You are the Man, and You Are Responsible | Doug Wilson
Вставка
- Опубліковано 18 жов 2024
- Over many years of counseling and teaching, I have discovered that one of the most difficult lessons for men to learn is the distinction between guilt and responsibility. I believe that this is a difficult lesson for any man to learn in this fallen world, but our egalitarian generation has made it many times more difficult. This has been done through its resentful revolt against masculinity itself, coupled with its signature reflex move of routinely “blaming the man.”
After a few years of being blamed for everything, it is not surprising that a “manosphere” began to take shape. Some of that was within the normal range of human reactions, making Jordan Peterson popular, while some of it was kind of out there. “You think masculinity is toxic? I’ll show you toxic.” Making Andrew Tate popular.
Given that some have taken my teaching on a man’s responsibility as being simply a pious variant of “blame the man,” I thought it best to dedicate this one blog post as something of “an explainer.” This is what I mean, and just as important, what I do not mean.
Pastor Doug Wilson's Blog and Mablog video is presented by Canon Press.
Doug, I 100% agree with what you’re saying and we as men should always take responsibility and yes it’s going to be hard but I do know it’s our calling. However, I do want to share something it has been my experience and observation that women in the church, particularly young women of this day and age and of this culture who have been very negatively influenced by it are completely allergic to any personal accountability whatsoever. It’s like kryptonite to them. I’ve had experiences with so-called Christian women who grew up in the church, who were controlling, arrogant, self righteous, emotionally abusive, arguably narcissistic, and even went as far to falsely accuse me of crimes I did not commit. Had it been I or any other man acting this way I feel we would’ve received harsh church discipline, even excommunication, but for the woman she faces no penalties for her demonic actions. Why should this also be acceptable? How can the church start holding women appropriately accountable?
Just stay far away from those young women. Pray for a wife who loves God with all her heart, mind souk and strength, who loves her neighbor as herself , who obeys the scriptures of doctrine for the body of Christ, and has a submission attitude. A meek and quiet spirit.
I know in today's "church" atmosphere it's very hard to find. I'm thinking that we as men have more opportunity in other countries. America has become a cultural Christian entertainment center. Far from truth.
You can't truly have responsibility unless you have actual authority in the situation.
Nailed it Mr. Wilson. Thank you for this humbling lesson for all husbands. Blessings in Christ.
I wish so badly I could better understand how to take responsibility for my family. I have a wife and five children and I believe this whole heartedly, but I’m stating from scratch and it’s hard. Thank you for your videos and wisdom. And all glory to God.
Seek out godly advice from godly men in your church, men who have proved themselves worthy of respect, who don’t demand it without cause.
Seek out wisdom from the Proverbs and ask the Lord to teach you His ways and give you understanding. Ask for your wife to pray for you in these areas, ask her to be in prayer throughout the day as she thinks of it to pray for you in specific areas.
And expect Satan to tempt you, to tempt you to be short with your wife, to be easily angered, to be selfish. Satan doesn’t have to try very hard with a husband who is lazy and isn’t trying. He turns up the heat on a husband that is deliberately seeking the Lord and asking the Lord to grow him. Ask prayers from your Christian brothers, tell them specifically what you need prayer for. And most of all, take responsibility for your actions/words, your lack of leadership, and be repentant to your family as needed and humbly ask forgiveness when you’ve sinned against them.
I was raised in a family that didn’t ask forgiveness, was manipulative, and all kinds of messy.
My husband and I make it a big deal for us to ask forgiveness and repent to our children when we’ve sinned against them. What a tender moment. And it teaches us as parents to pay attention to how we treat our children. It matters.
We have been granted a wonderful privilege to take care of these little ones, you as a husband have a wonderful gift of caring and providing for and nurturing a family. A tyrant can’t nurture.
Be humble. Earn respect. Cultivate a home of the Gospel.
Let your home have a sweet smelling aroma of the Word, and your family will flourish. Water them with the Word. And ask for help and guidance and prayer from men you respect and trust.
I will take a moment to pray for you and your sweet family and will meet you all of glory one day. Many blessings, brother.
