Them’s Fightin’ Words

Oh dear. I have something embarrassing to report. Hang on to your hats, everyone. A woman by the name of Rachel Held Evans has been scampering about on the great wide interwebs, working herself up into a fever of feminist fury. “What has gotten this good woman so steamed up?” you may be asking yourselves. “Why is she breathing into a paper bag over on her blog and calling for her smelling salts?” Well, I won’t keep you in suspense any longer. I’ll just go ahead and say it. It’s my dad.

Yep. Turns out, Douglas Wilson has not made a friend in Rachel Held Evans. I will have to shoot him a quick text to not get his hopes up for a Christmas card this year. I’m afraid that the Furiously-Righteous-Evans has transitioned into her squeaky voice, and we all know what happens when a woman gets squeaky. (And to be perfectly frank, this is a level of squeak rarely caught on camera since the Temperance Movement.) This subtle and yet unmistakable change in tenor almost unfailingly means that a woman is gearing up to hold a grudge of mammoth proportions, and this is what leads me to believe that my father has been scratched off her Furiously-Righteous Christmas list. In fact, she’s gone to the length of getting out her tempera paints and poster board, and is hard at work organizing a trade union strike against Douglas Wilson and all he stands for. She has sent out a call for people to write letters. She’s stamping her little foot over there on her blog, and she means business.

But here is where the Furiously-Righteous has made her bloomer. She’s honked the horn of injustice and oppression, calling all the villagers to grab their pitchforks and rush to her letter-writing-blog-commenting aid, but she’s rather unfortunately gotten her facts mixed. As she was busily shouting, “Do you see the violence inherent in the system?!?! Help! Help! I’m being Repressed!!” it turns out that she was all alone in her room and simply having a bad dream. Douglas Wilson wasn’t actually there in his scary suit with his patriarchal hat on, chasing her around with his horrible red eyes and trying to squelch her liberties . . . but the Furiously-Righteous appears to spook easily. It would be nice if we could all tastefully pretend we didn’t notice anything, and go on as if nothing had happened so as not to embarrass her. But as it turns out, she’s now gotten it thoroughly up her nose and is rather pressing the issue upon everyone’s notice. People are getting wound up. Someone from the Washington Post has tweeted about it. Boycotts and retractions are being called for.

As I understand it, Furiously-Righteous is a feminist. She doesn’t want anyone belittling the abilities or women, or telling them they aren’t as good as the men. If a condescending man was to pat her on the head and say, “Don’t you worry your pretty little head about things. You leave it to the men to do the intellectual stuff,” I imagine we would see quite a Furiously-Righteous fireworks display and a lot of smoke coming out her ears. So it would have perhaps been better for her cause if she hadn’t gone quite so public with a blog post that makes it clear to the meanest intelligence that she can’t follow an argument to save her life, and her ability to research appears to be completely nil. I mean, if you don’t want people to think you aren’t as gifted intellectually as the men, then for heaven’s sakes don’t give them blog posts in which you demonstrate your inability to think your way out of a paper bag. Just sayin’ . . .

To take an instance at random, she maintains that Douglas Wilson, “blamed egaliatarianism for the presence of rape and sexual violence in the world.” I hate to say it because I don’t want to hurt the Furiously-Righteous’ feelings, but the only thing more fat-headed than saying that egalitarianism is the cause of rape, would be to say that’s what Doug Wilson was maintaining in that excerpt. If you can’t follow an argument, do yourself a favor and refrain from loudly commenting on it. You could just smile and nod, and then people would at least think that you understood what was happening . . . rather than letting the whole world in on the news that you can’t hang with the big dogs.

I’m just throwing out a helpful hint – but next time it may be better to actually read the book before giving a public synopsis of the argument contained therein, based off of one page of text. I mean, it’s all well and good to bluff your way through and pretend you know what you’re talking about . . . but there may come a day when someone in the audience has actually read the stuff – and then you just look silly. And I’m afraid that day has come.

Dear Ms. Furiously-Righteous – you want to talk about Doug Wilson’s patriarchy? Great! Let’s chat. I’ve had a front row seat all my life. There’s nothing like doing a little research before embarking on a public campaign to smear a pastor’s reputation. I mean, I know, I know, you read a paragraph and you think you have enough ammo in your little gun to go out into the Jungles of Oppression and the Swamps of Injustice and hunt down the ever-so-power-hungry-hephalump named “Dougerwocky the Patriarch.” You’re out there with your vorpal blade, busily saying, “Snicker-Snack,” but I have to break the news to you that he’s a figment of your obviously insecure imagination, and you’re making yourself look ridiculous. Especially when you try to pass yourself off as the Voice of Women. I can tell you right now that my dad isn’t going to knock you flat – not because he can’t, but because he’s a gentleman. But there’s a woman here who’s ready to take you on. Just give me one sec while I put on my pointy stilettos, my biggest rings, and call my sister . . . and then we can step down the alley here.

I grew up with Doug Wilson as my father. He’s the one who gave me an education. He made sure that his daughters were taught formal logic, Latin, rhetoric, theology, philosophy. He’s the one who taught me not to ever take any crap off of any guy . . . or in your case, a woman. If you want to interact with his position like a big girl, fine. Read a book or two and then get back to us. But enough with the flopping for the refs and playing the victim card. It’s unbecoming, unladylike, and just embarrassing.

Update! Follow-up post here.

Share on Facebook440Share on Google+1Tweet about this on Twitter35Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

209 Responses to “Them’s Fightin’ Words”


  • I only ever read R.H.E. from links off other blogs, but I remember she once posted something to the effect of “I’m not sure homosexuality is so wrong after all” and I have avoided her writing ever since.

  • I thought her name sounded familiar. Ah, yes, she’s the one who squatted on the roof of her house and performed other such nonsensical actions for a year and called it *biblical*, so your dad seems to be in good company in regards to books she’s grossly misunderstood.

  • nicely put. Love this part – “But there’s a woman here who’s ready to take you on. Just give me one sec while I put on my pointy stilettos, my biggest rings, and call my sister . . . and then we can step down the alley here.”

  • Love it! Thanks for defending him.

  • “I’m afraid that the Furiously-Righteous-Evans has transitioned into her squeaky voice, and we all know what happens when a woman gets squeaky.”

    You’re insulting yourself and all other women.

    The condescension with which this post drips does not become you whatsoever.

  • This is the first time I ever read anything by you but all day I am reading the arguments made by both sides. Though I agree with the fact that sound-bite quotes from someone’s book may be misleading I can hardly congratulate the tone and condescending spirit of this post. Criticism and correction should be more humble and instructional not vicious.

  • Maybe somewhere in your hyperbolic post you could have mentioned Rachel Held Evans was talking about a post on The Gospel Coalition website written by Jared C. Wilson which was quoting your fathers book. Maybe you should be mad at that guy for choosing to use that excerpt from your fathers book and then not adding any context.

  • This makes me really sad. It’s one thing for males to disrespect women, but for a woman to disrespect another woman is particularly disheartening. I sincerely hope you come to realize, one day, that God does not want half His Church to seize power over the other half, but that we all belong fully to Him.

  • I didn’t realize that Rachel used tempra paints. I’m strictly a watercolor girl myself. I 100% agree with her take on your father’s choice of language, but I need to take a stand on SOMETHING.

  • This is an ugly, uncharitable, unwinsome, sad post. Did your Dad teach you to blog this way? If so, he did you a dis-service.

  • I do not think that you speak the truth in love. Why are you so sarcastic and biting? I may not agree with all of Rachel Held Evans’ convictions when it comes to gender, but at least she doesn’t need to put people down when she disagrees with them.

  • This made me picture Rachel as a comic book super hero! Ms. Furiously-Righteous sees patriarchy and she springs into action! She dashes to the nearest phone book to change into her squeaky voice so that she can take on the evil Dougerwocky the Patriarch! But wait! Dougerwocky has sent his minion, Bekah, with her stilletos and rings to do his dirty work.

    Is this it for our hero? Will the evils of patriarchy conquer and colonize all the women in the world?

    Tune in next time to find out!

  • I love the tone! Reminds me of that guy who said things like “you brood of vipers!” and “no, you don’t have a husband… You have seven!”

  • “I grew up with Doug Wilson as my father. He’s the one who gave me an education. He made sure that his daughters were taught formal logic, Latin, rhetoric, theology, philosophy.”

    So, why did you employ so many red herrings and ad hominem attacks in your response?

  • This is not entirely surprising. Despite her occasional claims to be something along the lines of a “theologically conservative evangelical”, Rachel Held Evans denies Biblical inerrancy. As she said last month on the issues of gender and sexuality, “I think Peter and Paul were struggling, perhaps imperfectly, to apply Jesus’ teachings to their contexts” ( http://rachelheldevans.com/mutuality-household-codes#comment-548147621 )

    That’s an extremely low view of inspired Scripture, to suggest that no, it’s not the words of the Holy Spirit given through human authors, it’s just some sort of existential “struggle” by the authors to get their “imperfect” thoughts down on paper.

    Once one denies inerrancy, what authority do they have? How one “feels” about a particular passage becomes the deciding factor, ultimately making everyone their own little authority. Thus, they feel its perfectly consistent to cherry-pick some verses for their ammo belt, and to discard other verses as “no longer relevant”. After all, they’re the ultimate authority.

  • Yuce- I think you meant to post that comment on Evan’s blog.

  • Gary (and others), didn’t you notice the overblown rhetoric on Rachel Held Evans’ post? What do you think of the comments slandering Doug Wilson as supporting a “divine right of rape”? Doesn’t such nonsense warrant a rebuke like this?

  • Somehow I had a feeling that the comment section here would turn into a bunch of people calling each other unchristian, in an unchristian way, for doing something unchristian. Who can be the most unchristian??? God forbid anyone ever say anything passionately, it’s so unchristian!

  • My father is also a Pastor and I feel for you. I know it is hurtful when others attack.

    However, in the future you might want to remember that the best fights are done in love. This post is very hateful, I am sorry for your pain, but it does not do your dad, the church, or christian women service to speak out in this way.

  • Oh my.

    I saw the beginning of the eruption on this topic over at a different site which linked to the Jared Wilson post and just knew it was the beginning of quite a storm.

    I’ve often considered suggesting you gals make reading comprehension tests mandatory for commenting privileges on this blog. Now I’m thinking they should be mandatory for commenting privileges anywhere on the internet.

  • Yes, Bekah, next time someone attacks your dad without cause or merit, saying he actually supports the rape of women, please omit the passion and sarcasm like a good girl, m’K? (pats head)

  • Bekah’s father is being slandered and attacked. Why is it not appropriate for her to defend him? While some may take issue with word choice, a defense is entirely appropriate. I am reminded of Psalm 127: 4-5 here.

    Doug Wilson and his family’s ministries have been a tremendous blessing to many and to mine in particular. May the Lord continue to bless you, Wilson family, and all the more during trials!

  • Wow. Seriously? I understand that he’s your dad and you want to rush to his defense, but this is nasty. Your post absolutely drips with condescension and more than a bit of misogyny.

    Is scornful derision and name-calling considered acceptable for a Christian if said mockery is clever and witty and oozing with supposed intellectual superiority?

    Since your father taught you logic, I must assume your use of straw man arguments and ad hominem attack was deliberate.

    If you learned this style of communication from him (and from what I have read, you did), then you are not making him look good.

