You are so right. Every time I read horrible stuff about Doug Wilson it stabs me in the heart. Last year my daughter met online a guy from Scotland who followed Wilson and his writings. She married him and moved to Scotland. I begged them to say they would follow Jesus above Wilson–and they refused. She can’t even write me an email now without her husband reading it and signing off on it. “Sad” really describes it.

  20. A DW quote from Her Hand in Marriage, emphasis mine:
    “If a woman were responsible to submit to men in general, her life would be miserable – no one can serve two masters. But a woman who is responsive to a godly man is protected from having to submit to other men,”

    I know I’m going off subject here, but stop the truck! “No one can serve two masters” …….. Can a woman only have a male human master? Does submitting to “men in general” (dozens, maybe hundreds of men?) only count as two masters? How is serving/submitting to the master-husband and to God not serving two masters? Can’t women serve God? Does God not allow us to serve Him? Are women such low level humans with such inferior souls that God wants to keep men as a buffer between us? Do we have to have male supervisors? If women are to submit to men and not God, then does God hear our prayers? Where does that leave single women, widows, and young girls who’ve lost their fathers?
    I’ve had these questions for a long time about the comp/patriarchy “woman submit” doctrine. What I have thrown these questions in the faces of those who support the doctrine, I’ve never gotten a straight answer!

  21. @ Nancy2:

    I second everything you said in your post, and I have the same questions about those comments as you do.

    Wilson’s quote:

    But a woman who is responsive to a godly man is protected from having to submit to other men,”

    I know what the word “responsive” means, but goodness only knows what Wilson think it means, or what (if anything) he is implying with that word choice.

    Even if you buy into Wilson’s premise that a woman should, in her best interest, “be responsive to” (he probably means or is implying there, “be submissive / subservient to”) a man (her husband, if she has one), how would her doing so “protect her” from “having to submit to other men”? I don’t see that it would.

    Because, for one thing, there are in fact other flavors of patriarchy and complementarianism which teach that all women should submit to all men in all areas of life, even secular, outside of the church, life.

    There are some pats/ comps who think all women should submit to all men in general, not just to a spouse.

    Is Wilson living in some kind of romantic fairy tale novel of life and marriage where if a man insists a women submit to him, Wilson thinks that woman’s husband (assuming she has one) will then challenge that interloper to a gentlemanly duel to settle matters?

    A woman with healthy, normal self esteem and boundaries would not take mistreatment off any man, as she would stand up for herself.

    Then, of course, as you noted, some women lack men in their lives – there are women who are single, divorced, or widowed, and/or their fathers is absent.

    Wilson and his ilk seem woefully ignorant or unwilling to concede that not all women today fit into their little idyllic, 19th century version of life or circumstances.

  22. Max wrote:

    Disturbing to think this man has followers … who will someday be called “pastors.”

    Until he pulls a Jonestown or Heaven’s Gate…

  23. “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.”

    We can’t read? OK, let’s have a look at the meaning of his words
    tacit: unspoken, without saying anything, from the Latin “taceo” – I keep silent
    to agree tacitly: to give your unspoken agreement
    propriety, from “proper”: right. A quick google defines propriety as “conformity to conventionally accepted standards of behaviour or morals.”

    So, in other words, Wilson is saying that women who do not want to submit to men to get their protection give their unspoken agreement to the idea that it is OK to rape and be raped.

    This is slightly different from what RHE wrote, but only slightly, and much closer to her interpretation than to what he now wants us to believe it says.

    The problem with Wilson is that he thinks that he is so much cleverer than anybody else, that he can say or write the most outrageous things and get away with it because by couching his opinions in Latinate words, outsiders will not understand what he really means, and if they do, he can always claim to be misunderstood or misinterpreted, because, obviously, his critics can’t read. He is not a bad communicator, but too clever for his own good, i.e., not clever at all.

    As I said on another thread a while ago, for Wilson everything seems to be a game, where it is all about winning against the other team, getting away with stuff because the other team is not as clever as you. Hence his fake Oxford don life, his fake Scottish presbyterian “kirk”, his fake university and his fake publishing house.

    So, my advice to Wilson is “Stop playing games!” and an admonition: “Si tacuisses philosophus mansisses.” SCNR

  24. Gus wrote:

    The problem with Wilson is that he thinks that he is so much cleverer than anybody else, that he can say or write the most outrageous things and get away with it because by couching his opinions in Latinate words, outsiders will not understand what he really means, and if they do, he can always claim to be misunderstood or misinterpreted, because, obviously, his critics can’t read. He is not a bad communicator, but too clever for his own good, i.e., not clever at all.

    Pretty much exactly what I was thinking. He says exactly what he means but writes it in a way that he can twist that meaning when he gets called out on it. It seems to me that he writes his outrageous blog posts for agreement from his fans, which he gets in the comment sections – but notice how he never corrects any of THEM if they express the same awful sentiments we detect in his posts? Never does he say something like “I appreciate the comment but that’s not the tone I was going for and that idea is in fact wrong.” Nope. Only when it’s being said in criticism does he pull “That’s not what I meeeeaaaant how could you think I’d say such an awful thing? YOU’RE the asshole!”

    (A childish rendition of his usual response I know, but that’s how I translate it in my head lol.)

  25. Ah, yes, I recently became familiar with The Malaprop Master and his \ˈbu̇-kish\ Gobbly Goop-ers when someone shared DW’s personal Word Up Bro’ min$trel, Kemper Crabb’s, In-THE-Know Sons of Thunder sittin-by-the-right-hand-sittin-by-the-left hand of Jesus rabbledabble dazzle. Hell-No and a snappy Goodbye from the other side.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBwURn8jN0o

  26. Sigh. So according to the Wilsonverse women are haplessly wandering around in a world made of predatory men & protective men who swirl about trying to get to their ‘prey’ or protect it, like a woman is a ball in a game of two teams? Perhaps there is a third team of ‘uninterested’ men, who are gay or whatever just making up numbers…
    And I just realised when I pass my Masters Degree I will be a Master. I’m assuming therefore I can submit to myself & my own loving leadership with no impropriety. Result.

  27. Two words: narcissistic supply. Wilson is a textbook narcissist, and he feeds on the attention he generates.
    It’s a big world out there. Narcissists want to make it smaller. It’s always all about them.
    I work at a college that has partnered with Q, which is sort of a Christian version of the TED talks (can you tell I am not enthusiastic about “Christian versions” of things??) It recently came to my attention that Doug Wilson is one of the speakers at Q’s big event out in Denver (I think its Denver).
    Do I contact Gabe Lyons, head of Q, to ask him why the blazes he’s giving DW a platform?
    Or do I keep an eye on that bigger world out there? People like Doug suck all the oxygen out of any room they enter and that includes the blogosphere. Do I want DW taking up room in my head?
    This is not a criticism of the Deebs for the post, BTW. It’s a question I’m wrestling with, and I appreciate being able to be part of this forum, however infrequently.

  28. P.S. And even his fake publishing house pulled his book because of the plagiarism.

  29. Nancy2 wrote:

    Now, if DW would just abandon trying to imitate a Scottish Kirk and go for Buddist Monastery ………..

    Or, even better, a Trappist monastery.

    Although, even if Wilson did take a vow of silence, he might still be able to blog. So, not much improvement.

  30. It is all of these Neo-Cals. The former students of mine who are now ‘ hardcore’ Calvinist ‘ pastors’ have no love in their hearts. They say they do, but the only love they have is for themselves…..

  31. I have to agree…. What does a women’s breast size have to do with anything he is talking about??? What??

    doubtful wrote:

    “small breasted biddies”
    Wow Doug…that’s so Junior High. I guess only largely endowed women can know the true meaning of submission and your glorious Kirk.
    What a bunch of meaningless phrases he throws together to try and sound learned and scholarly.

    doubtful wrote:

    “small breasted biddies”
    Wow Doug…that’s so Junior High. I guess only largely endowed women can know the true meaning of submission and your glorious Kirk.
    What a bunch of meaningless phrases he throws together to try and sound learned and scholarly.

  32. K.D. wrote:

    It is all of these Neo-Cals. The former students of mine who are now ‘ hardcore’ Calvinist ‘ pastors’ have no love in their hearts. They say they do, but the only love they have is for themselves…..

    Calvinism is a misrepresentation of God, whose very character is love. The predestination message – some saved, most damned before the foundation of the earth – takes the New Calvinist pastor off the hook to love people as they ought. As a non-Calvinist, I can go anywhere on planet earth and look any man in the eye and say “God loves YOU. Jesus died for YOU.” A Calvinist cannot say that and be true to his theology. What love is this?!

  33. While on the theological and doctrine spectrum I fall closer to DW than many here, I recognize the absurdity of not caring if ones words are clear to ones hearers/readers. As a pastor I have had the displeasure of saying something true, but saying it in a confusing way. And in follow up I come to realize that there was a better way to explicitly state the point in such a way as to leave listeners without confusion.

    A recent hobby of mine(not by choice but circumstance) is engaging with KJV Onlysists. Doug Wilson’s defense of his confusing appropriation of confusing terminology is “oddly” familiar. KJVO will often defend the confusing phrasing that parts of the KJV will use by arguing you just need to be taught how to really understand, the fault is with YOU for not understanding archaic English word usages from 400 years ago. They refuse to acknowledge that there is great God honoring value in having the text presented in a way to clearly mean what it is meant to mean to a contemporary reader(some going as far as claiming foreign language speakers HAVE to learn English to REALLY hear the ACTUAL Word of God.

    Insanity…

    In the same way, Doug’s insistence that the fault of misunderstanding lies at the feet of the hearer, is frustratingly absurd. As someone who recognizes that my job is dependant upon my ability to actually communicate in such a way as to give clarity, I could never imagine proudly using language that could confuse those who are less “educated” than myself. Even while preaching, if I use a word, or phrase, that I recognize as being a bit abnormal(for the average person, or use a very “christianese” statement, I always clarify alongside of the statement the clear meaning of what it is I am saying. For example, I recently used the phrase “Justification and Sanctification”, if you were raised in the church, you probably know exactly what I mean, but knowing many listening were not, I quickly explain the meaning of what I am saying.

    I wish clever wordsmiths would do the same.

  34. Wilson has been doing this for years – writing something stupid and then trying to explain it away. But even ignoring Wilson’s grammatical gymnastics, the sentence makes no sense at all. The propriety of rape is in no logical way correlated one’s attitude toward being protected by another. Wilson often does this – writes outlandish and logically bankrupt little nothings and then pretends that he actually put thought behind his words.

    Now take it a step further. What about the thousands of men and boys who are abused every year? When one actually takes the time to think through Wilson’s rash words, what he is really agitating for is vae victus.

  35. Patty in Massachusetts wrote:

    It recently came to my attention that Doug Wilson is one of the speakers at Q’s big event out in Denver (I think its Denver).
    Do I contact Gabe Lyons, head of Q, to ask him why the blazes he’s giving DW a platform?

    “P.S. And even his fake publishing house pulled his book because of the plagiarism.”

    Plagiarism in itself should be enough to disqualify any conference speaker—Q or otherwise. IMO, if the organizers of Q want integrity and credence, this plagiarism issue as well as other direct quotes of Doug Wilson (with your cited sources) should be brought to their attention—along with your protest. I personally would attend any conference that gave him (or a few other “celebrities”) a podium. (But then I’m one of those “egalitarian intoleristas” who prefers substance over foul-mouthed, abusive rhetoric—“Christian” or not.)

  36. Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:

    The propriety of rape is in no logical way correlated one’s attitude toward being protected by another.

    That is what I tried to point out to a commentor on another thread. There is no logic to this statement to begin with.

  37. Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:

    When one actually takes the time to think through Wilson’s rash words, what he is really agitating for is vae victus.

    His other writings back this up. We can go back to “Black and Tan” as a starting point.

  38. Wilson works so hard to build up this shell of the Great Thinker, the Brilliant, Inspired Writer, the 21st Century C.S. Lewis. But it’s a thin, brittle shell. I’ve read some great writing and work with some brilliant people–and by comparison, Wilson comes across as a poseur and fraud. He’s not even a good writer, much less a great one.

  39. Adam Borsay wrote:

    I could never imagine proudly using language that could confuse those who are less “educated” than myself.

    The problem is, most of the people who are confused or upset with Wilson’s words are as educated or more educated than Wilson. Maybe Wilson needs to repeat a few grades or, better yet, humbly listen to critique so he can evaluate his position as a pastor. I just don’t think this will happen because he has surrounded himself with “yes” men and women who feed his self importance.

  40. Divorce Minister wrote:

    You would think the big wigs of Neo-Cal would be embarrassed by the positions this character projects.

    They tolerate a little embarrassment when they consider that Wilson-followers represent another market segment for their books, conferences, etc. They embraced potty-mouth Driscoll until he became a potato too hot to handle. Wilson will eventually mess up and be shunned by the NC who’s-who, but for now he is good for the movement. Personally, I think they all deserve each other.

  41. doubtful wrote:

    Wow Doug…that’s so Junior High. I guess only largely endowed women can know the true meaning of submission and your glorious Kirk.

    I wonder how he feels about breast enhancements so women can fit his ideal? Recently I read where Tony Romo had Jessica Simpson sign a prenup that she would never weigh over 130 pounds. They broke up shortly thereafter. Romo sounds like a man Wilson could respect.

  42. The irony is a feminist walking the streets of a big city is almost certainly in less danger of being raped than an adolescent girl in Wilson’s church under his patriarchal care. There’s a track history there, no?

    The one commonality between the big city feminist and the small town church-going girl is that if they are raped, Wilson will find a way to blame them for it.

  43. Daisy wrote:

    Doug Wilson is what kids today call “thirsty” (desperate for attention, attention seeking).

    Poor Doug is infected with a common Calvinist malady … chronic arrogance. This disease cripples him into thinking more highly of himself than he ought. Thus, he can’t control his tongue to belittle those who aren’t as smart as himself – the sickness has taken control of him. Yep, arrogance is a nasty ailment that always ends the same “Pride cometh before a fall.”

  44. Wilson is more vocal about his beliefs but he’s far from alone. The Evangelical churches that I have been to espouse these views to a varying degree. Usually it won’t be found in every service but hang around long enough and the mask will slip eventually. I did try to return to church but I was lucky & the complementarian view was in the promoted film on which the sermon series was based. Took it as a good sign that if there is a God then he (or she) is telling me this is not where I belong. As someone who vacillated for years between church or no church, I can finally say my Christian adventure is now over. I believe in equality for all & it’s just not there.

  45. @ Daisy:
    This is Wilson’s entire MO. He thinks only in extremes. In his mind, Christian egalitarians have bought into the sexual revolution, because complementarianism and patriarchy are the only biblically correct ways to operate in a relationship. There is absolutely no way anyone could glean egalitarianism from scripture because, according to Wilson, it’s JUST NOT IN THERE. AT ALL. So its only source has to be the sexual revolution and feminists who dare to fancy themselves equal to men. Where else would it have come from??

    And, of course, complementarianism is a gospel issue. If you’re not complementarian, your entire household is cursed.

    I don’t know if Wilson has ever gone as far as stating explicitly that egalitarians aren’t or can’t be Christians, but if not, it’s only a matter of time.

  46. I am not part of the Doug Wilson crowd and would not know him if he walked by me. The same is true of Ms. Evans. I know about them through what I have read here mainly.

    Frankly, I think they are opposite sides of the same coin. I am sure that they both have sincere faith feelings that motivates them to say what they say.

    But they both seem to see themselves as mini Martin Luthers. They are bringing true reform to a church that so badly needs it. Wilson’s style is counter-cultural. The more obscure and backward the church becomes, the better. Evan’s style seems to be capitulation to the culture. She trades on having been raised in the South in a sort of fundamentalist culture, and she is breaking free from that.

    There is always a ready made group for both of these type people. Lots of followers, attention (e.g. “You are so brave. You are a truth teller.” bla, bla, bla), and cash. Once a person embarks on either of these courses, it becomes their life long identity out of which they never move.

    Can you see either of these people just shutting up?

    Maybe Wilson could take a tiny pastorate in an obscure place (one would think Moscow, Idaho would have been good enough) and just do the simple work of pastoring people without all the noise, accolades and weirdness.

    Maybe Evans will stop worrying that a lot people see things in the Bible that she doesn’t see, and instead of lampooning them, often with overblown stereotyping, she will actually give herself to helping the poor. Maybe go to India or Africa and just work quietly with a relief agency.

    Nah. I don’t think either of them will ever do that. Or anything close.

    I thought Evans had a chance to save herself when she joined the Episcopal Church. But instead of throwing rocks at evangelicals from somewhere inside the camp, she is just throwing rocks from a new locale. I guess being an Episcopalian as a newcomer is like being homecoming queen at High School in Opp, Alabama, moving to Los Angeles to make it as a model, and finding out that your really 1 in a million. I suspect Evans’ views in the Episcopal Church seem rather mainstream and quaint. But I don’t ever expect her to start writing books poking fun of Episcopalians any time soon. The “I am a former evangelical who out grew all of it” is too good a gig to mess up.

    So, for me, the bottom line is that these two deserve each other.

    I am glad the Deebs wrote about this dust up.

    My thoughts are that it seems ridiculous to assert that Wilson intends to say that women who don’t follow his beliefs about gender relations deserve to be raped. I cannot think that any man in the Western World believes that. I would afford enough good will to any person to start with the premise that he does not believe that. I suspect that Wilson has written, “Of course, that is not what I believe.” I have said this before, and it did not start with me, but the most important thing in having a discussion or debate is to represent the other side’s viewpoint fairly. I don’t think that Evans’ tweet does that. Nor did she intend to do that. It does not fit her narrative. By showing how awful Wilson is, she also gets to bop Piper and TGC (her true targets, as even she would see Wilson as being so obscure that burning him alone would not be worth the effort).

    But it’s hard to be angry with Evans. Wilson gave her an opening with such a quote. I suspect that Wilson meant that women who do not follow his prescriptions with regard to gender relations are rejecting God’s protection, and thus are making the happening of awful things more likely.

    But that’s not what Wilson’s quote says. In fact, his quote is sloppy. The “propriety of rape”? I have never heard of such a phrase. Does he mean “likelihood” as in – a natural consequence, or does he mean “proper” – a good thing, as in deserved?

    Empirically, we can all see circumstances where people behave in such a way as to enhance the possibility of negative consequences. But those consequences are not deserved. And the people who are the cause of the bad act – i.e., the rapist, is in no way excused or is their culpability reduced. A woman may walk down the street nude, and men may lust. She should not have walked down the street that way. But the men should be men of integrity, regardless of how the woman behaved.

    And in this case, it is far more subtle because it’s not obvious to all that Wilson’s gender beliefs are proper to begin with.

    In summary – Wilson continues to do what he does. Say outrageous things (in this case compounded by a lack of clarity) to try and prove a point, which is often not worth trying to prove.

    And Evans continues to do what she does. Snap up stupid public statements made by people with whom she disagrees and hold them up in rebuke, but also for the greater purpose of rebuking the family, institutions, communities, friends, acquaintances, and passersby of people who know this person. The condemned statement becomes stretched to enable the condemnation of an entire people, a movement, a continent etc. All for another speaking fee!

  47. Max wrote:

    Poor Doug is infected with a common Calvinist malady … chronic arrogance. This disease cripples him into thinking more highly of himself than he ought. Thus, he can’t control his tongue to belittle those who aren’t as smart as himself…

    I work with people who have degrees from Harvard, Yale, Duke, I can’t swing a stick through the hallways without hitting three PhDs, I’ve collaborated on papers with people who have doctorates from Emory and Cornell. I’m not so smart, not the smartest person in my house, but I do know smart people, geniuses and the way they reason and write…and Doug Wilson is the epitome of the person who’s not clever enough to realize that he’s not clever.

  48. Law Prof wrote:

    The irony is a feminist walking the streets of a big city is almost certainly in less danger of being raped than an adolescent girl in Wilson’s church under his patriarchal care. There’s a track history there, no?

    Excellent point!

  49. Law Prof wrote:

    Max wrote:
    Doug Wilson is the epitome of the person who’s not clever enough to realize that he’s not clever.

    Dunning-Kruger Effect in action.

  50. preacher’s wife wrote:

    It is always the woman who must change; there is no call for maturity for men.

    Exactly! It really does have Islamic leanings. It’s not the men’s own lust that’s the problem, it’s that your skin is showing which means you deserve rape. And yet that culture is rampant with rape. If these rules actually worked, there should be no sexual misconduct in the “kirk.” How’s that working out for Doug?

  51. I believe that these Reformed patriarchy types are the world’s most hard core LARPers. That means live action role players. It might not be the 1800s anymore, but if they work hard enough, maybe it can be. The fact that some are dressing the part, shows how deep this delusion is going.

  52. My goodness. We all know that fools and idiots will always be among us, but it’s sobering to look at someone like Wilson and know that this person is not capable of change because of the sheer rot in their soul or because they have a mental issue. Many people with mental issues are still able to be held accountable for their actions, so I just hope I’m not anywhere nearby when Wilson receives God’s judgment.

    You know, he’s probably flattered that this blog is discussing him, even though Dee and Deb are women and shouldn’t criticize men since women aren’t created in God’s image and probably arose out of Hell. *snark, snark*

  53. republican mother wrote:

    I believe that these Reformed patriarchy types are the world’s most hard core LARPers. That means live action role players. It might not be the 1800s anymore, but if they work hard enough, maybe it can be. The fact that some are dressing the part, shows how deep this delusion is going.

    These are the ones who are particularly racist too.

  54. People, here’s the thing. DW is obviously a narcissist. He does these things on purpose to get a rise out of you. And it works. It is called negative narcissistic supply and you are giving it to him in spades. Any attention these narcs get is supply to them, negative or otherwise. He says these things on purpose to get you to write blog posts about him and comment on the posts. He does not deserve any of this attention. It feeds his ego. No need to parse the words he uses or the meanings behind them. He does it for supply. I would not give him the satisfaction. It is all a game to him and he is laughing and enjoying it immensely.

  55. TLaw Prof wrote:

    Max wrote:
    Poor Doug is infected with a common Calvinist malady … chronic arrogance. This disease cripples him into thinking more highly of himself than he ought. Thus, he can’t control his tongue to belittle those who aren’t as smart as himself…
    I work with people who have degrees from Harvard, Yale, Duke, I can’t swing a stick through the hallways without hitting three PhDs, I’ve collaborated on papers with people who have doctorates from Emory and Cornell. I’m not so smart, not the smartest person in my house, but I do know smart people, geniuses and the way they reason and write…and Doug Wilson is the epitome of the person who’s not clever enough to realize that he’s not clever.

    Believe you me, I’ve run into that teaching high school….At a suburban Houston high school I taught at, in my hall alone, two Ph.D.’s from Texas-Austin and the room behind me, the art teacher had a MFA from the Rhode Island School of Design…..heck one of the biology teachers was a retired veteranarian….scary smart folks….

  56. Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:

    Wilson has been doing this for years – writing something stupid and then trying to explain it away. But even ignoring Wilson’s grammatical gymnastics, the sentence makes no sense at all. The propriety of rape is in no logical way correlated one’s attitude toward being protected by another. Wilson often does this – writes outlandish and logically bankrupt little nothings and then pretends that he actually put thought behind his words.
    Now take it a step further. What about the thousands of men and boys who are abused every year? When one actually takes the time to think through Wilson’s rash words, what he is really agitating for is vae victus.

    Okay, what in the HECK is “vae victus”?

  57. If we are to use the issue of surrounding culture in the understanding of scripture we must also take a look at the issue of surrounding culture in other situations also, seeing that we have placed value in checking out surrounding culture.

    Does everybody know about the American Redoubt? Wilson is smack dab in the midst of it. Wiki has a good article on it. IMO this is an important aspect because some of the values that one can find in Redoubt thinking can be found in lots of places geographically and politically and apparently in religion.

    Since we can all read, no thanks to Wilson, I recommend this an area of investigation for interested persons.

  58. Jamie Carter wrote:

    I was always taught that when an argument ceases to be about the topic and switches to personal attacks (you can’t read, you can’t understand, etc.) then the argument is lost and the topic should not be assumed to be true.

    That’s the tactic he used when we pointed out his misogynistic name-calling.

  59. K.D. wrote:

    .At a suburban Houston high school I taught at, in my hall alone, two Ph.D.’s from Texas-Austin and the room behind me, the art teacher had a MFA from the Rhode Island School of Design…..heck one of the biology teachers was a retired veteranarian…

    Umm, yes. One take away from that is also that perhaps a PhD or DVM or JD even with a diploma edged in Boston Ivy is not a guarantee of a straight path to fame, success and cash money. They have some PhDs in the science department of the semi-hood small town high school that I personally have information about. Even a STEM doctorate may not be worth the debt it took to acquire it. The world is not what it used to be, and the race is not always to the swift.

  60. Patty in Massachusetts wrote:

    Two words: narcissistic supply. Wilson is a textbook narcissist, and he feeds on the attention he generates.

    Lydia wrote:

    @ Patty in Massachusetts: the absolute worst thing that could happen to him is if no one cared what bizarre thing he wrote or said. That would kill him.

    True. Substitute DW for DT on this link: http://bit.ly/1QdSIzp.
    At 2.25, “If you just say it with enough conviction and emotion, it’s truer than if it is factually correct, and that’s great politics, [substitute religion], because an audience just wants to be emotionally moved and ——– [Wilson] is great at moving an audience…” plus he’s got [the kirk, the school, the seminary, the publishing, that is, the dynasty he has built up yonder in little Moscow to bolster his global credibility…like the sheriff in yonder village who creates his own reality].

  61. Max wrote:

    Poor Doug is infected with a common Calvinist malady … chronic arrogance. This disease cripples him into thinking more highly of himself than he ought. Thus, he can’t control his tongue to belittle those who aren’t as smart as himself – the sickness has taken control of him. Yep, arrogance is a nasty ailment that always ends the same “Pride cometh before a fall.”

    Maybe part of his problem is– he thinks he’s an angel!
    This week Mr Wilson posted a short, seemingly innocuous exposition of Rev 1:20 “The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches.”
    https://dougwils.com/books/why-the-angels-speak.html
    But he makes a sizable assumption: “The seven stars that He held in His right hand were the seven “messengers,” or pastors of these churches.” Wilson is by no means the only one to teach this, but here he doesn’t explain the scholarship. So– lets see– 1:”angels” may also mean “messengers” 2: pastors are messengers too 3: therefore, voila! “angels” means pastors!
    Now a simpleton pew-sitter might imagine that “angels” means actual angels,with wings and flaming swords and such– especially seeing as they’re pictured as stars, which light the heavens, rather than some part of the candlesticks (churches) which light the earthly temple.
    The rest of Wilson’s article may now be rendered:
    ——-The sword in His mouth is His Word, which He gives to the successive pastors/angels in the upcoming passages.
    So this is how it works. Jesus speaks, and then He tells John to write what He has spoken. The implication is then that the angel/pastor of the church is in turn to speak what he has read. Jesus speaks, John writes, the angel/pastor reads, the angel/pastor speaks.——-
    Then there are those actual seven city churches of Asia Minor, which in his rendition would have had only one pastor each! What about the varying church ages or conditions they represent through the centuries– one pastor each? Oh well– the important thing to take away is– Just one real, God’s-messenger-style pastor in Moscow, and he’s positively angelic! Or not…

  62. dee wrote:

    Recently I read where Tony Romo had Jessica Simpson sign a prenup that she would never weigh over 130 pounds.

    A New Calvinist church membership covenant is sort of a prenup agreement. Not wise to sign either. I’m praying that the NC movement will soon become infested with a multitude of sassy women.

  63. The “propriety of rape” fiasco was a classic bait-and-switch – first Wilson makes a statement that clearly implies a value judgement, and then he tries to recast it purely in terms of cause-and-effect. From what I can tell, Wilson loves to make fiery, semi-obfuscated rhetoric and then draw a fine-grained philosophical distinction when called out on it, but I don’t think he was even able to pull that off in this case. And of course, his literate and enlightened posse are somehow never able to see through such tricks.

    As a former philosophy major, I perceive Doug Wilson to be nearly the epitome of the negative stereotype that ambitious and astute philosophy students resent and try to avoid. (Wilson holds a MA in Philosophy)

  64. Max wrote:

    Calvinism is a misrepresentation of God, whose very character is love. The predestination message – some saved, most damned before the foundation of the earth – takes the New Calvinist pastor off the hook to love people as they ought. As a non-Calvinist, I can go anywhere on planet earth and look any man in the eye and say “God loves YOU. Jesus died for YOU.” A Calvinist cannot say that and be true to his theology. What love is this?!

    Thanks. FINALLY, Calvinism explained and illustrated. Got it.

  65. BeenThereDoneThat wrote:

    Wilson’s students in his college called New St Andrews (of course) are often seen wandering around Moscow wearing bowler hats, black robes, and sporting canes apparently channeling their leader’s Oxford don obsession.

    At Oxford, bowler hats were traditionally worn by University constables, aka bulldogs, not by dons or students. Constables had powers to arrest, and the sight of a bowler caused students to stop throwing one another into fountains, spraying too much champagne after Finals, etc. Sadly the bulldogs were disbanded in 2003.

    Dispatch to Moscow, Idaho: Get your fawning devotion right. If you want your students to look like Oxonians, buy them some straw boaters (but only to be worn in Eights Week). Year round they can wear academic caps, with proper gowns.

  66. @ okrapod:

    Oh dear. I can see where this is going. If I affirm the 2nd Amendment being lumped in with this movement. Just one Google brought out the consistent label: gun enthusiasts. The problem is the criminals in my city don’t buy their guns in gun shops or get background checks.

  67. “What is the Problem With Doug Wilson?”

    NOTHING.
    All the rest of us are the ones with The Problem.
    Everybody’s out of step except Little Douggie.

  68. Max wrote:

    Calvinism is a misrepresentation of God, whose very character is love. The predestination message – some saved, most damned before the foundation of the earth – takes the New Calvinist pastor off the hook to love people as they ought. As a non-Calvinist, I can go anywhere on planet earth and look any man in the eye and say “God loves YOU. Jesus died for YOU.” A Calvinist cannot say that and be true to his theology. What love is this?!

    The Love of Self.
    The Self who is God’s Speshul Elect Pet.
    “ME SHEEP! YOU GOAT! HAVE FUN IN HELL! HAW! HAW! HAW!”

  69. @ JYJames:

    Hee Hee. Our current prez talks down to us like we are unruly children that don’t know what is good for us but he does. The loud mouth running insults us. Narcissist to the left of me, narcissists to the right of me…..

  70. Tim wrote:

    Jamie Carter wrote:
    I was always taught that when an argument ceases to be about the topic and switches to personal attacks (you can’t read, you can’t understand, etc.) then the argument is lost and the topic should not be assumed to be true.

    That’s the tactic he used when we pointed out his misogynistic name-calling.

    How long would that tactic last in your courtroom?

  71. republican mother wrote:

    I believe that these Reformed patriarchy types are the world’s most hard core LARPers. That means live action role players. It might not be the 1800s anymore, but if they work hard enough, maybe it can be. The fact that some are dressing the part, shows how deep this delusion is going.

    Exactly! Remember Doug Phillips and his dress up role play as knights or soldiers? It is the same stuff. Wilson is John Knox and there is a monstrous regiment of women about

  72. okrapod wrote:

    Does everybody know about the American Redoubt?

    You mean Galt’s Gulch?

    Where White Aryan Resistance, Covenant/Arm/Sword of the LORD, and other similar groups are bunkered up waiting for the Collapse so they can come down from On High and take over?

  73. @ JYJames:
    JY, a Calvinist would say this is much too elementary, that their theology is more complex than that and that we just aren’t smart enough to understand it all. But, at the heart of their teaching is a determinist God who elects his children before they ever draw breath, removing the free will of man to accept or reject the message of Christ. I just happen to believe that the whole of Scripture does not teach this. When the angel of the Lord announced Christ’s birth to the shepherds, he proclaimed “I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to ALL people.” The Calvinist gospel is not good news for ALL people … and the Calvinist God is not the God of the Bible.

  74. Deb Willi wrote:

    lagiarism in itself should be enough to disqualify any conference speaker—Q or otherwise. IMO, if the organizers of Q want integrity and credence, this plagiarism issue as well as other direct quotes of Doug Wilson (with your cited sources) should be brought to their attention—along with your protest.

    Oh my gosh. I looked up that conference. I cannot believe how Doug manages to weasel his way into this stuff. The organizers should know who Doug Wilson really is.

  75. Nancy2 wrote:

    no one can serve two masters

    But isn’t that verse about serving God and money? It is not about a woman submitting to one man versus all men.

    Besides, the KJV doesn’t mention women at all in Matthew 6:24: “No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.”

    Admittedly I am not examining Wilson’s context versus the Gospel. Sorry, I just don’t plan to dignify Wilson’s work in that way. Doug Wilson thinks slavery gets a bad rap… that alone disqualifies him as a theologian.

  76. Thank you for publishing this insightful blog post and the many interesting and accurate comments in response. Doug Wilson is indeed an unrepentant narcissist who surrounds himself with weak and/or financially dependent men. They dare not challenge him and apparently they can’t afford to leave his little empire. They all appear to appreciate the questionable privilege of playing lord and master to their wives and children. The office of elder and deacon appear to be doled out on the basis of financial usefulness or lockstep loyalty. For example, puppet master Ed Iverson (who brokered the introduction of Katie Travis and Steven Sitler) has been appointed minister to the Sitler family’s home church, Holy Trinity, in Colville Washington and Dave Sitler (Steven’s father) is a deacon in the church. The head of the Biblical Counseling scam is Doug’s long-time secretary, Mike Lawyer. Clients must sign a document agreeing that their counseling sessions may be attended by Greyfriar students, that the sessions will be taped, and if the necessary (perhaps for insufficient repentance or for not trying hard enough) the content of the sessions may be shared with other church officers.

    “• • 8. We may disclose to the church leadership (elders and small group leaders) only that information which we believe is necessary for them to effectively and biblically fulfill their responsibility to shepherd you.”
    https://christchurchmoscow.wufoo.com/forms/counseling-application-personal-info-agreement/

    Sadly, this unholy mess in Moscow, Idaho continues. It is a great blessing to those of us who live in Moscow to know that Doug Wilson and his fawning cronies have been exposed on a much larger stage than we could ever provide. Please accept my heartfelt thanks to all of you.

    Rose Huskey

  77. republican mother wrote:

    I believe that these Reformed patriarchy types are the world’s most hard core LARPers. That means live action role players. It might not be the 1800s anymore, but if they work hard enough, maybe it can be. The fact that some are dressing the part, shows how deep this delusion is going.