My husband says he found really amazing resources on their app Canon+ and he really likes the federal husband Doug’s book. Good job working hard at it
In other places Doug has recommended starting by taking responsibility in prayer, repenting of sins your family has committed, requesting forgiveness, and guidance out of the sin. That's what I started doing and it really does help, it flows out into the rest of my life.
@@brentives4688 thank you so much for this response. Blessings.
If you haven't already, I highly recommend reading Voddie Baucham's books "Family Driven Faith" and "Family Shepherds." Those might help a bit.
In every example offered, the "responsible" party has AUTHORITY to address and fix the problem.
This authority is denied men. Thus, they are also not responsible. Restore due authority and we can talk about "responsible".
But ask these "Christian leaders" what they've done to increase men's authority and you'll find they have done the opposite.
Being a husband is a high calling, with expectations and requirements. That includes taking responsibility. Someone has to be more responsible. And as our wives leaders', we are called to do so joyfully and lovingly.
It takes two. I anxiously wait for the video on wives failing their marriages, husbands, and children.
You gotta go to red-pilled content to hear any of that. The church is so beholden to goddess worship you'll never hear it in the pointy building.
You might be waiting forever; that notion doesn't fit Doug's personal teachings. The point he's trying to make isn't Biblical despite his attempts to misquote scripture.
He has plenty. Just do a search…
Where have you been? For every video like this one he has 20 about women and their iniquities.
@@RecalledtoLifeI will take a look.
That distinction doesn’t exist in the real world. Responsibility for another’s guilt is simply blame and we are tired of the blames. How can one take responsibility as a captain of the ship, when there is no ship?
When Adam said "it's you and the woman's fault!" Was he taking responsibility?
Exactly. This is Doug's personal teaching based on him being a boomer. He tried to support his personal teaching with scripture, but if you actually look at the scripture itself you'd see it doesn't even remotely teach Doug's point.
If you conflate the two words, of course this doesn't make sense. First, parse the two words into separate definitions and this will become digestible. He does so in the beginning with the drunk driver analogy.
If you're not married or have kids then you take responsibility for your ship. There are ships, you just don't want to take responsibility for it/them and blame others for not having one. Perfectly illustrates Doug's point. Don't listen to CluelessNate. He is what the Bible calls a fool.
@LawlessNate
@@IronCavalier Am I to believe God or you? God's word doesn't teach anything like what you're suggesting. Am I a fool to believe God? Is that your suggestion?
Where Doug teaches that the Bible doesn't confirm, he's wrong. The Bible doesn't confirm what Doug is trying to teach. Doug is wrong.
Very well articulated, as usual. I do not understand those who say this teaching is not biblical, especially since they give no reasoning. My brothers and sisters, please rebuke with love and do so in accordance with God's word; reciting the scriptures.
No equivocation here sir... Well said! 🙏😍
2:21
But the captain has authority over the sailor, but legally the wife has more authority over the husband. So you can't hold the husband responsible.
Exactly. Someone who is held responsible without having authority is a scapegoat.
I agree with these principles, but putting this into practice eludes me. Husband and father of 4, left my Pentecostal AoG church for corruption of the gospel preaching and cultism. My wife and kids would not leave. She filed for divorce 2 years later. I tried everything to keep it together, even sleeping in a separate bedroom. It's been another 2 years since, and I'm still a wreck.
I am very sorry, brother. That is wicked. It seems Charismatic and Pentecostal churches are among the worst for divorce. Ironically AoG formerly taught marriage permanence, but long ago abandoned that teaching. Some Christians go absolutely out of their way to encourage divorce. According to the Bible we get only one marriage for life, and to marry again is adultery. May God strengthen and guide you.
Leaving me hanging... thankful you post a lot.
Good stuff when I was younger Ephesians was taught out of context of the rest of scripture. The promise that your wife will become more and more lovely when you love her as Christ loves the church is a promise given to a Christian husband who a regenerate believing wife. Scripture also teaches to those who are being saved we are the arroma of life but to those who are perishing the stench of death. If the husband is loving a perishing wife, a wife at war with Christ, she will be at war with her husband; that is an inescapable fact.
Don't marry such a woman. Young men need not fear marriage, but should delay as long as necessary to confirm that a wife candidate is genuinely converted
Don't marry such a woman. Young men need not fear marriage, but should delay as long as necessary to confirm that a wife candidate is genuinely converted
Very true. A lie in a form of the ‘prosperity gospel’ applied to marriage has been taught to many Christian men in our time.