  • When it comes to the topic of feminism etc. it seems to be in vogue to speak of “women” as one unified bunch. So I feel compelled to say women need to get a sense of humor. Personally I think Bekah has a great sense of humor, but if I were to say “some women” or “all women except Bekah” then I might offend or confuse the feminists.

  • Rebekah isn’t automatically unloving; she just opted for the latter:

    “Do not answer a fool according to [her] folly, or you yourself will be just like [her]” (Prov. 26:4).

    “Answer a fool according to [her] folly, or [she] will be wise in her own eyes” (Prov. 26:5).

  • I for one enjoyed this post. The sarcasm was actually useful in pointing out how, when it comes to certain issues, people speak without educating themselves, they misrepresent their opponents, they resort to sterotypes, and they say little while speaking much. Posturing rather than substance.

    I think after a while, the Doug’s children probably get tired of people lying about him. I’m not even related to Doug, and I get tired of it.

  • Bekah,

    LOVE this pitch-perfect response!

    Rachel is a destroyer who delights in tearing down the good, the true and the beautiful. ‘Tis a pity she’ll never create a fraction of the beauty you have given us in so many ways. I think she once had a talent that could have been nurtured into maturity but has now been turned to the service of evil and ugliness.

    You’ll have to forgive me for being so cynical that I think not one of Mrs. Evans’ supporters commenting here will catch the Flannery O’Connor allusion.

    Kamilla

  • Can you get your Dad to teach me how to raise my daughter like you? You have eloquently expressed how I feel about that woman since reading about this insane incident.

  • can’t help but dive in on this one. ummm…

    you write ::

    *But here is where the Furiously-Righteous has made her bloomer.*

    did you mean a ‘blooper?’ that would be an error.

    isn’t a ‘bloomer’ a pair of loose-fitting knee length underpants? i don’t think that rachel held evans makes her own panties (although, we could be surprised when her book comes out and find that she does indeed knit together her knickers).

    or maybe…wait, i’ve got it! perhaps you mean ‘bloomer’ as in ‘a person who matures or flourishes at a specified time’ || in that, you’d be quite right, despite your condescending tone and name calling.

    in my opinion, rachel’s voice of reason and an honest and bold critique couldn’t be more timely.

  • Bekah, I understand what it’s like to have someone you love criticized or even attacked online. However, the gendered insults in this post (squeaky, stomped her little foot, engage like a big girl) do not tell me that your dad’s ideology is different than how Rachel presents it. I might be persuaded to understand your perspective if you spent more time actually explaining what Rachel misunderstood instead of just insulting her.

  • Mr. Kimpan,

    Bloomer. Slang: A blunder.

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Bloomer

  • Rachel Held Evans says, “This is about power”, which is entirely true, but not in the way she thinks. It’s all projection. She is grasping for power, and lashing out at anything she thinks might come close to threatening it, and as a result, she keeps inventing power-mad bogeymen around every corner. Look at the way she brags about her appearances on cable TV interviews, etc. Her calls to send letters, organize boycotts, etc are simply another way of telling herself, “Look at the power at my command!”

  • I have a new blog to start reading on a regular basis. Also I will never mess with you.

  • The exhortative quotes are directed *at* no one, but at directed *to* all:

    “A lot of people today who have strong convictions are not very civil and a lot of people who are civil don’t have very strong convictions. What we really need is convicted civility.” – Richard Mouw

    “Too often in life we proceed with a hermeneutic of self-assuredness and criticism of those for whom we disagree rather than a hermeneutic of self-criticism and grace for others.” – Richard Mouw

    “Your humility is revealed in how you treat those you disagree with.” – Rick Warren

  • I neither have the time nor inclination to get into the whole muddy mess, but I am very happy with the way you’re sticking up for your dad and pointing out this woman’s lack of truthfulness regarding him. And for those who struggle with the tone and intent of this, maybe they should read your dad’s book Serrated Edge.

  • Brilliant response. I’m amazing how many people miss the intended point of this post and focus strictly with what has been written, but do the exact opposite with your fathers words and Jared Wilsons as well. Mind blowing.

    Obvious hyperbole to prove a point = Must be taken literally.

    Clear and pointed statements and quotes regarding delicate issues = I’ll take this to mean what I want. Amazingly bad logic from the egalitarians (of course, thats no surprise).

    Keep up the good work.

  • I have no stake in the conflict over this matter, but I find the mean-spirited nature of this post wholly unnecessary. I understand the desire to defend one’s father, especially against claims you personally find baseless, but your snide dismissal of her and her claims seems based in large part on the stereotypical sexist narrative of the hyper-emotional, hysterical woman. By using sexism to criticize Ms. Evans, you make me more inclined to take her side, even without any extensive knowledge of what it is you’re fighting with her about.

    All that to say, when you accuse a feminist Christian of seeing sexism under every rock, but use sexist tropes to do so, she begins to appear quite justified in her claims of misogyny.

  • Cheers to Bekah! I enjoyed it.

  • For all y’all who find yourselves so faux-lustered regarding Rebekah’s tone and language…thank you for appearing on this week’s episode of “That Went Totally Over My Head.” You(s) seriously don’t understand what she was doing here?

  • Beakh you handled this with more poise and humor than RHE deserves. The blessing in this is that a lot of people may read Fidelity . . . perhaps RHE could read your post and then read the book she’s blitzing . . . and then do a follow up post.

  • I have no axe to grind either way on this topic (except that I actually read Jared Wilson’s initial post with quotation and didn’t engage mouth before brain was in gear). I did think at first pass that Doug’s quotation was sorely taken out of context- kind of like taking a text and squashing it down to tweet level with incumbent issues that would bring with it- and needed to read a couple of times before registering the connection between that and the written pornography that is ’50 shades’.

    I thought I would be ‘even’ and read Rachel’s blog. Stopped at the header. Something about ‘rape’ and I knew this woman had a very large chip to extract from her shoulders. Reading her post and the comments afterwards I was nothing short of disgusted.

    And then this blog entry which by comparison (though fairly angry in tone) is ‘nice’ and some of the comments are again nasty and harder than the actual post. I am detecting several layers of issues with those who didn’t like the post by Wilson and Wilson: one is that submission and authority in the Church today is going through a kind of “don’t we hear from God too?” Miriam moment; and secondly that lots of Christian women must be indulging in ’50 Shades’ ;)

    Ah. The bitter sweet world of eisegesis.

    Great post though- well done for coming alongside your Dad!!!

  • Michael J. Kimpan:

    Seriously?
    To me, it sounds like this post angered you, but you had nothing with which to refute- so you poorly correct her grammar…

    Rebekah, well said sister! I’d do the same for my dad!

  • Way to go, Bekah! Like “m” said above, boys versus girls is always lame.

  • Oy! I see that a few people need a lesson in satire.

  • BKJ, you write: “I might be persuaded to understand your perspective if you spent more time actually explaining what Rachel misunderstood instead of just insulting her.”

    I think the time for explaining misunderstandings was over the minute Rachel hit ‘post’ on her ridiculous blog post. Had she perhaps taken the time to actually read Doug Wilson’s book instead of quoting him out of context for all the world wide web to see, maybe then I could see your point.

  • I don’t see how all your imaginings about Rachel & what she is like or what she is doing is adding anything good to the discussion, Bekah. Such as when you say things like “I imagine we would see quite a Furiously-Righteous fireworks display and a lot of smoke coming out her ears.” Why be-little her? Is it okay to go on a public smear campaign, as you say, if the person you are smearing is not a pastor? I am not sure if Rachel would call herself a feminist. But, she does believe that women & men are equal (but that does not mean women & men are the same. She does not believe that.) She has a lot you can read about Mutuality from a bout a month or so ago on her blog. In case you care to intelligently engage in the conversation.

  • Three things I have to tell my children and myself almost daily-
    You can say anything you want if you say it nicely,
    Grace is UNDESERVED kindness.
    Women are to have a gentle and quiet spirit.
    I blow it too so I’m not pointing fingers, just trying to encourage.

  • It’s one thing to stick up for your dad… but wow. I almost couldn’t make it through your post because of your condescending & childish tone. I don’t buy the comments that commend you for your satire. This post is itself very “unbecoming, unladylike, and embarrassing.” It’s fine to disagree, but I would expect that you could find a better way to present your arguments.

  • Wow. Is the personal attack necessary?
    Stick with the topics and issues at hand. With dignity and grace please.

  • Fantastic post!

    Chris Pinson nailed the unintentional self-parody of many of the finger-wagging commenters. These people no doubt would’ve admonished Jesus for his unloving “brood of vipers” and “child of hell” language.

  • Beakh, I will respond to your post in the same basic way I responded to Mrs Jared Wilson:

    It is fairly obvious to me that your dad is opposed to rape and violence against women. I would NOT call him misogynistic as that would indicate that he hates women. I don’t think that nor have I read anything that would justify that accusation against him.

    I’ve read a good bit of your dad’s writing over the years. You know him personally. All of us see aspects of our loved ones that are not in the public eye. I have no interest in commenting on your dad’s private behavior. You can do that with authority. I cannot.

    However, your father has a fairly large body of public works, which I can comment on. I do not comment based on having read a few paragraphs. I have read several of his books and numerous blog posts of his over the years (including all of Fidelity, Reforming Marriage, & Her Hand in Marriage). It is not a personal attack for me to publicly disagree with what he has publicly written.

    As a sister in the Lord, I strongly disagree with your father’s view of sexuality and gender relations. I believe that many of his statements distort God’s plan for men and women in community and in marriage. I don’t see evidence in his writing that he and I share a common perspective on what it means to respect women and I find many of his statements very condescending towards women. I cannot just ignore this. I have seen some of the damage it can lead to.

    Respectfully.

  • First post to FeminaGirls, although I’ve been a daily reader for many months. Felt the need to wade in.

    There are indeed times when a soft answer, to turn away wrath, or the truth told in love, are the most appropriate ways to handle an uncomfortable situation in which we must confront someone in sin (in informing a dear sister in the Lord, say, that her daughter’s micro skirts are causing more than a little stumbling block for the young men of the congregation. Just as an example.).

    But there are also times, I believe, when the more appropriate response would be to thunder and roar (in answering a self-professed Christian writer who not only maliciously and quite publicly slanders and smears the work, words, character and good name of someone you know intimately and love dearly, but also publicly calls for boycotts to undermine his livelihood and hinder his ability to provide for his family. Say.).

    That being said, I found Bekah’s tone most appropriate to the occasion. Good job, Bekah.

  • Whoa……chill girl. I don’t think name calling and angry diatribes are going to help your case.

  • @Andy, except, how do we figure out who is Jesus in this discussion amongst Christians & who should be child of hell? Should Doug always get to play Jesus in this skit?

  • Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha…..Bwhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha…(wipe tear)

  • Hahahah… look at all the people calling YOU unloving and intolerant! Have they never READ RHE’s stuff? Excellent retort. Game, set, match.

  • Gotta love folks who quote Mouw and Warren as authorities. ROFL

  • Rebekah,

    Way to go sticking up for your dad! Those crybabies whose only passion is to squelch anyone with Godly zeal can follow a certain herd of swine into the sea. How they cannot grasp the working relationship between their self-righteous whining and the attacks upon Biblical Christianity by the intoleristas is beyond me.

    -tob

  • Bekah,

    As a fellow lover of snark and satire I offer you much thanks for this post. Someone once said “bark at the dogs, shoot the wolves, love the sheep…” and I think you’ve done that here.