    1) Which is why they denounced D&D as Witchcraft and Satanic. Didn’t want the competition for their own RPG.
    2) Don’t forget the Cosplay angle, whether bowler hats & brollies or General Patton.
    3) There used to be Antiwar Activists(TM) who could match them for hardcore LARP. Even knew the ruleset they used: Star Wars, either West End D6 system or WOTC D20 system. They were LARPing Luke Skywalker, Han Solo, and Princess Leia leading the Rebel Alliance against the Evil Empire of Emperor Dubya, Grand Moff Cheney, and Darth Ashcroft.

  78. Law Prof wrote:

    The irony is a feminist walking the streets of a big city is almost certainly in less danger of being raped than an adolescent girl in Wilson’s church under his patriarchal care. There’s a track history there, no?

    The difference is in the Kirk, they are being raped by God’s Predestined Elect Who Can Do No Wrong.
    (See their Get-Out-of-Hell-Free Card? Signed by GOD Himself before the Foundation of the World? See? See? See?)

  79. Max wrote:

    their theology is more complex than that and that we just aren’t smart enough to understand it all

    Good is simple. (Love God, love your neighbor as yourself.)
    Evil is complicated.

  80. K.D. wrote:

    It is all of these Neo-Cals. The former students of mine who are now ‘ hardcore’ Calvinist ‘ pastors’ have no love in their hearts. They say they do, but the only love they have is for themselves…..

    HOW DARE YOU say ANYTHING against GOD’S PREDESTINED ANOINTED ELECT/SPESHUL PETS!

  81. doubtful wrote:

    I guess only largely endowed women can know the true meaning of submission and your glorious Kirk.

    Trigger warning: mention of large-breasted yet intellectual women.
    Poor Doug would be so confused & disappointed were he to meet me. I am sadly overburdened with frontage (to put it mildly)which I hope one day to solve with surgery, & yet I am his worst nightmare. The only thing bigger than my cup size is my IQ, that’s been quite a shock to a fair few men who have foolishly opened their mouths to comment, & somehow haven’t been pleased to receive my replies. Poor poor things.

  82. Max wrote:

    @ JYJames:
    JY, a Calvinist would say this is much too elementary, that their theology is more complex than that and that we just aren’t smart enough to understand it all. But, at the heart of their teaching is a determinist God who elects his children before they ever draw breath, removing the free will of man to accept or reject the message of Christ.

    “IN’SHAL’LAH…”

  83. If Calvin Islamized the Reformation, these Calvinistas (including the Caliph of Moscow) have ISISed it.

  84. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    K.D. wrote:
    It is all of these Neo-Cals. The former students of mine who are now ‘ hardcore’ Calvinist ‘ pastors’ have no love in their hearts. They say they do, but the only love they have is for themselves…..
    HOW DARE YOU say ANYTHING against GOD’S PREDESTINED ANOINTED ELECT/SPESHUL PETS!

    And Headless, that’s EXACTLY how they feel!

  85. http://thebea.st/1Kh7QQm “… as documented by the indefatigable religion blogger, Warren Throckmorton…”
    Featured today on The Daily Beast, the work of WT. Raising awareness brings results. Thanks to the faithful: WT, TWW, Julie Anne, and so on. God bless you in your work for His kingdom. “His kingdom come, His will be done, on Earth as it is in Heaven.”

  86. republican mother wrote:

    I believe that these Reformed patriarchy types are the world’s most hard core LARPers. That means live action role players. It might not be the 1800s anymore, but if they work hard enough, maybe it can be.

    Exactly my point.

    And let’s bring back 18th-century solutions, too:
    – labor conflict: bring back slavery and indentured servants – they make a gentleman’s life so much easier
    – strained race relations: slavery was not that bad, it was really great for the blacks (and their masters)
    – rising divorce rates and those pesky independent women: give women no say in choosing their husband ( http://thewartburgwatch.com/2016/02/10/maranatha-ministries-reconsidered-steve240s-new-blog/#comment-239435 ) and make divorce illegal/impossible. That way even the most immature and repellent #*!@ can get a wife, and she will be subservient to him for life.
    – scared that women will not be impressed with your manhood: see above, and make virginity obligatory, so that they can’t compare
    – misogyny in the church: blame it on the “harridans, termagants, harpies and crones” (whatever these are). Maybe Wilson is not so much against “small-breasted biddies” as scared someone discovers his small (also ends in …is).

    As a man, I feel ashamed that someone like Wilson pretends to speak for me, as a husband and father I am angry at him for disparaging intelligent and strong women such as my wife and daughter, as an educated man I hate the idea that some people might think that “education” is what Wilson represents.

    Problem is: the crowd that Wilson is playing to is not the gospel™ coaliton’s leaders – they tolerate him for the diversions he creates. All his antics serve to distract people from their own goals and methods. ISTM that they are, like Wilson, playing a game of “See what we can get away with?”. Wilson for them is a symbol of their impunity, even after doing or saying the most outrageous things.

    The crowd Wilson is playing to is his followers, and they know even less than he does. For them he is an impressive example of true learning, except, of course, that he is neither.

  87. “TWW has received a number of emails from academicians who are also disturbed by his views. One seminary professor told me that Doug Wilson does not represent thoughtful Reformed thinking.”
    ++++++++++++++++++++

    a number of thoughts in response to your well-written post, Dee. But for starters, do these academicians and professor(s) speak openly about their convictions on this subject? (not that you would necessarily know)

    or do they communicate behind the scenes only. and you’re their mouthpiece while they remain anonymous. (sincerely wondering)

    my general sense is that Christians are so timid. leaders, especially. (leaders who present themselves as ballsy especially especially) so afraid to rock the boat. terrified of anything that might be remotely construed as sin — say, the ‘sin of factions’, the ‘sin of disunity’, the sin of ‘judging’.

    however, in this case, I think it’s more about how one is perceived by their peers than by God.

    (although I have a sense that there is a certain amount of lack of honesty in self-appraisal — not wanting to admit being vulnerable to peer pressure. not wanting to admit to protecting money and career at the expense of what is right/honest/true/moral/good. and thus hiding behind christian language and ideas becomes quite easy.)

  88. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    The difference is in the Kirk, they are being raped by God’s Predestined Elect Who Can Do No Wrong.
    (See their Get-Out-of-Hell-Free Card? Signed by GOD Himself before the Foundation of the World? See? See? See?)

    Of course, what was I thinking? It’s an honor to be an adolescent child raped by one of Kirk’s 20-something nascent calvinist pastor gods. And that child and her grieving parents should be thankful for the righteous rebuke of Doug Wilson, because of course, it was all their fault. Rape and rebuke: The Wilson/Kirk Double Honor.

  89. @ Friend:
    Is money the only other master that Jesus thought people could serve rather than God? I think it is the one example that worked in that specific situation. Today, we have turned following God biblically into our master, obeying authority into our master, correct submission into yet another master. Male headship gives women two masters, her husband or father and God. Women are told to obey husbands rather than God whenever they have to choose because both masters disagree.

  90. If DW equates women “behavior” to their breast size, what does he attribute to mail behavior?? I can not believe this clown has any public standing??? Is he advocating that I should be using a women’s breast size in dealing with women professionally?? He seems to think that it is a reasonable measure of a women? It also reminds me of Piper going on about women in authority in the “secular world”?
    The more I read the WW, I can not believe how “off” ( which is a nice way of saying it) these “Christain leaders are” and how the system keeps promoting them…. If I talked about women’s breast sizes professionally I would be bounced, as I should be….. And, growing up in a fundamentalist baptist background, I would have be bounced out of the school if I talked about women’s breast size like DW did in his writing..

    What the $&@) is going on? The same goes for Mark Driscoll’ rants..

    Odee wrote:

    doubtful wrote:
    Wow Doug…that’s so Junior High. I guess only largely endowed women can know the true meaning of submission and your glorious Kirk.
    I wonder how he feels about breast enhancements so women can fit his ideal? Recently I read where Tony Romo had Jessica Simpson sign a prenup that she would never weigh over 130 pounds. They broke up shortly thereafter. Romo sounds like a man Wilson could respect.

    dee wrote:

    doubtful wrote:
    Wow Doug…that’s so Junior High. I guess only largely endowed women can know the true meaning of submission and your glorious Kirk.
    I wonder how he feels about breast enhancements so women can fit his ideal? Recently I read where Tony Romo had Jessica Simpson sign a prenup that she would never weigh over 130 pounds. They broke up shortly thereafter. Romo sounds like a man Wilson could respect.

    dee wrote:

    doubtful wrote:
    Wow Doug…that’s so Junior High. I guess only largely endowed women can know the true meaning of submission and your glorious Kirk.
    I wonder how he feels about breast enhancements so women can fit his ideal? Recently I read where Tony Romo had Jessica Simpson sign a prenup that she would never weigh over 130 pounds. They broke up shortly thereafter. Romo sounds like a man Wilson could respect.

  91. Gus wrote:

    – misogyny in the church: blame it on the “harridans, termagants, harpies and crones” (whatever these are). Maybe Wilson is not so much against “small-breasted biddies” as scared someone discovers his small (also ends in …is).

    I claim the term “harridan,” have for years (it’s in my Twitter description). Also “virago,” because I really do like a good argument. But “small-breasted” is not a descriptor anyone would use about me.

    Seriously, though, I think Doug’s problem is basically down to misogyny and patriarchy. He despises women and wants to rule over us. This is a guy who could not make it in the business world. My senior manager (female) would eat his lunch. She would absolutely not put up with his many excuses for Jamin Wight (for starters). She’d give him grief for his plagiarism. And so on.

    I think men like Wilson thrive in the churches because people expect the churches to be different–but different doesn’t have to mean that the sheep get fleeced, sheared and slaughtered. When your pastor treats you far worse than your secular, amoral employer, there is a real problem.

    And seriously, Doug, not only would you not make it in my workaday environment, you would get canned before the first 90 days was up because you couldn’t deal with intelligent women who would not put up with your nonsense. That’s why you’re the leader of a tiny cult in Moscow, Idaho.

  92. The metaphorical journal of the internet offers Mr. Wilson the constant equivalent of a competent peer review upon his thought processes and the expressions thereof, and, overall, seems to find his pseudo-eruditiousness does not pass muster, despite a relative few antiphonal praises echoed back from fans within his digital domains.

    As I lived in Moscow, Idaho, during the 1980s, I am aware that Mr. Wilson is not without witness of what constitutes true erudition and careful communication. A local scholar with whom he was acquainted was one of the first women PhDs and professors at a particular university, having done doctorate coursework for three different fields of study and simply choosing one of them in which to write her dissertation, and thereby having received her degree two years before he was born.

    Her 12-page curriculum vitae substantiates that every article she submitted to a peer-reviewed journal was published, as was every book she produced (which totaled over 30, and, if I remember correctly, with all but one published under contract with conventional and academic publishers, and that lone one self-published for a local audience). She also translated texts from several ancient and medieval languages, edited academic journal articles and books in at least three modern European languages, and served as a language consultant to the Nez Perce tribe.

    Despite her obviously being a polymath, she strove to write materials that were clear, accurate, and accessible for whomever her intended readers, whether American school children or international academicians. As her project assistant for three years on her last major book, I believe I can fairly state that if something was unclear, she saw it as her responsibility to correct it and then to write more clearly in the future – not on the reader’s responsibility to interpret her “correctly.”

    This woman’s professional career represents a high standard of scholarship, just as her personal character represents a high standard in Christian integrity. Should Mr. Wilson demonstrate he is striving to meet the challenging legacy she has left for him and other purported scholar-ministers, I will be ready to consider his opinions.

  93. “Sooner or later, all talk among foreigners in Pyongyang turns to one imponderable subject. Do the locals really believe what they are told, and do they truly revere Fat Man and Little Boy?”
    Christopher Hitchens

  94. As a resident of Moscow, I echo Rose Huskey’s gratitude that the bizarre world of Wilsonville is continually scrutinized by people who do not live here. Also, I wish to assure those who have not been to Moscow that, despite his stated intentions, he is not, and never will be, Moscow’s 21st century Boss Tweed. Several years ago, DW wrote that Moscow, Idaho and nearby Pullman, Washington (7 miles from Moscow), both being small college towns with major universities (University of Idaho and Washington State University), served as a “feasible, strategic” location for Wilson to essentially create a Wilsonian Mecca. To which Moscow’s response to Wilson is “that will never happen.” And it won’t. Moscow is actually a wonderful community that Doug Wilson does not at all represent.

  95. like a malevolent illness, this patriarchy thing will eventually rot from the inside out

    people like Doug Wilson speed up the process . . . and those who support him out themselves as connected to his unwholesomeness . . . a connection they can never quite get away from, because Doug Wilson is so OPEN about his virulent misogyny . . . he fools no one, his ‘followers’ may attempt to feign some ‘moderation’ and ‘respectability’, but in the end, they are misogynist groupies . . .

    I look at these men as wannabe bullies who dress themselves in sacred Scripture,
    and the fruit of these people is bitter and painful for their victims, and poisonous for those who see them as ‘leaders’

    thanks for letting me rant 🙂

  96. @ dee:
    dee wrote:

    I wonder how he feels about breast enhancements so women can fit his ideal? Recently I read where Tony Romo had Jessica Simpson sign a prenup that she would never weigh over 130 pounds. They broke up shortly thereafter. Romo sounds like a man Wilson could respect.

    No, he doesn’t like enhancements either. It’s pretty hard to get your breasts right by DW’s standards. Here are a couple other quotes, passed on from moscowid.net:

    “We like the word authentic, but we detest the reality. A fading beauty in Beverly Hills walks into an upscale bistro, her skin stretched out with botox, her breasts as fine a pair as DuPont could make them, her hair the color of nothing found on earth, and yet she double checks with the waiter (twice) to be sure that her salad will have hormone-free chicken. Why? Either because she is committed to going all natural, which would not seem to be the case, or because her table is only big enough for one hormone queen. She is insisting that the chicken be the authentic one.”

    “Next time you are in a grocery store check out line check out (no, I don’t mean check out) the partially dressed female on the cover of the nearest women’s magazine, the kind my kids call a day-old doughnut. Right, the one with the fake bake tan, the abs of a sixteen-year-old boy, the boobs of a wet nurse, and the knock-your-eye out bottle blondisity. The one who was assembled by an ironic and detached photo shop gay guy the same way your kids play with Mr. Potato Head. Oh, and she also has cancer, non-operable and, more to the point, non-photographable. We can therefore afford to overlook that part.”

    If he has shared with us the correct Kirk-approved size, I’ve missed it.

  97. Jamie Carter wrote:

    Male headship gives women two masters, her husband or father and God. Women are told to obey husbands rather than God whenever they have to choose because both masters disagree.

    Excellent point, thanks. (I was poking at his abandonment of context, since he’s legalistic and literal-minded and not the intellectual he fancies himself to be.)

  98. elastigirl wrote:

    a number of thoughts in response to your well-written post, Dee. But for starters, do these academicians and professor(s) speak openly about their convictions on this subject? (not that you would necessarily know)

    or do they communicate behind the scenes only. and you’re their mouthpiece while they remain anonymous. (sincerely wondering)

    This post on “Douglas Wilson’s Religious Empire” by Professor Emeritus Nick Gier of the University of Idaho in Moscow would be of relevance.

    http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/ngier/wilsonempire.htm

  99. Rose Huskey wrote:

    Clients must sign a document agreeing that their counseling sessions may be attended by Greyfriar students, that the sessions will be taped, and if the necessary (perhaps for insufficient repentance or for not trying hard enough) the content of the sessions may be shared with other church officers.
    “• • 8. We may disclose to the church leadership (elders and small group leaders) only that information which we believe is necessary for them to effectively and biblically fulfill their responsibility to shepherd you.”
    https://christchurchmoscow.wufoo.com/forms/counseling-application-personal-info-agreement/

    I looked at the Counseling Application. It’s horrifying. It’s written to protect the church from lawsuits while expecting the person receiving “treatment” to give up all privacy and all rights. How many people have been abused by these church “counselors”? I’m flabbergasted.

  100. Overcomer wrote:

    He does not deserve any of this attention. It feeds his ego. No need to parse the words he uses or the meanings behind them. He does it for supply. I would not give him the satisfaction.

    I understand and respect this viewpoint, and there is a danger of feeding trolls. However, I don’t really care what he thinks about us, just as I don’t care what a bank robber thinks about me. If he hopes to sow division among his foes, he has failed at TWW.

  101. brad/futuristguy wrote:

    http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/ngier/wilsonempire.htm

    NSA stands for New St. Andrews (interesting use of acronym by association) here:

    The NSA faculty celebrated April Fools of 1999 by stealing letterhead from the University of Idaho (UI) provost’s office to distribute an announcement of visiting feminist scholars who would give their presentations topless. There is nothing wrong with a good joke, but one usually tries to avoid criminal activity in pulling stunts such as this. Shamelessly, Wilson defended this action in his blog: “By the time you receive this, our local police will probably have forgotten all about it, so a little bragging is now safe. . . . [My son-in-law], encouraged by some winks and nudges from me, made up a flyer which announced a topless and proud lecture series by topless feminist scholars.”

  102. Friend wrote:

    [My son-in-law], encouraged by some winks and nudges from me, made up a flyer which announced a topless and proud lecture series by topless feminist scholars.”

    Wilson is like so many other leaders who get their bidding done by their minions.

  103. Law Prof wrote:

    The irony is a feminist walking the streets of a big city is almost certainly in less danger of being raped than an adolescent girl in Wilson’s church under his patriarchal care.

    Oh, snap. But it’s true – people in modern, egalitarian social structures are much safer than people in…well, many Christian churches!

  104. @ Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist:

    It is strange but Wilsons take on chattel slavery was not that far apart from what Broaddus wrote about Boyce in his bio. And Boyce had a college named after him at SBTS as recently as the early 90’s!

  105. Tina wrote:

    Okay, what in the HECK is “vae victus”?

    From Heroditus and literally translated, “Woe to the conquered”. The idea is deeper than that, and best expressed in English as “Might makes right.” Beginning with Socrates there has been a feisty philosophical discussion over whether this could possibly be true.

  106. mirele wrote:

    That’s why you’re the leader of a tiny cult in Moscow, Idaho.

    Hee hee. And the only reason he is known outside CREC and OPC circles is because of John Piper making him anothed vulgar misogynist pervert excusing hero to the YRR. Perhaps he is to replace Driscoll?

  107. Nancy2 wrote:

    A DW quote from Her Hand in Marriage, emphasis mine:
    “If a woman were responsible to submit to men in general, her life would be miserable – no one can serve two masters. But a woman who is responsive to a godly man is protected from having to submit to other men,”

    …and as a matter of fact, that is NOT how it works out within his followers’ organizations. I have personal experience here. My son was at one of his followers’ schools for one year. I was the parental representative for our family, and was completely shut down when I made a suggestion for the coming year. When a man made exactly the same suggestion 5 minutes later, it was suddenly a great idea, discussed, and adopted. I was told later that I had been offensive because I should have let the men speak and kept my mouth shut. To stay inside THEIR definition of “the way the world oughta be” I pointed out that I was there as the representative of my husband, at his request, and that they were usurping his authority over me. THAT shut them up. (And believe me, my husband and I are equal partners–I did the school stuff, he did the go-to-work-all-flippin’-day-long stuff. My POINT is that even inside their own stated beliefs, they couldn’t win the argument.

    That was a sick place.

  108. Overcomer wrote:

    People, here’s the thing. DW is obviously a narcissist. He does these things on purpose to get a rise out of you. And it works. It is called negative narcissistic supply and you are giving it to him in spades. Any attention these narcs get is supply to them, negative or otherwise. [etc]

    This is what I’ve suspected for some time.

    I have rarely visited his blog. I don’t recall ever having posted at his blog. I only come across his latest comments across social media or blogs I visit, when they are posted by other people.

    I do suspect he gets some kind of satisfaction from upsetting people and the attention he gets from it.

  109. Anne wrote:

    Pretty much exactly what I was thinking. He says exactly what he means but writes it in a way that he can twist that meaning when he gets called out on it.

    In this, he reminds me of politicians, who are also fond of weasel-wording comments, or sidestepping previous comments at a later time after an uproar by saying they were misunderstood.

    Is Wilson’s favorite singer P!nk?

    P!nk has an album from several years ago entitled “M!ssundaztood” (Misunderstood).

  110. PaJo wrote:

    Nancy2 wrote:
    A DW quote from Her Hand in Marriage, emphasis mine:
    “If a woman were responsible to submit to men in general, her life would be miserable – no one can serve two masters. But a woman who is responsive to a godly man is protected from having to submit to other men,”
    …and as a matter of fact, that is NOT how it works out within his followers’ organizations….(snip)
    That was a sick place.

    Talk about narcissism–quoting one’s own post. (sigh) It’s a continuation though.

    The males teachers were paid a higher salary than the female teachers. On principle. The female teachers were assumed to be living under the care of a male, whether a husband, a father or a substitute father, so single women were paid less than single men.

    The women (teachers and parents of students) were expected to be awake at dawn and never asleep before 11pm, so as to be available to serve their husbands and families.

    Courtship. No dating.

    Children who did not attend the Wilsonite church (most families and almost all faculty and staff did) invariably ended up being punished more harshly than children of attendees.

    Individually, there were some very nice people there, but as a group and under the bonds that bound them, that was a creepy place for the very reason that it lived under Wilsonite rules, which largely can be summed up “Men rule, women drool.”

    That experience launched me into an ultimately blessed period of doubting and soul-searching…by the grace of God, I have landed well and so I am thankful for the period…but I still prefer to warn others about the cause.

    (I hope it is not tooooo snarky to add that their fabulous test scores for my son’s grade dropped from the 95%ile to the 80%ile the year after my son left the school. HAHA.)

  111. Adam Borsay wrote:

    A recent hobby of mine(not by choice but circumstance) is engaging with KJV Onlysists.

    I gave that up years ago (trying to reach or reason with KJVOs).

  112. Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:

    Now take it a step further. What about the thousands of men and boys who are abused every year?

    That is an interesting question.
    I just read an article that sort of touched on that issue:
    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/01/06/the-secret-hypocritical-gay-world-of-isis.html

    Would Wilson argue that the problem with these male sexual assault victims mentioned in that article is that they lacked male protection? Would he blame male victims for not seeking out male protection?

  113. Jack wrote:

    “egalitarian intoleristas” – would be a great mariachi punk band!

    Am I the only one who doesn’t like to tell the waiter in Tex Mex restaurants when it’s my birthday, out of fear he’ll send the Mariachi band over to sing Happy Birthday to me in front of everyone?

    Though the down side is when you don’t tell the waiter it’s your b-day, you miss out on free dessert. Most restaurants will give you a free dessert if it’s your b-day.
    But the embarrassment I feel over everyone looking in my direction as the Mariachi band plays outweighs my love of sweets.

  114. PaJo wrote:

    To stay inside THEIR definition of “the way the world oughta be” I pointed out that I was there as the representative of my husband, at his request, and that they were usurping his authority over me. THAT shut them up.

    What you said, PaJo, reminds me of a conversation I had in the early 1980s with a European friend, who was then in her 50s. She had to use the same kind of approach when attempting to conduct family business with government offices while her husband was away at work. She stated repeatedly that her husband had commissioned her to file these papers or address this or that issue, and so would the official please help her carry out his wishes. That was the only tactic she found to expedite getting things processed in a more timely way than if she went in solely as her own person.

    And oh, the irony of context: They lived just outside of Geneva.

  115. Law Prof wrote:

    The irony is a feminist walking the streets of a big city is almost certainly in less danger of being raped than an adolescent girl in Wilson’s church under his patriarchal care. There’s a track history there, no?

    The one commonality between the big city feminist and the small town church-going girl is that if they are raped, Wilson will find a way to blame them for it.

    Two very good points there. I think you hit the nail on the head with both points.

    The Christian lady would be blamed for being sexually assaulted by Wilson on some score or another, and/or her father would be blamed for being a lousy father or Christian.

    He’d blame the feminist/secular assault victim for her assault due to being feminist/secular and who knows what else.

    Women cannot win under Wilson’s perverse, sexist views no matter what they do or how they dress or what they believe.

  116. Daisy wrote:

    Women cannot win under Wilson’s perverse, sexist views no matter what they do or how they dress or what they believe.

    I wanted to add a Post Script to that response to Law Prof, something just occurred to me.

    Somewhere or another in the past, I’ve heard the phrase “perfect victim” used to describe court cases where a lady sexual assault victim will be dragged through the mud and have her reputation questioned in court because maybe before she was assaulted, she worked as a prostitute, or she had lots of casual sex with many boyfriends or whatever.

    Her sexual history might be brought up to tarnish her testimony.

    The “perfect victim” mindset conveys that only a woman who was sexually pure prior to being assaulted deserves justice.

    The thinking seems to be only a “perfect victim” (a respectable, chaste woman) deserves consideration, protection, or justice.

    I don’t see in the Bible where God acts as though only people who meet certain criteria of behavior merit consideration, respect, and equal treatment.

    But guys like Wilson only want to dole out justice for the oppressed or for victims who they feel are ‘worthy’ of it.

  117. April Kelsey wrote:

    This is Wilson’s entire MO. He thinks only in extremes. In his mind, Christian egalitarians have bought into the sexual revolution, because complementarianism and patriarchy are the only biblically correct ways to operate in a relationship. There is absolutely no way anyone could glean egalitarianism from scripture because, according to Wilson, it’s JUST NOT IN THERE. AT ALL. So its only source has to be the sexual revolution and feminists who dare to fancy themselves equal to men. Where else would it have come from??

    I used to be a complementarian and my parents were into old fashioned biblical roles. I came to see the falsity of it in the Bible itself.

    I saw examples in the Bible that didn’t support it. In one section, apostle Paul might say “I forbid a woman to speak in church” or what have you, but in the following book or so, he’d turn around and say something like “And when a woman speaks in church, she should blah blah blah.”

    So I figured either Paul was being grossly misunderstood by complementarians, or he was contradicting himself.

    I also noticed women warriors and teachers in the Bible who God was fine with (such as Deborah and Jael).

    If Wilson does not want to see egalitarianism (or mutuality, or whatever term one wants to use for it) in the Bible, it’s because he does not want to, not because it’s not there. It’s there all right.

  118. @ Anonymous:

    The funny thing is, I don’t agree with either R. H. Evans or Doug Wilson on everything, and disagree with quite a bit of their views.

    I do think RHE gets most of the complementarian stuff correct, though. I think she is right on the money on that particular topic.

  119. Rose Huskey wrote:

    The head of the Biblical Counseling scam is Doug’s long-time secretary, Mike Lawyer. Clients must sign a document agreeing that their counseling sessions may be attended by Greyfriar students, that the sessions will be taped, and if the necessary (perhaps for insufficient repentance or for not trying hard enough) the content of the sessions may be shared with other church officers.
    “• • 8. We may disclose to the church leadership (elders and small group leaders) only that information which we believe is necessary for them to effectively and biblically fulfill their responsibility to shepherd you.”
    https://christchurchmoscow.wufoo.com/forms/counseling-application-personal-info-agreement/

    That is troubling. I would certainly not go to any of them if I needed counseling. I hope other people stay away.

  120. Doug Wilson is controversial on so many levels. There is another issue Doug Wilson that is viewed as concerning by some Reformed theologians. It Is called the Federal Vision. Don’t understand all the fine points that have caused some to view it as heretical. Doug Wilson is definitely extreme in so many of his views: in his views towards women for example. Rape is never acceptable.

  121. Jeffrey Chalmers wrote:

    If I talked about women’s breast sizes professionally I would be bounced, as I should be

    That, and stuff like the Billy Graham Rule, which posits that Christian, especially pastors, should never meet alone with women, or not even in a public space, like a coffee shop.

    I’ve had jobs where I had to meet alone (sometimes with married men) over work-related matters, and fornication never once happened. Imagine that.

    But churches expect women to put up with the “we think you might be a harlot who seduces men, so pastors won’t minister to you” outlook.

    Sometimes stepping into a church or Christian- based environment is like stepping on to a another planet.

  122. mirele wrote:

    When your pastor treats you far worse than your secular, amoral employer, there is a real problem.

    I agree. That is a huge red flag.

  123. @ brad/futuristguy:
    Everything in that post of yours was excellent.

    I especially am fond of the very first paragraph. If anyone here knows needlepoint, please consider stitching that paragraph on a pillow and mailing it to Wilson.

  124. K.D. wrote:

    At a suburban Houston high school I taught at, in my hall alone, two Ph.D.’s from Texas-Austin and the room behind me, the art teacher had a MFA from the Rhode Island School of Design…..heck one of the biology teachers was a retired veteranarian….scary smart folks….

    What’s even more frightening are the scary smart Mutants out here with no credentials.

  125. doubtful wrote:

    “small breasted biddies”

    I could never understand the male obsession with breast size. Is it mainly an American male thing? Or does it traverse National borders across the globe?

  126. Max wrote:

    K.D. wrote:
    It is all of these Neo-Cals. The former students of mine who are now ‘ hardcore’ Calvinist ‘ pastors’ have no love in their hearts. They say they do, but the only love they have is for themselves…..
    Calvinism is a misrepresentation of God, whose very character is love. The predestination message – some saved, most damned before the foundation of the earth – takes the New Calvinist pastor off the hook to love people as they ought. As a non-Calvinist, I can go anywhere on planet earth and look any man in the eye and say “God loves YOU. Jesus died for YOU.” A Calvinist cannot say that and be true to his theology. What love is this?!

    This! Yes! I just had this very kind of dialogue on a Calvinist Facebook site and said exactly what you have. Calvinism = cold, sterile, rigid belief system. If there are kind and compassionate Calvinists – and I believe there are – it is in spite of their theology. For if one truly embraces Reformed doctrine completely, they must affirm that God hates the non-elect. And therefore, they are able to hate them also. Just read A.W. Pink. He was a staunch Calvinist and blatantly stated that God doesn’t love everybody. Pink understood the implications of Reformed soteriology.

  127. Darlene wrote:

    Pink understood the implications of Reformed soteriology.

    Understood it, believed it, and embraced it apparently.

  128. Daisy wrote:

    Women cannot win under Wilson’s perverse, sexist views no matter what they do or how they dress or what they believe.

    Exactly. And it's odd, but this is the mentality that inspires slu# (ed.) walks: women can't please, can't win, can't avoid judgment, can't expect safety–so they have nothing to lose and might as well parade down Main Street in their undies.

  129. Darlene wrote:

    Max wrote:
    K.D. wrote:
    It is all of these Neo-Cals. The former students of mine who are now ‘ hardcore’ Calvinist ‘ pastors’ have no love in their hearts. They say they do, but the only love they have is for themselves…..
    Calvinism is a misrepresentation of God, whose very character is love. The predestination message – some saved, most damned before the foundation of the earth – takes the New Calvinist pastor off the hook to love people as they ought. As a non-Calvinist, I can go anywhere on planet earth and look any man in the eye and say “God loves YOU. Jesus died for YOU.” A Calvinist cannot say that and be true to his theology. What love is this?!
    This! Yes! I just had this very kind of dialogue on a Calvinist Facebook site and said exactly what you have. Calvinism = cold, sterile, rigid belief system. If there are kind and compassionate Calvinists – and I believe there are – it is in spite of their theology.

    Awhile back on The Puritan Board, there was a discussion about this very thing. The statement was made by more than one of the posters that they could not tell their own children that God loved them, because *we just don’t know* whether the children are predestined to salvation. This is their own *children.* It holds true for the other people in their lives too–they can’t go around willy-nilly telling people that God loves them, because…we just don’t know. God only loves those predestined for salvation and He hates the rest.

    Sick sick sick. And unscriptural. And non-traditional. And untrue.

  130. Darlene wrote:

    Calvinism = cold, sterile, rigid belief system.

    Reformed theology defines Christianity in terms of rigid doctrinal propositions based on points of “grace”, rather than a direct experience of Grace available to ALL who call on the name of Jesus and believe in Him. Calvinism is indeed a cold and sterile belief system which diminishes the free will of man to accept salvation available to ALL who put their faith in the message of the Cross of Christ. Whosoever will may come!

  131. Darlene wrote:

    He was a staunch Calvinist and blatantly stated that God doesn’t love everybody. Pink understood the implications of Reformed soteriology.

    I suspect that Pink really understands the implications of his teachings now.

  132. Muff Potter wrote:

    K.D. wrote:
    At a suburban Houston high school I taught at, in my hall alone, two Ph.D.’s from Texas-Austin and the room behind me, the art teacher had a MFA from the Rhode Island School of Design…..heck one of the biology teachers was a retired veteranarian….scary smart folks….
    What’s even more frightening are the scary smart Mutants out here with no credentials.

    I know….One of the brightest men I ever met dropped out of school in the 8th grade…

  133. I had a conversation with my husband this afternoon while out driving to visit friends. I told him about DW and his protection “theory”. I asked hubby if he considered himself to be able to protect me from any type of sexual abuse by anyone who tried it. His answer was absolutely not. My husband also has his PHD, so he is well educated (that’s for you DW). My hubby really doesn’t know about comp stuff so I explained it to him. He had a good laugh. I love love for Dougie boy to be in a circle surrounded by the big breasted ladies in my family. He wouldn’t survive in tact. He definitely would end up with his manhood or lack there of threatened. The ladies in my family, each of them in their own right, are strong women dedicated to serving God. Some aren’t even married (gasp) or are widows.

    I also think Dougie is a bully. I despise bullies with all my heart and soul. I want to take a big Texas size boot and kick him Kingdom come. Or as we say in Texas, he needs to have a “come to Jesus moment.” I know a lot of people on this blog would gladly give Dougie the “come to Jesus moment”.

  134. You know I think Pastor Wilson just takes himself to seriously and he actually believes what he writes, especially about himself. Given all we have seen and all that has been disgusted about the man, and the damage he and his teachings have caused I find that profoundly sad.

  135. Dave A A wrote:

    @ Adam Borsay:
    5 years ago Wlson blogged in favor of the KJV https://dougwils.com/s8-expository/kjv-400.html
    Yesterday, the first comment was posted– asking Wilson how he settled the manuscript question– interested in your reply, since Wilson is unlikely to post one.

    Just read the article you linked to. To his credit, he does summarize by saying it doesn’t matter to much which translation you choose. To his discredit, he is wrong about the manuscript tradition. I think he has been influenced by the KJV onlyist regarding the history of the text transmission and therefore makes an error when he makes the case for the reliability of the KJV translation vs newer translations.