As far as I'm concerned this video is now the gold standard on how Christians should view Redpill vs feminism idea's. I appreciate Doug Wilson so much.
Why? Nothing he said was even remotely Biblical. The 'always blame the husband' mentality is a boomer way of thinking born of feminism.
I have listened to this one numerous times over the last couple weeks.
Just trying to drill this one deep down inside .
Loved this so much. I fear I will never “get it” or “walk the walk” competently if my amazing husband can’t take his position in the Lords army.
Even if I get upset at times when he is preforming his duties.
Thank you DW👍
Always EPIC
Made even more difficult by No Fault Divorce and the teaching of many churches that there is a third justification for divorce: Abuse. Now the tables are turned from Jesus' day. A wife can say you are abusive and walk away from the marriage and many churches will justify her.
Why not just do religious marriage without signing a contract with the state? You'll still be married as far as God is concerned.
@charltonsjourney117
And if she walks away from the covenant marriage?
Nobody cares, as evidenced by the full frontal assault by Daily Wire and their ilk against men waking up and realizing marriage is, apparently, a God ordained curse. Suddenly Eden is much clearer now.
@@goyonman9655it's your fault, and responsibility.
@@aztec0112
Fault: no
Responsibility: Yes
Excellent!
Ive always had a hard problem with this argument. Althought it is answered with "if God has said then..." 'which i'm fine with'. I find it really hard to sell me the "take full responsibility without identifying the reward of being a man who takes full responsibility" it seems like a burden whithout a relief to it.
Maybe im wrong, I'm young.
But again there are somethings that are described in the word of God such as this point which i seem to have a hard time reconciling with logically. But if God hath said; then i'm fine with it.
Small add on - the price that Jesus paid for our terrible sins. He will recieve the fullness reward of that act of grace on the last day, and thats what i put my faith into aswell.
Pastor Doug identified one reward for taking responsibility: Authority. "Authority flows to those who take responsibility." I've found this notion to be true in my life, whether in relationships, at work, on a team, or just helping out at church.
You're not wrong. You're seeing the BS of the pitch.
@hoorayimhelping3978 Yes, but authority is very, very vague. Responsibility is very clear. Responsibility means if something bad happens no matter what, you take the majority of the fall if not all of it. Having authority that comes with responsibility means that even if when the greatest fortune falls on you, you are the last to partake.
Eg: say you are a decently well off good responsible father, that means before you eat your kids and wife must have food, before you dress they should be clothed, if anyone is to stay up late it should be you. WHICH IS GREAT just had to say that, the authority comes with you get to choose what they eat and wear and live...
I know it's a selfish question. But is there anything, anything at all in that agreement for the man?
Again maybe I'm missing something. Cause authority just means "be responsible so that nothing bad befalls those you have authority over".
@Jordan-qd7xe That's the double-speak in play. You are responsible so when you take the fall for your wife breaking the marriage, the church doesn't have to lift a finger. They can fete the now single former wife to win the kids for their programs. And never have to feel bad or lift a finger to change the system.
Why? Because the man is always responsible.
They don't care that the man has zero actual authority over his wife or family. And churches happily side against men when they DO try to stand up against rebellious wives. Those abusive men....
It's all a game rigged against you. But they desperately NEED you to keep playing. Because it all falls apart when men opt out of the game. Oh they'll call you all sorts of names.
But they won't dare Change the game.
Maybe I need to say something else here. This is getting interesting haha!
I'm a young Christian man. I came to Christianity myself (meaning it wasn't my parents or my environment) I truly searched for meaning and the ultimate answer is the bible.
But there is this thing in there. this part which is preached and taught about, of which I can never seem to reconcile with 'the you are responsible as a man no matter what. part" I see just downsides and no upsides to it except for those around you.
And again I understand the selfish nature of that outlook. And if you are being honest, you understand it too (aka person reading this comment). But it will always be a hard sell for men to come back to church. And I mean church, not Christianity. The Bible is the greatest thing ever in the most literal sense. It would take a millenia to understand 1/10th of it. But for some reason this part about men is taught so rigorously but I feel like it's deeply incomplete. Because it gives no reason for the men to step up, aside for the "it's good for society" answer.