    I haven’t read much of your dad’s views of sexuality and gender roles in many many years–but I have the *highest* respect for his way with words, his sharp mind for discerning this wicked culture, his knowledge and application of Scripture (wisdom), and his courageous presentations of the gospel amidst braying, deceived fools foaming at the mouth with nothing more than hurt feelings and wounded pride.

    Many many blessings upon you and your family. God knows it all, sister!

  • Apparently I’m dumb because I couldn’t see how this could possibly be satirizing Rachel’s post. I even went back and read the whole thing instead of skimming. :-p
    But no outrageous namecalling on her part that could be copied in a snarky way by Bekah. (Aside from the fact that she clearly drew false conclusions.) I don’t blame Bekah for coming to her dad’s defense, but it would be helpful to know what the context of the Wilson quote actually is…

    The quotes about sex from the Bible that stick out most in my mind are from Paul (well, GOD speaking through him). Addressing both man and woman, he says not to withhold yourselves from each other except for a time and by mutual consent. That sounds like it could reasonably be interpreted as mutual respect and partnership in the (very enjoyable) act of sex. I personally think Doug Wilson’s choice of words here – “conquering,” etc – was poor. I don’t know what else he says, having not read the book, so as a woman who does NOT claim to be a feminist, the words in that quote do sound quite unlike anything else I’ve read in scripture. But it would be nice if we could leave it at that – Mr Wilson should find no need to make excuses for a poor choice in words. It’s okay to admit to that. Rachel’s attack saying he blames egalitarianism for rape is obviously entirely unwarranted and ridiculous (and having read something else by her, I think she’s fond of rabble-rousing), but this seems a bit petty in response. I’d rather know what Bekah really thinks about the quote from her dad’s book, in case some of us are not understanding it properly.

  • In my experience, it’s the idea that says, “Let’s all be nice and play fair,” that really means, “I get to define what ‘nice’ means.” If we let the Bible define “nice,” instead of our sentimental understanding of it, Bekah was nice, fair, and ladylike.

  • Oh, would all the people who have a beef with the tone please get over themselves. This kind of uptight and humorless intolerance of sarcasm, hyperbole, and wit that is so common in evangelical discourse today is almost too much for me for handle anymore.

    The fact is, some arguments are too stupid to be dignified with the honor of a measured, step-by-step, logical rebuttal. Some arguments deserve only to be laughed to scorn, and let me say that I was certainly laughing. Good post.

  • @erin a. My point was in response to the “let’s all be nice” comments. Their position seems to be that pointed or satiric language is always “unChristlike”, which I find risible. When the situation calls for it, it is the right tool for the job. I think this situation most definitely calls for it.

    To determine who is in the right, we of course have to look at the details. I think any fair-minded reading of the quote in context as well as the follow-up posts completely refutes Doug’s detractors.

  • Rebekah: I would highly recommend you re-read your own “Masking Anger as Justice” column. Then re-read THIS post. I’m sure the irony of launching a condescending, dismissive, name-calling tirade against someone after reading one of her blog posts (after criticizing her for reading only a quote rather than an entire book, no less) and then nicknaming her “Furiously-Righteous” will not be lost on you.

    Lest you think I’m one of Evans’ fans coming over to defend her honor, I can assure this is not the case. Today is the first time I’ve read anything from either one of you. Frankly, I disagree with you both — for different reasons, of course, but in the “making a case for yourself” contest you’ve lost handily.

    She explained herself in a civil tone and laid out a case for the point she was trying to make, citations and all. You threw a temper tantrum, resorted to name-calling, explained nothing, and exhibited the exact same “Aw, look at her work herself into a little frenzy!” tone you accused her of. Then you bragged about your formal training in logic. Astonishing.

  • I definitely don’t think Jesus would engage in such ridicule. I don’t have a problem with strong words; however, I don’t think I’d say that these are strong words. They are, however, hurt words, and I understand the desire to defend your dad. They don’t really contradict what most people undestand him to have said, however. Better to prove them all wrong and respond in a well-thought, intelligent, educated manner.

  • Wow, what hatred and bitterness you show! Are those fruits of the Spirit, I wonder? Or is such malicious mocking behavior, such as you show, straight from somewhere else?

  • @CNB – I did read Doug Wilson’s blog post. Thanks for the recommendation.

    While I have significant disagreements with him, I totally agree that 50 Shades is not moral literature. That’s not in question from me. And I agree that right and wrong are defined by God. Where we part is some of Doug Wilson’s statements about the natural order and how God has arranged his world. What seems obvious to him isn’t so much to me – in fact, what seems obvious to him seems contrary to the overall message of Scripture on the subject of human sexuality, image bearing, being co-heirs, one-anothering in Christian community, etc.

    I get that Mr. Wilson would be irritated if he sees himself being accused of defending rape, but he even sounds condescending in that post “try another one, girls…” Was that necessary?

    I’ve always tested pretty highly in reading comprehension (so I’ll assume his more snide comments about such weren’t aimed at me). I’ll observe that it sure seems like Mr. Wilson is taking a bit of a pot shot at egalitarians in “Fidelity,” and claiming that because his views of what he would consider godly and appropriate male dominance and female submission are not embraced and practiced in marriages and societies, people turn to perversions of dominance and submission like rape and BDSM erotica. Am I misunderstanding the passage that has been highlighted the recent controversy?

    Sure he can pull quotes from his books that show he supports men showing women the type of respect and honor that he thinks they are due. But, overall, his writing does dishonor women and I can pull numerous quotes from his books that I believe demonstrate that point. I expect he and I have a different operative definition for respect and honor. I don’t, for example, bifurcate the definitions based on the sex of the person being discussed. My understanding is that when Doug Wilson talks about respect towards women and respect towards men, he generally has different operative definitions in mind. I could be wrong, but that’s what I’ve observed from his writings.

  • *Whoosh* That was the sound of this post flying over the heads of the irony-impaired and those that don’t understand the concept of the ridiculous deserving to be ridiculed.

  • As a challenge, this is appropriately martial. Let’s see if Mzzz Evans is up for a *real* understanding of the issues, or whether she just wants to reach critical levels of Shock Horror and Astonishment at the way God created the world…

  • Here’s a brief summary of what Doug has been called or had his views described as, taken from the comments at TGC and on RHE’s blog:

    - A “raving misogynist”
    - A “pervert” with “repulsive and false teachings”
    - “Warped” and “depraved”
    - A sexual pervert
    - A “a sick, sick man” who twists scripture whom followers of Christ should denounce
    - A patriarchalist
    - A man who preaches “domination”
    - “Abusive towards women”
    - Disrespectful, insulting and dismissive
    - Deplorable and upsetting, unbiblical and disgusting
    - Horrifying, sickening and offensive
    - Inaccurate, degrading, harmful, dismissive, condescending, misogynistic

    All of this leveled at a faithful, gospel-preaching pastor who was arguing for Biblical roles in marriage and the sacrificial service and protection of women.

    All things considered, I’d say Bekah’s post shows a remarkable level of restraint.

  • We’re all so wussified we can’t handle a little roughhousin.’

    Proves dang near most of what Pastor Wilson’s written.

  • @Deborah:

    The Jesus who called the Pharisees “hypocrites” and “whitewashed tombs” full of dead people’s bones? (Matt 23:27) The Jesus who made a whip of cords, drove people out of the temple and overturned tables? (John 2:15) The Jesus who called the Pharisees a brood of vipers and evil? (Matt 12:34) Who called one of his own disciplines “Satan”? (Matt 16:23) Who looked in anger at hard hearts? (Mark 3:5) Who came into the world for judgment? (John 9:39)

  • Aloha to the great swirling internet world! I can’t respond to everyone’s thoughts, so I won’t even try . . . but let me toss out a general footnote or two to the conversation.

    First – to all the people who feel that I’m wounded, hurt, angry, bitter, or in pain: I appreciate your concern (to those who were concerned)- but I’m awfully afraid you have the wrong takeaway. Try re-reading the post, but this time read it with an overlay of “funny”.

    Second – To the people who thought I was bragging about learning formal logic etc. That wasn’t my intention at all. Not bragging – pointing out that my father wasn’t the oppressive ogre that some people are imagining him to be. I’ve heard men say that women don’t need an education because they only need to be able to have babies and mop floors . . . but my dad isn’t one of them.

    Third – I enjoy it that people are actually trying to paint me as a misogynist. Good one guys.

    Fourth – and I repeat myself, I haven’t been angry or had my feelings hurt all day. Jolly as can be over here. I’ve been the daughter of Doug Wilson long enough to hear him accused of pretty much everything under the sun. I’m pretty used to it now. Once, I was solemnly informed that he forced our whole congregation to make their own toothbrushes. (Not true – but a rather awesome thing to accuse him of.) A ripe little story circulated a while back that he charged my husband $70,000 to marry me. (Not true.) I’ve been informed that he’s a racist. (Not true.) I’ve been told he is a drunk, who spends his weekends down at the bars. (Not true.) I’ve been told he’s a misogynist, a perjurer, a Neo-Nazi, and a skunk. (Not true on all counts.)

    But just because it doesn’t make me cry and get wounded when I hear those things doesn’t make them ok to say. And when I hear a woman accusing him of being misogynist, and one who promotes rape at that, I don’t mind stepping out and saying what I think about it. But again, do re-read it and realize that I’m as chirpy as the day is long over here. Let’s remember that RHE was the one who specifically stated that everyone’s first step in responding to Doug Wilson should be to “get angry.” That was her approach, not mine.

  • I forgot to ask: Did Rachel mention her putting chair in today’s post?

  • Call me naive, but I don’t think anyone who isn’t already disinclined to read Pastor Wilson’s work fairly is going to march towards his home with pitchforks over Rachel’s article. I know it didn’t make me re-evaluate my support of him, because I know what Scripture says and I know what Pastor Wilson believes. It is pretty low to call people to boycott Pastor Wilson’s work. But thankfully, anyone who would is probably not likely to have been buying it anyway. In fact, God often uses things like these to cause the curious to read books they wouldn’t otherwise have heard of!

    We’ll be praying for your family. Your father is a godly man and his writing and sermons have been – and continue to be – a great blessing to our family. We won’t be boycotting him anytime soon.

  • Acck! *pouting chair.

  • And Jesus’ prayer in John 17 echoes in the distance…

  • Ps – i’d like to add to my first post that I really like and admire Bekah and all the ladies who blog here. I’ve been encouraged many times by their posts and now feel like rather a jerk for having this be the first time I commented.

  • Loved it Bekah- even from jumping into the middle of all this hoopla-

  • I’m always amazed how feminists talk and talk about strong women and then take offense when they run up against one. Someone made a sloppy attack on her dad and she pushed back. If you don’t want someone calling you an idiot, don’t be one in public. By the way, if anyone wants to call me a name, go ahead. I’m pretty sure I won’t curl up and die. (You could even direct a “gendered insult” at me, if you can think up a good one.)

  • Rebekah: What you’re still not doing — and what I criticized you for in my original post — is actually addressing the points RHE made. Your defense thus far has amounted to, “I know my father better than you do, and you’re wrong. You think he’s a certain way? Well, he’s not.” It’s a statement, but it’s not really an argument.

    Nevermind the fact that Evans clearly stated she was addressing a specific passage from your father’s book or a specific blog post — if it’s out of context, explain WHY. Using humor or getting angry is all well and good, but it’s pointless without substance.

  • I just started following a new blog. Wow. That’s spicy.