    Also, his argument against the money influence is only half true. Meaning, the Bible is the best selling book to this day, who are these multimillionaires driving Rolls Royces and flying private jets thanks to the money they are making with their self-centered translations?? Many very honorable and Godly men embarked in the process of transmission and he is impugning all of them by that line of argumentation. The evidence does not point to this completely money driven only motive.

    Not to mention that the history of the production of the 1611 KJV is also full of competing translators rushing to get to print first, and that there are actually TWO “official” KJV’s in use today that were printed in competition to eachother(just ask a KJVO if they use Cambridge or Oxford to see their heads spin)

  136. Nancy2 wrote:

    How is serving/submitting to the master-husband and to God not serving two masters?

    Exactly. And to take it a step further, how is the husband, taking the place of “lord and master” not usurping Christ’s position?

  137. Jeffrey Chalmers wrote:

    If DW equates women “behavior” to their breast size, what does he attribute to mail behavior??

    Yes! I giggle everytime I see someone commenting on the small breasted “biddies.” So Doug, we all know where our minds are going about you….

  138. PaJo wrote:

    Awhile back on The Puritan Board, there was a discussion about this very thing. The statement was made by more than one of the posters that they could not tell their own children that God loved them, because *we just don’t know* whether the children are predestined to salvation. This is their own *children.* It holds true for the other people in their lives too–they can’t go around willy-nilly telling people that God loves them, because…we just don’t know. God only loves those predestined for salvation and He hates the rest.
    Sick sick sick. And unscriptural. And non-traditional. And untrue.

    I just can’t begin to grasp this mentality. During high school, my family were members of the UMC, but since it was very liberal, we attended a PCA church. The people there could talk a good game and make people think they’re holy, but they didn’t realize that Christian is also a verb (in my way of thinking). They could talk, but they couldn’t act like Christians. I later went back to the Methodist church, and those “heathen liberals” we so much more Christian than people at the PCA church.

  139. EricL wrote:

    That speaks to a deeper issue. The American church is so unhealthy that people are eating this garbage and think it’s a gourmet meal. Instead of growing healthier and stronger, they sicken even more. So sad.

    Yes! How did it get to be this way, and what can be done about it? It’s really affecting how people see Christians.

  140. Anonymous wrote:

    But they both seem to see themselves as mini Martin Luthers.

    Anonymous wrote:

    Maybe Evans will stop worrying that a lot people see things in the Bible that she doesn’t see, and instead of lampooning them, often with overblown stereotyping, she will actually give herself to helping the poor. Maybe go to India or Africa and just work quietly with a relief agency.

    I’ve only read Rachel’s blog and not Wilson’s, but I think both like having followers, and both seem to twist the Bible to what they think it should say. Over time, I’ve agreed with a lot of what Rachel says, but I was uncomfortable with how she seemed to want to remake Christianity. Rachel is very talented, but what has she done other than write a book and have a blog? What does she base her speaking engagements on? I’d rather she work somehow in real ministry and base her writing and speaking on real experience in the real world. As for Wilson, he’s just nuts.

  141. Daisy wrote:

    But guys like Wilson only want to dole out justice for the oppressed or for victims who they feel are ‘worthy’ of it.

    Just curious if anyone knows of any examples of such women?

  142. “small breasted biddies…”

    As soon as a speaker calls anyone names or ridicules the person of those he/she disagrees with, I am done. It is petty, it is not Christlike, and it denotes weakness and paucity of reasoning powers.

    A person can only get away with this in an insular group. In the larger world, there will be listeners who are offended (and rightly so).

  143. Daisy wrote:

    That, and stuff like the Billy Graham Rule, which posits that Christian, especially pastors, should never meet alone with women, or not even in a public space, like a coffee shop.

    In all candor, given what I’ve seen among celeb “christian” pastors over the decades, with Bakker, Swaggart, and with the revelations of what was going on behind closed doors with Gothard and Doug Phillips, and that relative of Billy Graham (name escapes me) I’m not so sure that’s a bad idea, if only to protect the women.

  144. Max wrote:

    Reformed theology defines Christianity in terms of rigid doctrinal propositions based on points of “grace”, rather than a direct experience of Grace available to ALL who call on the name of Jesus and believe in Him. Calvinism is indeed a cold and sterile belief system…

    Not saying there isn’t a Christian among the reformed, of course there are many, but Calvinism is the perfect belief system for one who has rejected Jesus and truly believes in nothing but his own (supposed) intellect.

  145. patriciamc wrote:

    Rachel is very talented, but what has she done other than write a book and have a blog?

    She came up well short of the needed criticism of Tony Jones and his abusive treatment of his ex-wife.

  146. Dave A A wrote:

    Just one real, God’s-messenger-style pastor in Moscow, and he’s positively angelic! Or not…

    Ah. Which brings to mind the quote about Satan coming as an angel of light…

  147. Mark wrote:

    Doug Wilson is controversial on so many levels. There is another issue Doug Wilson that is viewed as concerning by some Reformed theologians. It Is called the Federal Vision. Don’t understand all the fine points that have caused some to view it as heretical. Doug Wilson is definitely extreme in so many of his views: in his views towards women for example. Rape is never acceptable.

    In short, my understanding of Federal Vision is that it embraces works-righteousness.

  148. siteseer wrote:

    And to take it a step further, how is the husband, taking the place of “lord and master” not usurping Christ’s position?

    An important point for the wider false theologies of “covering”, “shepherding” and “godly leadership” that are popular among those who want their careers as clergymen to be properly lucrative. Ultimately, no-one can submit both to God and to a visible shepherd. That’s why scribsher commands elders (or whatever title we prefer to use) not to rule but to set an example in word and deed. They are, in other words, to be role-models, not gurus.

  149. Here’s what I wrote (FB (ed.) message) to Gabe Lyons, whose organization, Q ideas, includes Doug Wilson as one of its speakers in an upcoming conference. I kept it brief, and hope he does some investigation. We shall see. I didn’t go looking for this–I get their emails pretty routinely and this was in response to one whose subject line was (I’m paraphrasing) “Check out who’s speaking in Denver!”

    Dear Gabe,
    I work at ****** in public relations, and only mention that affiliation because that is how I know about Q ideas. I am not speaking for the College. But I am deeply concerned about the fact that Doug Wilson is being given a platform at your Denver event. I understand that Q leans Reformed, and that you strive to represent a range of speakers, But Wilson may be someone whose background you’d like to investigate before allowing him to be associated with Q. He has written a book that argues that southern slavery was not really so bad. Both that book and a recent one contained a number of passages plagiarized from the work of others. He has also been credibly accused of badly mismanaging cases of sexual abuse that fell within the purview of his church and college.

     

    Here's what I wrote (RB message) to Gabe Lyons, whose organization, Q ideas, includes Doug Wilson as one of its speakers in an upcoming conference. I kept it brief, and hope he does some investigation. We shall see. I didn't go looking for this–I get their emails pretty routinely and this was in response to one whose subject line was (I'm paraphrasing) "Check out who's speaking in Denver!" Dear Gabe, I work at ****** in public relations, and only mention that affiliation because that is how I know about Q ideas. I am not speaking for the College. But I am deeply concerned about the fact that Doug Wilson is being given a platform at your Denver event. I understand that Q leans Reformed, and that you strive to represent a range of speakers, But Wilson may be someone whose background you'd like to investigate before allowing him to be associated with Q. He has written a book that argues that southern slavery was not really so bad. Both that book and a recent one contained a number of passages plagiarized from the work of others. He has also been credibly accused of badly mismanaging cases of sexual abuse that fell within the purview of his church and college.

  150. Adam Borsay wrote:

    Also, his argument against the money influence is only half true.

    Another example of how Wilson often doesn’t put much thought behind his writing. I suppose those publishing houses printing KJVs are giving them away? Let me check Amazon. Oh wait. Nope. They are selling them. And without having to pay copyright royalties, they are making a higher margin than on other translations. Whoops.

  151. Before there was a Billy Graham Rule, there was a co-worker rule … the apostles would bring women with them to counsel women. Today a pastor’s wife might be expected to do that with little or no training. We need to put women in leadership in order to bring balance to the faith. Men aren’t the only source of wisdom or sage advice.

  152. Jamie Carter wrote:

    there was a co-worker rule … the apostles would bring women with them to counsel women.

    May I ask where you find apostles bringing women to counsel women in scripture? I’m aware of 1 Cor.9:5 but there’s no mention of women/wives/sisters accompanying the apostles for that specific purpose. Thanks!

  153. Patty in Massachusetts wrote:

    He has written a book that argues that southern slavery was not really so bad.

    The founders of the Southern Baptist Convention prior to the Civil War thought the same thing! Many pastors and deacons in the South were slave-holders, who justified their position by a twisted interpretation of Scripture – feeling that God was on their side on this issue. However, they began to sing a different tune when early victories by the Confederacy turned to defeat; apparently sovereign God wasn’t on their side after all! It took SBC 150 years to publicly repent of that sin, even after the denomination had distanced itself from Calvinism in belief and practice. Unfortunately, the New Calvinist movement has brought reformed thinking back into the mix and Calvinists continue to twist Scripture to support reformed theology on one issue or another. Beware of churches which stress that we need to be “culturally-relevant” – that opens a door for just about anything.

  154. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    That’s why scribsher commands elders (or whatever title we prefer to use) not to rule but to set an example in word and deed. They are, in other words, to be role-models, not gurus.

    Ssssssh, Brother Nick. People in the pew might be listening in and get wise to the scheme and the schemers in the pulpit. It’s so much easier for a “pastor” to be a guru, than a role-model! To be auth0oritarian in word and deed is a much easier row to hoe, than being a humble servant of God who sets an example of holy living.

  155. @ Victorious:

    I don’t see where the reason for the apostles traveling with women/wives is specified. I always thought that the apostles were men like other men and had women/wives for all the reasons that men do that.

    And I don’t see where the apostles were into ‘counseling’ as we think of it today.

    However, the scripture does talk about older women teaching younger women how to (a whole string of things pertaining to women’s lives specifically as wives and mothers). We would call that counseling today.

    There is a practice in some traditions of the rabbi’s wife or the preacher’s wife having a similar role.

  156. Overcomer wrote:

    People, here’s the thing. DW is obviously a narcissist. He does these things on purpose to get a rise out of you. And it works. It is called negative narcissistic supply and you are giving it to him in spades. Any attention these narcs get is supply to them, negative or otherwise. He says these things on purpose to get you to write blog posts about him and comment on the posts. He does not deserve any of this attention. It feeds his ego. No need to parse the words he uses or the meanings behind them. He does it for supply. I would not give him the satisfaction. It is all a game to him and he is laughing and enjoying it immensely.

    100% this. The sad part is that he’s attracted quite a following who defend him because he shares their deplorable view of women. DW gives them “license” to be even nastier.

  157. Law Prof wrote:

    I’m not so sure that’s a bad idea, if only to protect the women.

    It’s hurting the women more than helping, though, as women across the board are not given fair or equal access to people in ministry.

    The BGR also sends a message that women are dangerous, they are to be objectified, thought of in only terms of their sexuality.

    Also, it conflicts with the Bible’s message about self control. I’m a 40 year old virgin in spite of spending time alone with an ex. If women like me can control our libido, there is no danger of me “coming on” to a pastor.

    The BGR is an insult to women like me. The BGR accuses me of being a trollop when I am not guilty.

    This is pertinent to this topic:
    Consecrated Sexual Attraction
    http://ryanthomasneace.com/2013/08/02/consecrated-sexual-attraction/

  158. OutsideLookingIn wrote:

    100% this. The sad part is that he’s attracted quite a following who defend him because he shares their deplorable view of women. DW gives them “license” to be even nastier.

    That is similar to Mark Driscoll and men who may be attracted to MD’s church or type of theology.

  159. Turning aside, for a moment, to more attention-worthy matters than Mr Wilson, there were mixed fortunes in today’s fitba’. Leicester lost to Arsenal – nothing against Arsenal, but obviously everyone wants Leicester to win the league, but the result from Villa Park:

    Aston Villa 0 – 6 Liverpool

    … was one that I did NOT see coming.

  160. okrapod wrote:

    However, the scripture does talk about older women teaching younger women how to (a whole string of things pertaining to women’s lives specifically as wives and mothers). We would call that counseling today.

    Yes, I am aware of that scripture in Titus and unfortunately I’ve heard that is the primary sphere of women’s teaching. But to take that rigid approach from that verse would also narrow her sphere to not only young women, but married young women as well. I’m concerned about the strict, “plain” teaching that relegates women to such narrow ministries. After all, I don’t know of a scripture admonishing males to teach women as logic and sound reasoning is normally applied to scriptures that involve men but lacking when they involve women.

  161. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Turning aside, for a moment, to more attention-worthy matters than Mr Wilson, there were mixed fortunes in today’s fitba’. Leicester lost to Arsenal – nothing against Arsenal, but obviously everyone wants Leicester to win the league, but the result from Villa Park:

    Poor Nick. Your priorities are really skewed. The University of Kentucky Wildcats defeated the South Carolina Gamecocks in yesterday’s basketball game 89-62, in spite of the fact that the UK head coach was ejected from the game during the first 2 minutes. I don’t understand why people on your side of the pond aren’t intrigued and amazed by that fact! ; ^ ]

  162. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    An important point for the wider false theologies of “covering”, “shepherding” and “godly leadership” that are popular among those who want their careers as clergymen to be properly lucrative. Ultimately, no-one can submit both to God and to a visible shepherd. That’s why scribsher commands elders (or whatever title we prefer to use) not to rule but to set an example in word and deed. They are, in other words, to be role-models, not gurus.

    Yep, and lowly servants, the least and last, the expendable ones (as they surely were when the NT was being written).

    There’s no comparison between John the Baptist (who essentially spat upon any fame people tried to bestow upon him, humbly pointed to Jesus for the answers, spoke the truth clearly and alone and was beheaded for it), and John Piper (who for decades welcomed the fame, smugly points to himself and fellow reformed “christian” celebs for the answers, speaks incoherently via twitter, and hides behind the skirts of his fellow reformed leaders when challenged).

  163. @ okrapod:
    okrapod wrote:

    I don’t see where the reason for the apostles traveling with women/wives is specified

    All the Gospels mention women disciples who traveled with the twelve men and Jesus. An example is Luke 8:1-3 which names the women specifically, and says “These women were helping to support them of their own means.” (TNIV) The Greek word for their service is “diakoneo”–to minister or serve as deacon–the same word used also for men, for prophets, and for Jesus throughout the Scriptures.

  164. Victorious wrote:

    But to take that rigid approach from that verse would also narrow her sphere to not only young women, but married young women as well. I’m concerned about the strict, “plain” teaching that relegates women to such narrow ministries.

    This is an area of disagreement I think that a ‘rigid’ and ‘clear’ meaning of that scripture spells out an area in which older women have a responsibility toward younger women. It says absolutely nothing nor does it imply any thing about whether other people may also have a responsibility to teach younger women nor does it imply that older women must refrain from any activities other than those specified in that statement. Nor does it say that nobody but older women can do this, nor does it say or imply that younger women may not teach other women. Nor does it say that the only thing which can be taught to younger women are those things which are specifically stated. It rigidly and clearly just does not say any of that.

    We know this in other areas. We just have heard some junk from the manipulators of scripture and we forget, I am thinking. For example, one modern version of the Hippocratic oath says “I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.” This is about passing on medical knowledge from one generation of practitioners to the next. Nobody interprets to mean that only physicians can pass on medical knowledge, or that such knowledge must be passed on only to other practitioners (keep the patient in the dark perhaps?) or that those to whom it is passed have to be younger, or that physicians cannot pass on to whomever they choose whatever knowledge they have be it medical or not. None of that is what that says, and nobody thinks it it.

    But then we come to the bible and unscrupulous (and maybe ignorant) people twist it and read into it something which is just not there. At the same time, to disregard something which is in scripture just because some people distort the ideas is to let the bad guys win.

  165. @ Deb Willi:

    So here is an example of what I have just said. The scripture does talk about wealthy women supporting and following Jesus also. It nowhere says or implies that this is the only reason that such women traveled with either Jesus or the apostles nor does it say that all the women who followed/traveled with them were wealthy, and when Paul mentions Peter in this aspect and we know that Peter had or had had a wife, I have to say that we cannot say that money may not have been the only reason and/or only function, nor can we way whether the rest were married and some of the women were wives, the word for woman and wife being the same in koine I think.

    So, I am afraid that I think that what you may have been implying is right in line with what I said above is not a good thing to do with scripture. “This” is not the same and “this and only this.”

  166. okrapod wrote:

    But then we come to the bible and unscrupulous (and maybe ignorant) people twist it and read into it something which is just not there. At the same time, to disregard something which is in scripture just because some people distort the ideas is to let the bad guys win.

    Exactly. Instead of using scripture as a guide to things that we should do, they twist it and use it to place extreme limits on what we are allowed to do.

  167. Bill M wrote:

    She came up well short of the needed criticism of Tony Jones and his abusive treatment of his ex-wife.

    Yep!

  168. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Turning aside, for a moment, to more attention-worthy matters than Mr Wilson, there were mixed fortunes in today’s fitba’. Leicester lost to Arsenal – nothing against Arsenal, but obviously everyone wants Leicester to win the league, but the result from Villa Park:
    Aston Villa 0 – 6 Liverpool
    … was one that I did NOT see coming.

    I was sadden to see Leicester loses in the last moments…..and maybe it’s just me, but Aston Villa reminds me of a high school team I was very familiar with in the 1970s that went 0-40…..yes, we didn’t win a game while I was in high school…..and that’s a big deal in American football crazy Texas…

  169. Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:

    Unfortunately common theme in neo-cal movement: angry, mean men empowering young stooges to display anger and meanness.

    I think this has something to do with their fear of the word *love.* They have twisted it to mean that they should tell you how rotten you are so that you do not continue in your sin. Interestingly, they all treat one another as BFFs and treat church goers as disgusting worms who would shut up and just listen to them.

    The fact that Doug Wilson cannot see how mean his own words are is amazing to me.

  170. patriciamc wrote:

    Rachel is very talented, but what has she done other than write a book and have a blog? What does she base her speaking engagements on? I’d rather she work somehow in real ministry and base her writing and speaking on real experience in the real world.

    I agree. I never saw the lure. It’s not like she was a scholar who was presenting an unpopular view or even one toiling in the trenches who left. It seemed more cult of personality. Just more about of what I saw from young up and comers in the seeker world . it was more about building their personal brand and making money from it. It’s the followers who scare me the most.

  171. okrapod wrote:

    But then we come to the bible and unscrupulous (and maybe ignorant) people twist it and read into it something which is just not there. At the same time, to disregard something which is in scripture just because some people distort the ideas is to let the bad guys win.

    I’m glad we’re in agreement. The passage in Titus is speaking to both older (mature) men and older (mature) women who should be an example and an encouragement to the younger ones. To read into that a restrictive area of ministry for older women is nonsense.

  172. okrapod wrote:

    @ Deb Willi:

    So here is an example of what I have just said. The scripture does talk about wealthy women supporting and following Jesus also. It nowhere says or implies that this is the only reason that such women traveled with either Jesus or the apostles nor does it say that all the women who followed/traveled with them were wealthy, and when Paul mentions Peter in this aspect and we know that Peter had or had had a wife, I have to say that we cannot say that money may not have been the only reason and/or only function, nor can we way whether the rest were married and some of the women were wives, the word for woman and wife being the same in koine I think.

    So, I am afraid that I think that what you may have been implying is right in line with what I said above is not a good thing to do with scripture. “This” is not the same and “this and only this.”

    @ okrapod:

    Okrapod (I love that name!)–
    I hope I can clarify. You are correct that “this and only this” is not a good view of Scripture. My implication was only that these verses are one example of women as traveling disciples. Their ministry was (as these verses and other Scripture say) ” . . . proclaiming good news of the kingdom.” Their service is identified in Luke and other Scriptures with the same Greek word used service/ministry of Jesus’, men disciples,and prophets. BTW, Luke did not specifically say here these were “wealthy” women (although perhaps Joanna, wife of manager of Herod’s household was), but rather women “. .. who had been cured of evil spirits and disease.” Luke named also Mary Magdalene here–most likely not in the wealthy category. Indeed, these women had experienced “good news of the kingdom” to proclaim–and used their own means to do it.

  173. Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:

    I would argue that it wasn’t that twisted. Using the typical evangelical approach to the Bible, one could very well justify slavery.

    Absolutely. But if one takes any different approach to scripture than the typical evangelical approach that opens up a whole Pandora’s box of other issues. That particular approach to scripture also results in scriptural argument for the subjugation of women, YEC, and the potential ability to take up serpents and not be bitten. Not to forget the catastrophic and almost total destruction of the entire biosphere including those left behind.

    Or one can become a Papist (to use HUG’s term) or perhaps even a liberal sin-loving biblically illiterate compromiser all of whom are condemned already because they did not believe Billy Joe Bob Jr the senior pastor when he tried to warn them.

  174. PaJo wrote:

    The males teachers were paid a higher salary than the female teachers. On principle. The female teachers were assumed to be living under the care of a male, whether a husband, a father or a substitute father, so single women were paid less than single men.

    The women (teachers and parents of students) were expected to be awake at dawn and never asleep before 11pm, so as to be available to serve their husbands and families.

    Courtship. No dating.

    Children who did not attend the Wilsonite church (most families and almost all faculty and staff did) invariably ended up being punished more harshly than children of attendees.

    Individually, there were some very nice people there, but as a group and under the bonds that bound them, that was a creepy place for the very reason that it lived under Wilsonite rules, which largely can be summed up “Men rule, women drool.”

    PaJo, your experiences mirror my family’s at a classical Christian school. We had our kids enrolled there for about 6 years. I wrote a guest post for TWW a few years ago about it. Thank God we got out.

  175. @ siteseer:
    He has also referred to women who disagree with him as “lumberjack dykes.” Dince i don’t fit into the 1st category (per what beakerj refers to as “frontage”), i suppose he would see me as a lumbersexually inclined person, because i sometimes wear flannel and favor a pixie cut. But anyone who is so obviously misogynistic isn’t worth the bother (my spending time reading his lucubrations – hah!), i think.

    / off to finish thriller about woman C of E priest who is also the diocesan exorcist. Not something Wilson would ever read, I’m sure.

  176. @ Friend:
    I think maybe they’re trying to look like what the English call “wide boys.” But they *really* need to work on their, err… sartorial embellishments. 😉

  177. Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:

    I would argue that it wasn’t that twisted. Using the typical evangelical approach to the Bible, one could very well justify slavery.

    Which is why I rely on my own conscience, reason, and moral compass within to decide for myself what the Bible says and what it does not say.
    The Bible has a long history of supporting or not supporting just about anything its readers fancy or don’t fancy.

  178. numo wrote:

    “wide boys.”

    Good thought… I’m not sure wide boys have ever been an Oxford thing, but why not?

    Or maybe they are emulating young fogeys. Almost fits, and ’twas definitely an Oxford thing. 🙂

  179. Law Prof wrote:

    There’s no comparison between John the Baptist (who essentially spat upon any fame people tried to bestow upon him, humbly pointed to Jesus for the answers, spoke the truth clearly and alone and was beheaded for it), and John Piper (who for decades welcomed the fame, smugly points to himself and fellow reformed “christian” celebs for the answers, speaks incoherently via twitter, and hides behind the skirts of his fellow reformed leaders when challenged).

    Don’t forget the retirement video filmed in Geneva Switzerland where Flutterhands announced his claim to the Iron Throne of Calvin.

  180. Leila wrote:

    your experiences mirror my family’s at a classical Christian school. We had our kids enrolled there for about 6 years. I wrote a guest post for TWW a few years ago about it. Thank God we got out

    Same here–we got out pretty fast. But I do want to add that my son ended his high school years at a fantastic Classical Christian school…it just wasn’t in the thrall of Wilson…or of any one person. I am a big fan of Classical education–we homeschooled that way grades 2-8, and I’m very glad we did. I wanted to draw the distinction that it wasn’t “classical” or “Christian” that got in the way. It was the Wilson Worship.

  181. Victorious wrote:

    I’m concerned about the strict, “plain” teaching that relegates women to such narrow ministries.

    Whenever you hear “strict plain teaching of SCRIPTURE”, remember the Strict Plain Teaching that the Plague of Demon Locusts in Revelation meant helicopter gunships armed with chemical weapons and piloted by long-haired bearded Hippies. Puts a lot into perspective.

  182. Daisy wrote:

    OutsideLookingIn wrote:
    100% this. The sad part is that he’s attracted quite a following who defend him because he shares their deplorable view of women. DW gives them “license” to be even nastier.
    That is similar to Mark Driscoll and men who may be attracted to MD’s church or type of theology.

    And the young tough and cocky Goon Squads of Fearless Leader after Fearless Leader.

    One old Christian psych book I read decades ago described the dynamic Fearless Leader gives His Young Followers permission (from Cosmic-level Authority) to do what is normally forbidden, a License to Sin in the name of The Cause. All is Lawful for The Leader and The Cause.

  183. Daisy wrote:

    The BGR also sends a message that women are dangerous, they are to be objectified, thought of in only terms of their sexuality.

    In the words of one ManaGAWD, “homes for a man’s penis”.
    (Anyone wanna make book on which “man’s penis” he was thinking of?)

    Also, it conflicts with the Bible’s message about self control. I’m a 40 year old virgin in spite of spending time alone with an ex. If women like me can control our libido, there is no danger of me “coming on” to a pastor.

    But every Pastor KNOWS that All Women Find Him Irresistible and Shall Come On to Him uncontrollably!

  184. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Whenever you hear “strict plain teaching of SCRIPTURE”, remember the Strict Plain Teaching that the Plague of Demon Locusts in Revelation meant helicopter gunships armed with chemical weapons and piloted by long-haired bearded Hippies. Puts a lot into perspective.

    It’s always funny how people who are Biblical literalists really aren’t when it suites their needs

  185. patriciamc wrote:

    Jeffrey Chalmers wrote:
    If DW equates women “behavior” to their breast size, what does he attribute to mail behavior??

    Yes! I giggle everytime I see someone commenting on the small breasted “biddies.” So Doug, we all know where our minds are going about you….

    A little momento from classic Dr Demento:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46EbjMkeghE

    (Sue Loo’s “Small Busted Woman” apparently never made it to YouTube.)

  186. Deb Willi wrote:

    @ okrapod:
    okrapod wrote:

    I don’t see where the reason for the apostles traveling with women/wives is specified

    All the Gospels mention women disciples who traveled with the twelve men and Jesus. An example is Luke 8:1-3 which names the women specifically, and says “These women were helping to support them of their own means.” (TNIV) The Greek word for their service is “diakoneo”–to minister or serve as deacon–the same word used also for men, for prophets, and for Jesus throughout the Scriptures.

    Oops l missed this. Sorry. The whole thing is mentioned in passing. Stated as a historical fact. Which seems to make it a bit radical considering the scandsls the religious leaders were accusing Jesus of creating.

  187. Darlene wrote:

    Just read A.W. Pink. He was a staunch Calvinist and blatantly stated that God doesn’t love everybody. Pink understood the implications of Reformed soteriology.

    According to Internet Monk, A.W.Pink also achieved the theoretical ultimate End State of Protestantism: The One True Church of One, worshipping alone because everyone other than himself was Apostate or Heretic.

    As Ayn Rand was “The Only Truly Rational Mind Which Has Ever Existed” (her words, not mine), so A.W.Pink was The Only Truly Elect Who Has Ever Existed, the only one whose Theology was Perfectly Parsed, Truly Reformed, and Utterly Correct.

  188. Daisy wrote:

    Somewhere or another in the past, I’ve heard the phrase “perfect victim” used to describe court cases where a lady sexual assault victim will be dragged through the mud and have her reputation questioned in court because maybe before she was assaulted, she worked as a prostitute, or she had lots of casual sex with many boyfriends or whatever.

    In street language, “You can’t rape a whore.”

  189. Daisy wrote:

    Am I the only one who doesn’t like to tell the waiter in Tex Mex restaurants when it’s my birthday, out of fear he’ll send the Mariachi band over to sing Happy Birthday to me in front of everyone?

    You are definitely NOT the only one.

    (For the same reason you never admit that it’s your first time at a Midnight showing of Rocky Horror Picture Show…)

  190. Daisy wrote:

    Would Wilson argue that the problem with these male sexual assault victims mentioned in that article is that they lacked male protection? Would he blame male victims for not seeking out male protection?

    No, he’d argue they were whatever is Kirk Christianese for “FAAG! FAAAAAAG! FAAAAAAAG!”

  191. Daisy wrote:

    s Wilson’s favorite singer P!nk?

    P!nk has an album from several years ago entitled “M!ssundaztood” (Misunderstood).

    Is this the same Pink who did “Stupid Girls”?
    (The song’s about Paris Hilton imitators and wannabes.)

  192. Elizabeth Lee wrote:

    I looked at the Counseling Application. It’s horrifying. It’s written to protect the church from lawsuits while expecting the person receiving “treatment” to give up all privacy and all rights.

    Was Elron Hubbard and/or David Miscavage credited as a consultant?

  193. Lydia wrote:

    @ Victorious:
    Luke 8 does mention women traveling with them who support them financially. :o)

    Yes, but what I was disputing up thread was the assumption that the purpose of their accompanying the apostles was to counsel women. That particular purpose I could not find specified anywhere.

  194. Daisy wrote:

    Law Prof wrote:
    I’m not so sure that’s a bad idea, if only to protect the women.

    Hey Daisy, I agree, I was just funning a little, saying that such policies were reasonable not based on the dangers of a wanton woman jumping a poor, naive Pastor and besmirching his reputation, but of a lascivious wolf of a pastor jumping a poor, naive woman and besmirching her reputation. Seems option #2 is more commonplace.

  195. K.D. wrote:

    …reminds me of a high school team I was very familiar with in the 1970s that went 0-40…..yes, we didn’t win a game while I was in high school…..and that’s a big deal in American football crazy Texas…

    I played on a high school team in the 1980s in the midst of a 34 game losing streak. Punch line is, I was so inept that I sat the bench on said team and only started one game (was quickly pulled for the first stringer) so that I could earn my letter. Coach at least had some mercy on me.

  196. Max wrote:

    Reformed theology defines Christianity in terms of rigid doctrinal propositions based on points of “grace”, rather than a direct experience of Grace available to ALL who call on the name of Jesus and believe in Him.

    Reformed Theology defines Christianity as Purity of Ideology.

  197. numo wrote:

    @ siteseer:
    “lumberjack dykes.” …“small breasted biddies…”

    This isn’t nice, but having looked at the rather ample feller that is Mr. Wilson (a man who ought to consider mixing a few salads and rice cakes into his diet), for looking the way that he does, and all the stereotypes that his physique and demeanor might invite, he sure does make a lot of references to other peoples’ physical attributes, typically painting with a rather broad, stereotyping brush. Again, not nice, but I dare say were I within 50 pounds of Mr. Wilson, I’d tread very lightly in that department.

  198. Law Prof wrote:

    he sure does make a lot of references to other peoples’ physical attributes, typically painting with a rather broad, stereotyping brush

    I’ve noticed that Mr. Wilson does seem to enjoy expounding upon cultural ideals and stereotypes — for instance, such as about [in]adequate female body image attributes) and related social stigmas — and then imposing (or implanting) self-doubts into people to whom he applies them.

    I appreciated the earlier comment made by Overcomer about “negative narcissistic supply”; it seems reasonable that it applies in this situation. Such needling is ultimately neither clever nor constructive, it is contemptuous and cruel. That does not build up and edify, it bowls over and destroys.

    Could a supposed pastor get much more worldly, while functioning under the guise of wisdom?

  199. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Daisy wrote:
    OutsideLookingIn wrote:
    100% this. The sad part is that he’s attracted quite a following who defend him because he shares their deplorable view of women. DW gives them “license” to be even nastier.
    That is similar to Mark Driscoll and men who may be attracted to MD’s church or type of theology.
    And the young tough and cocky Goon Squads of Fearless Leader after Fearless Leader.
    One old Christian psych book I read decades ago described the dynamic Fearless Leader gives His Young Followers permission (from Cosmic-level Authority) to do what is normally forbidden, a License to Sin in the name of The Cause. All is Lawful for The Leader and The Cause.

    You’ve just reminded me of the strong-arm squads Doug Phillips was said to have sent out, to intimidate people (like the Allosaurus guy? I don’t remember any more. I just remember being shocked, and wondering if the VF interns we knew had numbered that among their duties…) who were annoying him by trying to tell their side of the story when in conflict with him or his organization.

  200. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Darlene wrote:
    Just read A.W. Pink. He was a staunch Calvinist and blatantly stated that God doesn’t love everybody. Pink understood the implications of Reformed soteriology.
    According to Internet Monk, A.W.Pink also achieved the theoretical ultimate End State of Protestantism: The One True Church of One, worshipping alone because everyone other than himself was Apostate or Heretic.
    As Ayn Rand was “The Only Truly Rational Mind Which Has Ever Existed” (her words, not mine), so A.W.Pink was The Only Truly Elect Who Has Ever Existed, the only one whose Theology was Perfectly Parsed, Truly Reformed, and Utterly Correct.

    Wow. Guess he’s all alone in heaven, then. Sounds as if even God and Jesus wouldn’t fit into his narrow definitions.

  201. refugee wrote:

    You’ve just reminded me of the strong-arm squads Doug Phillips was said to have sent out, to intimidate people (like the Allosaurus guy? I don’t remember any more. I just remember being shocked, and wondering if the VF interns we knew had numbered that among their duties…) who were annoying him by trying to tell their side of the story when in conflict with him or his organization.

    Fair Game Law LRH…

  202. Law Prof wrote:

    This isn’t nice, but having looked at the rather ample feller that is Mr. Wilson (a man who ought to consider mixing a few salads and rice cakes into his diet), for looking the way that he does, and all the stereotypes that his physique and demeanor might invite, he sure does make a lot of references to other peoples’ physical attributes…

    But when he looks in the mirror, all he sees is a perfect Adonis with two percent body fat and six-pack abs.

    When anyone outside the Kirk looks at him?
    “YABBA DABBA DOO!”

  203. Law Prof wrote:

    Not saying there isn’t a Christian among the reformed, of course there are many, but Calvinism is the perfect belief system for one who has rejected Jesus and truly believes in nothing but his own (supposed) intellect.

    I understand what you are saying, LP. I have known and interacted with many Calvinists who serve in various capacities in church. But it has always troubled me that they appear to put more faith in doctrines of grace than in the author of Grace, professing to be Christ-followers but avoiding the word believer. I’m not saying that some aren’t genuinely born-again, just as I wouldn’t say that all who profess to believe have genuinely been converted.

    And, yes, Calvinism is the perfect system for lost intellectuals to pose as churchmen, while debating jots and tittles. But, as this article points out, some ain’t as smart as they think they are!

