Archive for the ‘Doug Wilson’ Category

First, that from a corrupt and venomed fountain can spring no wholesome water. Secondarily, that no person has power to give the thing which does not justly appertain to themselves. [137]But the authority of a woman is a corrupted fountain, and therefore from her can never spring any lawful officer. She is not born to rule over men, and therefore she can appoint none by her gift, nor by her power (which she has not), to the place of a lawful magistrate; [138]and therefore, [those] who receive of a woman office or authority are adulterous and bastard officers before God. This may appear strange at the first affirmation, but if we will be as indifferent [impartial] and equal in the cause of God as that we can be in the cause of man, the reason shall suddenly appear. The case supposed, that a tyrant by conspiracy usurped the royal seat and dignity of a king, and in the same did so establish himself, that he appointed officers, and did what he list for a time; and in this meantime the native king made strait inhibition of all his subjects, that none should adhere to this traitor, neither yet receive any dignity of him; yet, nevertheless, they would honour the same traitor as king, and become his officers in all affairs of the realm: if after the native prince did recover his just honour and possession, should he repute or esteem any man of the traitor’s appointment for a lawful magistrate, or for his friend and true subject? Or should he not rather with one sentence condemn the head with the members? And if he should do so, who is able to accuse him of rigour, much less condemn his sentence of injustice? And dare we deny the same power to God in the like case? [139]For that woman [who] reigns above man, she has obtained it by treason and conspiracy committed against God. How can it be then, that she, being criminal and guilty of treason committed against God, can appoint any officer pleasing in his sight? It is a thing impossible.

Wherefore, let men that receive of women authority, honour, or office, be most assuredly persuaded, that in so maintaining that usurped power, they declare themselves enemies to God. If any think, that because the realms and estates thereof have given their consents to a woman, and have established her and her authority, that therefore it is lawful and acceptable before God, let the same men remember what I have said before: to wit, that God cannot approve the doing nor consent of any multitude, concluding anything against his word and ordinance; and therefore they must have a more assured defence against the wrath of God than the approbation and consent of a blinded multitude, or else they shall not be able to stand in the presence of a consuming fire. That is, they must acknowledge that the regiment of a woman is a thing most odious in the presence of God. They must refuse to be her officers, because she is a traitress and rebel against God. And finally, they must study to repress her inordinate pride and tyranny to the uttermost of their power.

http://www.swrb.ab.ca/newslett/actualNLs/firblast.htm

Advertisements

it’s not really a surprise that Don Veinot, Karen Campbell, Cynthia Gee and all the rest have sold out to liberalism. I was reminded of this Thursday night as I re-read Dr. Brian Abshires brotherly response to Veinot’s vicious slander of Abshire, Phillips, and Vision Forum.

I will make your commentary study a little easier; the quick answer is that the view that you propose here is at best about forty years old, originating in Liberal universities and mainline theological seminaries in the late 1960’s and filtering into evangelical ones in the 1970’s (because we evangelicals love to have our pastors earn degrees from prestigious academic institutions even if such institutions hate God and His Word). I know, because you see, I was there when it occurred. I was at Bethel College and Bethel Seminary in the late 1970’s when this “new view” of “mutual submission” first became popular. It was a self conscious attempt on the part of certain faculty members to “adjust” evangelical theology to make it appealing to the growing wave of feminists in the church. The fact that the term “submit” (Greek “hupotasso”) which means to be “placed under” cannot possibly be made to mean “mutual submission” was ignored; certain men wanted to adjust evangelical theology to a new generation which had a priori assumed the “truth” of feminism and therefore had to construct some kind of Biblical basis. This was little different from the Temperance movement of the 19th century who assumed a priori that alcohol was the cause of all social ills and then created a twisted, distorted exegesis to insist that the wine in the Bible is really just grape juice; even though historically, linguistically and culturally this was pure invented nonsense. But just like the “all wine is really just grape juice” so has “we are really supposed to submit to one another so nobody, especially husbands have any authority.”

The rest of Absire’s tidy response if found on his http://www.christian-civilization.org website.