  • Your hateful diatribe just gave the “secular world” one more reason to flee Christianity.

  • Great post, Bekah! Defending your father’s integrity with wit and logic.

    The comments above are pretty funny. Especially all the feminists getting their panties…I mean boy shorts…in a wad. haha

    Please know that there are many who support not only you, but your dad and the other Christian men in our country who know what it means to lead their wives with love.

  • Well, I guess since Lane already said it better than I could I’ll just +1 his post. “More matter, and less art”. :-)

    You’ve clearly been heavily influenced by your dad’s style and flair, and that’s not necessarily a bad thing – but Lane is right that you’ve got to make sure you have the substance in there. You hooked my attention well, but through the whole thing I was on the edge of my seat waiting for you to take her to school….but then it came to an end without having truly addressed a single error. The statements were bold, but you have to back them up with solid argumentation.

  • To all who object to characterizing Rachel Held Evans as hyper-emotional and irrational because those are anti-feminist categories when directed toward women, how would you go about describing someone who actually WAS hyper-emotional, irrational, and a woman? Have you considered the possibility that Bekah is not using anti-feminist slurs here, but actually regards Rachel’s response as being accurately described by those words?

    Or is it just not permissible ever to suggest that women CAN be too emotional and abandon reason while arguing, simply because we’re women?

  • Bekah felt like letting her freak flag fly!

  • Brilliant response. I have a new blog to start reading.

  • (That last comment was supposed to follow Frank Turk’s.)

  • Interesting points…instead of reinforcing them with substance and grace, you mostly come off as an arrogant ass. Opportunity wasted.

  • $70,000? That was a bargain!

  • Gal 5:15, “If you bite and devour each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.”

    When Christians speak of one another in the way you speak of Ms. Evans – lacking grace and full of sarcasm, the enemy wins.

    Let’s in our disagreements with one another learn to discuss and sharpen, not insult and demean.

  • oh dear, i really don’t like crybabies. i’d take a chirpy scrapper any day. :) it’s that unfortunate personality divide i guess. some people can’t help but being dull and incessantly offended. i’m only here to say it’s embarrassing to the rest of us. comeon, get off your donkeys!

  • the incessantly offenSIVE give no credibility to what they say no matter how “poetic” they think they are

  • don’t forget, attitude is everything. ;)

  • Clever response, but it brings glory to God how?

  • 1.I totally cracked up reading this post (especially ‘this is a level of squeak rarely caught on camera since the Temperance Movement’–HA!); then I read it to my husband and we cracked up together. (Oh, and we also cracked up at Rebekah’s follow-up comment. ‘A ripe little story circulated a while back that he charged my husband $70,000 to marry me.’ Rolling.)
    2.As a daughter whose father has been harshly and inaccurately criticized and attacked many times, I love the way you’re standing up for your dad. It’s the way I’d like to respond to some of my dad’s critics, if I had your satirical abilities.
    3.I ran across RHE’s writings some time ago and I found her open, snarky mockery of Scripture (as seen in her ‘Year of Biblical Womanhood) to be utterly offensive. Frankly, I think Bekah’s response appropriate for a woman who considers God’s Word a subject of satire.

  • perhaps i should say i grant the most credibility to the last person left smiling. if you can’t take your blows with a grin, you’re no merit to the field. real blood shows hearts best.

  • So the proper response to this post was to start laughing hysterically at the lack of logic, right? Check.

  • Rachel Held Evans is anything but the extreme militant force you make her out to be. She has a platform because she is smart and a fantastic writer and she uses it occasionally to call out injustice where she sees it.

    And you certainly can’t be faulted for coming to your father’s defense. Heck, I might do the same, and I’m sure to know him is to love him. But what he wrote is offensive and are an insult to the gospel. He should know better.

  • What’s embarrassing is this article. It is full of pride, insecurity and immaturity.

  • Somewhat shocked!

    Do you want honest feedback here? Rachel Held Evans is a classy and intelligent woman. The concern she raised was her opinion; however, many agreed with her, thus the large conversation taking place across many forums today. This particular response only served as a way to reveal to us your own sexist beliefs, as I haven’t read anything so insulting to women in several years (including “Fifty Shades of Grey” excerpts). If a man had written this, we would collectively string him up, but I suspect you’ll receive a little mercy due to your gender.

  • I can totally see Rebekah being genuinely kind to Ms Evans if they ever meet. People obviously think she’ll pull a tongue or something. This post is totally hilarious, and its just marvellous that a daughter can respond with such lightness and humour to something that had steam coming out of even my ears. And I’ve never even met Dougie (as he is affectionately known in our home).

  • The above comments are explaining to me why we have so many bullies on the playyard…nobody’s allowed to stand up for themselves. Apparently it’s “unladylike and unchristian.”
    They’re also suggesting that not enough people read Flannery O’Connor. Sad.
    It is nice, however, to finally see someone who can laugh their way through a retort rather than spitting and scratching.

  • This blog post not only gives the “secular world” one more reason to flee Christianity, as one poster commented, but it gives those moving slowly away from it all the more reason to hustle!

  • I don’t even know what to say to this. My faith in the humanity of the internet dwindles every day.

    Would you be saying all of this to RHE’s face? I would be willing to bet no. You say it here because you have a bunch of yes-men/women cheering you on.

    You didn’t refute a word she said. All you said was “she clearly didn’t read the book” along with depicting her as a whiny feminist woman-child (yes, yes, HUMOROUSLY, we know already. HA HA HA). Well, if that excerpt Jared Wilson put on his blog is a taste of the rest, I sure don’t want to read it. Perhaps your father needs some new PR.

  • Thanks for this! Well done and keep up the good work, Wilson peeps.

  • If unladylike is challenging an abusive ideology that permeates the American church…then yes she is!! And so should we. It’s about time

  • Quite possibly the most immature response imaginable. There’s a real debate to be had regarding complementarianism and egalitarianism. This isn’t helpful…it’s just a compilation of belittling insults being thrown around within poorly written drivel.

  • ashley :: you can read my additional thoughts here :: http://www.mjkimpan.com/hell/

  • Yeah, funny how this ‘became’ satire. Making it up as you go along, hey?

  • You know, sister, I really tried to give your opinion a chance. But after so much that started with replacing Ms. Evans’ name with some clownish nickname and thereafter using said nickname as much as possible, I found it difficult to find where your real rebuttal was.

    There are ways you could have taken the higher ground regarding this issue, but you avoided all of them. Please, for the sake of all things properly Christ-like, reconsider what you have written here. It makes you appear quite malicious.

  • Ah, so THIS is the Christian idea of brotherly (or sisterly, in this case) love. Oh, it’s not? Well, then I was unaware of the fact that spite and malice were fruits of the spirit. Wasn’t it Jesus who said that when an “evil person” strikes you, you are to turn the other cheek (Matthew 5:39)?

    This is my first time reading material from both you and RHE. And, really? “Just give me one sec while I put on my pointy stilettos, my biggest rings, and call my sister . . . and then we can step down the alley here”… Because that sounds Christian AND ladylike. You’d think that a woman educated in the ways of both logic and rhetoric would be able to come up with a better way to address a challenger than use such logical fallacies as ad hominem, straw man, and red herring.

    So thanks A TON, Rebekah, for reminding me why I made the transition from Christianity to Atheism. I was starting to wonder for a little bit but this amazing display of restraint and Christian principles really solidified it for me.

    Peace.
    -Hannah

  • I’ll add that what Rachel did to this guy’s writing is exactly what Christian culture does with all things both in and out of the Bible: take a single passage out of context and focus intensively on it. While what Rachel got out of that passage may not have been what was intended, that is exactly how all things Christian are done. That is how a single sentence in a letter written by Paul or any other Apostle/prophet gets ripped out to excuse any number of atrocities. It does not matter what the intent of the author was, what matters is that the words were written. Those words, once published, are permanent and can be used any way the *reader* chooses to.

    This is precisely why more thought needs to be placed into what one chooses to publish. If the writer is that easily misunderstood, it reflects on the writer’s lack of clarity rather than the reader’s lack of understanding.

  • Can I just say, that was awesome! I loved every word!

  • Your comments are incredibly rude and snarky. Given your father’s response to my comment on Jared Wilson’s blog (he referenced rampaging Huns, Nazis, tin foil ears, and told me I needed ESL classes), I’m not surprised. Of course, I’m just a squeaky-voiced feminist, so I’m sure you’ll dismiss me too.

  • The tone of posts like this, as well as that of the debate/discussion/diatribe on this topic, are why I want nothing to do with churches anymore. Church is no longer about becoming Christ’s disciple, but about having correct doctrine, and then extending the influence of that doctrine over others by using the political realm. I no longer care about who has the “right” doctrines anymore (since both sides have some wild misses of the target), I’m just going to concentrate on learning what “I desire mercy, not sacrifice” means as best I can.

  • Coming to your father’s defense is understandable. But this is the most excoriating, condescending and spiteful thing I have read in years.

  • Way to go! Being ladylike doesn’t only mean perching in a Victorian sitting room and never speaking above a whisper. Being ladylike can also mean grabbing that tent peg and hammer like Jael and going to town on silly feminist rhetoric. Well done and hilarious.

  • So, some people are offended by the sneering misogyny of the language of this post, and others are maintaining that it’s some kind of clever rhetorical ploy to prove a point everyone else is too dense to understand, but what stands out to me is how incomprehensibly dorky and self-referential it makes the author seem.

  • Thanks so much for the post! My wife and I read this together (and the post by the furious femi woman). We’re having our first little girl soon. Thanks for the fine example of robust biblical femininity to point her to. Now we have another fine model of what to aim for amid many furious feminists. Thank you, too, Pastor and Mrs. Wilson for raising such a fine lady!

  • Well, I’m so disappointed I missed the Flannery O’Connor references! Perhaps it’s time to take that compilation off the shelf again….or someone could point me to the story it’s from? As an oppressed, repressed, and sometimes depressed wife, I haven’t much time that isn’t spent dutifully tending my husband’s shrine.

  • I just don’t get it–the kerfuffle, that is.

    Isn’t Pastor Wilson’s argument essentially this:

    Headship and Submission are biblical concepts displayed in marriage, period.

    Because of sin, biblical definitions of headship and submission are lost and distorted from one extreme to another (dormat wife/dominant wife, dormat husband/domineering husband)

    Because headship and submission are universal parts of marriage, they show up in the bedroom. They will either show up in the bedroom the way God intended them, or they will show up in perversion. Either way, they show up.

    And isn’t he advocating that headship and submission show up in the bedroom in the way that God intended and defines in Scripture and modeled by Christ and his church: mutual self sacrifice and love…

    Why is that so disgusting and shocking?

  • You need to stop making sense.