  204. Mark wrote:

    Sorry but isn’t lack of empathy and love for others a definition of narcissism?

    Lack of empathy is a key indicator of a number of personality disorders including narcissistic personality disorder.

  205. “Why in the world does Doug Wilson bother with his blog?”

    Because he has too many yes-men (and 1-2 yes-women) that always comment on his blog, and lovingly refer to him as “Pastor Wilson” and marvel at his skills with words and logic.

    It is pointless to challenge anything on his blog, because then you are called a troll and accused of persecution.

    He even thinks that, by his own recent blog post, that he MUST be doing everything right and Godly because he gets so much criticism. Faulty logic there!

    I do peruse his blog daily and the comments section, but mainly to see how far off this guy and his followers (and that is what they are!) truly are.

  206. Adam Borsay wrote:

    A recent hobby of mine(not by choice but circumstance) is engaging with KJV Onlysists.

    Ha ha! I used to engage them as well. My “stumping” question to their insistence that the King James was the ONLY correct bible in the world was “if that is the case, what does the Chinese Christian in China then read?”. How does one translate “thee” and ” thou” in to Maderin? Is there a KJV Manderin Bible that exists that is EXACTLY the same as the English KJV? ( one does not exist) … Of course not.

  207. Law Prof wrote:

    This isn’t nice, but having looked at the rather ample feller that is Mr. Wilson (a man who ought to consider mixing a few salads and rice cakes into his diet),

    Might be a good idea to lay off the single-malt hootch from Scotland too.

  208. I’m actually quite astonished that a pastor would actually write ANYTHING about a woman’ s breast size to make a point about ANYTHING!

    From Doug Wilson’s own blog

    “So feminism — smash the patriarchy feminism — wants us to be ruled by harridans, termagants, harpies and crones. That sets the tone, and the pestering is then made complete by small-breasted biddies who want to make sure nobody is using too much hot water in the shower, and that we are all getting plenty of fiber. And if anyone reads these words and believes that I am attacking all women by them, that would provide great example of why we should not entrust our cultural future to people who can’t read.”

    So this is who the Gospel Coalition so proudly associates themselves with? Maybe we should write about the small membered pastors of TGC and use their lack of size to bolster our argument that they have lost their touch with the basics of Christianity! How absurd Wilson is in even writing those words!!!

    It doesn’t surprise me though. As long as you believe the same neo-Calvinist doctrine that we do, you are in! Protect child molesters? You’re in… Doesn’t matter.

    “Professing to be wise, they became fools!”

  209. brad/futuristguy wrote:

    Could a supposed pastor get much more worldly, while functioning under the guise of wisdom?

    Don’t know that he’s capable of being anything other than worldly, not sure it’s even possible, and I have theory about that, has a lot to do with the adjective you used to modify “pastor”.

  210. Max wrote:

    And, yes, Calvinism is the perfect system for lost intellectuals to pose as churchmen, while debating jots and tittles. But, as this article points out, some ain’t as smart as they think they are!

    Only one addition I’d make: “lost intellectuals” should read “lost pseudo intellectuals”.

  211. Law Prof wrote:

    Don’t know that he’s capable of being anything other than worldly, not sure it’s even possible, and I have theory about that, has a lot to do with the adjective you used to modify “pastor”.

    Yes, and it’s sad. He puts on a good “biblical” front for his affronts, but it all brings 2 Timothy 3:1-5 to mind:

    Chapter 3. But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. 2 People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, 4 treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— 5 having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with such people. (NIV, via Biblegateway)

  212. Max wrote:

    Law Prof wrote:
    Not saying there isn’t a Christian among the reformed, of course there are many, but Calvinism is the perfect belief system for one who has rejected Jesus and truly believes in nothing but his own (supposed) intellect.
    I understand what you are saying, LP. I have known and interacted with many Calvinists who serve in various capacities in church. But it has always troubled me that they appear to put more faith in doctrines of grace than in the author of Grace, professing to be Christ-followers but avoiding the word believer. I’m not saying that some aren’t genuinely born-again, just as I wouldn’t say that all who profess to believe have genuinely been converted.

    Very interesting insights. I’ve been trying to wrap my head around why anyone would be attracted to Calvinism. I just don’t get it, but I do know that Calvinists have made an idol out of their theology and have practically made a new religion apart from regular Christianity.
    And, yes, Calvinism is the perfect system for lost intellectuals to pose as churchmen, while debating jots and tittles. But, as this article points out, some ain’t as smart as they think they are!

  213. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    That’s why scribsher commands elders (or whatever title we prefer to use) not to rule but to set an example in word and deed.

    I know I’m being a pain, but Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor[arium], especially those who labour in preaching and teaching.

    In rejecting the guru status and shepherding/covering stuff, and of course I agree with you on that, it’s very easy to go to the other extreme and have an individualistic ‘Jesus and me’ approach that allows no room for any form of leadership in a church. I’d also agree such leadership is derived from character and example as much as anything else.

  214. Anonymous wrote:

    But it’s hard to be angry with Evans. Wilson gave her an opening with such a quote. I suspect that Wilson meant that women who do not follow his prescriptions with regard to gender relations are rejecting God’s protection,

    I think your post just about got it right. Wilson and Evans are six of one and half a dozen of the other. They have both made inflammatory statements on this issue.

    I do think if Wilson states categorically that he did not intend his ‘tacit agreement to the propriety of rape’ to be a justification for rape, he should be taken at his word, especially if he says this in clear, non-flowery language.

    There is still plenty of room to disagree with him over men being the prime defence against women being molested, without putting words in his mouth, which is what RHE has done imo.

  215. Law Prof wrote:

    …for looking the way that he does, and all the stereotypes that his physique and demeanor might invite, he sure does make a lot of references to other peoples’ physical attributes, typically painting with a rather broad, stereotyping brush. Again, not nice, but I dare say were I within 50 pounds of Mr. Wilson, I’d tread very lightly in that department.

    As the saying goes, “Those who live in glass houses…”

  216. refugee wrote:

    Wow. Guess he’s all alone in heaven, then. Sounds as if even God and Jesus wouldn’t fit into his narrow definitions.

    Sounds like the dwarfs at the end of The Last Battle.

    “Pink is for Pink, and out with all who dare disagree with Pink!!”

  217. Ken wrote:

    I do think if Wilson states categorically that he did not intend his ‘tacit agreement to the propriety of rape’ to be a justification for rape, he should be taken at his word, especially if he says this in clear, non-flowery language.

    Really? After many times of calling commentors unable to read and insulting them because he does not write in an understandable way, we are to take him at his word? Wilson’s actions speak louder than his words. His actions don’t change. I will not take him at his word, his words ARE his problem.

    Did he say this somewhere in clear, non-flowery words?

    Isn’t there a proverb about many words . . .

    When there are many words, transgression is unavoidable, But he who restrains his lips is wise. – Proverbs 10:19

  218. Somewhereintime wrote:

    My “stumping” question to their insistence that the King James was the ONLY correct bible in the world

    If you want another one, the original Luther bible 70 odd years before the AV did not have the ‘missing’ verse in 1 John 5 : 7. It was also based obviously on the TR.

    So are German Christians heretics and unsaved for not incorporating this verse? I’ve never yet had an answer to this question.

  219. Dan from Georgia wrote:

    He even thinks that, by his own recent blog post, that he MUST be doing everything right and Godly because he gets so much criticism. Faulty logic there!

    This is exactly where he goes! The persecution card now comes out. He does not seem to see that this behavior has become a pattern.

  220. Bridget wrote:

    Did he say this somewhere in clear, non-flowery words?

    Dee quoted him:

    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?

    RHE scored an own goal here. Wilson is using her putting the worst possible interpretation of his words, or perhaps her misinterpretation deliberate or otherwise of them to say that if this kind of criticism of him has that level of accuracy, similar internet criticism of the C J Mahaney’s of this world may also be similarly highly inaccurate or driven by an agenda of some kind.

    Nate made an honest mistake in putting a wrong link (since corrected) in his criticism of Wilson, and Wilson’s commenters picked on the mismatch.

    This does not mean Wilson should not be subject to discernment and evaluation like every other blogger, but some criticism seems to me to resemble MacArthur on the charismatic movement.

  221. @ Victorious:
    I get that now. For some reason I missed a slew of comments reading from my phone. The reference in Luke 8 is somewhat baffling to many today. Everyone in comp-land ignores it. And one does not want to make more of it than it deserves but it falls in line with several other events such as the woman at the well, the accusations of scandalous behavior by the religious leaders, etc. The author of Luke seems to mention it as a historical fact and mentions their part in funding the travels. Why? Because it was so and we can take that into consideration within the entire pericope. It sort of changes things from a patriarchal/comp point of view.

    I am mindful that reading scripture includes what happened, what was said, what was not said, what people did or did not do. I find it quite interesting from that pov. Compared to Jesus was Paul then a bit of a misogynist? Or have we misunderstood him, historically?

  222. Somewhereintime wrote:

    Adam Borsay wrote:
    A recent hobby of mine(not by choice but circumstance) is engaging with KJV Onlysists.
    Ha ha! I used to engage them as well. My “stumping” question to their insistence that the King James was the ONLY correct bible in the world was “if that is the case, what does the Chinese Christian in China then read?”. How does one translate “thee” and ” thou” in to Maderin? Is there a KJV Manderin Bible that exists that is EXACTLY the same as the English KJV? ( one does not exist) … Of course not.

    Whenever I run into them, I always suggest they go online and read the very long original preface written by the translators. Not the abridged one in their bible. :o)

  223. @ Ken:

    If double honor (arium) means money then who gets paid single honorarium? The problem is we need MORE “individuals” knowing Jesus Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit outside the institution and it’s so called titled “leaders”. That has historically been the problem from Northern Africa to Geneva to the shores of the New World. Christianity has been an evil bloody mess because of such interpretations.

  224. Ken wrote:

    There is still plenty of room to disagree with him over men being the prime defence against women being molested, without putting words in his mouth, which is what RHE has done imo.

    The bottomline with Wilson is he wants us to respond to what “we think he said”. It does this on purpose. He believes he has plausible deniability he then uses to further club his detractors. You fell for it as did anonymous. He is all about playing games and trying to be provocative and clever. There is a certain element out there that really gets into dissecting Wilson’s words. Wilson knows exactly what he is doing. He loves it.

    A better way to deal with Wilson is not to assume what he says but how he chooses to communicate. He plays people. He is all about getting a reaction…any reactions. Driscoll was like this but much more blunt and not clever at all. They have the Narcissists need for attention they then use to manage the chaos that ensues from their declarations. It just gives them more fodder to write about. The idea that Wilson has any credibility or influence with anyone concerns me the most.

    When Piper had him speak at DG, the YRR were enraptured. They were defending him on blogs but not a one of them had bothered to do their homework. So when “Black and Tan” or “Slavery As It Was” and a few links to the problems with its scholarship included, not a one of them knew about it. All they knew was that Piper approved so he had to be ok.

  225. Ken wrote:

    I do think if Wilson states categorically that he did not intend his ‘tacit agreement to the propriety of rape’ to be a justification for rape, he should be taken at his word, especially if he says this in clear, non-flowery language.

    Let me understand. Wilson makes his living as a “communicator”. Right? We see a pattern over the years of him claiming we simply cannot read what he writes and understand what he means . Okey dokey.

    At some point, the pattern should become obvious. But Wilson is grateful to you that it doesn’t. :o)

  226. Lydia wrote:

    If double honor (arium) means money then who gets paid single honorarium?

    Mundane elders who aren’t very good at teaching and preaching! No shortage of those. I think you have homed in on the part of the verse I wasn’t really interested in. I think it does mean full-time people (where absolutely necessary) should not be left in poverty as has often been the case.

    But the main point was to get away from the idea of not having any kind of leadership at all. Many charismatic groups attempted this as a reaction against the cork in the bottle type leadership of the old denominations, and I for one don’t blame them. But sooner or later they needed some kind of structure, and either this developed within the fellowship and flourished, or someone who was only too pleased to appoint themselves the Lord’s anointed and become the Unquestioned Authority took over, leading to the disasters that sadly have followed in the wake of too many things charismatic.

    The problem is not leadership as such, it is when the wrong people get into it and start up their little kingdom.

    There is still just about enough charismatic left in me to have an intense dislike of ‘intitutionalised’ churchianty, or leaders who, if you decide to follow them, will only lead you into a barren wasteland or the deception they are in themselves.

  227. To my King James Only friends I say this, “It was good enough for Paul and Silas and it’s good enough for me.”

  228. Lydia wrote:

    Let me understand. Wilson makes his living as a “communicator”. Right? We see a pattern over the years of him claiming we simply cannot read what he writes and understand what he means . Okey dokey.

    Idiocracy.
    All those Marching Morons are simply unable to understand Douggle’s Superior Intellect.
    “Wile E Coyote. Super. Genius.”

  229. Dan from Georgia wrote:

    He even thinks that, by his own recent blog post, that he MUST be doing everything right and Godly because he gets so much criticism. Faulty logic there!

    “Blessed are Ye who art Perscuted FOR RIGHTEOUSNESS’ SAKE.”
    NOT “Blessed are Ye who art Persecuted for Being an A-hole.”

    This also reminds me of one comment in Daylight Atheism’s scene-by-scene snark of that other Scripture, Atlas Shrugged:

    It was a mention of an Ayn Rand short story about a Writer (probable Author Self-Insert) Who was so Talented and Whose writing was so Perfect and spoke such Utter Truthiness that all the Marching Mooching Moron publishers and readers rejected Her. (Cue 13-year-old whining “Nobody Understands MEEEE!”) So she deliberately dumbed down her writing — and found She could not! She was so gosh-darn talented that She couldn’t dumb it down enough for the Marching Mooching Morons; Her Excellence and Perfection and Intellect shone through every single word!

  230. OutsideLookingIn wrote:

    Mark wrote:
    Sorry but isn’t lack of empathy and love for others a definition of narcissism?

    Lack of empathy is a key indicator of a number of personality disorders including narcissistic personality disorder.

    What about being able to empathize more with fictional characters than RL people?

  231. Lydia wrote:

    The bottomline with Wilson is he wants us to respond to what “we think he said”. It does this on purpose. He believes he has plausible deniability he then uses to further club his detractors. You fell for it as did anonymous. He is all about playing games and trying to be provocative and clever.

    Certainly there’s an element of this, it’s apparent he’s trying to be clever and provocative, appears he’s legitimately trying to set people up and trap them through wordplay, playing “gotcha”.

    But in many cases, I believe he doesn’t have a firm grasp on what he’s doing or saying, a bit unclear on the concept, but posing as a great mind for his fans, he uses three dollar words and it blows up on him. Most of his defensiveness is a desperate post hoc effort to make it seem like he knew precisely what he was doing all the time. When he’s just caught red-handed and clueless, he uses the “you just don’t get it” strategy.

    He’s a C+ intellect posing as genius; his reasoning and writing has all the earmarks of a pompous sophomore with a thesaurus.

  232. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    yobs.
    When they’re not chavs

    Ooo how fun it would be if the lads in Idaho had a big parade where they dressed up as chavs, Sloanes, mods, rockers, young fogeys, and maybe a lonely Piper.

    Special note to our actual British readers: Please, please forgive this banter. Even among their fellow countrymen, the Moscow Id(aho)iots don’t pass muster as Anglophiles.

  233. Lydia wrote:

    He is all about getting a reaction

    I get that. And it works, too.

    As a moderately impartial observer, it seems to me his critics don’t always articulate what he says very accurately or they fall into the linguistic traps he sets them. He knows how to use this to act in an innocent, ‘butter wouldn’t melt in his mouth’ way.

    I’ve read his blog for quite a while, at times with profit, more recently his pomposity has been getting on my nerves. (Team pyro might have made me more sensitive to this kind of thing!)

    I just don’t have time to get into his views on slavery, and trying to get an objective critique on the internet would, I suspect, be easier said than done. So on this latter subject, I can’t give an informed opinion – if someone wanted it. And I’m afraid I couldn’t care less about intra-Calvinist disputes of the Aubern Avenue (?) variety.

    He is sometimes good at pointing out the folly of the wicked, when the white flag is being hoisted by too many evangelicals on various controversial issues.

  234. Law Prof wrote:

    He’s a C+ intellect posing as genius; his reasoning and writing has all the earmarks of a pompous sophomore with a thesaurus.

    It’s possible to think clearly but not write clearly.

    It’s impossible to write clearly without thinking clearly.

    Good writers have respect for readers, but this man loves to blame and scorn them. That suggests intellectual laziness or an inability to think clearly.

  235. “What’s the Problem with Douggie?”

    When I saw the title of this thread, it reminded me of a long-ago scene from The Flintstones. Upon finding it on YouTube, I found it fits a lot better than I thought. Since Douggie of the Kirk is said to physically resemble Fred Flintstone… Yabba Dabba Doo…

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfsUIiA8BoM

  236. @ Ken:
    On slavery: he thinks it was a good thing. I cannot even begin to articulate how horrible thst is, especially seeing as he’s friend with various neo Confederates who would like to reinstate chattel slavery in the South.

    But all of the fringe homeschoolers idealize aspects of the Confederacy, and most have a Stonewall Jackson crudh. Not j/k or exaggerating.

  237. I just saw this quoted over at Moscowid dot net, and had to include it here. It’s a quote from a blog bost by Katie Botkin.

    Statistically, if you attend Christ Church and particularly if you board Wilson’s seminary or college students, your children have a high-ish likelihood of being molested or otherwise preyed on by adult men in completely inappropriate ways. Wilson knows this is true, because, as he’s so fond of saying, he “covers sin up for a living.” But even given this statistical chance of molestation, it would not be true if I claimed “people who attend Christ Church tacitly agree on the propriety of having their children raped.” See the difference now? Nobody “tacitly” agrees on the “propriety” of being raped by failing to do something, whether you fail to leave a church hosting known rapists or you fail to walk around with a man on your arm at all times.

    http://kbotkin.com/2016/02/14/protection-and-propriety/

  238. @ Headless Unicorn Guy: Much of what Doug Philips states as fact is fiction, like slavery is great. My next question if he and his followers would like to resurrect slavery in their midst. The true implications of Philips revisionist history and mental _________ would be pretty scary. Unlike fantasy or fiction , it should be taken seriously.

  239. numo wrote:

    Ken is the one who needs to read it, though…

    I didn’t intend to direct it at you, numo. I thought I’d throw that link in for anyone who may not be aware of Wilson’s views. Sorry for any confusion.

  240. numo wrote:

    On slavery: he thinks it was a good thing. I cannot even begin to articulate how horrible thst is, especially seeing as he’s friend with various neo Confederates who would like to reinstate chattel slavery in the South.

    What would DW say if we reinstate slavery ~~~~ and put DW and his running buddies on the auction block?

  241. Ken wrote:

    Lydia wrote:
    If double honor (arium) means money then who gets paid single honorarium?
    Mundane elders who aren’t very good at teaching and preaching! No shortage of those. I think you have homed in on the part of the verse I wasn’t really interested in. I think it does mean full-time people (where absolutely necessary) should not be left in poverty as has often been the case.
    But the main point was to get away from the idea of not having any kind of leadership at all. Many charismatic groups attempted this as a reaction against the cork in the bottle type leadership of the old denominations, and I for one don’t blame them. But sooner or later they needed some kind of structure, and either this developed within the fellowship and flourished, or someone who was only too pleased to appoint themselves the Lord’s anointed and become the Unquestioned Authority took over, leading to the disasters that sadly have followed in the wake of too many things charismatic.
    The problem is not leadership as such, it is when the wrong people get into it and start up their little kingdom.
    There is still just about enough charismatic left in me to have an intense dislike of ‘intitutionalised’ churchianty, or leaders who, if you decide to follow them, will only lead you into a barren wasteland or the deception they are in themselves.

    The main problem is with defining leadership the way you do rather than the way God does.

  242. Mark wrote:

    @ Mark: actually Doug Phillips is another slavery apologist.

    Makes perfect sense considering he has a veritable fetish for dressing up like he’s stuck in the 18th century.

  243. BeenThereDoneThat wrote:

    I just saw this quoted over at Moscowid dot net, and had to include it here. It’s a quote from a blog bost by Katie Botkin.
    Statistically, if you attend Christ Church and particularly if you board Wilson’s seminary or college students, your children have a high-ish likelihood of being molested or otherwise preyed on by adult men in completely inappropriate ways. Wilson knows this is true, because, as he’s so fond of saying, he “covers sin up for a living.” But even given this statistical chance of molestation, it would not be true if I claimed “people who attend Christ Church tacitly agree on the propriety of having their children raped.” See the difference now? Nobody “tacitly” agrees on the “propriety” of being raped by failing to do something, whether you fail to leave a church hosting known rapists or you fail to walk around with a man on your arm at all times.

    I like reading Katie’s blog. She’s got an interesting perspective given that her uncle is Geoff Botkin, a Patriarchy extremist (redundant, I know). Her parents got out of the cult, and Katie’s a normal person. She’s written quite a bit about Doug Wilson. You know, the Botkins and their craziness and their church might make an interesting blog post here.

  244. Ken wrote:

    [Wilson] is sometimes good at pointing out the folly of the wicked…

    Except his own, apparently.

    Lemme guess… Wilson looks in every mirror and sees nothing but perfection?

  245. numo wrote:

    Just that Ken seems to think we’re making it up

    I don’t know where you got this from, numo, I haven’t remotely implied this. What I did say is I haven’t got bogged down in Wilson and slavery, although I did see some of the interaction with Thabiti Anyabwile.

    I did read most of the link on this subject. I wondered what a professional historian would make of it (see below). I don’t have a problem with Wilson challenging the prevailing view, but I don’t know enough of American history to say whether he has a point or not. Remember the victors tend to ensure their version of events is what goes into the history books.

    Some of his arguments about slavery in the bible were imo questionable. It being legal does not make it moral.

    I also noticed he dates Big Government to the victory of the north, a subject he frequently waxes eloquent on on his blog. This part of his agenda for writing.

    He might well be whitewashing a grim period in American history. I’ve read Southern Slavery as it Wasn’t (again only quickly) by two actual historians who not surprisingly think Wilson’s effort historical revisionist nonsense.

    One area where I part company with Wilson is that I was taught, and still believe, that as Christians we have been delivered from the law of Moses absolutely. We are simply under Christ and a new convenant; under grace and not under law at all.

  246. numo wrote:

    @ Ken:
    On slavery: he thinks it was a good thing. I cannot even begin to articulate how horrible thst is, especially seeing as he’s friend with various neo Confederates who would like to reinstate chattel slavery in the South.
    But all of the fringe homeschoolers idealize aspects of the Confederacy, and most have a Stonewall Jackson crush. Not j/k or exaggerating.

    Why do you think this is? I remember being introduced to this, early in our homeschooling days, and swallowing it with wonder… It was “fun” (I’m not sure what word to put there… “novel”? “offered a false sense of enlightenment”?) to think there was this vast cover-up that we’d never heard about in our “inferior” “government-school” “revised history” (because, as they were fond of saying, history is written by the victor) — all this “new knowledge” pouring out, and here we were, too ignorant to realize we were being fed a bill of goods.

    I might have been primed for it, a little bit, by a college professor who was into dispelling historical myths. One of these was that plantation owners weren’t just sitting on their verandas, drinking mint juleps, but were hard-working businessmen.

    But what is the draw? What makes them so in love with the Confederacy? Is it the desire to imagine oneself as a part of American nobility? Plantation owners were feudal lords, you might say. Of course, those who were playing dress-up, or sitting back with their beer or whiskey and cigars, lamenting the loss of the gentry, probably only imagined themselves in the gentry class.

    Maybe they imagine themselves sitting on the veranda, drinking mint juleps.

    Anyhow, I never quite “got” the whole romance bit when it came to the Confederacy.

  247. Nancy2 wrote:

    numo wrote:
    On slavery: he thinks it was a good thing. I cannot even begin to articulate how horrible thst is, especially seeing as he’s friend with various neo Confederates who would like to reinstate chattel slavery in the South.
    What would DW say if we reinstate slavery ~~~~ and put DW and his running buddies on the auction block?

    In their view, it would never happen that way. They fancy themselves at the top of the power pyramid, you see.

  248. Ken wrote:

    One area where I part company with Wilson is that I was taught, and still believe, that as Christians we have been delivered from the law of Moses absolutely. We are simply under Christ and a new convenant; under grace and not under law at all.

    Amen. That’s part of that “Auburn Avenue thing” you mentioned above. Federal Vision embraces works-righteousness, though if you put it that baldly, they’ll deny it. They like to couch it in much more obscure, pseudo-intellectual language. Talk about obscuring the good news of the gospel and wrapping it up in all sorts of traditions of men…

  249. Serving Kids In Japan wrote:

    Wilson looks in every mirror and sees nothing but perfection?

    When Wilson looks in the mirror prepared for him by his critics, I’m afraid all too often he sees distortion. That’s not intended as a defence of Wilson, I’m more neutral on that score, rather his critics fail to reproduce very accurately what he says – and he loves verbosity and flowery language, even on occasions using what is known to those us who have training in language and linguistics and can use sophisticated, technical terms as verbal diarrhea

    The ‘unsubmissive women deserve to be raped’ is a classic example of inaccurately reporting him.

    I said earlier he does sometimes say some useful things on the folly of modern secular society, sometimes where others due to political correctness are starting to compromise and keep quiet.

    I also have in mind the contrast with RHE, who writes a book with an underlying tone of mocking the bible, makes some rather crass mistakes, who has surrendered any notion of Christian sex ethics when it comes to gays and transgender, and who seem to me (and it’s only an opinion) is hitting back at evangelicalism for some perceived or real hurt. She really rattles male American evangelicals though, doesn’t she!

    She seems to be the pot calling the kettle black in dealing with Wilson.

    I don’t like the response to her not infrequently seen of dismissing her as ‘unsaved’, sometimes uncharitably. But I do wish someone would sit down with her and get her to see the danger of dismissing so much of the NT as would lead someone to come to that conclusion.

  250. @ Ken:
    “Might well be…”?

    Oh, come on. Yhere are SO many primary sources on chattel slavery that there’s no excuse for that statement. I do not understand why you would want to give this person the benefit of the doubt.

    But i don’t think you’ll see it that way, for which i am sorry. We are living in the long, long shadow of this, over here, and i can’t even begin to express how i feel about that.

  251. Pingback: Linkathon! | PhoenixPreacher UNITED STATES

  252. @ numo:
    It’s more I’ve only read two internet articles on the subject, the rest comes from general knowledge, not, I’m afraid, with having read much American history. To that you have to add a bit of Hollywood.

    Therefore I can only say Wilson ‘might well be wrong’ because I haven’t read a tome or tomes to be able to say he is definitely wrong.

    I recently read a book on WW1 by a former British army officer turned professional historian, challenging some of the many myths that grew up in the post war period, and often still characterising popular opinion today. I’m not saying he is necessarily right, but it was good to hear a different version of events from someone who knows how an army operates.

    I might add that on the issue of slavery I am actually biased against Wilson, as he is not an historian, but that doesn’t mean he might not have a valid point or two in his pamphlet. Preachers commenting on areas outside their area of expertise does not have a very illustrious history though.

    As to the idea of the ‘Christianised South’, Victorian Britain is often thougtht of as the high point of Christianity, and going by church attendance it was, but it didn’t stop the dreadful things in industry that Marx critiqued or Dickens wrote about in his novels. So I’m inclinded to take that with a large pinch of the proverbial salt! Personal morality does not always find expression in countering institutional evils.

  253. numo wrote:

    We are living in the long, long shadow of this, over here, and i can’t even begin to express how i feel about that.

    Anyone who publishes any defense of slavery, however slight or subtle the defense, is automatically disqualified as a scholar or social commentator. Slavery is simply evil. Americans have been forced to think about slavery in particular ways, so perhaps we have a greater understanding of its corrupting power. I’m sure that 99.999% of Americans would recoil at the notion of reintroducing it.

  254. @ Ken:
    Victorian Britain, World War I, and slavery are three different categories of things. Slavery is not a historic period or event. Slavery falls into a category of evil alongside infanticide and genocide.

    Fourth-rate scholarship should not be persuading anyone to reconsider the merits of slavery.

  255. Friend wrote:

    Fourth-rate scholarship should not be persuading anyone to reconsider the merits of slavery.

    Actually, nothing should. My clumsily made point is that we are responsible for evaluating sources. See, for example, the persistent problems created by people who believe The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

  256. Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:

    Oh wait. Nope. They are selling them. And without having to pay copyright royalties, they are making a higher margin than on other translations. Whoops.

    But Wilson gives the KJV an “A” grade for “responsibility” and all modern versions an “F”. However, the KJV gets a passing “C” grade for “thees and thous”. Wonder what it would take to get an “F” for that one?

  257. @ Friend:
    You betcha!

    This is something that I have studied, in detail – including photography from the period when chattel slavery still existed in the US. It still exists in certain respects, with migrant farmworkers in this country (contravening the anti-slavery and anti-peonage laws), and chattel slavery is a reality in far too many places around the world (cf. Mauritania, for starters).

    Wilson’s claims about slavery put him in the same category as Holocaust deniers. They defend the absolutely indefensible, and in the process, negate the humanity of millions and millions of people. It is, imo, and evil thing that they do. (I do not think Wilson can possibly be truly Christian, not when the “god” he worships seems to approve of his misogyny, racism, etc.)

  258. @ Friend:
    You said it!

    And Ken, there is SO much good writing/scholarship on these subjects that your claims are coming across pretty much like your negation of psychotherapy in any form, and your avoidance of discussions of actual mental illness and mental health.

    The “source” you cite sounds anything but scholarly, and that’s not cool.

  259. @ Friend:
    Or Luther’s “On the Jews and their lies.”

    Or all the glamorization of ante-bellum plantation life in novels and films like “Gone with the Wind.” I feel so badly that the *only* real roles available to talented actresses like Butterfly McQueen were so incredibly demeaning. (I have never been able to watch the entire film, because of the way it glorifies the plantation system, very much including chattel slavery. Scarlett O’Hara: who freakin’ cares?!)

  260. @ Friend:
    Umm… I am not sure about your percentages, if only because many migrant farmworkers are treated like peons and/or slaves, and nobody seems to care. Seriously.

  261. @ Friend:
    I should note that I have run into a good number of folks from the UK and Ireland who just don’t get the issues regarding race, slavery and its legacy, etc. They’re sensible people, but they have grown up in a very different world than many of us. (Black Americans especially, though I think a lot of S. Asians in the UK have had comparable experiences, as well as many immigrants from the Caribbean and sub-Saharan Africa…)

  262. @ Ken:
    How does WWI relate to chattel slavery, Ken? I mean, the point is that we are discussing Wilson’s advocacy of chattel slavery, as it was practiced in the ante-bellum South.

    Wondering if you’ve checked into any material on womens’ suffrage in England since the topic came up last week?

  263. numo wrote:

    Umm… I am not sure about your percentages, if only because many migrant farmworkers are treated like peons and/or slaves, and nobody seems to care. Seriously.

    Point taken, thank you.

  264. So sad the merits of slavery is being openly reconsidered among Neo Evangelicals. . It is easier to revise history when you are privileged and entitled and haven’t experienced slavery first hand as a slave. Some are glorifying times that weren’t so wonderful and vaulting a way of life that was not so much peculiar but an abomination, in my opinion.

    I used to associate racist cultures such as the antebellum South and South Africa with Calvinism. This wouldn’t be accurate because some of the strongest voices in the abolitionist movement were Calvinists. There was a Calvinist minister, Lyman Beecher, who refused communion to slave holders. There was a firebrand Calvinist abolitionist, John Brown, who sacrificed his life so slaves could go free. These men were with God, in my opinion, on the issue of slavery.

  265. Mark wrote:

    And I mis typed Phillips, when I meant Wilson. Sorry.

    Its an easy thing to do. They are a matching pair of loonies, after all.

  266. Nancy2 wrote:

    numo wrote:

    On slavery: he thinks it was a good thing. I cannot even begin to articulate how horrible thst is, especially seeing as he’s friend with various neo Confederates who would like to reinstate chattel slavery in the South.

    What would DW say if we reinstate slavery ~~~~ and put DW and his running buddies on the auction block?

    Now there is a question!!

  267. numo wrote:

    How does WWI relate to chattel slavery, Ken?

    The point I wanted to make about WW1 was that myths that surround the war grew up afterwards (the generals leading it lived it up in chateaux behind the lines, death sentences were meted out to men suffering from shell shock …) that on closer inspection prove not to be well-founded, or come from civilians who don’t understand how an army has to operate when at war.

    The author, Gordon Corrigan, is also critical of some of Churchill’s strategic blunders and interference in the running of WW2, whilst fully acknowledging his role in keeptin the country going in 1940.

    So looking at historical evidence afresh is no bad thing. However, revising it for a political agenda is!

    As for the poor old suffregettes, I’m going into semi-retirement in a year, and hope to have the time to read some of the many history tomes I haven’t got around to yet, including a history of modern Britan, part 1 dealing with 1900 to 1945.

  268. @ Ken:
    Per your final graph – wow. Are you aware of the things those who were imprisoned were put through? The attempt at sarcasm is just plain unkind.

  269. numo wrote:

    @ Ken:
    Per your final graph – wow. Are you aware of the things those who were imprisoned were put through? The attempt at sarcasm is just plain unkind.

    Ken, do you understand how horrific white male privilege can look to those who don’t have it? Do you even know what that means?

  270. @ Beakerj:
    I know plenty of white males who don’t think like Ken. I also know of many white males who made civil rights for all, a reality. I thank God for them.

    What Ken is missing here is the absolute heinous behavior that goes into the entire process of making chattel slavery a reality. He would not want his dog on a slave ship. There are NO GOOD POINTS to be made about chattel slavery that took place in this country. It is an evil blight on our history forever that cannot be explained away. Guys like Wilson want to revive and channel the excuses made by the era’s sick theologians like Boyce and Dabney. Cruel, evil men who made God complicit in barbarity.

    Every single attempt at policies such as affirmative action, equal opportunity, grants for college and such has been to try and make up for acts of brutality and evil as in once thinking it normal to own another human to labor for you to make a profit. Not only Denying them the opportunity to be free to have an intact family and prosper but to cruelly punish them and work them to death.

    May we seek to judge by content of character and not color of skin. But first, we have to get to know one another for that sort of thing to happen! There is only ONE human race and all are of equal value to God.

    It does not help to pit one color against another. I like what Victor Frankle said: There are only 2 races. The decent and the indecent. And he, a psychiatrist, realized this after being in Auschwitz.