But as I said in my original comment "If God hath said" then even if I'm unsatisfied with the other answer I'm satisfied with that one. Granted I live with it cautiously and sometimes I chose not to be very active in my church due to this sole reason.
Well said! This really helped!
I'd love to hear concrete instructions on how to walk this out.
Recall his parable of the rained out picnic?
Thank you once again.
Well said. Our tendency to separate ourself from certain [surely wrong] cultural trends may lead us away from biblical understandings of manhood. Steer from one ditch into the other.
Responsibility is a popular ethical shortcut to arrive at necessary and good behavioral expectations. That all important cardinal virtue of justice is where to start. What is owed.
What wasn't explained here is what happens when the wife doesn't give up her undue authority? You can speak of spiritual responsibility all you want, but without authority, there is no material, or actual responsibility.
If she rebels, you have recourse to the elders, who will engage in church discipline. She either repents or is excommunicated, in which case you have an unbeliever not willing to deal with you in peace, and cause for divorce, with full support of elders. That's what happened with David and eileen gray at John MacArthur's church if you wanna go down that rabbit hole
This is what men like Doug Wilson do. They merely call out a problem and then say it's a problem while providing no solutions. And the reason why he's so popular is not because he's into solving problems. He's imply conveying an attitude that some people resonate with.
If you're seeing crazy women who claim to be Christian, don't be involved with them and avoid them. Simple as. Find one with your values and who has your back. Find one who loves you.
If you're already married to one who thinks she can wear the pants, then the best healing is doing to happen relationaly. God's love for us in transformational. God wants a connection with us. This is how all relational issues are solved, through connection. You gotta get to the bottom of things and empathize with each other. Sure you can simply assert your authority and do it that way. But the authority won't actually be respected until the woman can relate to you somehow. And I'd say it's your responsibility as a man to bridge that gap. Same way that it's a parents responsibility for relating to a child.
The husband can discipline his wife for that. The church can help him as well through their authority. No, you cannot divorce her. You remain married for life because that is the nature of marriage. The churches' views on divorce and remarriage today are totally satanic and against the Bible.
His teaching cut deep... But are deeply helpful.
His teaching about this isn't Biblical. None of the passages he quoted supported his point. This is just his personal take on the issue, and it's a very boomer take at that.
@LawlessNate - I noticed you've commented several times on this video. Out of genuine curiosity, what is your stance on this issue? Curious on your interpretation of the Scriptures Doug mentioned, particularly why God called Adam and not Eve after the fall. Hoping to better understand your position. Thank you.
@@hughesda1006 I made a standalone comment explaining each verse Doug quoted and how it doesn't teach what he was suggesting.
My stance is that the husband is responsible for the conduct of the husband and the wife is responsible for the conduct of the wife. As an example, it's the responsibility of the wife to obey her husband just as we the church obey Christ, right? Yes. However, it's NOT the responsibility of the husband to "take responsibility" for the wife if she refuses to do that. If she sins by being constantly disobedient then that's her sin battle to fight herself; it's not the husband's job to then try and force the wife to obey him. Conversely, it's the job of a husband to love his wife self-sacrificially just as Christ loves the church. If a husband doesn't love his life in a self-sacrificial way then it's not the wife's place to try and force him to do so.
That's my stance because nowhere in scripture does it ever suggest that one person is responsible for the sin of another person. Your sins are your sins, not anyone else's. That's your burden to bear, not that you could. Christ willingly takes your punishment for your sins in your place not out of responsibility, but out of grace. He could only do this because He Himself was blameless and without sin. As everyone else has sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, we can't bear the burden of our own sin let alone take the sin of someone else's. That's not possible, nor does the Bible teach it. That's why I went into every verse Doug quoted to show they didn't even remotely teach such a concept.
@LawlessNate - Appreciate your reply. Thank you! Sorry I missed your original comment. I'll check that out!