  • Bekka, as a Brit I am really used to hearing heavy sarcasm like this, but not amongst Christians! I do understand that you want to defend your dad who sounds from all I’ve read from you and your mum and sisters to be an amazing dad, and I bet you have a sharp wit by nature, but I wonder if it does glorify God to speak like this, and surely that should be our priority in everything – to glorify our Lord. Several years ago our church was torn apart by disunity, and the unloving way that Christians spoke to each other was such a stumbling block to me, a relatively immature chrisitan. I wondered if I really had found the truth when people who were meant to be brothers in Christ could be so unloving. At the same time jws began knocking on my door talking about the unity that they have in their church. I was so tempted to abandon the truth, praise God that he opened my eyes and kept my feet from stumbling, but my point is that you are speaking in public bekka, and your words can really be a stumbling block. As Christians lets speak with grace seasoned with salt, we cannot help how others speak but we can help how we ourselves speak. I was recently rebuked by a close friend after gossiping, it was hard to take, but she spoke to me in love and I saw my sin and it was actually a joy to say sorry and that I had been wrong. I hope that you can see that there is a wrong way to be right, God bless you xx

  • The thing that makes me sad about this post is that the reason for the criticism has been lost. Real people who have been abused and broken were hurt by your Dad’s choice of words. If Jared Wilson took then out of context then maybe he deserves your anger. To talk about sex as conquering and colonising is to use language of violence and oppression. These are massive triggers for the 1 in 4 women who have experienced sexual abuse, some of whom will have stumbled across Jareds blog post. To not retract language and apologise for the pain it has caused when real life brothers and sisters have bravely spoken is to do them a disservice. This shouldn’t be about Rachel Held- Evans. It should be about those amongst us who need our empathy and love. Their opinion should be held in highest regard.

  • “Unladylike”?

    This is the most uncharitable response I can imagine you coming up with. Not to mention that it completely lacks an actual response to her argument, not counting your childish defensiveness and sarcasm.

  • Temperance Movement: a group of people, mostly women, campaigning for others to use moderation when drinking alcohol. Why did they campaign? Because the women and children were the most convenient ones to beat when the (mostly) men drank too much. Not sure if this falls under “unChristian” feminism. I never understand what conservative Christians really mean when they use the word “feminist”. It usually sounds like a swear word to them, from what I can tell.

    Otherwise, I found the satire to be very well-written. Kudos to you for thick skin.

  • Are you really surprised to discover that that if you take a controversial passage out of context and post it on the internet, on a conservative religious blog that receives fairly heavy traffic, a massive firestorm will ensue?

    Did you also know if you put Mentos in Diet Pepsi you get a sodasplosion?

    We all know the interwebs is filled with crazy people who misinterpret anything they don’t want to agree with. But really…why feed the trolls? Jared Wilson made a dumb move in posting what he did.

  • What an incredibly unfruitful post. I have been on edge with this blog for quite some time- Primarily due to tone and sarcasm. I believe this was the last straw.

  • Rock ON, my friend. Rock on. I see the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree in the Wilson household and amen for that. Your generation needs you.

  • Rebekah,

    I have tried to read RHE’s posts and articles, but to this southsider from Chicago it is like nails on a chalkboard. I know a pretender when I read one. Her needs are great and her heretical ranting will grow more severe in direct proportion to her neediness. She loves attention and I’m not inclined to squander my time making her feel special.

    Please ignore the scoldings, posted here by the disciples of Furiously-Righteous. Your response was good and proper. It made my day.

    I don’t wear stilettos, but I have “walked down” an alley or two during my life. If you need company, let me know.

  • I’ve read the both the post by Rachel Evans and the original by Jared Wilson. Personally, I lead more towards Rachel Evans’s views but this post on feminagirls definitely made me agree with her. I think Rachel Evans took issue with what had been quoted, not with your Father as a person. I can definitely understand how you took her post as a personal attack on your Father (family is important to me too). But your post here was disdainful, rude and bitingly sarcastic (and not in a good way). It was a personal attack on Rachel, the individual. Anyone who has learned the basics of good logic and debate knows that personal attacks are the lowest form of argument and have no place in a logical setting.
    I know that my Mom really likes your blog and she has sent me several links that I thought were insightful and good reading. But I won’t be reading it any longer after your little outburst. It’s humiliating to read because it’s obvious that it was written in anger. Definitely “wince worthy”.

  • I loved it! You go girl! Peace to you my dear.

  • “Real people who have been abused and broken were hurt by your Dad’s choice of words.”

    And real people who have been abused and broken have been tremendously blessed by by Pastor Wilson’s teaching, because it is exactly the opposite of abuse. Here’s the review of Fidelity I wrote several years ago:

    “As I was working my way through the Canon Press family series I went ahead and read Fidelity. Although it’s written for men, I think many (though not all) Christian women will find, as I did, that it is a useful corrective to the misinformation they’ve been assaulted with all their lives. It’s not that I learned anything new or surprising about sex in this book; it was more that, especially in the last chapter, Mr. Wilson creates a picture of godly sexuality that puts all the old information into the right context and in the right proportions — like reassembling a Picasso into a Rembrandt.

    “I wasn’t sure if I should read this book — it might as well have a ‘No Girls Allowed’ sign on it — but I am glad I did. Someone needs to write a version that women aren’t afraid to buy or read. (Yes, I’ve read Elisabeth Elliot’s books, but they aren’t quite on the same level.) Ironically, it may be the very desire to protect the purity of Christian women that tends to keep such a purifying book out of the hands of those whom it might benefit. Granted, women who were lovingly shielded from exposure to what the world has to say (and show and tell) about sex probably don’t need it, so Fidelity might do them more harm than good. But for women to whom the harm has already been done — by their own sin or others’, by misinformation or abuse, by media or ‘education’ — it should be considered as a possible curative. For me, reading Fidelity was like giving my soul a long-needed bath.”

    By the way, if anyone actually wants to read this excellent book, you can find it at alibris.com (http://www.alibris.com/booksearch?keyword=fidelity&author=douglas+wilson&title=fidelity) or abebooks.com (I won’t add the second link, or my comment will get stuck in the moderation queue).

  • Bring It On Sista!!

    Oh Bekah, I love you!! Hilarious! Way to put on your big girl panties and take a run at the bulls.

    Christians are the most sensitive, lack luster group of people, and it is such a shame. We are so afraid to sneeze, cause it might offend someone. In the mean time we are about
    as hot and lively as pond water, and just as refreshing and live giving to the people around us. Who wants to follow pond water to battle? No thanks! I don’t!

    I wish I had the time to whip out all the verses in the bible of Christ ridiculing and mocking the pharisees, or the odd use of bathroom humor God uses in the older books of the Bible, but I will just take the opportunity to enjoy this rare and wonderful occasion of a Christian woman acting like she actually believes God and stands tall in the view of the her ridiculous advisories.

    Matt above is right on the $$$
    “Answer a fool according to [her] folly, or [she] will be wise in her own eyes” (Prov. 26:5).

    Way to answer the fool Bekah!
    What I would have paid to actually see you say this out loud, and in person. And in the stilettos, of course.

    I’d be honored to get your back if you ever have need!

  • I love how so many people on these comments are angry about the satire in this post and how passionate she writes, but then they attempt to do the same thing in their comments, only less intellectually. So ridiculous. This post is an honest, awesome response to the situation. I love it.

  • I’ve always felt that the comments section was for people like those in a restaurant who overhear parts of a conversation at the next table and feel the need to insert themselves where they have little business. So let me do the same and say, aren’t we being like those who overhear parts of a conversation at the next table and feel the need to insert ourselves? Can we leave this to the aforementioned Wilsons and RHE to figure out?

  • Yep. Turns out, Rachel Held Evans has not made a friend in Rebekah Wilson. I will have to shoot her a quick text to not get her hopes up for a Christmas card this year. I’m afraid that the Furiously-Righteous-Wilson has transitioned into her squeaky voice, and we all know what happens when a woman gets squeaky. (And to be perfectly frank, this is a level of squeak rarely caught on camera since the Temperance Movement.) This subtle and yet unmistakable change in tenor almost unfailingly means that a woman is gearing up to hold a grudge of mammoth proportions, and this is what leads me to believe that Rachael Held Evans has been scratched off her Furiously-Righteous Christmas list. In fact, she’s gone to the length of getting out her tempera paints and poster board, and is hard at work organizing a trade union strike against Rebekah Wilson and all he stands for. She’s stamping her little foot over there on her blog, and she means business.

    So it would have perhaps been better for Rebekah Wilson if she hadn’t gone quite so public with a blog post that makes it clear to the meanest intelligence that she can’t follow an argument to save her life, and her ability to research appears to be completely nil. I mean, if you don’t want people to think you aren’t as gifted intellectually, then for heaven’s sakes don’t give them blog posts in which you demonstrate your inability to think your way out of a paper bag. Just sayin’ . . .

  • I can’t believe that with a title like “them’s fightin’ words” people are so determined to read it with their serious faces on. I had giggles before I even read the rest. Cmon! Even Ms Evans would surely have to have a little laugh at her silliness after reading that.

    Valerie, I totally agree with you! I haven’t read Fidelity, just the snippet that has caused all the uproar. I was sexually abused as a child, for a number of years, but rather than being in a heap after reading Mr Wilson’s little snippet I think “phew, thank God for men like that!” My husband is one of them, and I am grateful for men who love and live biblical masculinity, and love and protect their wives and their girls. Hooray!

  • Wow. I was reading around about this situation, with no particular horse in the race, but this mean-spirited attack on someone who is rightfully pointing out a problem is… well, it is shameful. You do your father a disservice by attempting to defend him in such a lowbrow manner… and I don’t care who’s right or wrong at the top level. However, Bekah, you are most definitely wrong. I hope that you repent in haste. I’ve not seen a more disheartening display of vitriol toward a fellow Christian in ages, and it certainly doesn’t encourage me.

    Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen. And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice. Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.

    Bekah, I pray that you will take these words to heart and learn from this cringeworthy post, remembering that everything on the internet is permanent these days. Perhaps someday you’ll look back at this youthful mistake and keep it in your head as a reminder to work on being kind and compassionate with your fellow Christians.

  • Hi Bek,

    Very well done. I agree with Jen above. “Your generation does need you”. Keep up all the good work.

  • I loved this post! Thanks, Bekah! It cracks me up that people accuse you of not answering Ms. Evans’s arguments, or of ‘trying’ by talking about what kind of man your father is. What better argument is there than the testimony of a well-loved daughter regarding the consistent, faithful, gospel living of her father? Could we turn it into a syllogism? Well, not exactly, but so what? There are more kinds of arguments than those that can be broken down into A’s, B’s, C’s, and ergo’s.

    Also, I feel extremely sorry for Ms. Evans. If she and her husband had a true understanding of submission and headship, she wouldn’t be saying such things. The pain caused by an abdicating husband is clear in her tirade, the pain caused by a woman trying to lead a man lazy enough to let her.

    Bottom line — Mr. Evans needs to grow a pair and love his wife like Christ loves His church.

  • Get OVER it people! Read Rebekah’s post a second time and you should, one might HOPE, begin to perceive the comic value the author intended. Oh, but wait. You didn’t get the point that was lost in Douglas’ quoted text–no matter how many times others have tried to explain it to you. Why would you suddenly get it now?

  • P.S. In reading some of your other work (linked below), I hope you take your own advice from this post and confess your sin here publicly, in a post. I sincerely doubt that you’ll listen to me, since you don’t know me, but the idea that you have a whole tag devoted to you “spouting off again” is pretty indicative of the fact that you and the rest of the folks who run this blog realize you have problems holding your tongue. Use your words! Use them to confess here, now, as soon as possible! Turn to God. Run from sin.

    http://www.feminagirls.com/2012/01/12/masking-anger-as-justice/#more-3977

  • My favorite critical comment was the one asking if your dad taught you to blog as well as logic, Latin, rhetoric, theology, and philosophy. Obviously he did because you blog just like him!

  • To be honest, I am still digesting much that I have read these last three days. I’ve always enjoyed reading and hearing Doug, but still work to fully comprehend some things and even have doubts about a few. (I figure I’m better off being uncertain on some things as it is hard to be humble when you know everything.)