  271. numo wrote:

    Are you aware of the things those who were imprisoned were put through? The attempt at sarcasm is just plain unkind

    Do you not have the ‘poor old’ expression?

    Poor old Nick Bulbeck will have to wait for my reply until tomorrow. This is not to disparage Nick Bulbeck.

    Perhaps more to the point:

    The poor old infantry had to slog it out in WW1 in water-logged rat infested trenches. Thta is no comment on a lack of heroism on the part of the infantry, it is rather a reflection of the difficulties they had to face and try to survive in.

  272. Lydia wrote:

    I know plenty of white males who don’t think like Ken

    You don’t know what Ken thinks, because Ken hasn’t said.

    Please don’t follow those Christians who keep fit by ‘jumping’ to wrong conclusions.

  273. @ Lydia:
    Lydia I completely take your point about colour & apologise. Ken does suffer from a huge sense of privilege & seems buffered from a lot of reality. H ecan be seemingly lacking in compassion & empathy towards groups that have suffered: slaves, women, or those that currently do, in different way for eg those who identify outside binary gender or plain heterosexuality. He has also shown little interest in trying to understand some of the nuances of the latter groups, I’m not surprised to see he also lacks it talking about the former.

  274. Lydia wrote:

    Every single attempt at policies such as affirmative action, equal opportunity, grants for college and such has been to try and make up for acts of brutality and evil as in once thinking it normal to own another human to labor for you to make a profit.

    One of the things that opponents of affirmative action and HBCs and the like miss is that through the institution of slavery and a century of Jim Crow, millions of black Americans have been denied the wealth passed down through the generations that many white Americans have enjoyed.

    We are from the north but now live south of the Mason-Dixon. Down here it’s not who your daddy was, but your granddaddy and great-granddaddy and on back, and there are many grand old families down here who’ve passed on wealth through the generations, going back hundreds of years, the big name families locally control the wealth and politics and lots of things–and few black people can break through. The farmer down the road from us is on family land owned for two hundred years. Naturally, there are no black Americans here who can say that.

    I was asked to speak at the local Rotary Club, there were about 100 business people present, all of whom shared leads and did business with each other, shared the wealth, and in a town that is over 30% black, there was only one black face in the crowd–and she was serving food in the buffet line.

    There are a lot of people who’ve received a lot of privilege and don’t have any clue, they just assume it’s a perfectly fair country because it’s sure been good and fair to them!

  275. @ Ken:
    Whwt beakerj said, Ken. You are incredibly dismissive of suffering, and it is very hard to read/see that.

  276. Ken wrote:

    The poor old infantry had to slog it out in WW1 in water-logged rat infested trenches.

    As the granddaughter of a WWI soldier, I would not belittle his silent, lifelong suffering by using the dismissive colloquial phrase “poor old.” Tone matters. Those soldiers experienced horror.

  277. Law Prof wrote:

    We are from the north but now live south of the Mason-Dixon. Down here it’s not who your daddy was, but your granddaddy and great-granddaddy and on back, and there are many grand old families down here who’ve passed on wealth through the generations, going back hundreds of years, the big name families locally control the wealth and politics and lots of things–and few black people can break through. The farmer down the road from us is on family land owned for two hundred years. Naturally, there are no

    That’d be us. I live (born and raised) 13 miles from the Jefferson Davis birthplace, as the crow flies. My ancestors were not wealthy (owned “hard scrabble farms”) and did not own slaves. They fought for the Union in the Kentucky Infantry. But, they had friends and neighbors who owned slaves. I know several stories that have been passed down through the generations about how slaves were treated, and none of the stories are good. The land my house sits on was owned by one of my g-g-grandfathers.

  278. @ Nancy2:
    In the Capitol rotunda there still stands statues of Lincoln and Jefferson Davis. Both sons of Kentucky. I think Jefferson Davis needs to be moved to a hall of shame.

  279. When people consider the reinstitution of slavery, it never comes up that they themselves might come up with the wrong end of the stick. Golden Rule, people. If it can be done to others, it can be done to you.

    It’s like the reincarnationists: always a princess in a former life, never a drudge, or a prostitute. Riiiiight.

  280. @ Beakerj:

    I want them strong and independent. I hope you know that. But we start with individuals not pitting groups against each other. I take into consideration good white men who voted to ratify the 19th Amendment for me to vote. White men who passed the civil rights act. They were privileged, too. Privilege does not always translate into a lack of compassion or an absence of right and wrong. . The unions threatened my dad because during WW2, he used the desperate situation to hire black drivers and pay them the same as the white ones. His way of flouting the status quo. Verboten with the union! Yes, the “brotherhood” of teamsters!

    As to Ken, I think he cannot wrap his head around the fact there are things…evils and horrors ….for which there are no excuses or reasoning. They must be labeled what they are. The Holy Spirit was not awol. They were not just men of their time. They rationalized pure evil. And normalized it for generations!

    I tend to agree with Booker T Washington who wrote long ago in Up From Slavery that the real color of equality is green. :o) He said those with the best goods and services would eventually get the green regardless of color. And that has proven to be true in many cases. Which is why education is so important.

    I am weary of viewing groups as second class. Kids are labeled before they even get to school due to what zip code they come from. There is a discrimination in low expectations for specific groups.

    Here is a video making the rounds here by some black high school students my daughter shared with me recently. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did!

    http://www.manualredeye.com/2016/02/09/manual-am-im-black-but-im-not/

  281. @ Lydia:

    I haven’t really been back to this thread since I last posted something a few days ago.

    So, from what I’ve skimmed over, you and Numo have been attempting to explain to Flag Ken that slavery is horrible, and from what I’ve seen, he’s insisting, no slavery really wasn’t all that bad, or something like that?

    I am glad I did not hop aboard that discussion in this thread, if he’s as drifty arguing about slavery as he tends to be on the complementarian one, I have saved myself some headaches. 🙂

    Slavery of black Americans in the 19th cent. was in fact horrible, and Christians of that era used distorted biblical interpretations, or cherry picked Bible verses, to support slavery, much the same way some Gender comps use the Bible today to uphold Christian sanctioned sexism against women.

  282. PaJo wrote:

    When people consider the reinstitution of slavery, it never comes up that they themselves might come up with the wrong end of the stick. Golden Rule, people. If it can be done to others, it can be done to you.

    Bingo!

  283. @ Daisy:

    I think ken is responding to our horror that he suggested Wilson had valid points concerning slavery. Then made the mistake of comparing the misery of chattel slavery to the misery of WW1 trench warfare. I don’t want to be unfair but one problem might be he agrees with Wilson on some things and finds him entertaining or something. Therefore he gives him the benefit of the doubt and implies we have misread Wilson. He also did not see the same implication some of us saw concerning Wilsons illustration of women asking for rape because they eschew male protection.

    Ken is not alone. There are quite a few out there drawn to Wilson’s clever writing who try to play it neutral in other venues. They always say we misunderstood him. For a man making his living as a communicator, he should not be so consistently misunderstood. Then there His history of promoting pedophiles and protecting molesters to take into consideration.

    If you find yourself trying to convince someone of the horrors of chattel slavery, it might just be too late. Ya know?

  284. Mark wrote:

    There was a Calvinist minister, Lyman Beecher, who refused communion to slave holders. There was a firebrand Calvinist abolitionist, John Brown, who sacrificed his life so slaves could go free. These men were with God, in my opinion, on the issue of slavery.

    Harriet Beecher Stowe, who wrote Uncle Toms Cabin, also wrote The Ministers Wooing. In it she really takes on Calvinism questioning its foundations as a bit of a subplot. Her father, who you mention above, went through a lot of strife at Lane Seminary when he was teaching contrary to accepted Calvinism and was accused of heresy. his own church put him on trial! He was acquitted of heresy but it ended up causing major disunity. Perhaps this is why his daughter included the subject in her book.

    Ken might profit from reading Uncle Toms Cabin. It sure changed a lot minds when it was published. Legend has it that upon meeting the diminutive Stowe, Lincoln said, ‘So you are the little lady that started the great big war!”

  285. Lydia wrote:

    I think ken is responding to our horror that he suggested Wilson had valid points concerning slavery. Then made the mistake of comparing the misery of chattel slavery to the misery of WW1 trench warfare. I don’t want to be unfair but one problem might be he agrees with Wilson on some things and finds him entertaining or something. Therefore he gives him the benefit of the doubt and implies we have misread Wilson. He also did not see the same implication some of us saw concerning Wilsons illustration of women asking for rape because they eschew male protection.

    I wonder how Ken, DW, and men who give slavery the benefit of the doubt would view slavery if they could only stand by and watch while their wives and children were auctioned off to the highest bidder? How would they feel, if they knew that the new owners would be taking their families hundreds of miles away — in different directions? How would they feel if they were left to wonder what would become of their families …….. if they would ever see them again?

  286. Lydia wrote:

    @ Nancy2:
    In the Capitol rotunda there still stands statues of Lincoln and Jefferson Davis. Both sons of Kentucky. I think Jefferson Davis needs to be moved to a hall of shame.

    Or maybe modify the statue of Jefferson Davis to have him in chains. That’d be awesome, and evocative of Lincoln’s quote Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally.

  287. patriciamc wrote:

    PaJo wrote:
    Awhile back on The Puritan Board, there was a discussion about this very thing. The statement was made by more than one of the posters that they could not tell their own children that God loved them, because *we just don’t know* whether the children are predestined to salvation. This is their own *children.* It holds true for the other people in their lives too–they can’t go around willy-nilly telling people that God loves them, because…we just don’t know. God only loves those predestined for salvation and He hates the rest.
    Sick sick sick. And unscriptural. And non-traditional. And untrue.

    I don’t understand why these people have children at all; if by bringing a child into existence you risk damning them for eternity.

    It’s the same thing with end-timer dispensationalists like Michele Bachmann (see http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a42197/michele-bachmann-obama-conspiracy/). Why do they have children if they believe the world will be engulfed in a hellish nightmare scenario within the next 10 years? You’d think if they really believed that, then they would emulate the medieval Cathars (who refrained from having children because they believed the material world was evil and soon would be destroyed). Or the Skoptsy, even.

  288. Muff Potter wrote:

    doubtful wrote:
    “small breasted biddies”
    I could never understand the male obsession with breast size. Is it mainly an American male thing? Or does it traverse National borders across the globe?

    It exists in Japan, too (just watch some anime!)

    Although that might be the result of American influence; I’m not sure.

  289. @ Daisy:
    Chattel slavery existed in what is now the US from 1619 (founding of the Jamestown colony) until 1865. It’s not just a 19th c. phenomenon, although the intensification of cotton farming brought its own evils along with it.

    Like many things, the history of slavery and the slave trade is not only ugly, but complicated.

    It does really trouble me that an evangelical from the UK is seemingly so oblivious to the way in which evangelicals were a force for the British abolition of both the slave trade and of chattel slavery. So many were dedicated to these causes, and actually prevailed, many decades before people in the US stepped up to the plate.

  290. Friend wrote:

    As the granddaughter of a WWI soldier, I would not belittle his silent, lifelong suffering by using the dismissive colloquial phrase “poor old.” Tone matters. Those soldiers experienced horror.

    For goodness’ sake Friend, didn’t you read to the end of the sentence? I’ll repeat it:

    That is no comment on a lack of heroism on the part of the infantry, it is rather a reflection of the difficulties they had to face and try to survive in.

  291. Nancy2 wrote:

    I wonder how Ken, DW, and men who give slavery the benefit of the doubt would view slavery if they could only stand by and watch while their wives and children were auctioned off to the highest bidder?

    I object to this statement in the stongest possible terms.

    Being unwilling to condemn Wilson out of hand due to a lack of knowledge of American history is not the same thing as approving his views. I read a counter-argument to him I linked to above, which I have the suspicion no-one has actually bothered to read. Had they done so, it pretty well demolishes what Wilson says in toto, and it is by historians to boot.

    Nancy you don’t know what I think of slavery because I have never said. This means you are in no position to say I would ever ‘give it the benefit of the doubt’. That’s why I object to your statement above based on an assumption.

    For what it’s worth, I think slavery is wholly evil. Enslaving carried the death penalty in the OT, which shows what God thinks of it, and that is good enough for me. The bible regulates it where it exists, in such a way as to take the cruelty out of it as much as possible, which is also is the NT approach. Regulation does not mean it is condoned, any more than the Mosaic regulation of divorce meant God condoned it.

    I’m glad that in the Victorian era the Tory Evangelicals, Wilberforce and those who followed him, actually did manage to achieve reforms that worked against institutional evil.

  292. Beakerj wrote:

    Ken does suffer from a huge sense of privilege & seems buffered from a lot of reality.

    Whilst I’m afraid still in objecting mode … isn’t this talk of white male privilege sexist and racist? It occurs quite a lot in comment threads on the net.

    You don’t know me, and your assessment is at best a half-truth. As westerners, we are all privileged compared with large swathes of the world. But in my own personal life (which ought not to be the subject of discussion) I don’t see an awful lot of privilege, and I have not been immune to suffering, though many have had it much worse.

    I’m glad you said seeming lack of compassion. I think it possible to talk at cross purposes. There is on one hand discussion of whether a particular bahaviour is wrong or sinful, and on the other how you actually treat people who have chosen to or do behave that way. Gays are the obvious example. Divorce is another. Discussing what the bible says on this complicated subject can appear to be unsympathetic to people who have got it wrong in this area, but we can’t ignore what Jesus said on the subject even if it is difficult, and goes against cultural norms. How you treat people on a day to day basis is different. So you can hate divorce, but not treat divorcees as though they were lepers.

  293. Lydia wrote:

    I don’t want to be unfair but one problem might be he agrees with Wilson on some things and finds him entertaining or something. Therefore he gives him the benefit of the doubt and implies we have misread Wilson

    In non-objecting mode now, I’m glad you want to be fair.

    As far as Wilson goes, he has imo done some good and helpful stuff on new atheism and its devotees. Some of his social comment – so utterly different from European norms – is thought provoking. So yes, I’ve found him useful. Maybe if he stuck more with that, all would be well.

    There are areas I would disagree with him going by his blog. Politics and economics being examples. He is far too far to the right, and seems to make the ‘free market’ as much an idol or panacea to modern problems as the left does the State.

    In trying to be reasonably objective in assessing Wilson, I don’t think those of you who are so highly critical of him realise how often critics fail to accurately reflect him. They have got to do better if they really want to convince anyone that he is seriously in error. tbh it is less Wilson’s defences of his views and blog I find convincing, as the obvious agenda of his critics. Rather than give him the benefit of the doubt, the worst possible spin is put on his words. Some people are simply looking for anything they can find to bash him.

    Does he say some crass things? Yes he does, but you can easily match that with ad hominum attacks by critics whose language also leaves much to be desired. I’m not going to trawl for examples, but it wouldn’t be difficult to find some.

    He’s no C S Lewis, but he is a good barack room lawyer, too good for RHE’s inaccurate tweet to disturb.

  294. Ken wrote:

    I might add that on the issue of slavery I am actually biased against Wilson, as he is not an historian, but that doesn’t mean he might not have a valid point or two in his pamphlet.

    ?????????
    A valid point or two?

  295. @ Nancy2:
    Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

    The victors of a war tend to write the history of it, usually portraying themselves in a good light and their enemy in a bad light. Wilson is entitled to argue for a differing view of the South. My attitude towards him remains neutral; and on this subject I don’t have the knowledge to say one way or the other. It looks like he is speaking politically motivated nonsense, but two internet articles or a quick look a wiki article do not create instant expertise. What happened back then is a subject of academic historical debate for the current generation unless the effect of it still sours human relations in the here and now.

    I think the following sentiments express the correct way to discuss Wilson, critical but fair: I did not target Wilson as a person. I targeted his words, ideas, and actions. I have heard from many he is a gentle loving man and that may be true, but that is not the public persona he has cultivated and that to me is troubling. Whoever he may be in day to day, his digital presence is one marked by vitriol, abusive rhetoric, ego, and just plain nonsensical rambling quite often. Perhaps if he was as much the gentle man in public as his family tells me he is behind closed doors he could avoid so much controversy. But as it stands, he seems to cultivate these controversies because he enjoys the attention.

  296. Ken wrote:

    Whilst I’m afraid still in objecting mode … isn’t this talk of white male privilege sexist and racist? It occurs quite a lot in comment threads on the net.

    I wish I had used a different term Ken, however I feel it is safe to say that it is neither sexist nor racist to refer to something very commonly associated with a particular race or gender… it just is, there certainly have been certain freedoms & bonuses afforded to this grouping, that haven’t existed for others. There are many others associated with other groups, for example the Victorian or Edwardian ‘Gentleman’ who was absolutely presumed to be telling the truth, to be a man of religion and integrity, and to be sexually above board. Which is why they got away with so much. Many of us have some freedoms handed to us by dint of who we are – as an educated white woman I have some, though less in the church than in the secular world. But it’s a sensitive & nuanced area & I’d rather follow Lydia in taking people individually.
    Maybe it’s enough to say that you don’t come across as having been part of a minority group oppressed simply due to some factor beyond their control, as were slaves, women without votes, and as are those with homosexual orientations or sexual dysphoria, neither of which I believe to be chosen. Maybe me using the term ‘white male privilege’ is the nearest you’ve come to being grouped & treated in a way you don’t like? Think about your reaction to it.
    You’re right in that I don’t know you Ken, or your age, but in my age group, late 40’s, ‘poor old’ is used with a strong overtone of being patronising & implying a bot of weakness, strangeness &/or fault.

  297. Lydia wrote:

    If you find yourself trying to convince someone of the horrors of chattel slavery, it might just be too late. Ya know?

    Yes.

    I think BeakerJ nailed it in this comment:
    http://thewartburgwatch.com/2016/02/12/what-is-the-problem-with-doug-wilson/comment-page-1/#comment-240271

    Someone who shows a continual, stubborn insistence not to even try having empathy for women under sexism; or for people with mental health issues who may benefit from medication or practicing boundaries (but who denounces psychology, and so on); or shows a lack of empathy concerning violence or indignities people have suffered under slavery may not be worth bantering with on these topics.

    I don’t find him honest in how he states his views. He will declare something, or imply it in one post, but like Wilson, if called on it, later insist in another post or thread he was misunderstood, or what not.

    As far as Wilson goes. Someone on another site I talked to keeps saying Wilson probably has NPD. That’s probably true. He reminds me in some ways of Mark Driscoll.

  298. @ numo:

    Yes, I’m aware that slavery was around before then, but it seems to have intensified or become even more common by the late 19th c.

  299. Ken wrote:

    Discussing what the bible says on this complicated subject can appear to be unsympathetic to people who have got it wrong in this area, but we can’t ignore what Jesus said on the subject even if it is difficult, and goes against cultural norms.

    You continue to refuse to accept even the possibility that your interpretation of what Jesus said or meant, or what the Bible says or meant, may be… incorrect.

    You also consider your interpretation of the Bible to be the Bible… or what God thinks.

    But I don’t know if I care to dance this dance with you, because you will say one thing in one post but then later say I, or we, have you all wrong.

    You do send conflicting messages in your posts quite often, over several subjects. I don’t think anyone here is intentionally misrepresenting your or your positions.

  300. MidwesternEasterner wrote:

    Why do they have children if they believe the world will be engulfed in a hellish nightmare scenario within the next 10 years?

    I read about a celebrity, who, while for the most part, seems like a friendly, nice guy, is never- the- less very condescending against theism or people of faith (and people of conservative political views).

    He is an atheist. But he’s more of an insufferable, arrogant kind of atheists towards anyone of faith – which I found to be a bummer, because he had seemed like such a likable guy before I read his comments about atheism vs faith / theism.

    This celebrity is married to another atheist. They had a baby together within the last few years. I couldn’t help but ponder that and sometimes still do.

    If you believe you and your spouse are going to die one day, with no afterlife to go to, and you know your kid will likely die due to old age decades after you, and you won’t be re-united in an afterlife, why have children?

    I’m not saying that to insult atheists, I genuinely don’t see the point in having children if you believe death will be the end of you all, and you’ll never get to see them again. It seems rather depressing. But he and his wife had a kid together a few years ago.

  301. What Is the Problem With Doug Wilson?

    Well, Wilson being himself, of course. That is the easy answer.

    Wilson never being himself, of course. That is maybe the correct answer. Wilson always playing his role of brilliant (?) contrarian, who says things to irritate everyone he thinks less brilliant and who does not agree, goading them to respond so that he can ridicule them. This seems quite common in some circles, a certain JD Hall comes to my mind.

    I do not even know if Wilson really believes that slavery was not all that bad (not that it really matters, his statements and his pathetic little plagiarised booklet are vile enough), or that he really believes all that nonsense about conquering and colonising. It’s enough for him that it upsets the people he holds in contempt.

    It’s all a game to him and his followers, as one other commenter called it a huge LARP. And it makes him “important”.

    His buddies form the hopeless coalition and T4G support him, because – like the king’s jester – he can say things that they would never dare say, at least not in those words, but which they all too often agree with secretly.

    Wilson “gets the gospel” (Piper) ?

    His views on slavery alone (and his association with individuals from the League of the South in writing his “book”) show that he does not “get” the gospel of Jesus. His perpetual attacks on women who want no more than having a say in their own lives – as much of a say as the men – and his belittling, insulting epithets for them show that he does not “get” the gospel – at least not any gospel that is worth its name of “good news”.

    Piper says Wilson gets the gospel but is surrounded by some stupid people. Yet Wilson does not teach those “stupid people” to become less stupid, he cheers them on their stupidity.

    Wilson never being himself may be the correct answer. He may never have faced his real self behind that role that he plays.

  302. Ken wrote:

    In trying to be reasonably objective in assessing Wilson, I don’t think those of you who are so highly critical of him realise how often critics fail to accurately reflect him.

    The same can be said of Mark Driscoll.

    Driscoll actually has a small percentage of things I feel are true or wise to say about adult singleness. But most Driscoll critics will sail past that to automatically go into condemnation mode and not soberly analyze everything the guy has written.

    But the fact that Driscoll has made one or two nice or insightful comments about singleness doesn’t change that the remainder of what he says about singleness is derogatory, offensive, and bunk.

    Driscoll’s 1 percent of decent singles commentary that I’ve read doesn’t excuse his bullying behavior of other people, his rampant misogyny, using people to get ahead financially his arrogance, and his thirst for power.

    Another problem here is that you may like Wilson’s thoughts on the benefits of bumble bees in nature, which is all well and good, but if I am understanding what I’ve seen of this thread so far, you’re attempting to find “nuance” in his views on slavery, of all thing, specifically white Americans owning black Americans way back when.

    Which is a little like trying to find a silver cloud or something nice to say about people who think it’s acceptable to sexually assault small children and/or film it to sell for a profit.

    There is no positive way to spin some things in life. And if you keep trying to and insist others see the positives in this stuff, you are sending a very bad message.

  303. Ken wrote:

    I have heard from many he is a gentle loving man and that may be true, but that is not the public persona he has cultivated and that to me is troubling.

    The dude (Wilson) marries known pedophiles to young women.

    The dude blames 13 year old rape victims and their fathers for being assaulted by their 20 something year old acquaintance.

    Wilson regularly refers to women with whom he disagrees in crass and sexist terminology, referring to their appearance / body parts, e.g., referring to women who he disagrees as “small breasted biddies”.

    He’s not a nice, gentle, loving guy.

  304. Ken wrote:

    isn’t this talk of white male privilege sexist and racist? It occurs quite a lot in comment threads on the net.

    As a white male let me answer this:

    No, it’s not sexist because innumerable studies prove that women have to fight and work a lot harder and be a lot better than men to achieve comparable recognition (in terms of salary, promotions, citations in academic journals, …)

    No, it’s not racist because innumerable studies prove that people of colour have to fight and work a lot harder and be a lot better than men to achieve comparable recognition.

    No, because you and I have no idea what life is like if people make racist and/or sexist remarks behind your back or openly, what life is like if you are an honest and law-abiding citizen and police stop you and search you regularly just because the colour of your skin. We both have no idea what life is like when you and your family are statistically very likely to be harassed, discriminated against, threatened with rape, … you name it.

    And this is a common occurrence – you must be willfully blind not to see it. Just as a few random reminders:
    http://kuow.org/post/black-man-white-city-its-unnecessarily-stressful
    http://www.google.at/search?q=gamergate
    http://developers.slashdot.org/story/16/02/10/1945257/women-get-pull-requests-accepted-more-except-when-you-know-theyre-women

  305. Beakerj wrote:

    Maybe me using the term ‘white male privilege’ is the nearest you’ve come to being grouped & treated in a way you don’t like? Think about your reaction to it.

    Interesting point.

  306. Gus wrote:

    Well, Wilson being himself, of course. That is the easy answer.
    Wilson never being himself, of course. That is maybe the correct answer. Wilson always playing his role of brilliant (?) contrarian, who says things to irritate everyone he thinks less brilliant and who does not agree, goading them to respond so that he can ridicule them. This seems quite common in some circles, a certain JD Hall comes to my mind.

    Everything in your post was excellent, especially that introduction.

    I do wonder how much of the tripe Wilson writes he actually believes in, or that he just enjoys riling people up.

    But then, I think, even if he doesn’t really care about these controversial things he’s writing about – he’s just trolling on sensitive subjects to intentionally raise people’s ire – that right there shows some deep seated problems. It shows a lack of empathy, for one thing.

    “The Hopeless Coalition” – LOL. That’s an apt name for it.

    Other than the J D Hall comparison (which I feel is spot on), Wilson also reminds me in some ways of Mark Driscoll, Pat Robertson, or Heath Mooneyham.

  307. Gus wrote:

    people of colour have to fight and work a lot harder and be a lot better than men

    Correction:
    people of colour have to fight and work a lot harder and be a lot better than white people

    That’s what happens if you don’t retype but copy and paste and fail to change the right words.

  308. Gus wrote:

    (part 1)
    No, it’s not racist because innumerable studies prove that people of colour have to fight and work a lot harder and be a lot better than men to achieve comparable recognition.

    (part 2)
    No, because you and I have no idea what life is like if people make racist and/or sexist remarks behind your back or openly, what life is like if you are an honest and law-abiding citizen and police stop you and search you regularly just because the colour of your skin.
    We both have no idea what life is like when you and your family are statistically very likely to be harassed, discriminated against, threatened with rape, … you name it.

    part 1.

    I just saw an article somewhere that discussed something similar:
    XY Bias: How Male Biology Students See Their Female Peers
    http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/02/male-biology-students-underestimate-their-female-peers/462924/

    “In three large classes, men overrated the abilities of male students above equally talented and outspoken women.”

    (point 2)
    Yes. As a woman, you would be likely be scared to walk alone, especially at night.

    You will be mindful of your surroundings.

    You will be hesitant to get on an elevator alone with a strange man, especially in a parking garage, or at night, or in a new area.

    If a guy asks you for a date or for your number, you might be afraid to directly tell him you’re not interested in dating him, because you don’t know if he handles rejection well or will punch your face in.

    (Some women do get physically attacked for turning down a man’s advances.)

    Some women therefore resort to white lies to turn guys down gently – or lying straight up like, “Oh, I already have a boyfriend,” even though they are single.

    You have to navigate the world like that if you’re a woman and you are trying to avoid getting raped or beaten up. I don’t think most men usually have to think in terms of their safety day to day.

    About the closest I think most men come to is if you are a man walking alone at night in the city and a group of five or more men (who are in a gang) are walking your way.

  309. Gus wrote:

    No, it’s not sexist because innumerable studies prove that women have to fight and work a lot harder and be a lot better than men to achieve comparable recognition (in terms of salary, promotions, citations in academic journals, …)

    Why Aren’t Women Advancing At Work? Ask a Transgender Person.
    https://newrepublic.com/article/119239/transgender-people-can-explain-why-women-dont-advance-work

    Snippets:

    Having experienced the workplace from both perspectives, they hold the key to its biases.
    ——
    “Men are assumed to be competent until proven otherwise, whereas a woman is assumed to be incompetent until she proves otherwise.”

    Ben Barres is a biologist at Stanford who lived and worked as Barbara Barres until he was in his forties.

    For most of his career, he experienced bias, but didn’t give much weight to it—seeing incidents as discrete events. (When he solved a tough math problem, for example, a professor said, “You must have had your boyfriend solve it.”)

    When he became Ben, however, he immediately noticed a difference in his everyday experience:
    “People who don’t know I am transgendered treat me with much more respect,” he says. He was more carefully listened to and his authority less frequently questioned. He stopped being interrupted in meetings.

    At one conference, another scientist said, “Ben gave a great seminar today—but then his work is so much better than his sister’s.” (The scientist didn’t know Ben and Barbara were the same person.)

  310. @ Daisy:
    One of the reasons was the intensification of cotton farming…. but it was ahuge thing before that, in the Caribbean (cane sugar plantations), Central and Soth America, and in what is now the US.

  311. Daisy wrote:

    If you believe you and your spouse are going to die one day, with no afterlife to go to, and you know your kid will likely die due to old age decades after you, and you won’t be re-united in an afterlife, why have children?

    I’m not saying that to insult atheists, I genuinely don’t see the point in having children if you believe death will be the end of you all, and you’ll never get to see them again. It seems rather depressing. But he and his wife had a kid together a few years ago.

    This is so interesting to me. It had never once occurred to me that not believing in a personal afterlife would be seen as a reason not to want children.

    I do wish I could know what life will bring to my children and grandchildren when I’m gone. But that isn’t part of my belief system, and that’s fine for me. I see us as all part of a great continuing network of life, life of all sorts–not just human life. We do the best we can and cherish and protect each other as much as we can while we’re here. We try to leave the world a little better for our brief time in it. Part of the intensity of the love I feel for my family is the reality that one day we will lose each other. That reminds me to try not to waste the the time we have together.

  312. @ Lydia: There was a split between Presbyterian who supported revivals (New Lights) and Presbyterians who didn’t support revivals (Old Lights) . Hodge, the founder of Princeton theology was an Old Light, while Lyman Beecher was in the New Light faction. Heresy charges were brought up against Mr. Beecher I believe because of revival issue. It is interesting that most students at Lane seminary were Southerners and most became abolitionists, which probably stirred up more controversy. Cincinnati is rght on border with Kentucky, a Southern state. The whole Beecher clan were movers and shakers producing abolitionists and female suffragists. They were reform minded and wanted to make the world a better place with demonstratable results.

  313. Mark wrote:

    Cincinnati is rght on border with Kentucky, a Southern state. The whole Beecher clan were movers and shakers producing abolitionists and female suffragists.

    Harriet Beecher Stowe?

  314. @ Nancy2:
    Yep. The Beechers were reformers, and if you’re ever in Connecticut, the Harriet Beecher Stowe house (in Hartford, right next door to the Mark Twain house) is a great place to visit.

  315. numo wrote:

    Yep. The Beechers were reformers, and if you’re ever in Connecticut, the Harriet Beecher Stowe house (in Hartford, right next door to the Mark Twain house) is a great place to visit.

    Been there. Want to go back someday!

  316. @ numo:
    Do you know that HBS’s ideas for “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” originated from what she witnessed when she visited Louisville, KY ?

  317. @ Nancy2:
    I probably did know that at one time, but had long since forgotten… thanks muchly for the info.!

    My fave thing at the Stowe house: that painting of an owl. 😉

  318. Beakerj wrote:

    Maybe it’s enough to say that you don’t come across as having been part of a minority group oppressed simply due to some factor beyond their control

    You probably gathered that I was pretty narked at some of yesterday’s comments. It wouldn’t be the first time disagreeing has started to elicit some unwarranted personal and malicious comments as has happened before on ‘comp’ discussions, and I don’t like seeing it creep back in again. (I don’t have you in mind btw.)

    My objection on the white male privilege theme was twofold. The first is there seems to be a double-standard applying here, where derogatory remarks about say Jamaicans are objectionable (and they are), but it is OK to imply that there is something wrong with being white, male, and often middle-class to boot.

    The second is the assumption that I am completely detached from and don’t care about any form of oppression because I have lived a life free from it. In discussing Christian trends that ought to be irrelevant. It is at best a half-truth, in that I have come from a stable family background, not true for many today. But I’ve had a long dose of being poor in financial terms, of being subject to control-freaks both in church and in the secular world of work. Deacons and managers!

    However, this is no justification for playing any kind of eternal victim card on my part, tempting as it is sometimes, the temptation arising out of self-pity.

    As far as being sensitive or insensitive, I deliberately try not to word posts in a way that is insensitive; but, believe it or not, I’m not yet perfect. I could also ask the question are some posters being over-sensitive? Especially when they assume the worst possible interpretation of what I say.

    I actually think there is a male/female dynamic going on here in this regard. Not better or worse, but different perceptions and reactions to the world around. I don’t feel inclined to elaborate on this, and I’m absolutely not going to get into an argument about it!

  319. Daisy wrote:

    “I have heard from many he [Wilson] is a gentle loving man and that may be true, but that is not the public persona he has cultivated and that to me is troubling.”

    He’s not a nice, gentle, loving guy.

    The bit in quotes from my post above: do you know who actually said that?

  320. Daisy wrote:

    He is an atheist. But he’s more of an insufferable, arrogant kind of atheists towards anyone of faith – which I found to be a bummer, because he had seemed like such a likable guy before

    I’d probably call him a fundamentalist first and foremost.

    Daisy wrote:

    If you believe you and your spouse are going to die one day, with no afterlife to go to, and you know your kid will likely die due to old age decades after you, and you won’t be re-united in an afterlife, why have children?

    I’ve never heard this kind of idea expressed before. Most of my colleagues and friends are atheists and this thinking has never been expressed when starting a family. They seem very balanced and purposeful and intent on making the most of this life. But maybe I’ll start asking the question of sorts when there’s an appropriate moment without being too gloomy.

    Í’m probably oversharing, but I don’t believe in an afterlife and I’m content not to have children, however I don’t correlate the two. I actually put my desire not to have children down to my religious fundamentalist upbringing, and taking too long to unwind out of my unhinged belief set – and I determined not to inflict or impose this on another generation.

  321. Daisy wrote:

    I don’t think anyone here is intentionally misrepresenting your or your positions.

    There have been occasions Daisy when I have wondered if misrepresentations of what I have posted are deliberate. There may at times be some room for misunderstanding, but I’m not that bad at communicating. Wilson and slavery are an example.

    I do not think my interpretations of the bible are infallibe, have never claimed this, and never implied it. There have been occasions – culture and the bible being one – where a badly worded post gave the wrong impression, something I subsequently corrected. This does not constitute being inconsistent, and I don’t like it when the correction is ignored and the original post treated as gospel™.