(not to be confused with Slandrew umm Andrew Sandlin’s Christian Culture website)

Thought provoking

Doug Wilson dishes on gender roles…

When it comes to 1 Cor. 11:3, where we learn that God is the head of Christ, Christ is the head of man, and man is the head of woman, Wright goes with the popular (and to my mind, evasive) reading that head here means source, like the head of a river. But apart from the special pleading aspect of this, it appears to me to be special pleading that actually backfires on the egalitarian. If headship here means covenantal or federal headship, as I would want to argue, then the headship of the man incorporates and represents the woman, allowing for and requiring a perichoretic equality between the sexes. In a Trinitarian framework, submission does not mean inferiority. But this language of headship as source, when it comes to the sexes, is thin ice indeed. Taken too woodenly, this idea would lead us toward an Arian Christology, and a Muslim view of women. In other words, egalitarians need to recognize that their reading of 1 Cor. 11:3 is more conducive to the mentality of raw patriarchy than is the covenantal and representative reading. Submission to a source is more problematic than submission to a covenant representative.

 Click here for the rest of the article

One of the most bandied about charges against modern day patriarchs is that they care nothing for  evangelism. I’ve always been a bit fascinated by this accusation. It’s a bit like accusing the mechanic at a tire store of telling folks they don’t need water in their radiators. After all they only change tires; its obvious they don’t care about the rest of the car and in fact we strongly suspect them of telling people to drain their radiators because they exclude them so much.

A pastor who preaches on family roles is, well, teaching on family roles. it doesn’t mean he is teaching against street preaching or missionaries. See, wasn’t that easy!

Nancy Wilson has some interesting things to say concerning women in the ministry. Here’s a great quote:

The first question to ask and answer is, “Who is this woman’s husband?” Next we must ask many subsidiary questions. Is she fulfilling her ministry to him? Is he her priority? Is she helping him? Is her house in order? Is he leading her in this ministry? Is her identity as a Christian woman centered around her relationship to her husband?

If the answer to any of these is “no,” then her ministry is likely independent of her husband, and it is much like a separate career; but because it is “Christian,” it is somehow seen as a valid ministry. In contrast, because Scripture clearly teaches that the husband is the head of the wife, a Christian woman in ministry should clearly be seen as under her husband’s visible headship. In other words, her ministry should be visibly connected to him.

You can read the rest of Nancy Wilson’s article here .

 

Her husband Doug has an old fence-like article here.

 

 

But the masculinist egalitarian tends to assume that the broader relationship between men and women is foremost. Because of this assumption of the primacy of men generally over women generally, he assumes that every male should be prepared to lead any home, and that every female should be prepared to step into any marriage ready to follow. He also necessarily assumes that the resultant families are roughly equal in ability, status, etc .

In the hierarchical and biblical view, the relationship of women to men is first familial , and then as a consequence, a larger (and very complex) cultural and societal relationship between the sexes emerges. This means that wives are to submit to, and provide help to, their own husbands (and no one else). As a result of this submission in countless families, a larger patriarchal society will emerge. However, this patriarchal society will necessarily contain a number of women who are far more intelligent, educated, and “stronger” than numerous men. No society is truly patriarchal unless it contains a significant number of noble women, “stronger” in many ways than a number of the men.

 

Wilson does an admirable job in that article explaining the meaning of “weaker vessel” and a well defined view of submission.  I have always enjoyed Wilson’s writings on the family.

 

A friend of mine sent me this link by a guy named Taylor West who links to a session at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary that apparently asks “Is patriarchy a gospel issue?” Taylor says yes (I can’t wait to listen).

 

Dr. Russell Moore says yes here (warning, this is an hour long message). I couldn’t agree more.

This is the best message I’ve ever heard on how patriarchy is a gospel issue and when it is rejected, the gospel is rejected. As a Presbyterian, I take issue with his take on infant baptism (Moore is a Baptist), but since we both read the text in the exact same way on the bigger issue of what headship is and how it relates to what Christ done on the cross, I love this man. Dr. Moore is so astute and unashamed on this issue that I am beginning to think he may be the best man in the States today speaking to the issue. By the way, John Piper, as wonderful as he is on the issue, pales in comparison to Moore on this.

 

In response to the ladies across the way who ask the other day why us patriarchs don’t worry about training our boys to be leader types I present for your consideration.

 

 genevan

 

You can register here

 

Lastly I leave you with another quote from Dougwils.com

 

We live in an egalitarian age, an age which sees every form of subordination or submission as a kind of degradation. It is therefore customary for me to think carefully about my use of the word submission in a wedding ceremony—were there any radical feminists who were invited to the wedding and so on? The temptation is to think that radical feminists are the ones who need to have this kind of thing explained to them. But it would be closer to the truth to say that conservative Christians need to hear these things again and again, and it is because we have not lived in accordance with the Scriptures on these issues that we even have radical feminists to begin with.