    As long as Doug’s detractors knowingly insist on imputing meaning and motive inconsistent with his own statements and context they deserve much of the criticism and ridicule they receive. I have not yet seen any of them indicate any attempt at direct engagement with him regarding the issues yet most are certain that they have exhaustive understanding of his views and motives, EVEN when he directly states otherwise.

    As I reviewed the blogs and comments the last few days I mostly saw false claims regarding his views and an arrogant insistence that all “biblical” views other than their own fall into a general category of Patriarchal-Backwoods-Wife-Beater-Rapist. Since they make the rules and create the categories then they are always going to be right and everyone else wrong! QED.

    References to Idaho, the Wild West, slavery, and a particularly egregious connection between slavery and rape are faulty attempts to smear Wilson and discredit everything he says. It is ironic that exact same type of smear attempts have been applied to Wilson all along, and even the false accusations that he is for race based slavery based on the same absurd rhetoric.

    As for Rebekah’s post, as it is intended as satire it should be judged as such. As good or bad satire. Those who can’t do so need to learn, or at least let it be what it is. Those who can but refuse to acknowledge it as such are simply stubborn and rebellious.

    As for those who insist on getting meaning out of Rebekah’s post that is not there, such as “Then you bragged about your formal training in logic.”, this is absurd and stubbornly stupid. If you can’t get this straight then it is time to give up. If you are not responding to what is actually said then you might as well give us the stats from a sport we have never heard of or tell us about the good time you had at the Lady Gaga concert. They might be more interesting.

  • Bekah,

    While I agree that both posts took your Father’s writing out of context, and you have every right to voice your feelings that your Father’s name has been unfairly associated with sentiments that he does not hold, the tone of your post is just so cruel and mean-spirited that you undermine what would otherwise have been a reasonable objection.

    Likewise, some commenters seem to have seen this post as an excuse for nasty personal attacks, and there is no justification for this. Perhaps if we feel there are qualities that others are failing to show we should lead by example.

  • Oh, geez, you mean its just satire and lols for days? It’s all just kicks and giggles at Rachel Held Evans’ expense? Perfect. I guess I’ll go back to passing notes in math class now. Psst! There’s gonna be a chick fight after school behind the bleachers between Rebekah Wilson and her furiously-righteous version of Rachel Held Evans. Be there or be adults.

  • Oh honey. This was embarrassing. I spent this whole time assuming it was written by a high school student and here I find out you’re not in high school at all and that you actually have children?

    Seeing the result of your dad’s training in logic, I can only hope you don’t home-school your children. And that you and your husband are setting aside enough money for the therapy they will all inevitably need.

  • Jim,

    “Egalitarians” and “Complementarians” have been debating for nigh on a quarter century – and it will never end. Egalitarianism is a parasite colonizing Evangelicalism. I’ve been on the inside of this “debate” (on both sides, long story) for about 15 years and I can tell you that it will never end until the inaptly named Egalitarianism has taken over the host Evangelicalism. That this colonization has been almost completed is evident in the breathless/hysterical claims of physical revulsion at perfectly mundane expressions of what should be obvious.

    Esteemed Valerie, I am so thankful you have chimed in. You and I both have experienced love, warmth and safety among what the enemies of the good, the true and the beautiful claim are domineering and abusive men. I call this the Tardis paradox – I am sure Chesterton had something to say about this, but I can’t find the quote – our world is ever so much bigger and more beautiful on the inside than it often looks from the outside.

  • If “your world” looks so much different on the outside than on the inside, that is a problem. And what is “your world” anyway? I don’t think you are talking about the Church as a whole, as opposed to outside the church. And who exactly are the “enemies” of the good, the true and beautiful? Other Christians who disagree with you about some aspect of this admittedly LARGE issue (that seems to grow larger with every passing minute)?

  • Douglas Wilson is welcome to his opinion on gender roles, but if there is an actual Biblical context to “A man penetrates, conquers, colonizes, plants.” that contradicts the idea of a consensual, respectful mutuality between men and women, then I’d like to hear it. I would expect that much from one taught “formal logic” and “rhetoric”. Oh, and without the ad-hominems this time.

  • This post has done more to elucidate the complementarian position against women teaching than anything I’ve read before.

  • Dear Commenters,
    To be honest, I got tired of hearing the same thing. “I’m shocked! Thank you for reminding me why I became an Atheist! Confess your sin publicly!” I finally just stopped reading your complaints…. apparently everyone’s gotta put in their two cents! If you have a problem, why don’t you email her about it instead of doing the same thing you accuse her of – belittling in public!!!!! I’m just wondering why it’s such a problem for a Christian woman to defend her family. When did it become such a “Christian ideal” to take constant emotional and verbal beatings from other people, always “turning the other cheek” and call it “grace”? We are called as Christians to stand up for righteousness – sometimes that comes from not answering the fool according to his folly, but sometimes it DOES come from answering a fool according to his folly! (remember Proverbs 26:4-5?) Biblical Femininity does not base itself on weakness, rather strength of heart, mind, and character. You also might want to check out the update blog post – We might not want to admit it, but women ARE good at playing the victim and the “how dare you!” cards, and this RHE woman is especially adept at it. I’m glad someone had the guts to call her out on it.

    Dear Bekah,
    Your dad’s character speaks for itself. Unfortunately, nobody can see past the plank in their own eye. I’ll bet this woman didn’t see the Wilson women coming, or she might have adjusted her tactics. Thank you for proving her wrong! :)

  • I may be a bit late in responding, but I wanted to tell you Miss Becka, that this post and the resultant lively “arguments” makes me want to read your father’s stuff even MORE! I won’t say much about those who have, in a sense, “shunned” you for not being perfectly angelic about the situation, including the one atheist who used your one snark-like post as confirmation to avoid Christianity all together, as if you don’t find such things in the secular world! Either they’re flat out lying, or got scared that Christians are human and can bite back sometimes.

    You actually remind me of the older people in my church who have that same kind of humor that people either absolutely love or absolutely hate. We’re all stupid, emotional, hypocritical people who make mistakes, and the worst thing we can do is get all high and mighty and condemn someone for being HUMAN. Gasp! While claiming we’re above such shenanigans. I guess that’s why God invented humor.

    I don’t know if your response was the best, but it got my attention and made me think. See how God can make good out of bad? I do. I’ll admit, for all my dad’s flaws, if someone made a personal attack like this Miss Rachael did, I’d be jumping to his defense as well, public or not. It would’ve been one thing if she were merely miffed at something your father wrote, whether it was taken out of context or not, and she merely wrote her opinion (with anger and name-calling if she wishes), but its another to call others to get angry and launch a boycott on everything under his name. Its almost like she’s saying, “Don’t read anything he writes and form your own opinion!”

    Oh and that “turn the other cheek” thing someone pointed out? (I think it was the same atheist) The way I understand its actually an act of defiance. Supposedly, Jesus was referring to someone backhanding you, like was often done to a child or a slave or someone you considered beneath you back then, and the turning of the cheek was basically daring the person to strike them with the inside of their hand, in other words, acknowledge them as an equal. Its to make a statement that your worth something, opinions, flaws, and all. Jesus wasn’t exactly quiet and many would consider his rhetoric to be less than angelic, but he put obedience to God first.

    I read your “Daddy Issues” post after this one, and yes that curtain rod can hit us pretty hard on the head sometimes. But it doesn’t excuse everyone else involved either. That “judge not, lest ye be judged” mantra can apply here: go ahead and judge, but be prepared to be judged in turn (oh, and watch out for the curtain rod too!). Just make sure its something you’re willing to take the heat for, and it looks like you’re taking it well so far in your own human way.

    I wish I could’ve been brave like this when I was younger. I was, in a sense, abused, but not by family members. It was at school. I was made to feel worthless and any little wrong thing I did was used as reinforcement to keep me down. Any outburst I had as a result of not wanting to take it anymore was used in the same way. I eventually developed what they now call selective mutism (being mute in certain situations). I became quiet and withdrawn in most situations and tried to be a perfect little angel. I was very hard on myself when I wasn’t and even imagined God rejecting me as well. Not a very healthy way for a little girl to live. As for my parents, they didn’t believe me until the damage had already been done. I should’ve been more assertive.

    Despite going through great changes since that time, I’m still dealing with certain issues when it comes to telling others my opinion. I think I’d rather do what you did here than nothing at all, but I’m not quite that brave yet.

    Okay, I’ll stop now. :)

    ~Lily~

  • Samantha,

    The only problem here is the feminist spirit which prevents so many from submitting to the Father from whom every father on earth gets his name. The biblical order of things is not, “explain everything so it makes sense to me before I can believe”. No, the biblical order of things is “repent and believe”.

    By the way, the other “christians” aren’t disagreeing with me. They are disagreeing with the Father, His Son and the Holy Spirit as well as His revelation, both written and natural as well as Christ’s Bride, the Church whom the Holy Spirit has been guiding for two millennia.

  • Then we see the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. Impassioned response that actually has NO LOGICAL REBUTTAL to the arguments from Rachel OR your dad. Your best argument is that he raised you. Really? Want to join in the logical, intelligent discussion and use verses, examples, text, etc. to defend your dad or just emotion.

    Let’s take it out of the context of Rachel Evans’ response – what are Biblical reasonings and true basis for your opinion. When you respond with passion, which is great, but no logic, no intellect, and no facts other than “he’s my dad”, basically, you lose credibility and have very little ground to stand on.

    While I admire you defending your dad, you don’t seem to have any handle at all on what he wrote, what the firestorm is about, how he handled it, and what Rachel’s post actually was. Again, if you don’t cite facts, you don’t gain people who support your opinion, and unfortunately, will make you a target of their anger.

    One question: if your dad was so right on target, why didn’t he respond to requests for clarification, or defend himself BEYOND emotion and defensiveness, evasiveness?

    Honestly, if your dad taught you what he wrote about, and was quoted as saying, you have a very sad submissive sex life.

    Jesus died so women could take crap from their husbands, and give them what they require in the area of sex? Really? Maybe you and your dad both need to spend a few days in CHRISTIAN counseling centers around the world to see what this does to men, women, and marriages. I would like to refer you to Christian counselor Leslie Vernick who seems to truly have a great handle on the abuse that happens in Christian marriages because of teachings like this.

    I am with others here that I will not be back.

  • My favorite Chesterton quote has been much in my mind these past couple of days:

    “People generally quarrel because they cannot argue. And it is extraordinary to notice how few people in the modern world can argue. This is why there are so many quarrels, breaking out again and again, and never coming to any natural end.”

    What gave me an extra chuckle just now was the recollection of the original context of a discussion involving lady novelists, which is, of course where our current shebang began, as well!

  • I am wondering how being so sarcastic and speaking so poorly of another person is glorifying to God and an example of Christian grace. Because while I may agree with the post on a theological level, the snarky comments and lack of grace very quickly turned me off.

  • Man, the comments here are crazy. When someone says something ignorant and hateful and then says “The other Chrisitans aren’t disagreeing with me, they are disagreeing with the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit,” I don’t know whether I should point out that they just declared themselves to be God or just give up.

    But really, this post is tripe. It demeans women. It props up a damaging culture that hurts women.

    Let me put it more simply.

    Rebekah: You are hurting women. The things you say and the way you say them hurt women. They cause actual, real hurt in real people’s hearts. Your dad is hurting women, too.