    Take the (in)famous Eph 5 : 21 and mutual submission. I have on at least two occasions detailed why in the subsequent verses I don’t believe this verse entailed mutuality, but you have completely ignored the argument and reasons for believing this – all 9 or 10 of them. That’s your prerogative, but I would be well within my rights to assume that you are unwilling to consider anythng that would challenge your existing view of this verse. And no, I’m not angling for that now, it’s been done to death!

    It is true the older you get the less willling you are to change your mind, but this is in part due to the fact you have had longer to mull over difficult or contentious issues of how to understand the bible.

    Not being convinced a different interpretation is better and not adopting it is not the same thing as thinking your existing one has to be right.

    But I have been willing to amend what I think, for example, in understanding Genesis where I am much less happy with a strict YEC understanding, and – wait for it – whether Eph 5 : 21 is mutual, which is more what I used to think but don’t any longer.

  322. Haitch wrote:

    Daisy wrote:

    If you believe you and your spouse are going to die one day, with no afterlife to go to, and you know your kid will likely die due to old age decades after you, and you won’t be re-united in an afterlife, why have children?

    Haitch responded:

    I’ve never heard this kind of idea expressed before. Most of my colleagues and friends are atheists and this thinking has never been expressed when starting a family. They seem very balanced and purposeful and intent on making the most of this life.

    Haitch, I agree with you, and would add that many Christians seem to place more value on the life we have yet to see than on the only life we have known and experienced. In future we expect God to sort out all manner of suffering, much of it caused by humans. If we valued our mortal lives more, perhaps we would work harder to prevent and alleviate suffering.

    Beyond this, people of all religions and none have a right to bear children or not. Atheists are capable of love and hope, and Christians are capable of wanting to keep the farm in the family, etc.

  323. Ken wrote:

    There have been occasions Daisy when I have wondered if misrepresentations of what I have posted are deliberate.

    No, not deliberate on my part.

    I read your posts and try to understand what they are saying.

    I don’t think others are intentionally skewing what you’re saying. You tend to flip flop on your views, too, which confuses people as to what you really think or believe.

  324. Ken wrote:

    The bit in quotes from my post above: do you know who actually said that?

    I gave the quote right from your post.

    I would assume you wrote it, or you are quoting someone else who said it and agree with it-

    I did not read this whole thread. I have no desire to read every post you write because you are not honest in how you present your views.

    I have pretty much sat out the last few discussions with you (including scrolling past most your posts without reading them) because I have found them to be a time consuming effort that comes with heartburn.

    Either you were quoting someone up thread, or a buddy you have, and you apparently agree with that view.

    I think the following sentiments express the correct way to discuss Wilson, critical but fair: I did not target Wilson as a person. I targeted his words, ideas, and actions. I have heard from many he is a gentle loving man

    You may not have written it, but you agree with it, so my initial criticisms remain applicable.

    To whomever wrote it, to whomever agrees with it: Wilson is NOT a gentle, loving man.
    Gentle, loving men do not marry known pedos to women, they don’t refer to women with whom they disagree in sexist terms.

    A gentle, sweet, nice man is not going to have a split personality – have one behavior in private and have another personality altogether on a blog.

  325. Daisy wrote:

    To whomever wrote it, to whomever agrees with it: Wilson is NOT a gentle, loving man.
    Gentle, loving men do not marry known pedos to women, they don’t refer to women with whom they disagree in sexist terms.

    (Sarcasm alert!)
    Oh, silly girl. It’s pointless to use DW’s attitude towards and comments about women as a way to determine his gentleness and lovingness. Women aren’t even fully human. We are substandard, weak vessels, made specifically to be ruled over and led by men, who are more holy and closer to God. Besides that, you are a woman, like me. How dare we say anything objectionable about the men we were designed to serve!

  326. Haitch wrote:

    I’d probably call him a fundamentalist first and foremost.

    It made me rather sad to read this entertainer’s very harsh comments about people of faith. (He’s also pretty bad about bashing people who are right wing politically).

    He sometimes does this on his social media accounts. I don’t understand celebrities who do this, who must not care they be alienating some of the public, who may otherwise pay tickets to their movies or tours.

    I’m fine with people being atheist or left wing. I have friends on all sides of political views and religious views.

    Other than politics and religion, this celebrity seems to be a very pleasant guy. He doesn’t talk arrogantly and is not mean-spirited when talking about other subjects.

    So I was shocked to see he holds such negative attitudes towards theists (or right wing people).

    It’s not enough for him to be an atheist personally (which again, would be fine with me), but that he assumes anyone who believes in a God, or that there might be a God, is a total drooling idiot who is harming society (this is where I take issue with his atheism, which is really anti-theism).

    I never would have guessed he holds such disparaging attitudes from the rest of his interviews and how he carries himself.

    My mother passed away a few years back. To the degree I hold on to the Christian faith, I believe I’ll see her again when I die.

    I just find it strange that super hostile anti-theist atheists such as this celebrity (and he’s married to an atheist, too) would bother having children, since they don’t think they will be reunited with them after death.

    I don’t mean any offense by any of this. I am / was just genuinely puzzled how or why a “I think belief in the supernatural / a deity is totally moronic!” type of guy would bother having kids.

    I posted about this before on an old thread, but I was disturbed or saddened to see some 7th Day Adventist guy on TV talking about “soul sleep.”

    These soul sleep guys believe once a Christian dies, that they rot in the ground. They stop existing, and won’t exist again until the second coming or resurrection day or whatever – which may not be for thousands or millions or years away.

    I just find some of these world views or doctrines depressing.

  327. Ken wrote:

    I do not think my interpretations of the bible are infallibe, have never claimed this, and never implied it.

    No, you’re not being honest about this. You do carry yourself in conversations as though you believe your interpretations are the right, godly ones.

    If someone who disagrees with you on a topic cites historical studies or documents to make a point, you dismiss that as being a liberal practice.
    In other threads, you yourself cite sources outside the Bible to shed light on a passage or prove a point – so you’re okay doing that if it suits your purposes.

    You have intimated that anyone who does not share your interpretation of what a Bible passage means about X, Y, or Z (gender roles or psychology or whatever) has been swayed by secular society or secular views. That they are not going by the Bible alone.

    That anyone who really believes the Bible correctly will surely believe in gender complementarianism or that psychology is wrong/bad/evil, etc., as you do.

  328. Friend wrote:

    Beyond this, people of all religions and none have a right to bear children or not. Atheists are capable of love and hope, and Christians are capable of wanting to keep the farm in the family, etc.

    Just wanted to clarify that I was not saying otherwise.

    I never said or implied that atheists in general are incapable of love, or should not have kids if they want to, etc.

  329. Daisy wrote:

    I read your posts and try to understand what they are saying.

    Daisy wrote:

    I did not read this whole thread. I have no desire to read every post you write because you are not honest in how you present your views.

    I don’t think you could blame me for being a bit confused in the light of these two consecutive posts.

    You don’t have to read all or anything I have posted, but if you don’t you are in no position to critique what I say or claim I am inconsistent.

    I don’t know why you think I’m being dishonest, it seems a strange claim to make, but we’ll leave it at that.

  330. Daisy wrote:

    “I did not target Wilson as a person. I targeted his words, ideas, and actions. I have heard from many he is a gentle loving man …”
    You may not have written it, but you agree with it, so my initial criticisms remain applicable.

    I agree with it in that it distinguishes Doug Wilson the blogger with controversial ideas from Doug Wilson the man.

    You have to understand Daisy I have a dry senes of humour. This whole quotation in italics above came from Nate Sparks, he of open letter to TGC fame, occasioned by a comment or two I made on his blog.

    I may not have agreed with all of what Nate said there, but I do agree on attacking the ideas and not the man, and his (Nate’s) attitude in this instance was imo exemplary.

  331. Daisy wrote:

    You do carry yourself in conversations as though you believe your interpretations are the right,

    That may well be a fault of mine in coming over more dogmatic in posts than I would be in real life. Obviously I think my current understanding is right, or I wouldn’t say it.

    That said, everyone else who posts here also thinks the view they are expressing is right!

    Anyway, as they say in the newspapers, this correspondence is closed. 🙂

  332. Daisy wrote:

    Just wanted to clarify that I was not saying otherwise.

    I never said or implied that atheists in general are incapable of love, or should not have kids if they want to, etc.

    Thank you. I did not mean to imply otherwise, and apologize for commenting so broadly.

    When I started looking at blogs about religion, I was surprised to find a large amount of scorn and anger directed–not by you, but by others–at even the most mild-mannered atheists. Quite a few abused Christians leave behind not just family and church but also God. Sadly, some Christians hound them, even though that’s 1) cruel and 2) unlikely to cause them to return to the faith.

  333. Friend wrote:

    Quite a few abused Christians leave behind not just family and church but also God. Sadly, some Christians hound them, even though that’s 1) cruel and 2) unlikely to cause them to return to the faith.

    I sometimes see that, too.

    Sometimes, some atheists say they used to be Christians but were so hurt by Christians, or by a church, that it was one thing that made them walk away from the faith, or that played some kind of role.

    I’m a tad in that category too, though I have not completely left the faith, and I don’t feel hostile to every Christian out there.

  334. Ken wrote:

    Daisy wrote:
    I read your posts and try to understand what they are saying.
    Daisy wrote:
    I did not read this whole thread. I have no desire to read every post you write because you are not honest in how you present your views.
    I don’t think you could blame me for being a bit confused in the light of these two consecutive posts.
    You don’t have to read all or anything I have posted, but if you don’t you are in no position to critique what I say or claim I am inconsistent.

    Let me clarify.

    I do not read every post you make in a thread.

    Out of the posts I do read however read I pay attention to what I am reading.

    From what I have read, you are in fact inconsistent.

    You have flip flopped on some subjects, or argue one thing, but when I argue against it, you later claim you never said or felt the first way.

  335. Friend wrote:

    I was surprised to find a large amount of scorn and anger directed–not by you, but by others–at even the most mild-mannered atheists

    **raises hand** Not proud of it, but I used to do the arrogant, scorn thing. My, haven’t I jumped the fence.
    Daisy wrote:

    It made me rather sad to read this entertainer’s very harsh comments about people of faith.

    It’s sad that there’s not respect or tolerance there, but I usually find a genuine, root cause when I ask folks why they feel so strongly anti-Christian.

    In my circles, expressing anti-Christian views are de rigeur, and I would suggest is the dominant paradigm. So very different from America. I’d also suggest most would have a solid foundation for their views, it’s not aimless sneering. However, an older friend who regularly attends church complained to me that at the book group she attends she was the only one who fitted the Christian category and she was taking some flak for it. We both agreed that there was an immaturity in their atheish-ness in how they couldn’t tolerate, respect, or just cease sneering at my friend. Unless you’re a whackjob, no one should be made to feel that uncomfortable.

  336. Daisy wrote:

    I just find it strange that super hostile anti-theist atheists such as this celebrity (and he’s married to an atheist, too) would bother having children, since they don’t think they will be reunited with them after death.

    Maybe I’ve missed the boat, but I guess I don’t find it strange at all. Also, there’s lots of reasons why folks have children. I think we’d probably all be a bit shocked if parents ‘fessed up their honest motivations.

  337. @ Haitch:

    I don’t know if this helps shed light on things or not, but the specific celebrity I mentioned above said he’s never believed in God.

    So he’s not someone who was once a believer who was burned by other believers or something.

    I’m not altogether clear if he went to church. I think I recall reading in one interview his parents took him to church when he was a kid, but he said he never believed in God.

    But I have chatted with people on-line who identify as exChristians who are atheist.

  338. Haitch wrote:

    Also, there’s lots of reasons why folks have children. I think we’d probably all be a bit shocked if parents ‘fessed up their honest motivations.

    I’m quite sympathetic to childfree people.

    I’ve had to defend childfree people on this blog a time or two from over-zealous natalists who think it’s “selfish” for couples or women to choose to refrain from having children.

    Then you get the traditionalist gender role Christians who think women like me who remain celibate, and hence childless in adulthood, are somehow defying God and are in sin for being single/ childless.

    They think being a wife/ mother is the ONLY God ordained, good way for a woman to live life.

  339. Haitch wrote:

    In my circles, expressing anti-Christian views are de rigeur, and I would suggest is the dominant paradigm.

    Long ago I spent four years in a place where Christianity was considered somewhere between quaint and ridiculous. My own reaction was not to hide my beliefs, but to reveal them cautiously. A strange thing about faith came to me: I believed in the virgin birth while also believing it was scientifically impossible. I didn’t even necessarily consider the virgin birth a miracle (“God can do whatever he wants”). Instead, it had a meaning for me independent of factuality. We modern folk can’t escape our orientation toward facts, but much of life is mystical and mysterious and precious nonetheless.

  340. Daisy wrote:

    A gentle, sweet, nice man is not going to have a split personality – have one behavior in private and have another personality altogether on a blog.

    Not unless one of those personalities (usually the public one) is a mask of Deception.

  341. Friend wrote:

    We modern folk can’t escape our orientation toward facts, but much of life is mystical and mysterious and precious nonetheless.

    As Rob Bell once put it, “Math Truth” vs “Poem Truth”.

  342. Daisy wrote:

    These soul sleep guys believe once a Christian dies, that they rot in the ground. They stop existing, and won’t exist again until the second coming or resurrection day or whatever – which may not be for thousands or millions or years away.

    At which point, you don’t have a Resurrection, you have a Xerox machine printing off a new copy. As has been bandied about re Star Trek Transporters, Riverworld novels, and Cyberpunk Personality Uploads, is the copy the same as the original? Is Max Headroom the same as Edison Carter?

    Though most of the “soul sleep” theories I have heard is that the Christian does not actually cease to exist upon death but is unaware of the passage of time between death and resurrection. Their personality/soul/whatever continues to exist, but in a dormant state. Whether that means unconscious or a subjective time-jump in awareness from one to the other depends on who’s doing the preaching. (And you know what? I’m not all that eager to find out firsthand…)

  343. Friend wrote:

    Haitch, I agree with you, and would add that many Christians seem to place more value on the life we have yet to see than on the only life we have known and experienced.

    That’s what impresses me about Judaism. Its here-and-now earthiness. Like God is saying “Keep my Commandments, but LIVE YOUR LIFE!”

    Didn’t Screwtape advise Wormwood to keep his “patient” living in the Future instead of the Present if at all possible? And isn’t tunnel vision on Fluffy Cloud Heaven or The Rapture a form of that?

  344. Daisy wrote:

    Yes. As a woman, you would be likely be scared to walk alone, especially at night.
    You will be mindful of your surroundings.

    Such “Situational Awareness” (especially regarding threat situations) is a generally-useful survival skill, male or female.

  345. Daisy wrote:

    Wilson regularly refers to women with whom he disagrees in crass and sexist terminology, referring to their appearance / body parts, e.g., referring to women who he disagrees as “small breasted biddies”.

    As an aside, I remember reading long ago that in the craft of theatrical costuming, small breasts are actually preferred on an actress — at least from the costume designer’s POV. Because it’s easier to enlarge too-small breasts by costuming than it is to hide too-large ones, allowing the small-breasted actress more flexibility in appearance from role to role.

  346. Gus wrote:

    Wilson never being himself may be the correct answer. He may never have faced his real self behind that role that he plays.

    As was said of Anton LaVey, “He wore the mask so much that one day it became his face.”

    (And my copy of the 1943 OSS psych profile on one A.Hitler said much the same thing, that the originally-deliberate “Fuehrer” persona took over, eclipsed, and eventually destroyed the “Wolfy” persona.)

  347. MidwesternEasterner wrote:

    It exists in Japan, too (just watch some anime!)
    Although that might be the result of American influence; I’m not sure.

    I think it’s American influence, as Japanese women tend to be smaller-breasted than Europeans.

  348. Daisy wrote:

    These soul sleep guys believe once a Christian dies, that they rot in the ground. They stop existing, and won’t exist again until the second coming or resurrection day or whatever – which may not be for thousands or millions or years away.

    I just find some of these world views or doctrines depressing.

    I don’t find it depressing in the least. For one, I don’t believe in the existence of an ‘immortal’ soul. I think it’s a Hellenistic (Greek) invention that worked its way even into Hebraic thought around the time of the Axial Age.
    Prior to that, rabbinic thought considered body and soul to be an integral unit with no such bifurcation.
    According to the former paradigm in Jewish thought (which I too believe), the only thing that leaves the body-soul unit upon death is the life-force given by the Almighty to all living things.

  349. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Such “Situational Awareness” (especially regarding threat situations) is a generally-useful survival skill, male or female.

    It can be very mentally taxing and exhausting, though.

    I explained before too (on an older thread here) how my mother’s form of parenting caused me to be hyper-vigilant when around people, especially people I don’t know.

    Mom raised me to be a passive doormat in the face of bullying, but she did permit me one coping skill: avoidance.
    (In my Mom’s world, nice girls are allowed to avoid, but never confront or speak up or be assertive.)

    So I could never let go and relax around people.

    I was always scanning the surroundings, people’s moods, facial expressions, body language, etc, to see who in the room was a bully who would try to push me around.

    Combine that constant robot-like surveillance of a room at all times with my natural introverted nature, and I would get worn out being around other people for more than 5 or 10 minutes at a time.

    I tried to stay away from as many social functions as I could.

    Anyway. I sometimes think it must be nice to be a man and just walk anywhere day or night and not have to always be on the lookout, or not worry about being punched for turning down a date request or whatever.

  350. @ Muff Potter:

    I’m not completely sure I am following what all you said.

    Coping with my mother’s death has been a daunting experience for me. The last thing I needed to hear was that ‘Soul Sleep’ guy on the religious network essentially saying that my mom no longer exists anywhere at all (except her body rotting in a coffin).

  351. @ Headless Unicorn Guy:

    In the olden days of yore, like when Shakespeare was around, weren’t all the women’s parts played by men in the stage plays?

    Speaking of that sort of thing:

    I’ve said on this blog before I sometimes wish that sci-fi show Quantum Leap was real, and that guys like Mark Driscoll, Doug Wilson, John Piper, Bill Gothard, etc, had to live in the body of a woman for like a few months so they could see first hand the garbage women put up with.

  352. Gus wrote:
    (addressing Ken)

    No, it’s not sexist because innumerable studies prove that women have to fight and work a lot harder and be a lot better than men to achieve comparable recognition (in terms of salary, promotions, citations in academic journals, …)

    The Frustrating Way Men Underestimate Women In The Classroom
    Even when women are as good as their male peers, they don’t get recognized.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-frustrating-way-men-underestimate-women-in-the-classroom_us_56c48e69e4b0b40245c88699?

  353. @ Daisy:

    Please accept my apology if I caused you any pain regarding your Mom’s passing.
    That was not the intent, it was simply a statement of belief vs. non-belief in the concept of the ‘soul’.

  354. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Didn’t Screwtape advise Wormwood to keep his “patient” living in the Future instead of the Present if at all possible?

    Yep. To be so fixated on The Future that he forgets the demands, duties and even the pleasures of the here and now, because the Present is where duty and pleasure actually exist.

    Actual quotation:

    … we want a man hag-ridden by the Future – haunted by visions of an imminent heaven or hell upon earth – ready to break the Enemy’s commands in the present if by so doing we make him think he can attain the one or avert the other – dependent for his faith on the success or failure of schemes whose end he will not live to see. We want a whole race perpetually in pursuit of the rainbow’s end, never honest, nor kind, nor happy now, but always using as mere fuel wherewith to heap the altar of the future every real gift which is offered them in the Present.

  355. @ Daisy:
    Yes, they were played by men and boys, until the era of King Charles II. Still, actresses have (unfortunately) had unsavory reputations until relatively recent times. Even post-WWII, “actress” was often used in a way that was synonymous with prostitution, here in the US.

  356. @ numo:
    The unsavory reputation bit was sometimes justified; often not. Still, musicians, theater people etc. were part of the demi-monde in the US and Europe until very recently.

  357. Ken, these are for you. Hope you take some time to read…

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/19/arts/design/new-databases-offer-insights-into-the-lives-of-escaped-slaves.html

    http://freedomonthemove.org/

    Note: a relative of mine spent many years working on the study of abolitionism (specifically, black abolitionists and abolitionist organizations in the North), and went on to write a book about one of the 1st people (a formerly enslaved man who escaped to New England) to be captured and tried after the Dred Scott decision. A fair number of black folks broke into the courtroom, grabbed him and got him out of town. He ultimately settled in Canada, where he ran a number of successful businesses in and around Montreal, Quebec.

    If you haven’t read any personal narratives (like one of Frederick Douglass’, for example), I highly recommend looking into the many that are out there. Incidents in the Life a Slave Girl, the narratives published by William and Ellen Craft, Henry “Box” Brown (he was hidden in a shipping crate), and many, many others. Should be very easy to find titles.

  358. Daisy wrote:

    Let me clarify.

    Daisy, I am more than happy for you to clarify.

    What I would ask is that you extend the same courtesy to me. I have now said about 6 times how I badly worded a post on culture and the bible, and so re-worked it. That may be what you claim was being inconsistent, I don’t know, but you continue even on this thread to repeat what I don’t think under the ‘no true scotsman’ fallacy.

    You are not the only one to say I am inconsistent, but no-one has yet given a specific example of this. Perhaps when trying to clarify something I can appear to be (or even be!!) inconsistent, I don’t know. I don’t claim to have all the loose ends tied up anyway.

    It might even be in the light of a discussion that I amend what I think about something.

  359. numo wrote:

    Even post-WWII, “actress” was often used in a way that was synonymous with prostitution, here in the US.

    As I believe nurses were pre-20th century, if I’m not wrong…

  360. @ Daisy:
    Fascinating link. Young people don’t want to be judged or made to feel guilty. So presumably when they mistreat or are cruel or unloving towards each other, it is ‘wrong to judge’. Send a positive message all the time. This hsa a familiar ring.

    Whilst the church does need wisdom in how it approaches the world around it (in this sense even being ‘seeker-sensitive’), it cannot let that world change the message or set the agenda. To do so will only produce CON-verts, as they used to say.

  361. @ numo:
    I wondered how we got on to this in the first place, and it was my refusal to condemn Wilson as a historian of the pre-war South due to this being a subject beyond my ken, as it were.

    I actually have little doubt as to the gross iniquity of the system in place in the southern states from a little bit of reading about it (I took a quick look at your links).

    This seriously discredits Wilson when he gets into a topic on which he has little (no?) expertise or is being influenced by a political agenda (big govt). But it’s no good me trying to point out his lack of historical knowledge when I haven’t read up on the subject myself! Neither is that to support him.

    What it does not excuse is – and this happens not infrequently in internet pieces and even more comment sections – character assassination of Wilson (or others) by distorting what he has actually said. I think this is a matter of real concern where the supposed intention is discernment or the uncovering of offences committed in the professing church. Nate is spot on in going for the ideas or theology, not the man.

    The worst of this is what might be serious offences are not actually challenged as emotive and biased pieces make them seem less credible.

  362. Ken wrote:

    it was my refusal to condemn Wilson as a historian of the pre-war South due to this being a subject beyond my ken, as it were.

    It doesn’t take a PhD to look at Wilson’s background for about 1 minute to realize he is no scholar of slavery or the Civil War. You are sure writing a lot of comments on this blog. You should be doing some reading for a few minutes (not hours) before you pretend not to know anything about Doug Wilson. I think your comment is disingenuous.

    Ken wrote:

    What it does not excuse is – and this happens not infrequently in internet pieces and even more comment sections – character assassination of Wilson (or others) by distorting what he has actually said. I

    Character assassination is a strong condemnation. Instead of tossing around the word, why don’t you give examples. Goodness knows we back up what we say here and you could, once again, take a few minutes and outline your proof of character assassination. And since you have already told us you don’t know much about Wilson, I am not sure you would know character assassination if you saw it.

  363. Ken wrote:

    it cannot let that world change the message or set the agenda.

    The Pharisees also misunderstood and twisted the Scriptures, which turned many people off way back when. So you may want to consider that some church’s interpretations (ie, complementarianism) about women is incorrect.
    Just like American Christians were wrong to use the Bible to defend white people owning black people up through the 19th century.

  364. Ken wrote:

    That may be what you claim was being inconsistent, I don’t know, but you continue even on this thread to repeat what I don’t think under the ‘no true scotsman’ fallacy.

    I have given you examples in the past, where I linked back to previous posts you have made, and despite me either doing that, or quoting right from posts you have made, you claim you were misunderstood, or those were not your words (even though they were).

    You do this on and off from one thread to the next, which makes it difficult to always have a handy dandy specific link example at the ready.

    It’s over the course of your entirety of posting here that this occurs. Others see it and have mentioned it too. So it’s not just me saying this.

    Your own replies should clue you in to this.

    You will often say in response to myself or others: “That is not what I meant”, “I never said that” (but then myself or another give you a link back to what you said), “no, my view is nuanced, let me re-explain what I meant.”

    (This is very Dough Wilson-onian in behavior. Wilson does the same thing, which I find ironic considering the thread we are posting in at the moment.)

    Some examples (you can use Google to find your own posts with these comments):

    1. You maintained that having boundaries and getting one’s own needs met is selfish, unBibley and wrong.

    2. You have maintained that psychology is wrong/ bad / unJesusy, so no Christian should trust it or use it

    3. You have maintained that all to most women are more prone to deception than men are and hence should not be permitted certain roles (despite the fact admitting in yet other threads that some men are also deceived)

    When points 1 – 3 are disputed, you have back-tracked and later said, ‘oh no, that’s not what I really believe.’

    And yes, regarding complementarianism, you engage in the No True Scots fallacy, because you maintain that examples of comps abusing women or holding sexist views is not the fault of comp itself but due to incorrect implementation of comp.

    That is the basis of No True Scot, only in your case, it could be called “No True Comp” fallacy.

  365. Muff Potter wrote:

    Please accept my apology if I caused you any pain regarding your Mom’s passing.
    That was not the intent, it was simply a statement of belief vs. non-belief in the concept of the ‘soul’.

    That’s okay. I wasn’t sure I understood everything in your last post.

    I mentioned my mother to give you the context of why I find some of these views concerning (especially the “soul sleep” doctrine).

  366. Daisy wrote:

    1. You maintained that having boundaries and getting one’s own needs met is selfish, unBibley and wrong.
    2. You have maintained that psychology is wrong/ bad / unJesusy, so no Christian should trust it or use it
    3. You have maintained that all to most women are more prone to deception than men

    Firstly, Daisy, I appreciate you actually giving some examples of what you mean.

    As regards 1, I tried to distinguish between legitimate needs and ‘me first’ self love.

    As regards 2, I remain profoundly sceptical about psychology in general, and pop psychology in particular.

    As regards 3, I don’t think I have ever said women are more prone to deception, and indeed given reasons for not believing this. What I have said is women may be prone to deception in particular areas, and given a fair amount of detail on what I mean by this.

    If you don’t mind me saying so Daisy, you need setting free from being preoccupied with complementarianism, and so do I ! It really is pointless for us two to keep repeating the same things over and over again.

  367. @ dee:
    My knowledge of Douglas Wilson comes from his blog, and some helpful material he has posted there, especially on atheism. He is also useful for thinking outside the European statist box. So for a while have been favourably disposed towards him.

    As time has gone on, I have become aware of his feet of clay (or worse). I certainly don’t agree with everything he says. But I have become concerned at the marked tendency to condemn him in intemperate language for some of the things he has said and done, or not actually said. It wouldn’t be difficult to find examples of this, but any Douglas Wilson thread from a critic will provide these sooner or later. Speculation or jumping to conclusions.

    Some criticisms may well be justified, but I’m not in a position to say either way only having the internet to go on. This is not always because of his own defence of his conduct, rather the unmistakable bias in some of his critics. If that sounds mealy-mouthed, then so be it.

    As you say, taking more time might reveal a whole load more where I would part company from him, but until I have spent that time I can’t really do more than withold judgement.

  368. Daisy wrote:

    It can be very mentally taxing and exhausting, though.
    I explained before too (on an older thread here) how my mother’s form of parenting caused me to be hyper-vigilant when around people, especially people I don’t know.

    What you described is “Situational Awareness on OCD”.

    Like a rabbit or other prey animal, constantly scanning for predators and threats.

    And with the only permitted reaction being “avoidance”, even more like prey animals — RUN! Whether that’s a rabbit bolting for cover or a herd stampeding in the hope the predator nails someone else/not Me.

  369. dee wrote:

    You are sure writing a lot of comments on this blog

    Yes I know. I have appreciated the chance to discuss and debate with people of differing backgrounds and views. Many I have come to ‘virtually’ like.

    On a more personal note, I know I have overdone it, especially on the whole complementarian/egalitarian theme. I apologise if I have become little more than a pain in the neck on this theme, or any other for that matter.

    I intended to call it a day on this topic before moderation suggested this, but needed a distraction from some long-term illness of a close family member (not life-threatening, but still not nice to cope with). It was nice to have something else to think about.

    That did not mean I was only discussing things for the sake of it, it was done in good faith, but I fear a bit of vanity might have crept in. I hope no-one feels used; it was helpful to me, and I have learnt quite a bit from it, which is good.

    That said, it has become emotionally draining now, and has been for some time, and I feel some guilt that preoccupation with this has been at the spiritual expense of my family (up to a point). It was starting to become disputes about words, and at least in some cases the goal of discovering and doing the will of God sa laid out in the NT had become secondary, that is, the discussion was more about why this isn’t for today.

    If it is any consolation, Dee, I even got to the point of thinking ‘for goodness’ sake shut up Ken’ on re-reading one or two of my own posts!

    So I actually appreciated you post, as it suddenly made me take stock, and as there is a time for everything, it’s time for me … to take a break.

  370. @ Ken:
    He is most emphatically NOT a historian. Nor is he learned or erudite. He is a bullying blowhard who likes to pull obscure words from a thesaurus. On top of that, he is a misogynist. Who has delusions of grandeur.

  371. @ Ken:
    I want to be sure you understand what I meant. I did not say you were commenting *too much.* I was saying you are commenting a lot and I would think that for the number of your comments, you would have read on Doug Wilson.

    Its really not so very hard to figure this out. he married a pedophile to a young naive woman in his church and during the ceremony there was a prayer for the blessing of children. You do know that pedophiles would love to have the *blessing * of children in order to commit nefarious acts upon them. Oh yeah, and guess how that worked out…

    If you continue to support Wilson in light of this simple situation then i really have nothing to say to you. You do not get the horrors of pedophilia. and frankly, I am pretty sure that Doug does not as well.

  372. I just saw this (about Doug Wilson):

    GOP bill would allow group founded by anti-gay slavery defender to accredit Tenn. schools
    http://www.rawstory.com/2016/02/gop-bill-would-allow-group-founded-by-anti-gay-slavery-defender-to-accredit-tennessee-schools/

    The intro:

    e Tennessee state Senate on Monday was scheduled to consider a GOP-sponsored bill that would allow church schools to be accredited by a Christian organization founded by Douglas Wilson — an evangelical theologian who has defended the institution of slavery, called for the execution of adulterers and has said LGBT people should be exiled.

    The Nashville Scene reported that state Sen. Brian Kelsey (R) had sponsored SB1792 to add Wilson’s Association of Classical and Christian Schools to the list of accreditation organizations for church-related schools.

    —-
    I am posting that only because it mentions Doug Wilson.

    I am GOP myself (the page is a left wing site), so I’m not posting this to pick on the GOP, in case anyone is wondering.

    My interest in this is only as it pertains to Wilson being mentioned. 🙂

  373. @ dee:
    For Ken: thereis a “Category” drop-down bar on the top right of the blog headers. By using that,you can easily find *plenty* of info. on Wilson’s extremely questionable, often highly disreputable, words and actions. Nobody here is exaggerating or making things up, least of all the Deebs.

    (See, women can sling around big words, too! And use them to clarify, not – as Wilson so often does – obfuscate. 🙂 )

  374. @ numo:

    There are a couple of other good resources about Doug Wilson, such as…

    By way of the “Doug Wilson” tag, this blog sometimes covers Wilson:
    Culture, adventure, stillness
    http://kbotkin.com/

    The Truth About Moscow
    http://moscowid.net/

    From one recent post there (under a recent Wilson quote):

    Doug Wilson will say one thing for the record to the court in defense of a child abuser, and he will say the complete opposite in public to create a false impression about his true convictions

    Yes, so true. Wilson uses a lot of double-speak.

  375. dee wrote:

    I want to be sure you understand what I meant. I did not say you were commenting *too much.*

    There was no misunderstanding, I didn’t take you as saying I was commenting too much, but the whole post did make me take stock.

    You wanted examples of character assassination, and the whole debased nature of so much internet comment suddently made me think there is a time to rest from this.

  376. dee wrote:

    If you continue to support Wilson in light of this simple situation then i really have nothing to say to you.

    I’ll say it again, I’m neutral on Wilson. I see good and bad in him – my own assessment based on reading him and critics of him. That could change, but not by simply going with the flow of those who can’t stand him.

    Remember the infamous A man penetrates, conquers, colonizes, plants. A woman receives, surrenders, accepts? Not the sort of language I would use; inflammatory and asking to be misunderstood. See

    https://dougwils.com/books/flatter-my-heart-three-persond-god.html

    and read the three paragraphs after he quotes this sentence giving his reasons for it. Enter RHE who comments on this quote, and goes on to say with reference to 1 Cor 7 This flat-out contradicts Wilson’s assertion that authority belongs only to the man.

    But you read further in Wilson’s article only to find in the 4th paragraph after his sentence he too believes in the mutuality of 1 Cor 7. So the language of conquest is language of mutual conquest.

    Aren’t these two six of one and half a dozen of the other?

    Go to Are Women Human and the claim is made: But Wilson goes much farther than any rape apologist Christian writer I’ve ever read, and that’s a lot of people Seriously? A rape apologist? Wilson can be rightly criticised for insensitivity where genuine harm and abuse have been experienced, but this kind of emoting is not going to make him re-think his views. And being offended can be emotional blackmail to avoid a reasoned discussion of the bible and gender issues, it’s not difficult to find examples of this. For whatever reason, this brings out some very embittered people.

    If you then turn to the Sitler issue and how Wilson handled it, you get the same mixture of Internet opinion. This makes it for me almost impossible to discern just who is right on this. I did see a site detailing Wilson’s handling of this issue, but the commentary on his words bore little relationship to what he actually said. It was designed to show him in the worst possible light.

    I haven’t yet seen an answer from Wilson’s critics as to what biblical reason he could give for refusing the marriage. I’m not a pastor and have never had to face making decisions about this, although I have personally known of individual abused by child molesters in church. It’s immensely difficult to deal with.

    I think Wilson really ought to respond more carefully to his critics. If you look at the one comment at the end of the link above, it was written in an exemplary manner (no personal barbs), and deserved a response that was not forthcomming.