    If he didn’t really blame egaltarianism for rape, that’s fine. But a lot of people took that from his words. He was asked to clarify. He didn’t, but instead chose to belittle the women he hurt and insult their intelligence.

    Please get off your high horse and try sharing the love and healing that you’ve found in Christ with other people. Please stop with the vitriolic, sardonic language that does nobody any good except feeding your own ego.

  • Oh wow, I thought this was written by a 13-year-old girl until I clicked on the “Welcome!” section and read the bios. Yikes. Rebekah uses such silly arguments, I assumed she was still growing up and figuring out appropriate ways to respond to disagreements.

  • I like you hyphenated Ms. Furiously-Righteous. That is probably the best subtle part of this whole post.

  • I think it’s interesting to see the two views of Jesus in these comments. One side clearly has a different Jesus than the other side. The one is the biblical Jesus who actually lived and lives today, and the other one had a show on PBS with a trolly and the land of make-believe. Unfortunately, the latter one can’t actually save you.

  • Spot on, Hodge.

  • Nice point Hodge. Elijah made fun of Baal and the prophets of Baal and God destroyed them all. The modern christ (sic) of every age should also be made fun of or we are giving more honor to them than to God. Only the Christ that roared everything into existence and then died, by choice, to redeem us deserves any honor at all, and He deserves all honor, not just some of it.

    A big problem in this whole controversy is something said many times before; We take man too seriously, and God not seriously enough.

  • You sound just as ignorant, condescending and misogynistic as your father with this post. Hopefully one day you’ll stop drinking the Kool-Aid and realize you’re worth more than what the people you’ve aligned yourself with want you to believe you are. Good luck, sister.

  • This is probably the most childish and downright cruel responses I’ve ever read. I do understand wanting to defend your family, but wow, you could not have gone about it in a worse way. Rachel Held Evans is an articulate and intelligent woman who has a strong devotion to her faith and her fellow sisters in Christ, and you basically spent this entire post personally attacking her like a schoolyard bully. She didn’t attack your father as a person, she took issue with his choice of words in that initial Gospel Coalition post. People have been hurt by those words and Rachel is not the bad guy for pointing that out. You and your father just end up looking worse at the end of all this. I doubt that’s what you intended but alas sometimes the things we intend aren’t always the actual outcome.

  • Kamilla, we are called to repent and believe THE GOSPEL. That does not translate into accepting a particular interpretation of proper Christian male/female sexuality. And I am not disagreeing that there are right and proper spheres for men/women/wives/husbands. But it really takes chutzpah to insinuate that anyone who disagrees with the Wilson brand of Biblical Lifestyle Studies is disagreeing with God Himself.

    And for the record, I have kinda the opposite story to yours…I came from a non-Christian family and considered myself a feminist, and after I became a Christian I got into the whole Titus 2/Proverbs 31/Patriarchal/Prairie Muffin subculture, which I now think was an attempt to create the kind of family I never had…but guess what? That kind of family did NOT miraculously appear…my husband did not become a Vision Forum style “Family Man, Family Leader”…I did not become the kind of homemaker Mrs. Wilson insists Christian women should be…my marriage and family continued to have the same kinds of problems it always did, and which I now consider NORMAL for this fallen world. But at the time I looked at us all and wondered where I was failing because I just wasn’t getting the kind of “results” a “Godly Woman” could expect. So, I looked again at all this Christian Family stuff and realized it consisted mostly of teachings of men, was adding to God’s word, and was a serious threat to our understanding of grace.

    I am still a homeschooling “keeper at home” (exactly where I think I should be) but I continue to struggle with all the things a wife and mother “should” have a better handle on. In fact, for the past 5 years I have been getting WORSE at most “Biblical Womanhood” things…I am scattered, inefficient, less able to handle domestic duties, you name it. And here I am, a 43 year old woman with 16 years of Christianity under her belt, with 5 kids ages 1-18, practically a candidate for a Titus 2 Older Woman – and all I could tell a younger woman about how to be a keeper at home, how to love her husband and children, etc. is to keep hold of Jesus Christ and His work while you go about your days.

    Because no matter how hard we try (I would tell her) our husbands will not always be pleased with us, we will not always enjoy every fleeting moment with our children, we will be discouraged by the seeming futility of it all, we will weep with discouragement, we will be lonely surrounded by our people, we may fall into depressions that last years. I would tell her not to let all these so-called failures steal the joy from her life or dim the love she has for her family and for God, or cause her to discard talents she has in the name of a false gospel. This has happened to me, and in great part I blame that on my years of immersion in the Godly Family literature.

  • Excellent response. I’m still laughing. I suppose that says a lot about me. he he he.

  • As a gospel believer who submits to the Biblical model of male-female relationships (I am a husband and father), I would note two things. First, even if I accept the technical point your father made, the language is most unfortunate. The primary role of a man, is to be a servant – in fact, in “penetrating” and seeking pleasure, he is to seek his wife’s pleasure, even above his, preferring her above himself even against against God-given natural desires. There is of course leadership to be had by the man, but it is servant leadership – otherwise it is not Christlike. Second, while the other blogger perhaps cannot argue out of a paper bag, your sarcasm and insults are not becoming of a professing believer. Now before you claim righteous anger and how Jesus cleansed the Temple, I would note that we are not Jesus. And, even when Jesus was blunt with the Pharisees, he always addressed their hearts, and did not insult their intelligence level, or ability to use logic. This was a sad display of how to provide a counter argument that ought to remain gracious and humble. Please encourage us with Scriptural arguments, not sarcastic lines meant to barely amuse.

  • Dear everyone defending this post because it is “satire”: Satire and sarcasm are not the same thing. Satire requires wit, and usually a degree of fondness for that which you are satirizing. Sarcasm requires only disdain.

  • Samantha,

    First, I am not advocating any particular school or teacher. I’m simply pointing out that feminists are not disagreeing with me. They are disagreeing with God himself. I’m not God (as one commenter seems to think I’ve claimed) but I do endeavor to stand where God commands me to stand and that is *not* with the feminists.

    Also, no one I have ever heard or read has even hinted it is about results -or- that women ate supposed to hide their talents. Not sure where that idea came from.

    I hope to post a fuller response on my own blog on Saturday.

  • Sometimes you finally put two and two together. Like when you suddenly realize a word in English comes from a word in French, that comes from a word in Latin, and you wonder why it never occurred to you before.

    I’m gonna go out on a limb here (a limb that I hope won’t do any crazy numbers on me, since I’m not keen on heights), and guess that all the egalitarian folk have some kind of beef with the authority of Scripture. You’re not the boss of me!

  • I posted a comment yesterday that says it is still awaiting moderation, which says more about the original issue than my last comment did, and has some things to say to the issue of “well, you are disagreeing with God, not me” …since it was no “nicer” than my first two I am assuming it was not “rejected” but is just gumming up the works for some reason (I still see it on my computer as “being moderated”) I am going to post it again here and see if it shows up.

    “The problem with pulling out the “Jesus used irony and sarcasm” card is that Jesus was always coming from a place of TRULY “righteous” indignation, and that’s not necessarily the case with us. It’s sooooo easy to assume that we are the Jesus figure and the person we disagree with is the Pharisee. But even if we are correct in our position, we always speak as one sinner to another, so we have to be careful. Regarding humor in the Bible – it is definitely there, and as a Jew, I always think it is hysterical how some of it reads like so-called “Jewish humor” today (“were there no graves in Egypt, oy vey…at least there was food”.) But I didn’t find this post funny at all, and I tend towards sarcastic humor myself…in fact, I have spent years teaching myself how to employ it without being insulting. Believe me, it is difficult, and this author has failed spectacularly.

    Now, on to the whole issue of 50 Shades of Grey, “kinky” sexuality, and Doug Wilson’s words quoted at the Gospel Coalition blog. I come from a background of inappropriate sexuality, and in fact cut my sexual teeth on very explicit pornography, both visual and written – we are talking from about 8 years old I was saturated in the stuff, thanks to my stepfather’s vast collection. So I know that pornography basically instills a taste for sinful sexual expression – how much erotica is just a description of two married people touching each other and enjoying the physical sensations? I don’t know if it even exists – porn is all about deflowering the virgin or overpowering an unwilling woman or using violence in the sex act or (insert your favorite or most disturbing porn image – I will spare you mine). The fact that some Christians defend this as an appropriate way to “keep the spice in your marriage” has always shocked me, since what you are doing is training yourself to be sexually aroused by sinful things.

    With that said, I admit that I agree with the folks who find the whole “penetration, colonization, planting” image to be extremely disturbing emotionally and sexually, as well as just plain not a Biblical depiction of “right” sexuality. What no one seems to be saying is that the sexual appetites even of the redeemed are tainted by sin. Thankfully many people managed to escape my experiences with porn and have therefore had a more “normal” and less baggage-ridden sexual life, but we can be sure that none of us experience our sexuality in the pure way it was undoubtedly expressed before the Fall. So, yes, rape is a result of sin. But that does not translate into the idea that there is proper “God-honoring” conquering and submission that “should” characterize healthy Christian sexual expression, and which, when squelched, LEADS to rape.

    But both Doug and Nancy Wilson’s books are notorious for painting this lovely picture of how a Christian life “should” look on just about every level, and making it seem like proper “obedience”. They are also experts at “unpacking” a Scripture until what they are taking out of the suitcase is actually the Emperor’s invisible clothes. I am not saying that they never have any good commentary, but I would not recommend their books to anyone. All they did for me was lead me further away from grace and run me smack-dab into a Wall of Legalism, more formidable than the Berlin wall ever was.

  • Kamilla, I am not necessarily saying that every book of this stripe promises “results” like a weight loss program or something, but they so often make it seem like only x/y/x type of role fulfillment will bring glory to God…Mrs. Wilson specifically says in Praise Her In the Gates (page 99)that Christians should have the cleanest homes on earth, and that is not optional – and it is the woman who is supposed to insure that. So, when that didn’t happen in my life, under my Godly guidance, that eventually caused me severe guilt – but NOT true moral guilt (as Francis Schaeffer would call it), but unnecessary guilt because, well, the statement is an out-and-out lie and I took it to be truth. So, what I mean by results is the idea that my spiritual health was directly linked to, say, how clean I was able to keep my house (another direct idea from PHITG)…the results being so-called fruit *I* could expect to bear (in this case, the fruit of a clean (not merely tidy) house IF I were in Good Enough Spiritual Shape.

  • It seems to me that most of the comments ‘rebuking’ Rebekah are done in the manner in which the ones leaving the comments claim Rebekah has sinfully done. I honestly think most of these offended ones are upset because the Wilsons actually think about what they say, they read and study God’s word, and apply it to every day life. Most Christians today would rather live ignorantly with a mantra of Ignorance is Bliss- if they don’t know it’s wrong, then it must be right.

    I’m so happy my daughter will have Mr. Wilson as a teacher this coming school year. And I’m happy this blog exist and encourages women in true godly, feminine behavior.

  • @Samantha, Wow….I completely agree with you. Thank you.

  • I agree with Wendi above. I did not have an opportunity to read the background of this debate, but this post displays a lack of humility or grace. I was shocked at the mean sarcasm.

  • Wow. I’m not at all sure how this post was supposed to contribute to civil conversation between brothers and sisters.

  • @Samantha, let me clarify what I agree with:

    I agree that we are to repent and believe THE GOSPEL. That is what brings us into a right relationship with God. period. Justification is a one time thing. It’s declared and it’s done and we’re righteous when we believe in Christ for the forgiveness of our sins.

    Sometimes it does seem that the Wilsons and followers advocate a kind of Gospel AND. Ya know, Gospel AND homeschooling, Gospel AND homemaking, Gospel AND complementarianism, etc. So, if someone believes the Gospel but doesn’t believe in these particular practices, they aren’t right with God. When in fact, our rightness with God depends SOLELY on the shed blood of Christ. Nothing more. An egalitarian Christian who believes that Jesus Christ’s shed blood alone makes them righteous before the Father is a Christian. And should be treated as such.

    Practices and Principles are two different things and need to be kept separate as we walk out this Christian life.

  • and one more clarification (I’m thinking through this as a make cinnamon rolls during nap time :))….

    The Wilsons probably have not said explicitely what I mentioned above (Gospel AND…), but there is a noticeable lack of Gospel motivation in much of what I’ve read on this blog and in their books. If it’s really all grace, then we don’t need to make rules for ourselves that the Bible doesn’t make…like getting the laundry done perfectly, keeping a perfect house, having perfectly obedient children, never ever ever speaking disrespectfully to our husbands. These are all good, but without the gospel to inform us when we fail–because oh do we fail or what?!–we will just be navel-gazing self condemners with no eye to the work of Christ, or pompous pharisees….neither what God desires. He desires a frail vessel, filled with and equipped by Christ, fully accepted by God in Him alone (not through works of the law–read Galatians).

  • We should all quickly observe some points about what Rachel had to say:

    - The rather incredible amount of ad hominem attacks which don’t actually negate the validity of any of the points that Doug Wilson made.
    - Rachel sure has a lot to say about why everything Doug Wilson stands for is reprehensible, horrible, ect, but she fails to provide a reason as to why we should assume her moral judgement on the matter is correct.
    - Rachel fails to provide us with any reason as to why her points on this whole “subject” are valid. I smell her post-modernist cologne at her core.

  • May I suggest that a lot of views here are unnecessarily black and white. Some here seem to believe that one has to be morally right and rude. Others seem to think that by being rude, your moral base is wrong. Here’s what I believe Jesus calls us to – we can say the truth, and do so in love. We can preach about women submitting to their husband’s authority, but can choose words the build up. We can emphasize that the major problem is not women rising up, it is men sitting down.

  • CNB,

    You said, “Practices and Principles are two different things and need to be kept separate as we walk out this Christian life.” To live in such a manner would be to live hypocritically. The principles by which we live necessarily govern our practices. And the process of working out/walking the Christian life (i.e. putting into practice the principles of Scripture) is sanctification–or what you rather flippantly referred to as “ya know, Gospel AND.” I believe you may be confusing sanctification with justification in your comments, since justification is based solely on the work of Christ and the grace of God.

    None of the Wilsons believe that we are saved by works… or and-works. They do, however, believe that if we love God, we will obey His commands; we will bear fruit; and we will strive for (though never until glorification attain) perfection. That is what the Bible teaches. Praise the Lord for His mercy and grace!

    If you do not agree with their every application of God’s word in the home, that is a separate issue. There may (or may not be) room for Christian liberty in terms of practice, which are still in keeping with the principles. But, ultimately, God’s word is the final authority.

  • Wow. I’ve now read several posts on both sides of the debate and this post takes the cake as the most emotionally driven, least Christ-like post of them all. Talking in this way does nothing for your message.

  • Rebecca Wakefield

    Dianna Anderson with “The Writer’s Burden”

    “My point is this, so as my meaning is absolutely clear: Words mean things. And they may not always be interpreted as what we intend when we as writers choose them.The onus is upon the writer to own up to the fact that their words hurt when a reader pipes up and says, “Hey, that’s not good.” The proper response is not to say “You’re not reading it right!” but instead to go back, look at the words in the context in which they were given to the reader and figure out how this reader arrived at their interpretation. And even if it doesn’t make sense to you right away, the proper response is not to leap into the defensive and accuse them of wrongly interpreting things, but to let them know that you are taking what they’ve said into account, reexamining what you said, and then actually examining and being introspective about your choices.”

  • Wow! I loved this post. Witty, intelligent, feisty, satirical; all qualities I thought were absent in evangelical lady-advocates of submission. RHE, on the other-hand, the standard-bearer for Christian liberals, seems like an overbearing prude who wants to neuter the use of sexual imagery in literature and debate. It’s a Topsy Turvy world we now live in.

  • Samantha,

    I work at University of Colorado Hospital where we received 20 of the victims from last night’s shooting. In addition, the shooter’s apartment building is right across the street from our campus and he has claimed to have booby-trapped the whole building with bombs. I’ll still try to get a response up on my own blog this weekend, but I hope you will understand if I’m not in the mood for it.

    I do agree with you wholeheartedly on one point – if *anyone* says Christians should have the cleanest homes on earth, I’d probably laugh. There is no biblical warrant, either directly or by practical application of biblical directives, for the sort of obsessiveness that the superlative “cleanest” implies. I’d go even further and say that our current obsession with cleanness and germ-killing are doing frank damage to our immune systems.

    That said, I’ve never read any of Nancy Wilson’s books so I haven’t seen what you say she wrote.

  • I was raised in a conservative Laestadian Lutheran church, was trained on Proverbs 31 and Titus 2, wore skirts and long hair, fully expected to have a quiverful of kids(only 3), I am a stay at home mom, homeschooled my kids…but I count all things a loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord.

    I too was hurt by the church and what I see in all these post and comments is a lot of hurt people. Praise God that Jesus came to bind up our wounds and heal our broken hearts. I pray that I may be the vessel he uses to bring healing to another Christian brother or sister…even in my own brokenness.

    I pray, God, that you would bind up the wounds of the Wilsons (both sets), Rachel Evens, and all the hurt readers and commenters. I pray that they will hear the words of rebuke in love. I pray that you continue to work in their lives and they will allow you to complete the work that you have already begin. Most of all, Lord, I pray that you will use this mess and these blogs to lead people to the truth and bring glory to your name. I ask all of this in the Name of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and claim the promises of reconciliation and forgiveness that you have made.

  • Samantha and Kamilla,

    Shouldn’t we have the cleanest houses for the same reason we should have the most beautiful art, the bravest hearts, the most imaginative literature, etc.? We have the best reason for producing the best work in every endeavor — grateful hearts glorifying a perfect God. So we should work toward any lofty goal with joy rooted in grace, not with a craven fear of displeasing a white-gloved, purse-lipped deity or with a competitive sideways glance at the Joneses. That make Nancy’s words a little less disagreeable to you ladies?

    Love you both,

    ~V

  • Valerie,

    I was a dinner guest in the home of new friends. With dinner still on the table, not quite being finished, we heard the start of nearby July 4n firewords. Everyone jumped up from the table and drove to the stop of the hill(this was a small mountain town) to see the fireworks. No one gave a second thought to cleaning up the dinner first, or even whether it would be done before morning (we stayed on the hill and talked for some time after the fireworks ended).

    It was a parsonage with a dirt and gravel drive – children and dogs were constantly tracking mud and dust around – so it was probably never the cleanest house. The door was never locked, even when they were away, that was how “open door” they were. It was a home in which I always felt at home and always knew the peace of Christ.

    I believe that Christians should always use our time, talents and treasures wisely. I believe that means that sometimes we are called to leave the remains of dinner on the table in order to fellowship with friends or minister to those in need.

    I love you too, dear sister!

  • OK, this blasted autocorrect is even worse than the one on my iPhone!

  • If this post reflects your father’s influence at all, then I would say that Rachel Held Evans definitely pinned the tail on the donkey.

    Good call Rachel.

  • Hahaha, I am sure Nancy is not talking about making sure all bacteria are dead!!

  • “…Christians of all people should be the cleanest people (body and soul) and have the cleanest homes on earth. Why? Because we have been washed ourselves, and we understand the connection between clean spirits and clean homes.”

    She goes on from there, but that’s the main point. Of course Nancy isn’t saying that leaving the dishes to go watch the fireworks is wrong. Nor is she saying don’t let the kids track mud in or don’t feed the baby spaghetti or don’t anybody dare slough off any skin around here, because that creates dust! But the dishes get washed eventually (though not so much later that they’ve grown new life forms), the floors get mopped (and the kids get bathed), the spaghetti face gets washed (after the very cute evidence is captured on film), and the dust gets busted. Cleanliness is part of the truth, beauty, and goodness you love and know are so worthwhile pursuing!

  • While I appreciate being loyal to family, your response really doesn’t logically prove anything. I’ve counseled rape victims; its not pretty. One shouldn’t compare the beauty of marriage to rape, ever, period.

  • Mark Neuenschwander

    Your comments drip with bitterness. I can’t find one fruit of the spirit in any line. I’m sorry for you.

  • What did Bekah end up getting for her last prize-winning post? ‘Cuz she’s earned two of ‘em for this one.

  • “Your generation needs you”?

    No, thanks.

    Believe me, I’m not a Wusstian. I’d happily march into that alley to scrap it out.

    But this is just plain disgusting.

    “Our generation” feeds on sensationalism, gossip, and dust storms. So if you’re playing to that level, then yeah, you hit the target.

    First time and last time reading.

  • Valerie, I understand what you are saying about doing our best work, but really, there are times when my best work is simply refraining from checking myself into the nearest padded room!

  • Holy mean-spirited sarcasm, Batman! Your ungracious response adds nothing to the conversation. Though amusingly clever and biting (I love a good bit of sarcasm, but just a bit), name-calling only demeans you. Your anger completely overshadows your message. Now, I do understand your anger and defensiveness. However, you just sound like a pissed off junior higher, albeit a very articulate one. Maybe take a step back and try to engage the actual issues rather than using your obvious gift for writing to be an “squeeker” “stomping your little foot” yourself.

  • I agree with Adrienne – this post wins the Least Christ-like Award of any post I’ve ever read – anywhere. If there was any doubt what Doug Wilson teaches and the belief system he uses to indoctrinate, his daughters have made it crystal clear.

  • Phil, if we’re nominating stuff for awards, can I do one? For the Most On the Money, Yet Snappy Award, I nominate this comment from “The Hamburglar” on RHE’s original post: “Doug Wilson turned me into a newt.”

  • I feel you are not focused on the issue and more concerned about talking about people. You painted a picture of Rachel that does not exist. I believe she understands why you were driven to support your dad’s view but it is the view you needed talk about. People who are repeatedly under authority and not free, resort to passive-agressive behavior. You were were not defending your father’s position, you were offensively and in a manipulative way defaming Rachel’s Character.
    In a egalitarian home, like ours, my daughters go write to the person and discuss in a civilized manner the conflicting view. Living in submission all your life has taught you to act this way. I do not blame you for your actions. I blame your Father. I completely understand. This will pass, this is not your fault. Your behavior is reflective of what happens to oppressed women. Peace and Love my Sister in Christ,
    EstaAnn

  • Please don’t listen to the nincompoops (yeah, I just called some of you nincompoops) who keep posting lame comments about the “unbecoming nature” of your post and how much you’ve hurt their precious feelings.

    As your father has said in similar forums, this pathetic practice is akin to basketball players “flopping” onto the floor (for those who don’t know, it’s when in basketball a player tries to pretend like he was fouled by another player).

    If Rachel Held Evans writes a similarly oriented post, they cheer like mad. You say it, and you’re “unbecoming.”

    For pete’s sake people, cry me a river.

Comments are currently closed.