  377. Daisy wrote:

    There are a couple of other good resources about Doug Wilson, such as…
    By way of the “Doug Wilson” tag, this blog sometimes covers Wilson:
    Culture, adventure, stillness
    http://kbotkin.com/

    I took a look at this, Daisy. It is a classic on debased internet comment sections.

    Quote:

    Doug Wilson is a bag of shit. Seriously, why is he still alive? He’s not a pastor, he’s a f***ing Mafioso. F*** Doug Wilson and f*** the horse he rode in on.

    I cannot support your call for prayer regarding Mr. Wilson. He is a dangerous, narcissistic blight

    The man is a giant fat turd with no power over you other than what you have freely given him…. He’s a sad bloated moist flabby mildewy excuse for half-a-man, and why anyone would willingly continue listening to his drivel beats the shit out of me. Take away his forum and shut him up, for the good of your families and your children

    Now Katie Botkin did nothing to reign in the foul language. Why should I take any notice of her article about Wilson, it is hardly likely to be an attempt at objecctivity? Is this a ‘good resource’?

    If Wilson really is as bad as his critics maintain – and he might be – then this kind of nonsense does nothing to get it sorted.

  378. Sorry Dee, may I have one last comment I want to get off my chest? Then I’ll keep quiet.

    I’ve not had much direct experience of child abusers in church.

    But I can think of one who was brought up in real poverty and deprivation, in the 1920’s with no welfare state. No chance for a decent education, and almost certainly in a abusive home and lacking love.

    That was my mother. But the Lord Jesus Christ got hold of her, and she became a new creation in Christ, under the wing of some Anglican evangelicals. Men of real faith in a God who really could change people on the inside.

    Despite her upbringing, I can say that I never knew as a child what it was like not to be loved. Perhaps that was a privilige. She made mistakes, but lack of love was never one of them. She didn’t reproduce what she had not had herself. I look back and am immensely grateful for her. There was no internet and no survivor blogs. But I never heard her utter one word of complaint about her childhood until the day she died.

    It’s an example the modern internet culture – even when supposedly Christian – seems to have lost. Ordinary Christians in ordinary churches gradually being changed.

  379. Ken

     I seriously do not know ho to take you. I believe, deep down, that you are a Doug Wilson supporter. Teh fact that you can give me chapter and verse af his writings and then claim you nothing of his *scholarly* background on the Civil War, makes me chuckle. I can do the same thing with anyone you want. I could defend CJ Mahaney using your line of *reasoning.* This is why weirdness continue in evangelicalism. Weare very, very good with justifying why we can’t *make a stand * or *pass judgement.*

  380. Ken wrote:

    I took a look at this, Daisy. It is a classic on debased internet comment sections.
    Quote:

    Now THAT’s colorful language.
    Cussing as a Fine Art, Straight from the Emotional heart.
    PASSIONATE in the original meaning of the word.

    Sorry if it offends your Church Lady sensibilities.
    You should have someone read you the Book of Ezekiel in the original language.
    (Now that guy had a dirty mouth.)
    Or some of the other Prophets. They hit just as hard.
    Or if you’re into the NT, there’s always skubalon, translated as “rubbish”.

  381. Daisy wrote:

    I just saw this (about Doug Wilson):
    GOP bill would allow group founded by anti-gay slavery defender to accredit Tenn. schools
    http://www.rawstory.com/2016/02/gop-bill-would-allow-group-founded-by-anti-gay-slavery-defender-to-accredit-tennessee-schools/

    At the very least, someone making up the accreditation list was either totally clueless or didn’t vet the organizations well enough.

    At the worst, well, they snark that “GOP” stands for “God’s Own Party”.

  382. @ Ken:
    That you do not see how and why Wilson is a rape apologist just baffles me. Like Dee, istm that you agree with him, or like him.

    As for why your mom didn’t speak of what had been done to her, it wasn’t really sn option back then. Child abuse – sexusl especially – has been a topic of public discussion since the 1980d. Before that – barring whst Dickens and others said about child labor, workhouses, etc. – no. If anything, Dickens very much understated it all, as he never discussed child prostitution, sexual abuse, etc.

  383. dee wrote:

    I’ll say it again, I’m neutral on Wilson.

    Ken, no need to answer, but I’m going to chime in and I’ll just say – I’m not understanding your neutrality. Any man who uses the words “small breasted biddies” I don’t give the time of day to. It is a revolting sentiment that reflects a revolting heart. Call it for what it is. I don’t know why you are unable to call a spade a spade. What you may think is being fair is a weakness in your ability to discern and judge.Ken wrote:

    This makes it for me almost impossible to discern just who is right on this

    Ken, this other comment also stood out. You don’t need to read ‘both sides of the debate’ that other people are arguing about (and there can be much more to examine than just the binary “two sides”) to make up your mind. The question is – what do YOU think. For some reason your radar is off kilter Ken. And I don’t want to surmise why the seeming fence-sitting is your forte.

  384. Ken wrote:

    I haven’t yet seen an answer from Wilson’s critics as to what biblical reason he could give for refusing the marriage.

    How about… because it’s stoopid? It’s the height of lunacy to allow a pedophile the opportunity to beget his future victims, and hopelessly cruel to subject a woman to life with such a man.

    Maybe that doesn’t qualify as a “biblical” reason to you. For me, it falls squarely under being “as wise as serpents”.

  385. Serving Kids In Japan wrote:

    How about… because it’s stoopid? It’s the height of lunacy to allow a pedophile the opportunity to beget his future victims, and hopelessly cruel to subject a woman to life with such a man.
    Maybe that doesn’t qualify as a “biblical” reason to you. For me, it falls squarely under being “as wise as serpents”.

    You said what needed saying, although it is beyond me why it needs to be said. It is wisdom of the simplest kind to most people.

  386. Okay Ken, how about the Bible says to ‘delight in the breasts of the wife of your youth’ or similar… how can a husband do that if what he actually delights in are the bodies of children?
    Can you give me a Biblical reason as to why men should not marry any ‘woman’ who has started her periods & hence can bear children? Some start at 9 years old.
    Can you give me a Biblical reason as to why we shouldn’t use child labour?
    Oh the questions could go on…

  387. Serving Kids In Japan wrote:

    How about… because it’s stoopid?

    Good answer. A more biblical expression would be folly. Wilson probably made a fundamental error of judgement here. Why only probably?

    The marriage was biblical in that it was between two professed believers with mutual consent. It is not usual for anyone else to have the final say in who gets married. If Wilson is being honest, the bride knew all the relevant facts and history.

    You could in a sense argue they were unequally yoked.

    This, however, was not a usual situation. The folly though cannot simply be targetted at Douglas Wilson, but the parents, the elders of the church, even the members if they were unwilling to express reservations about it. The organs of State also failed – this had to be approved by a judge did it not, but I don’t hear much criticism of him.

    Wilson may have been fooled by a very clever operator. A convincing liar. Or Sitler may have genuinely repented, and been forgiven. If the former is true, Wilson should be more prepared to admit to making a mistake. If the latter is true, it would explain why Wilson is unwilling to concede anything to those of his critics who clearly don’t believe in forgivenness or repentence, I suspect because they have never done any real business with God about their own sins.

    My reluctance to join in the condemnation of Wilson is not because I actually think he is the best thing since sliced bread, it is driven by the blatant insincerity and hypocrisy of his more potty-mouthed critics linked with wilful misrepresentation of what Wilson says. (Those who use the f-word or otherwise curse and swear are in my book telling me they are not Christians.) You cannot overcome evil with evil.

    I find Wilson’s account of the situation pretty convincing; he may have fooled me. Which brings me back to the only sources of information available at this time and distance from the events are potentially biased internet pages.

  388. dee wrote:

    I believe, deep down, that you are a Doug Wilson supporter. Teh fact that you can give me chapter and verse af his writings and then claim you nothing of his *scholarly* background on the Civil War, makes me chuckle

    What I said to Serving Kids. Plus I have read Wilson’s blog, it’s not difficult to search for his writings there and quote them. But I haven’t read his stuff on the civil war until it came up here.

    I did see a youtube clip of him answering the question on slavery and the civil war last night. His argument was basically this evil would have withered on the vine and gradually been eliminated as was done peacefully in other countries such as the UK, and that 600,000 dead in a war was an unnecessary price to pay for it.

    This doesn’t sit very will with the claim he is an advocate of chattel slavery, unless he is lying through his teeth.

    I’m afraid Dee I read one too many embittered, emoting internet sites on Wilson, and it’s why I don’t want to join in the belligerance either for or against him.

    Something snapped inside, less to do with Wilson himself than the sheer amount of biting and devouring going on on the net.

  389. Ken wrote:

    of his critics who clearly don’t believe in forgivenness or repentence, I suspect because they have never done any real business with God about their own sins.

    Really, Ken?? His critics don’t believe in these things and have not done real business with God? You know this how? And if some are not believers shouldn’t you be praying for them instead of condemning them. And maybe they have done real business with God and they know that repentance is more than just words.

    You come across as a man who sticks up for Wilson because “you don’t care for his critics” more than because you agree with Wilson.

  390. Ken wrote:

    My reluctance to join in the condemnation of Wilson is not because I actually think he is the best thing since sliced bread, it is driven by the blatant insincerity and hypocrisy of his more potty-mouthed critics linked with wilful misrepresentation of what Wilson says. (Those who use the f-word or otherwise curse and swear are in my book telling me they are not Christians.) You cannot overcome evil with evil.

    The comment you quoted from Katie’s site sounds very much like Dash, although without a link to the relevant page, I can’t be sure. He comments occasionally at Julie Anne’s blog, and has even written a few articles, detailing his experiences as a child of Bill Gothard devotees.

    There’s more I’d like to tell you about Dash, but I’m not certain that comment is from him. For the time being, I have these words from Tony Campolo (you might have heard them before):

    “I have three things I’d like to say today. First, while you were sleeping last night, 30,000 kids died of starvation or diseases related to malnutrition. Second, most of you don’t give a sh*t. What’s worse is that you’re more upset with the fact that I said sh*t than the fact that 30,000 kids died last night.”

    It seems you’re more upset about someone (likely a non-Christian) cussing out the likes of Wilson, than the fact that Wilson (a professing Christian) is a racist, plagiarist, misogynist and bully, and still occupies a pulpit. Honestly, brother, I’m not sure you have your priorities straight.

  391. Ken wrote:

    (Those who use the f-word or otherwise curse and swear are in my book telling me they are not Christians.)

    Okay. I wonder how many of Jesus’ fisherman disciples had potty mouths? I’m sure all those earthy men had pristine language like yours – right? Or, does it occur to you that not all commentors on blogs are Christian?

    I’ll take an f-bomb dropping Christian who stands up to bullies over a proper speaking pastor who does not protect children from pedophiles and even allows a pedophile to move on elsewhere freely. Which shows more Christian charity?

  392. Bridget wrote:

    You come across as a man who sticks up for Wilson because “you don’t care for his critics” more than because you agree with Wilson.

    Apart from being more neutral about Wilson, you are right. I don’t know the critics I have in mind are unbelievers, but they act like it. No concept of forgivenness or real change. And I haven’t condemned them, it’s an observation. There are also those who clearly have chunks of NT teaching they have no intention of obeying, which undercuts them if they criticise Wilson for his failure to obey the NT in how he interacts with people or receives criticism.

    The motes and beams in making judgements applies equally to all of us.

    There are sites which are much more even-handed, that attack the ideas and not the man, and even give credit where credit is due. They are people Wilson would do well to listen to. Some erstwhile sympathetic to his ministry have been turned off by the slavery issue. I haven’t looked at vast numbers of sites, but they do fall into two categories: the reasoned and the irrational. The latter outnumber the former, and are paradoxically imo Wilson’s greatest supporters.

    Wilson too can be his own worst enemy by seeming to be unable to say ‘Sorry, I got it wrong’.

    If I’m honest he has gone down a lot in my estimation, and is likely to end up filed in the same draw along with Dan Philips and Frank Turk of team pyro. Phil Johnson was a good writer, and his side-kicks produced some good stuff, but without him their attitude deteriorated. Like them, Wilson has produced some good stuff, but what I have seen more lately shows a side I am less keen on.

  393. @ Serving Kids In Japan:
    It was Dash, though by far not alone.

    A friend of mine actually heard Campolo say this, and had the same mixed feelings I did. He is right that we can have some strange priorities, but whether this is the right way to go about saying this I don’t know.

    As far as internet articles and comments go – the tongue is an unrighteous world among our members, … and set on fire by hell … a restless evil, full of deadly poison. From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. My brethren, this ought not to be so.

    There is a wisdom demonstrated that does not come down from above, but is earthly, soulish, demonic. It is not pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, without uncertainty or insincerity.

    This shows the problem is nothing new, but if my mother managed to live a life without bitterness, without swearing and complaining about her lot, and only having the traditional ‘means of grace’, why can’t others attempt to do the same with all the masses of ‘ministry’ and books and counselling and CD’s that are available today?

    From what I have read, Mark Driscoll was prone to being a potty-mouth, which means I have no intention of listening to any of his sermons because I’m not interested in the earthly and demonic that might be lurking in them.

    I’m not that bothered by bad language in and of itself, but I’d rather listen to someone who has better fruit, namely some self-control.

  394. Ken wrote:

    No concept of forgivenness or real change.

    “Produce fruit in keeping with your repentance.”

    I believe in forgiveness and real change.

    I also believe that true repentance must needs bear fruit.

    And fruit takes *time*.

    The truly repentant child molester does not blame his/her victim. They plead guilty to their crime and do not allow their attorney to rake the victim/s through the coals. They do not expect to be left alone with children. They do not immediately start looking for a spouse planning to have children. If they were in some form of ministry, they do not expect to get right back into it.

    Can they be forgiven? Yes.
    Can they change? Yes.
    Must they bear fruit that proves their repentance? Yes.

    And bearing fruit takes TIME.

    Substitute any other sin for child molester, and the same would still hold true.

  395. Ken wrote:

    Now Katie Botkin did nothing to reign in the foul language. Why should I take any notice of her article about Wilson, it is hardly likely to be an attempt at objecctivity? Is this a ‘good resource’?

    You have truly have a habit of majoring on the minors.

    Instead of focusing on the content of arguments people or the main blog makes, you choose to ignore their points to quibble over other things – like tone or language.

    Back when I linked you to the excellent “No True Comp” blog, rather than refute the arguments of the guy who wrote the blog page, you focused on the fact that he’s an Ex-Christian and dismissed anything he said out of hand.

    BTW, not on this blog, but in other areas of my life, I sometimes use cuss language. Not often, but on occasion. I am also not a “full on” Christian these days. I am waffling between Christianity and Agnosticism.

    To be consistent, you’d have to completely discount everything I have ever said or ever will say and just say, “Well you’re not totally Christian and sometimes use naughty language” rather than dealing with the substance of my comments.

    Do you know Julie Anne of SSB (she sometimes posts on this blog, and her blog is linked to off to the side of this blog)?
    She too allows some of the commentators (some who are atheist or agnostic, many of whom have been hurt by churches) to use vulgar language on her blog.

    She is giving these types of wounded people an opportunity to find healing, and if that means expressing anger, and in a crass fashion at times, okay then.

    Ken it’s like you intentionally look for excuses, no matter how trivial, to totally discount people’s views. I don’t think you are intellectually honest.
    This is both sad and frustrating to me.

  396. Serving Kids In Japan wrote:

    How about… because it’s stoopid? It’s the height of lunacy to allow a pedophile the opportunity to beget his future victims, and hopelessly cruel to subject a woman to life with such a man.
    Maybe that doesn’t qualify as a “biblical” reason to you. For me, it falls squarely under being “as wise as serpents”.

    I have to say, one benefit of stepping partially away from the Christian faith is getting outside the Christian mindset, the bubble, that insists every single decision or situation in life requires a Bible verse before action can be taken. Before something can be accepted, judged, or verified.

    I used to be rather like that myself. Now that I’m no longer so much like that, life has gotten much easier in some ways.

    I still marvel at Christians who need minute guidance on every area of their life. Maybe on mundane topics like, “Should I have vanilla or chocolate ice cream? Which flavor is the “godly” one, which one would God permit? Is there a Bible verse in favor of chocolate because that’s the one I want, but I’m concerned vanilla is more biblical?”

    There’s this Christian TV show I watch where viewers send in questions to the hosts every day.

    Not only are many of the people who write in obviously biblically illiterate (I am basing this on their questions, you can just tell), but on yet other questions they send in- they could very well use their own minds to make decisions on the stuff they are inquiring about, instead, they turn to some host on a Christian show.

    I am puzzled why anyone would invest a Christian TV show with that much authority and lean that much on someone else for basic decision-making.

  397. Ken wrote:

    (part 1)
    This, however, was not a usual situation. The folly though cannot simply be targetted at Douglas Wilson, but the parents, the elders of the church, even the members if they were unwilling to express reservations about it. The organs of State also failed – this had to be approved by a judge did it not, but I don’t hear much criticism of him.

    (part 2)
    My reluctance to join in the condemnation of Wilson is not because I actually think he is the best thing since sliced bread, it is driven by the blatant insincerity and hypocrisy of his more potty-mouthed critics linked with wilful misrepresentation of what Wilson says. (Those who use the f-word or otherwise curse and swear are in my book telling me they are not Christians.) You cannot overcome evil with evil.

    part 1.
    Wow. That is exactly how Doug Wilson handled at least one child sexual assault by one of his church members – he blamed the victim’s parents (and later her) for the sexual assaults.

    part 2.
    Ah, back to the Botkins link I gave. She is very knowledgable about Wilson and does an excellent job in critiquing Wilson’s perverted, false, hypocritical, and weird teachings and actions.

    You are rejecting her entire body of work based on the fact that one or two folks in her comment box on her site used some naughty language. Pretty shoddy.
    It’s also an example of sorts of the Genetic Fallacy.

    If a cussing man who keeps blurting out dirty words also tells you that the sky is blue and the sun is yellow and that squares contain 90 degree angles, would you then say that you refuse to believe that the sky is blue and the sun is yellow and that squares have 90 degree angles, because you don’t like the source of that information, or how they state their views?

    Your comment again:
    “Those who use the f-word or otherwise curse and swear are in my book telling me they are not Christians.) ”

    I’m not sure if Botkin is a Christian or not – she might be, but who cares if the commentators on her blog are atheists, Hindus, or other Non-Christians? Nothing they say can discount what she herself writes on her blog.

    Even if Botkin is not a Christian, so what? It doesn’t make what she writs about Wilson any less true.

  398. Ken wrote:

    I’m afraid Dee I read one too many embittered, emoting internet sites on Wilson, and it’s why I don’t want to join in the belligerance either for or against him.

    You’re basing that on the two links I gave to Numo above? Really?

  399. Serving Kids In Japan wrote:

    The comment you quoted from Katie’s site sounds very much like Dash, although without a link to the relevant page, I can’t be sure. He comments occasionally at Julie Anne’s blog, and has even written a few articles, detailing his experiences as a child of Bill Gothard devotees.

    Yes.
    Here’s a link to one of the comments (by someone with the screen name of Dash):
    http://kbotkin.com/2016/02/17/the-man-who-would-be-king/#comment-9465

    Instead of condemning all of Botkin’s blog and/or Dash for Dash’s choice of words, I wonder if Ken ever wonders, “What can inspire such passion and deep animosity towards Wilson?,” and start investigating.

    Generally, when people have that level of animosity towards someone, it just may be for a good reason.

  400. Ken wrote:

    Apart from being more neutral about Wilson, you are right. I don’t know the critics I have in mind are unbelievers, but they act like it. No concept of forgivenness or real change. And I haven’t condemned them, it’s an observation

    I find it funny that right under the Dash quote you gave, Botkin, who runs the blog said this to him:
    ——
    [by Katie Botkin]
    “Let’s just pray for him [Wilson]. Pray he realizes the error of his ways. Because most other people do.”
    ———-
    Source:
    http://kbotkin.com/2016/02/17/the-man-who-would-be-king/#comment-9466

  401. Ken wrote:

    Well yeah, the Ladies do tend to be over-emotional …

    What?

    And women are poor drivers and all of them are terrible at math too – were you trying to hit on derogatory stereotypes about women?
    Was that intended to be humor?

  402. Ken wrote:

    As far as internet articles and comments go – the tongue is an unrighteous world among our members, … and set on fire by hell … a restless evil, full of deadly poison. From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. My brethren, this ought not to be so.

    There is a wisdom demonstrated that does not come down from above, but is earthly, soulish, demonic. It is not pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, without uncertainty or insincerity.

    As I said above, you major on minors. That same Bible of yours likes to warn against that tendency:

    Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law:
    justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others.
    24 “You blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!… (Matthew 23)

  403. Ken wrote:

    As far as internet articles and comments go – the tongue is an unrighteous world among our members, … and set on fire by hell … a restless evil, full of deadly poison. From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. My brethren, this ought not to be so.

    Tell that to Jesus…He called the Pharisees whitewashed tombs, hypocrites, serpents, brood of vipers, blind guides, full of lawlessness. He certainly didn’t mince His words when he confronted those characteristics in those who were in leadership and He did it publicly!

  404. Daisy wrote:

    Ken wrote:
    Well yeah, the Ladies do tend to be over-emotional …

    What?

    Maybe Ken isn’t a sports fan because if he was he would see the men patting each other’s backsides, jumping all over each other and practically kissing each other!

    If that’s not an emotional display, I don’t know what is! 🙂

  405. Daisy wrote:

    And women are poor drivers and all of them are terrible at math too – were you trying to hit on derogatory stereotypes about women?
    Was that intended to be humor?

    Daisy and Victorius – let me explain why I made my ‘sexist’ comment. It was in reply to HUG’s comment quote Sorry if it offends your Church Lady sensibilities.

    I wondered how long it would be before someone would call him out for his own ‘sexist’ comment. This is particularly ironic in view of his comment being in answer to my own complaint about unholy internet language. I think I would have along wait …

    I do have a sense of humour Daisy. I thought if I reply in kind, I could bet half of my lottery winnings that someone will complain about what I say, but ignore the comment that it related to. And for the first time ever in a comments section, I was right!

  406. Ken wrote:

    @ Serving Kids In Japan:
    It was Dash, though by far not alone.
    A friend of mine actually heard Campolo say this, and had the same mixed feelings I did. He is right that we can have some strange priorities, but whether this is the right way to go about saying this I don’t know.
    As far as internet articles and comments go – the tongue is an unrighteous world among our members, … and set on fire by hell … a restless evil, full of deadly poison. From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. My brethren, this ought not to be so.
    There is a wisdom demonstrated that does not come down from above, but is earthly, soulish, demonic. It is not pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, without uncertainty or insincerity.
    This shows the problem is nothing new, but if my mother managed to live a life without bitterness, without swearing and complaining about her lot, and only having the traditional ‘means of grace’, why can’t others attempt to do the same with all the masses of ‘ministry’ and books and counselling and CD’s that are available today?
    From what I have read, Mark Driscoll was prone to being a potty-mouth, which means I have no intention of listening to any of his sermons because I’m not interested in the earthly and demonic that might be lurking in them.
    I’m not that bothered by bad language in and of itself, but I’d rather listen to someone who has better fruit, namely some self-control.

    My mom spent a lot of time in the inner city with a ministry. If she had that attitude, she would not have lasted 5 min nor been able to help anyone especially the kids. And of course growing up we were not allowed ro even say c**p. But language is never more important than a damaged heart.

    You put heavy burdens on hurt people. Hurt by the very people they should have been able to trust with their lives. You are more concerned with judging their language than you are with judging a ministers evil deeds/words concerning pedophiles, slavery, etc.

    That is straining at gnats while swallowing camels.

  407. Victorious wrote:

    Jesus…He called the Pharisees whitewashed tombs, hypocrites, serpents, brood of vipers, blind guides, full of lawlessness. He certainly didn’t mince His words when he confronted those characteristics in those who were in leadership and He did it publicly!

    I glad you have brought this up. I agree with you entirely in your comment. But so you can see where I am coming from on this:

    Brood of vipers. You brood of vipers! how can you speak good, when you are evil? … I tell you, on the day of judgment men will render account for every careless word they utter; for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.

    Every careless word matters to Jesus. What we say reveals what we are inside, whether we are a good tree or bad. The fruit. It shows our attitude to others – whether we love our neighbor as ourselves or not. If what comes out reveals we are evil, our words will condemn us at the judgment. It’s that serious, because God takes seriously our heart attitude to others. We can sin in what we say.

    Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? One group in the list is revilers in the RSV, the NET bible says the verbally abusive. Such would bring unrighteousness into the new heaven and earth, therefore they have to be excluded. Those who do not love God nor their neighbor but love unrighteousness would not want to be there.

    If you go to many an atheist site, you will often find little other than reviling of God and all things religious. Think of the attitude of the new atheists. And yet God is willing to graciously forgive all of their blasphemies if they meet his conditions! But reviling would have to be a specific sin they would have to ask Jesus to forgive them for.

    When it comes to professedly Christian sites on the net, and those who comment on them, every word still matters. I differentiated between reasoned sites, and irrational sites – and the commenters on them. I’m not talking about bluntly saying it like it is; telling the truth. But bearing false witness, harbouring grudges, the leaven of malice, and bitterness in particular not only eat away at the commenter, they start to defile those who read. I’m afraid it only struck me recently and forcibly just how toxic this can get, and just how much of it there is.

    Which is worse: to actually commit adultery, or lust in your heart after a married woman? Obviously the former, but the latter is still sinful, and is where the actual sin starts. Murder/being angry too.

    Which is worse: the abuse by religious leaders, or going on venting rage in a comments section? The answer is obvious, but the latter is still sinful. It is not loving, nor helpful to the person, to turn a blind eye to this, or in any way try to justify it.

    There is much more to this than ‘just a bit of bad language that Ken is hung up about’.

  408. Ken wrote:

    It was in reply to HUG’s comment quote Sorry if it offends your Church Lady sensibilities.
    I wondered how long it would be before someone would call him out for his own ‘sexist’ comment

    Ken, the reason no one called out HUG was because his comment wasn’t sexist. It was a cultural reference.

    The Church Lady is a character created by Dana Carvey on the sketch comedy show Saturday Night Live. She’s a caricature of conservative American Christians — uptight, snooty, patronizing towards everything non-Christian, and convinced that Satan is behind everything that she personally doesn’t like.

    HUG wasn’t calling your attitude “feminine” or “womanly”. He was saying you’re being too fastidious, and not sensitive enough to those who are different from you. Speaking for myself, I didn’t call him on it because I recognized the reference.

  409. Serving Kids In Japan wrote:

    She’s a caricature of conservative American Christians — uptight, snooty, patronizing towards everything non-Christian,

    The caricature may apply beyond American borders it seems.

  410. Lydia wrote:

    You put heavy burdens on hurt people. Hurt by the very people they should have been able to trust with their lives. You are more concerned with judging their language than you are with judging a ministers evil deeds/words concerning pedophiles, slavery, etc.

    This is what concerns me.

  411. Ken wrote:

    Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? One group in the list is revilers in the RSV, the NET bible says the verbally abusive.

    And you don’t see Doug Wilson in this category based on his writing? Not to even mention his actions with regards to several pedophiles and how the town he lives in views his antics.

    But men and women upset by how they have been mistreated by Christian leaders are now the main subject on this thread.

  412. Ken wrote:

    But bearing false witness, harbouring grudges, the leaven of malice, and bitterness in particular not only eat away at the commenter, they start to defile those who read. I’m afraid it only struck me recently and forcibly just how toxic this can get, and just how much of it there is.

    *Leaven of malice,* *defile those who read,* Ken-you do not get it. First, you sound like a wannabe preacher with the lingo of biblicality. You hide behind your terms and do not let them get down into your heart. For example, the word “bitterness” is banned on this blog. The reason we chose to do so is that people of little thoughtfulness and full of sermons given by those who do abuse, use it to alienate those who have been deeply wounded. You need to read a few books on relating to those who have been abused. You speak the language of those who do abuse. of course, nice Ken would never be bitter and is very, very concerned about being defiled. That is why Ken doesn’t like to read things about Doug Wilson and his views on slavery, I guess.

    Ken wrote:

    Which is worse: the abuse by religious leaders, or going on venting rage in a comments section? The answer is obvious, but the latter is still sinful. It is not loving, nor helpful to the person, to turn a blind eye to this, or in any way try to justify it.

    Once again, Ken, you fail in the empathy department. What to you is *venting rage* may be a person who has been so wounded and suppressed by abusive individuals, who is finally expressing their pain, anger, and sorrow and doing so in a manner that is uncomfortable to you and others who want things to be expressed *nicely.* It sure makes it easier for you.

    Now, you may have read a few books on how to *biblically counsel* but that does not mean that you are in any position to truly understand those how have been wounded. The other night, my mother in law and I were watching Law and Order SVU. She grew up in an age that nice people didn’t talk about *things like that.* And if they did talk, it was done politely.

    She is now living with me and I talk a lot about the crimes of sexual abuse along with domestic violence and other forms of church abuse. She is beginning to understand.

    The episode dealt with a young man who had been a runaway as a young teen and was held captive for a couple of years and forced into child sex (abuse) pornography. 10 years later, his sister who had been searching for him for years, found him turning tricks as a female impersonator on the streets. When he saw her, he said that the boy she knew was gone. His expression of anger was realistic and appropriate.

    You wouldn’t like him because he had such pain that needed to come out. It wasn’t *nice.* It would probably take years, if not a lifetime, to deal with the pain. I worked for years as a public health nurse and saw pain and suffering that nice people who like to use *biblical* terms like *defile* and *bitter* don’t get nor do they want to hear/see it. Or perhaps they will allow the expressions of a couple of weeks and then the wounded person *must* move on and be nice and be free from all that rage like Ken is.

    Abuse can and often does harm a soul for a lifetime. That pain and anger may be there and it needs those who have patience, compassion and a real understanding of how such abuse can destroy a life. Yes, Jesus can, and does heal. But never forget that Jesus does not heal everyone who has cancer. He may not fully heal those who have been abused from their pain and sorrow.

    Perhaps Jesus gives those who have been harmed to us to help remind us how such abusive crimes affect someone for a lifetime. Perhaps He is telling the body of Christ to have patience. But many Christians don’t like patience. They want the problem to be dealt with, healed and get the person moving on so the church can speak very nice lingo and pretend it is following Jesus. Never forget that Jesus far preferred hanging with those were lost and broken than He hanging with the Pharisees who probably used very.nice.language and stayed away from the possibility of being defiled.

    So, Ken, if you are being defiled, don’t visit this blog because we darn well will continue to allow people to have one place that they are not told to shut up about their abuse. You have been given a lot of leeway here for quite a long time. However, if you keep going after those who have been abused for not communicating in a *Ken approved* manner, then you will be moderated rather slowly and/or comments not approved. I can well assure that men you admire would never have given me half the leeway that I have given you because I am a *patient* woman.

  413. @ Ken:
    BTW, I know who HUG is and he is neither sexist nor an unkind person. But he gets abuse and communicates this in his own way that actually makes me laugh on occasion.

  414. Ken wrote:

    But I can think of one who was brought up in real poverty and deprivation, in the 1920’s with no welfare state. No chance for a decent education, and almost certainly in a abusive home and lacking love.
    That was my mother. But the Lord Jesus Christ got hold of her, and she became a new creation in Christ, under the wing of some Anglican evangelicals. Men of real faith in a God who really could change people on the inside.
    Despite her upbringing, I can say that I never knew as a child what it was like not to be loved. Perhaps that was a privilige. She made mistakes, but lack of love was never one of them. She didn’t reproduce what she had not had herself. I look back and am immensely grateful for her. There was no internet and no survivor blogs. But I never heard her utter one word of complaint about her childhood until the day she died.

    You have used your mother as an example several times. I am truly glad that your mother came walk with the Lord and was an example to you. But every Christian does not have the same journey. (Jesus explained this to his disciples). You should not expect every believer to walk your mother’s path. You simply heap condemnation on them for not having the same journey as your mother. Be thankful for what you had but empathize with others not so fortunate.

  415. Ken wrote:

    Which is worse: the abuse by religious leaders, or going on venting rage in a comments section?

    I think Jesus answered your question by his tirade against the Pharisees and their legalistic rules that burdened the vulnerable. You must take His words in context…that is, to whom they were addressed.

    Jesus warns us to beware of false teachers and not to participate in their works of darkness, but to expose them. Paul publicly confronted Peter because of his hypocrisy and drawing others away from the truth of the gospel.

    Both Jesus and Paul spent a good deal of time exposing the false teachers and their self-righteous, self-appointed authority and their oppressive rules. Truth brings freedom.

    That’s what I see commenters doing here; exposing the false, and bringing the truth to light for the benefit of those who have been deceived.

  416. Ken,

    Thank you for affirming my assumption about Dash writing the comment you quoted. That allows me to speak to some of your concerns, with the help of Dash’s own public testimony.

    First of all, he is not a Christian; he has said as much himself. Because of that, it makes little sense to expect or demand from him exemplary Christian behaviour (however that’s defined). Also, he is not evil. He is in incredible, unspeakable anguish from the way he has been abused in the name of Gothard, and in Jesus’ Name, too. By his own admission, this pain often fills him with the kind of rage that he has a lot of trouble managing on his own. And that comes out in his words.

    Ken wrote:

    …but if my mother managed to live a life without bitterness, without swearing and complaining about her lot, and only having the traditional ‘means of grace’, why can’t others attempt to do the same with all the masses of ‘ministry’ and books and counselling and CD’s that are available today?

    I saw what you did there. You snuck in the b-word. 😉

    I think Dash has attempted to do what your mother did, Ken, and he’s still trying. But it’s not so easy for him as you seem to imagine. Just recently, on Julie Anne’s site, he stated that he’s been on psych medications for decades, and that without them he’d likely be in prison or institutionalized. Months before that, he confessed to struggling with thoughts of suicide, and that one of the few things keeping him alive was the need to take care of his cat. That’s how much pain Dash is in.

    I can’t speak to why your mother didn’t require the care that Dash needs, in spite of how badly she was abused. And neither can you. To me, it’s like asking why some people survive an explosion unscathed, while others caught in the same explosion wind up in casts or wheelchairs. Simple answer is: Your mother got lucky. As horrid and loveless as her experiences were, for whatever reason, they didn’t mess with the wiring in her head. Dash wasn’t so lucky.

    One some level, I suspect Dash realizes how his words sound to others, and how hurtful they can be. (If I’m speaking out of turn, I hope he’ll forgive me.) I trust that he’ll work on that, and eventually learn to manage his pain so that he can express himself better. But given the baggage he carries, that won’t happen overnight. In the meantime, he has a story to tell, and I think we should all listen to it. We need to see Dash’s rage and anguish, and so do men like Gothard and Wilson. They need to recognize this as one result of their teachings, and of the way that they rule their private fiefdoms.

  417. TWW comrades:
    Doug Wilson is speaking at an upcoming Q Commons event in Colorado. I get the emails because the college where I work has been involved with Q. I wrote the organizer, Gabe Lyons, asking if he had any concerns about Wilson as a speaker. Of course I’ve heard nothing back. Would it be overly cranky of me to contact some of the other speakers and raise the concern?
    (i.e., Life is short, and there are many things I can choose to do with my time, and maybe this isn’t the best one? But I’ve found that sometimes speaking up actually does make a difference. Quandary!)

    http://qideas.org/denver/speakers/

  418. Ken wrote:

    Daisy and Victorius – let me explain why I made my ‘sexist’ comment. It was in reply to HUG’s comment quote Sorry if it offends your Church Lady sensibilities.

    I didn’t see HUG’s comment being sexist, as it was being aimed at a guy who acted very delicate about having to read a few vulgar words on another blog, by blog visitors – they weren’t even posted by the blog owner herself.

    You just ignored her comments in her main blog post to harp on some guy who used the “F” word, or whatever, in her comment box.

    I’ve seen HUG’s posts over the last couple of years, and he (like many of us here) is very perturbed or turned off by the sexism against women, and by the odd-ball cariacture of manhood, put forth by complementarians such as Driscoll, Piper, etc.

    So I didn’t take HUG’s comment in the same way. I have more context with him, whereas with you, in previous threads, have argued that women are more prone to deception than men are, and other views which do read as very sexist.

    I’m not a big fan of vulgar language myself. I have a sister who cusses like a sailor often, and her barrage of F words can be cringe worthy.

    I now cuss myself (a tiny bit) but not nearly as often as my sister.

    Out of respect for Christian blogs I visit, I try to watch my language, because I know a lot of Christians are sensitive to the language thing.

    The older I’ve gotten, and I understand what it’s like to have been hurt by Christians, I don’t let the occasional naughty word throw me off of someone’s point, what they’re trying to say, when they are upset when discussing wrong-doing by other Christians.

  419. @ Serving Kids In Japan:
    Thank you for the comment. I certainly would not expect someone who is not a Christian to have to live up to any Christian standards of behaviour. My argument is not with Dash, it is with the many commenters who I think clearly would identify themselves as Christians and who then do all the malicious stuff I talked about earlier.

    I know there are wolves, they do horrific damage to people, but would it not be better not to comment until or unless those on the receiving end of such mistreatment had managed to come out of the other end of dealing with this?

    I always was hesitant to bring in my mother. I will say she wasn’t lucky. The idea was not to condemn anyone, but to show that there is real Christian hope that change and deliverance are possible for those with such a background, even if it takes a long time. I can’t claim to have always followed her example perfectly – and I’m not claiming she was perfect.

  420. @ Ken:

    I think you’re making a mountain out of a molehill.

    Rather than tell us what you think about the language of blog visitors to Botkin’s site, why not discuss the content of Botkin’s posts about Wilson?

    That is the heart of the matter, not that some atheist guy in her comment box said the “F” word.

  421. Bridget wrote:

    And you don’t see Doug Wilson in this category based on his writing? Not to even mention his actions with regards to several pedophiles and how the town he lives in views his antics.

    Let’s see here …….. Wilson calling women who disagree with him “small breasted biddies” and supporting some people actually owning other people is gospel. Ken doesn’t have any complaints about that! However, exposing the truth about someone who protects and promotes child abusers is ……. evil? Speaking truth about evil is evil? Giving a safe place for those who have been abused to vent and heal is evil? Exposing the truth to inform and protect others is evil? Everyone who is aware of or have been victims of sinful/evil acts committed by others should just put their heads in the sand and hum, loudly?
    Is this what Ken is saying? If so, several chapters in the Bible should be omitted!

  422. @ Serving Kids In Japan:

    Exactly. Everything you said.

    I used to enjoy those ‘Church Lady’ sketches. I wish there were more of them on You Tube.

    Anything she disapproved of was met with the line, “Could it be, oh, I don’t know….. SATAN???!!?!?”

  423. Ken wrote:

    Every careless word matters to Jesus. What we say reveals what we are inside, whether we are a good tree or bad. The fruit.

    “Good” or “bad” tree? There’s at least one more possibility. You might not see it as “biblical”, but it’s there nonetheless. A tree might produce bad fruit, not because it’s a bad tree, but because it’s sick.

    One of my favourite animated movies is “Nausicaa Of The Valley Of The Wind”, directed by Hayao Miyazaki. It takes place in basically a post-apocalyptic world, and one of the constant threats faced by the survivors is the Swamp of Corruption. Anyone who ventures into it must do so fully covered, and breathe through a gas mask, because every plant in it produces toxic gases and spores. And the Swamp is constantly spreading. People in nearby settlements are always on the lookout for its spores. If they infect too many trees, they’ll become a new part of the Swamp.

    In the course of the movie, however, we learn that these plants are not inherently bad. The protagonist, Princess Nausicaa, discovers this by researching the Swamp and its ecology. She finds that its plants produce toxins because they’re constantly exposed to residual toxins in the soil and the water — contamination from the wars that brought down civilization. In the controlled environment of Nausicaa’s lab, with filtered water and purified soil, plants that grow from the spores are completely harmless. The fault doesn’t lie with the plants; it lies with the world around them, and the people who made it.

    For years, Dash and many others like him have been force-fed the toxic teachings of ignorant and self-important men, and raised in toxic environments by no choice of their own. Is it really a surprise that the result is often resentment, anger and frustration? What else are we supposed to expect? I think we can be more Christlike with patience and a willingness to listen, and by giving them the space and time to work the garbage out of their systems.

    (Sorry if I’m taking up too much of the comment thread, everyone. Especially this late in the conversation, and with my geeky sub-culture illustrations, to boot.)

  424. Daisy wrote:

    I’ve seen HUG’s posts over the last couple of years, and he (like many of us here) is very perturbed or turned off by the sexism against women, and by the odd-ball cariacture of manhood, put forth by complementarians such as Driscoll, Piper, etc.

    Ken wrote:

    Daisy and Victorius – let me explain why I made my ‘sexist’ comment. It was in reply to HUG’s comment quote Sorry if it offends your Church Lady sensibilities.

    In reference to Daisy’s post:
    Ken, considering comments that you have made, I get the impression that you are in agreement with Piper, Driscoll, etc. I wonder if you are upset because most of the posts on TWW speak out against *men* who misuse the gospel and use it to their advantage. You say women are more easily decieved, but it seems that men are the ones who do most of the deceiving. And, those deceptive men decieve both men and women. Is that what is getting your goat? Is that why you wish people would just keep their mouths shut about the evils that are committed in “the name of God”?
    I can’t figure out why else you would make the comments that you do.

  425. Daisy wrote:

    @ Serving Kids In Japan:
    Exactly. Everything you said.
    I used to enjoy those ‘Church Lady’ sketches. I wish there were more of them on You Tube.
    Anything she disapproved of was met with the line, “Could it be, oh, I don’t know….. SATAN???!!?!?”

    I thought they were hilarious! Always made me think about this Ray Stevens song – Mississippi Squirrel Revival:
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=K16fG1sDagU%2F

  426. @ dee:

    I think what he is doing is referred to as “Tone Policing.” 🙂

    The guy’s comments he is objecting at the Botkin blog is named Dash.

    Julie Anne had Dash do a guest post or two at her blog a few months ago, detailing the abuse he endured under his Gothard-practicing parents.

    Dash is understandably very angry and hurting. He’s been suffering the consequences of harmful, so-called Christian teaching for years now.

    So, anytime he sees similar abusive preachers being discussed online, he lets loose on them in the comments on other blogs, using very colorful language.

    I suspect that Ken engaging in Tone Policing is a deflection.
    By harping on Dash’s language, Ken doesn’t have to deal with the substance of Botkin’s blog posts about Wilson. That’s just my hunch.

    Thank you for mentioning that it can take a person weeks or years to get over something painful. There are a lot of Christians who are annoyed or put off by hurting people.

    I know since my Mom passed away (and I’ve had other things happen) the vast majority of my family (who are Christian) are either annoyed or feel awkward anytime I’ve approached them seeking emotional support.

    My family want me to get over my issues fast and never bring them up and discuss them, because it makes them uncomfortable, or they don’t want to take time out of their day or week or month to just listen to me for 30 minutes.

    None of them seem to grasp that healing is a process. It can take a long time. People don’t always heal as fast as we would prefer.

  427. Nancy2 wrote:

    You say women are more easily decieved, but it seems that men are the ones who do most of the deceiving. And, those deceptive men decieve both men and women.

    I have not said women are more easily deceived than men, I have said men are usually the deceivers, and I have also said both men and women can be deceived.

    And what makes you think I would exclude Douglas Wilson from both Jesus and his apostle’s strictures on letting rip linguistically? His biddies etc. comments are every bit as bad as the emoting critics. I for one would not want to operate a double-standard here.

    And I have absolutely no problem with the exposure of error and malpractice, including those you specifically mention. How on earth can you get from my earlier statement that I wouldn’t listen to Driscoll because of his foul talk to saying I am in agreement with him?

    I have commented on Wilson if only to try to show that if he is as bad as his critics maintain, someone like me who has only read his blog and got some benefit from it (and yes I can see things wrong there) will not be convinced of this unless the critics have made every effort to be accurate, which very clearly in some cases they have not.

  428. Serving Kids In Japan wrote:

    I can’t speak to why your mother didn’t require the care that Dash needs, in spite of how badly she was abused. And neither can you.

    To me, it’s like asking why some people survive an explosion unscathed, while others caught in the same explosion wind up in casts or wheelchairs.

    Simple answer is: Your mother got lucky. As horrid and loveless as her experiences were, for whatever reason, they didn’t mess with the wiring in her head. Dash wasn’t so lucky.

    I have a book written by two Christian authors, one is a psychologist, the other is sort of a layperson expert on the topic of bullying.

    The psychologist explains in one chapter of this book that some people have a more tender psyche than others.

    She compares this situation to coconuts and peaches.

    She says some people are just born with a tough mental attitude – they are “coconuts” – while other people are just more naturally sensitive and hence more easily bruised – the “peaches.”

    She says neither way of being is “wrong.”

    She tells her readers (summarizing), “if you are a ‘peach,’ and stuff in life hits you harder and takes longer for you to get over than for other people, don’t beat yourself up about that. It’s just how you are.”

    I tend to be more of a “peach” than a “coconut.”

    Maybe Dash is more of a peach, too. Not everyone is born with the same inner strength or coping skills as someone else.

  429. @ dee:
    Dee, this deserves a considered reply, but I must away for now.

    I can partly see why you are angry, but I’m perturbed by some of it too.

  430. Patty in Massachusetts wrote:

    TWW comrades:
    Doug Wilson is speaking at an upcoming Q Commons event in Colorado. I get the emails because the college where I work has been involved with Q. I wrote the organizer, Gabe Lyons, asking if he had any concerns about Wilson as a speaker. Of course I’ve heard nothing back. Would it be overly cranky of me to contact some of the other speakers and raise the concern?
    (i.e., Life is short, and there are many things I can choose to do with my time, and maybe this isn’t the best one? But I’ve found that sometimes speaking up actually does make a difference. Quandary!)
    http://qideas.org/denver/speakers/

    I don’t think it would hurt for you to contact them and state your concerns, if that is what you want to do.

    At the very least, they don’t have an all white male line up at their conference. I saw a photo of an Asia guy, a black lady, a Native American Indian guy, and a few other non-white-male people.

    But Doug Wilson?? I don’t know why anyone would want to include him at any conference.

  431. Ken wrote:

    (point 1)
    Thank you for the comment. I certainly would not expect someone who is not a Christian to have to live up to any Christian standards of behaviour. My argument is not with Dash, it is with the many commenters who I think clearly would identify themselves as Christians and who then do all the malicious stuff I talked about earlier.

    (point 2)
    I know there are wolves, they do horrific damage to people, but would it not be better not to comment until or unless those on the receiving end of such mistreatment had managed to come out of the other end of dealing with this?

    (point 3)
    I always was hesitant to bring in my mother. I will say she wasn’t lucky. The idea was not to condemn anyone, but to show that there is real Christian hope that change and deliverance are possible for those with such a background, even if it takes a long time. I can’t claim to have always followed her example perfectly – and I’m not claiming she was perfect.

    point 1.
    That comment was a jumble.

    The one Christian response to Dash’s profanity laced tirade on that blog was by Botkin (I assume she is Christian), and she told Dash, “Let’s pray for Wilson.”

    Her response to Dash was very clean and Christian-y.

    I would assume her reply would get the ‘Ken Seal Of Approval of Proper Christian Behavior’ because it was so squeaky clean and spiritual.

    But no… you keep mentioning these Christians who you don’t specify who are “malacious” about Wilson.

    Wilson himself is very malicious and holds very odious views. If he gets some malicious behavior in return, I wouldn’t be surprised.

    Ken said,

    “it is with the many commenters who I think clearly would identify themselves as Christians and who then do all the malicious stuff I talked about earlier.”

    Who? And what are you talking about?

    Who are these “many commentators” to whom you refer?

    I haven’t seen Christians acting in that way, but again, so what if they are or were?

    The point is calling Wilson out for the false and abusive preacher he is, not getting caught up in the language used in the exposes about him.

    point 2.
    You concern is again for HOW people express themselves not for the “wolves.”

    No, I don’t think people should have to be totally healed and cured before ranting in a comment box on a blog page.

    Sometimes, the ranting, spitting, and cussing is part of the healing process itself – for some types of people.

    part 3.
    Not everyone copes and deals with pain in life the same way your mother did.

    You said in a post higher up thread that you never heard your mother complain about her painful past. If that’s how she dealt with things, okay for her, I guess, but most people do need to talk about what they went through.

    I was raised in a family that taught me to suppress everything, which was very damaging to me.

    I’m the type of person who needs to talk about what I’m going thru, not bottle it up, and not be shamed for trying to talk through my problems or even admit that I have problems to start with.

  432. Ken wrote:

    I know there are wolves, they do horrific damage to people, but would it not be better not to comment until or unless those on the receiving end of such mistreatment had managed to come out of the other end of dealing with this?

    And if they never come out the other end, what then? Exactly how many stories would we hear if they were all required to wait until they had fully “dealt with it”?

    Telling their stories is part of dealing with the anguish, Ken. So is being listened to.

    If Jamin Wight’s victim Natalie had waited until all was right with her (and “right” in a way that pleased everyone), she might still be suffering in silence. There are devotees of Wilson who question her credibility based on her hairstyle, of all things. To some, the fact that she’s speaking out at all is proof that she’s “unable to let go” and “embittered”. (*spit*)

    Let the wounded decide when it’s time to tell their stories. The stories are theirs to tell.

  433. @ Serving Kids In Japan:

    Everything you said there, I agree with.

    As a general observation: maybe I am wrong, but Ken’s sympathies and concern seem to be with Doug Wilson (or other abusive pastors and church systems).

    Ken seems more concerned with Doug Wilson’s feelings or reputation being hurt, than he does with the victims of Doug Wilson (or Doug Wilson theology / teachings). It’s rather backwards.

    Wilson and Wilson’s sensibilities being protected is of more import than wounded Christians (or Ex Christians) telling their side of things on blogs. That’s how I’m reading the undercurrent of his posts.

  434. Ken wrote:

    Every careless word matters to Jesus. What we say reveals what we are inside, whether we are a good tree or bad. The fruit. It shows our attitude to others – whether we love our neighbor as ourselves or not. If what comes out reveals we are evil, our words will condemn us at the judgment. It’s that serious, because God takes seriously our heart attitude to others. We can sin in what we say.

    This sounds exactly like the Driscoll fans I always came in contact with. To quote Driscoll was evil. To mention his shenanigans that hurt people, was evil. Then the discussion descended into which were the worst sin. It is the silliest thing in the world. And it enables more evil by the ones who claim to represent the truth of Christ. It is downright diabolical.

    When we cannot point out cruelty because some claim it is sin to do so, we should speak up more in defense. It is nithing but Enablers using Jesus to enable more cruelty toward others.

  435. Ken wrote:

    Which is worse: to actually commit adultery, or lust in your heart after a married woman? Obviously the former, but the latter is still sinful, and is where the actual sin starts. Murder/being angry too.

    The difference is you have no idea what is in a person’s heart until they speak or act. That passage is for individuals. Not for you to use as a club to declare someone sinful.

    Wilsons words and actions, in the Name if Christ OR scholarship, show him for what he is. It is not a sin to discuss it. He goes to a lot of trouble to be known. He is not even trying to be a private person.

  436. Ken wrote:

    I have not said women are more easily deceived than men, I have said men are usually the deceivers, and I have also said both men and women can be deceived.

    But you have said on previous threads that women are more easily deceived than men are.

    Such as:

    [Ken Said]
    Now I didn’t look into this in any detail, but it reminded of the huge amount of reading I did a few years ago on the unbiblical religious/spiritual practices creeping into the church, either through the charismatic movement, church growth movement or emergent stodge, forcing me reluctantly back to 1 Tim 2 ‘the woman was deceived’. Men as well (usually the deceivers), but overwhelmingly women.

    Source:
    http://thewartburgwatch.com/2015/10/09/al-mohler-adds-another-volume-to-his-impressive-stack-of-books-guest-post-by-todd-wilhelm/comment-page-1/#comment-225400

    And from the July 2015 thread,
    “Complementarians or Eternal Female Subordinationists? Why I Still Don’t Get It.”, comments by Ken:

    [Ken Said]

    In my experience – limited but not non-existent – all those I have met who were demonised, involved in some occult practice and/or needed ‘deliverance’ ministry were with one possible exception, female. There is of course a link between these three. The divination/spiritualism field seems over-populated by women. Those involved in inner healing and similar pseudo-christian mysticism were women. The significant infiltration of this in Willow Creek was largely through women teachers. Devotees of co-dependency seem to be largely women.
    I’m not saying this is confined to women, and there are plenty of big name superlative apostle male deceivers and deceived around today. But I would suggest that in some areas women do seem to be more prone to this particular kind of deception than men. It’s an opinion, you don’t have to agree with it, but I have found some echo of 1 Tim 2 but the woman was deceived and fell into transgression in all this.

    I’m sure I can find more examples, but there are just a few. You have in fact said women are more prone to deception than men.

  437. Ken wrote:

    How on earth can you get from my earlier statement that I wouldn’t listen to Driscoll because of his foul talk to saying I am in agreement with him?

    I know that was directed at Nancy2, but I think she was saying you are in agreement with their sexist gender complementarian views of women, regardless of any potty mouth vulgarity they may use to express the views.

    Or, maybe she was saying you sound a bit like a Driscoll apologist but in regards to Wilson.

    About anytime Deb and Dee have blogged on some Driscoll fiasco (usually where other people have been hurt by Driscoll), sometimes, a Driscoll fan comes into the thread to defend Driscoll, to tell us we are being bitter or unfair about Driscoll. Which is what you’ve been doing in this thread, but on Wilson’s behalf.

  438. @ Daisy:
    Thanks, Daisy! I had no idea where those comments were located – and I’m sure you will be able to find more like them.

  439. I’ve just realised I never answered the question. Unfortunately, I simply don’t know.

  440. @ numo:

    Ken contradicts himself in his own posts or waffles on what he thinks or claims.

    I found this (snippet by Ken, from Jan 2016 post “Giftedness vs Gender – Guest Post by Wade Burleson”):

    Since women clearly can – and should – teach, this is why I don’t believe they are instrinsically gullible or ‘more easly deceived’ as such. I have been careful not to say this. But you cannot ignore this aspect (of deception), it is one of Paul’s justifications for his restriction.

    I do think when this particular instruction of Paul is set aside this can lead to trouble; it’s the combination of men abdicating responsibility and women taking it over that is wrong. It’s out of order.
    ———-
    Source:
    http://thewartburgwatch.com/2016/01/11/giftedness-vs-gender-guest-post-by-wade-burleson/comment-page-2/#comment-236260

    So, he thinks women are more easily deceived than men but not more easily deceived than men, but they are more easily deceived than men.

    LOL. And that’s just in that one post. (Usually this cognitive dissonance plays out over the course of one thread or several.)

    Ken says, “this is why I don’t believe they [women] are instrinsically gullible or ‘more easly deceived’ as such. I have been careful not to say this.”

    But that is what he thinks and believes. He just doesn’t want to state it point blank. 🙂

    Flag Ken gives ‘women as being more easily deceived’ as being one justification as to why women should not teach men, and/or why Paul wrote something about a woman in some church 2,000 years ago not being permitted to teach.

    From that same thread, by Ken:

    [Ken on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 11:50 AM said:]

    I’ve not claimed any scientific study of deception based on gender. But I do have my perception over the years which backs up a proneness to deception amongst women in particular esoteric pseudo-charismtatic errors. You don’t have to agree with it, your experience might be different.

    At some point though, egalitarians have to face what Paul was getting at by the deception of Eve being part of his reason for the restriction in 1 Tim.

    I haven’t even finished searching that one thread. There are probably other examples in there.

  441. Daisy,

    In his defence, Ken did try to explain his stance to me in a comment some time ago — I’m not sure exactly where it is. He laid out the areas in which he thinks women are especially prone to deception (I think he mentioned things like spiritualism and pseudo-charismatics), as well as aspects in which men might be more prone to deception.

    I can sort of understand what he’s trying to say, although I don’t agree. Different understandings and interpretations of 1 Timothy make much more sense to me. And even if Ken is right, it’s hard for me to see this as a valid support for comp doctrine.

    But I can also understand your frustration with him. His declaration of neutrality in regards to Wilson is hard for me to wrap my head around. How many stories of chauvinism, abused women, and plagiarism does he need to hear?

  442. Daisy wrote:

    @ dee:
    I think what he is doing is referred to as “Tone Policing.”
    The guy’s comments he is objecting at the Botkin blog is named Dash.
    Julie Anne had Dash do a guest post or two at her blog a few months ago, detailing the abuse he endured under his Gothard-practicing parents.
    Dash is understandably very angry and hurting. He’s been suffering the consequences of harmful, so-called Christian teaching for years now.
    So, anytime he sees similar abusive preachers being discussed online, he lets loose on them in the comments on other blogs, using very colorful language.
    I suspect that Ken engaging in Tone Policing is a deflection.
    By harping on Dash’s language, Ken doesn’t have to deal with the substance of Botkin’s blog posts about Wilson. That’s just my hunch.
    Thank you for mentioning that it can take a person weeks or years to get over something painful. There are a lot of Christians who are annoyed or put off by hurting people.
    I know since my Mom passed away (and I’ve had other things happen) the vast majority of my family (who are Christian) are either annoyed or feel awkward anytime I’ve approached them seeking emotional support.
    My family want me to get over my issues fast and never bring them up and discuss them, because it makes them uncomfortable, or they don’t want to take time out of their day or week or month to just listen to me for 30 minutes.
    None of them seem to grasp that healing is a process. It can take a long time. People don’t always heal as fast as we would prefer.

    This is a typical response by most pastors. They are “offended” by how disagreement or pure evil is communicated. One will never get the tone right or say the right words. And there is a reason for that.

    What is even worse is the lost opportunity I believe we will be held accountable for. People often go in the total opposite direction of the cult they were in. They push the boundaries of their newfound freedom with lots of cussing or they become flaming liberals or what ever else is totally opposite to them. It is a perfectly healthy way of dealing with the brainwashing of the fhought reform they were in. What they need the most is a Christian who will listen to them and affrm their worth as human beings. Ken’s response is just more affirmation to these hurt folks that Christianity is a shallow pit of gagging at gnats of offense over language but ignoring rape or molested children.

  443. @ Daisy:
    The whole 1st Tim thing claiming Eve’s deception (she admitted it!) is the reason for “restriction” on women for all time…. just wears me out. It is such a “non thinking” position. The converse is that God then puts men in charge of women because Adam willfully sinned, then blamed God and Eve.

    Right. That makes perfect sense. Sigh.

  444. Ken also said this on the “Eternal subordination” thread:
    “One clue to this is in the sentence Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty, where the word saved does not mean ‘became a Christian’ in the loose evangelical (mis)use of the word. It can carry the sense of deliverance, rescue, ‘saved’ from activities she should not be involved with by substituting these with something else, namely running the household and bringing up a family. ………
    So I would have younger widows marry, bear children, rule their households, and give the enemy no occasion to revile us. For some have already strayed after Satan. In the context of the verse, women with too much time on their hands can stray into gossip, damaging a fellowship.”

    So, how are men “saved”?

  445. @ Serving Kids In Japan:

    It seems like a lot of fine hair splitting to me.

    I think this is another indication that complementarianism is bogus and unbiblical. Its adherents cannot clearly explain or define things about it.

    Flag Ken wants us to think he thinks women are not prone to deception in some cases at some times, but are in others.

    The fact that he cannot lay it out without causing myself or others confusion is, or sounding as though he’s contradicting himself is, IMO, a huge clue something is very wrong with his doctrine.

  446. @ Lydia:

    That does seem to be the case. I’ve seen so many people who were burnt by conservative Christians or churches who then turn to liberal theology or churches.

    After RHE and Weber(?) refused to help Julie with ToJo, I saw some of these former conservative Christians who are now progressive say they were thinking about dumping Christianity altogether.

    I know it’s a tendency of still-strong in the faith Christians to tell such people to look to Jesus and not other Christians, but I do get their mindset. I have wondered what the point is in following Jesus if the majority of others who claim to do not display even the most rudimentary of the man’s persona, teachings, compassion, etc.

    But anyway, yes, I’ve seen that phenomenon too: people hurt so badly by one group they dump that group and go with the group holding the diametrically opposite views.

    I’ve not done that myself in the midst of my own faith crisis. I’m still right of center.

    I have questioned things I used to believe, but I’m still not keen on a lot of left wing/ progressive views (religious and political), so I don’t see myself turning into a liberal. But the conservatives annoy me at times now, on some things (also in regards to religious and political things).

  447. Nancy2 wrote:

    So, how are men “saved”?

    Good question. I guess faith alone in Jesus is only for men, and comps think others have to follow another path.

    I’m a single woman, and I believe the Bible says “no sex until you’re married,” so for years I have abstained sexually.
    For that, these comps would tell me I would go to Hell when I die -for not having kids, yet I’m following the Bible’s teachings about sexual behavior.

    Also, how do comps who believe in salvation via childbirth handle women who physically cannot have children?

    I read a story in the news about a year ago about a woman in her 20s who was born with a uterus (or some other vital baby making part).
    I just read this past week of a woman who went through the world’s first uterus transplant (not the same lady as the first I mentioned).

    Some women are physically incapable of having a child, or their husband is sterile. I guess there’s no hope for them in that type of comp view, either.

  448. Daisy wrote:

    I read a story in the news about a year ago about a woman in her 20s who was born with a uterus (

    Type-o there:
    WITHOUT. She was born without one.

  449. Is this the same Ken (posting on Nate Sparks blog) that posts here? A Ken on NS blog wrote this:

    The rapist is to blame for the crime, but a woman can make an unwise decision that enables an evil person to take advantage, but the unwise decision is not to say she deserves it

    Source for above quote:
    http://natesparks130.com/2016/02/02/a-controversy-of-propiety/#comment-554

    Re:
    “but a woman can make an unwise decision that enables an evil person to take advantage”

    That sounds a wee bit victim blaming to me.

    ‘If only that woman had not worn that short skirt, if only that college woman had not taken alcohol in front of the male frat guys at the party, or if only that rape victim had not left her home to walk down a city street at 2 AM or had not done X, Y, Z, the rape wouldn’t have happened.’

    It’s putting the onus on women to avoid being raped. No. Men should not be raping whether they are wearing short skirts, or out in the dark at 2 AM alone or what have you.

    Can people possibly reduce the risk of being raped by doing this, that, or the other? I suppose there are measures that can be taken in that regard (as well as men reducing their risk of being mugged in the city), but whomever that Ken is at NS blog frames it to sound victim-blaming.

  450. Serving Kids In Japan wrote:

    But I can also understand your frustration with him. His declaration of neutrality in regards to Wilson is hard for me to wrap my head around.

    This seems to have angered people, so I would like to explain why before replying to Dee.
    You go to a site criticizing Wilson for his ‘defense of child molester Sitler’. You read a comment:

    …he dismisses the new restrictions and never, ever mentions the victims. Just, ugh.
    They link to Wilson’s open letter on this, where the second paragraph says:

    All the difficult circumstances that have followed since that time—for the victims, for Steven’s family, and for our church community—are entirely the cascading result of Steven’s initial sins.

    This is literally blind prejudice. A couple of comments later Doug Wilson is a pedophile himself.

    Wilson is right in that those who deny the grace of God even for the Sitler’s of this world deny it to themselves.

    Wilson is wrong when he refuses to listen to well-reasoned attempts to re-consider his actions in this case and their ramifications. Such do exist.

    I have been criticised up-thread for objecting to the use of bad language. It’s ‘making a mountain out of a molehill’. Yet when Wilson wrote his inflammatory conquers, colonizes post and silly comment on the size of biddies’ knockers, he is described as ‘revolting’. I’ve seen comments about Wilson on at least one site clearly in breach of the comments guidelines. So is bad or insulting language allowed, or isn’t it?

    Yes, I was overcome with just how much of this there is, and let the banned b word creep into a post or two. I just wanted to use the right word, but this is Dee’s turf, her rules, and I shouldn’t have done.

    I could multiply examples of this, and it makes it difficult to separate genuine sin on Wilson’s part from that of his critics, including just how bad his views on slavery might be.

    Being neutral on him is not the same thing as supporting him, and I don’t see where an obligation comes from to have to make a quick judgment – who else cares what I think of him anyway – on second-hand information about an event 12,000 miles away and 10 years ago.

    I can certainly see problems with Wilson, and he should be subject to discernment as he publically blogs, but so many critics display the attitudes described above you get to a point where you would rather leave it alone for a while.

  451. @ dee:
    I think I would like to say a couple things about this.
    I used to help lead a fellowship where many had come from rejecting church congregations and had experienced hassle with leaders and sundry narrow minded people. To put it mildly.

    Some had experienced domestic sexual abuse both hetero and homosexual. In one family the marriage was the result of her adultery with him, to escape from a bullying husband who beat her up.

    I am aware this kind of thing goes on. If I don’t seem very empathetic, this was a long time ago, and what is discussed here is remote from me.

    I’ve also had my own run ins with churches. I can speak from experience that after the initial hurt, self-pity can creep in, later leading to a battle with the banned b word. It can be very difficult to deal with this, especially if it has been caused by the thoughtlessness of other Christians. I can also say it doesn’t help if well-meaning Christian friends do not at some point confront you with the sinfulness of resentment, of the way you react to this, it can eat away at you. It may take time, years, but it is necessary. And yes, I do know others have had it much worse.

    It’s difficult for me to say to what extent abuse continued to affect those I used to know, but it was not a life-dominating thing, and most seemed free from it. People filled with the Spirit can change in amazing ways. So there is always hope that this can happen. I was eventually welcomed onto the diaconate by the pastor of the same church who had previously given me the left boot of fellowship. I have no doubt God wanted this estrangement ended. If you know the whole story, you would also have to conclude the Lord has a sense of humour.

    Dee, I have not ‘gone after’ anyone here. I have tried to be sensitive to what others have experienced, to the extent of Law Prof calling me ‘mealy-mouthed’ and wanting me to be more direct. Perhaps I haven’t always succeeded, but not for want of trying. There have been a few occasions when I have been on the receiving end of some very malicious posts, and believe me it has not always been easy not to reply in kind.

    I actually have no problem with anyone saying it like it is, you should live in Germany and see just how blunt people are, and you are not expected to take offence. But a sinful reaction to what others have done to us only damages us in the end, and I didn’t find that out from reading books.

  452. Ken,

    This is baloney. Why don’t you see what the victims themselves say about Wilson? I wonder what that little baby will think when he grows up and sees Wilson blessings his daddy’s marriage to his mom. No, Wilson is not big on the victims but he sure loves on the pedophiles in his church.

    As for the infamous “colonizing” comment-it had nothing to do with the language and everything to do with what it implies. I would rather mistaenly let the *f* word through as opposed to blindly letting Wilson’s comment through. There is a reason he lurches from controversy to controversy. 

  453. And finally. I have on the whole enjoyed posting here, even if too much. Interacting with those who don’t agree with you is healthy, makes you re-think assumptions. I’ve even grown quite fond of the Lydia’s and Victorius’s and gram3 (hope she is OK).

    On reflection, I seem to be always swimming against the tide. I don’t think this is because I want to be factious, but I have started to react against the amount of sheer petty vindictiveness encountered in particular on trawling sites critical of Wilson. Sorry Dee, but it really got to me.

    I hope the comments here will not descend into the team pyro type where even mild-mannered dissenting opinions are not really wanted. There is a marked change in how the comments were three years ago.

    May I say as an outsider Dee I was bothered by your response to Alex Guggenheim’s criticism of Eagle’s post (you may recall this). (This is the same Eagle who recently blogged about how the atheist community should get its act together so they could offer something to those who abandon the Christian faith. You couldn’t make it up.) You should at least mull over what he says, just as I have taken your criticism to heart.

    You have reacted to me in much the same way. Part of me would like to carry on contributing at a reduced level, but I think your post above has made this untenable.

    So thank you, I’ve appreciated the experience and learnt a lot from it, but I think it time to call it a day. As numo said, Ken, you need to get out more – and actually rightly so!

  454. Lydia wrote:

    What is even worse is the lost opportunity I believe we will be held accountable for. People often go in the total opposite direction of the cult they were in. They push the boundaries of their newfound freedom with lots of cussing or they become flaming liberals or what ever else is totally opposite to them.

    Communism begets Objectivism.

  455. Daisy wrote:

    Flag Ken wants us to think he thinks women are not prone to deception in some cases at some times, but are in others.

    “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose”?

  456. Serving Kids In Japan wrote:

    The Church Lady is a character created by Dana Carvey on the sketch comedy show Saturday Night Live. She’s a caricature of conservative American Christians — uptight, snooty, patronizing towards everything non-Christian, and convinced that Satan is behind everything that she personally doesn’t like.

    And according to Dana Carvey, Church Lady is based on actual older women he encountered at church while growing up. She’s based on reality, just hyped up a bit.

  457. Pingback: The Fruit of the Neo Reformed Movement | idonotlikethefruit UNITED STATES