Very helpful distinction. In an effort to acknowledge, where we can, the semblance of truth raised by critics of the church, would this responsibility/guilt distinction also apply to the church’s sins, including racism? In other words, how do white churches and leaders in America today acknowledge their responsibility for making right the institution’s past sins while avoiding giving in to the idea that we are therefore “guilty”? It seems a lot of cynical, dechurched folks don’t see the distinction very well and believe church leaders aren’t taking responsibility (which they should) for these past sins because they aren’t confessing guilt. In Doug’s language, church leaders are the current “captains of the ship” and so should be doing something that looks like taking responsibility.
There's nothing to make right because the chiurch was on the right side of history. The church is not in covenant with its accusers or those who believe the accusers, so she has no responsibility for their unbelief.
Wow Doug, this was impressive
Responsibility is limited to that which we can control.
I am not responsible for the weather, only my choice to not carry an umbrella.
That is exactly what D oug is saying
@@cosmictreason2242 I’m not sure that he is….
Might pay to check the definition of the word “responsible”.
The ship’s Captain in his illustration is responsible for taking all reasonable steps to ensure that those tasked with steering the ship were competent, reliable and had all the information necessary. He is not obliged to steer it himself, 24 hrs per day, every day. The actual steering is the responsibility of the helmsman.
Responsibility implies an obligation. I cannot recall anything in scripture indicating that Christ was obliged to die for us. He did it entirely from love and mercy. Not so?
@@peterwebb8732 and a man is not obligated to marry a woman. Having done so, he has taken responsibility for her
@@cosmictreason2242 …. Up to the point where she disobeys.
A husband does not chain his wife or beat her to ensure obedience.
@@peterwebb8732 You might want to read Matt. 26:39 and Rev. 13:8. Yes, Christ did it out of love, but it was also something He had to do. It was the Father's will that Christ make that sacrifice. Christ didn't do it simply because He thought it was the nice thing to do. Christ was held responsible for doing His part. He is seated at the right hand of the Father because He willingly accepted that responsibility and followed through on it.
This was beautiful! 🩷
It’s a nice thought, but I’d be curious to know how this plays out practically when it comes to divorce. I get that the husband will ultimately give an account to God for the marriage; but would this mean that the husband ought volunteer to take on all the earthly consequences? For example, should he simply concede all his assets or custody in a divorce settlement under the pretext of “taking responsibility?” What’s the limiting principle here?
Doug's whole notion that husbands share all of the responsibility for the marriage isn't Biblical to begin with.
He addresses this in the end. Listen again.
The elders will be witnesses for the husband and against the wife in court when she is seeking an unlawful divorce. This is what happened with John macsrtfut and the grays
Imagine you are walking along side your wife when, feeling some little pressure, she surreptitiously breaks wind....except it vents in an alarming manner, drawing attention of all and sundry. To compound the discomfiture, the attendant aroma denies any possibility of attributing the rasp to any other cause. At this point the good husband, looking rather sheepish, will declaim 'excuse me' and in doing so will assume responsibility for the unfortunate occurrence.
Given the wide array of backgrounds within the Christian faith, the extent to which individuals can adopt these teachings often hinges on their cultural, familial, and religious backgrounds, as well as their level of spiritual maturity. While some may quickly accept these teachings, others may need additional time and contemplation to do so.
Very true
...just keep in mind, none of the things you listed ultimately change the standard.
@@TypicalTGreen Equally true is that "the standard" does not make those things irrelevant, or it shouldn't anyway.
@@scopeway ...They also can't serve as excuses; and we humans are too proficient at making those. 👍
November is coming!
if responsibility flows upward, then in most cases responsibility shouldn't fall on me since i'm at the bottom of the hierarchy in most places of human society
We are our brother's keepers
Amen
Where’s the connection between responsible, guilty, and possessing authority?
You don't get authority. Only the state has it and uses it on behalf of women.
Even most churches usurp any authority a husband/father should have.
Well, you get all the blame and responsibility, so two of three ain't bad.
People refuse to obey God all the time and he has ultimate authority. Those who have inherent authority, eg husbands, have it whether or not there's a conspiracy between woman and state to rebel. What's the difference between simply being mistreated without authority? Those with the right to rule will be vindicated in the end and their enemies destroyed/humiliated.
@cosmictreason2242 You're drawing an untrue correlation.
God has AUTHORITY because he has the power to do something about his will. Responsibility without power (thebability to exercise one's authority) is simply blame of the most odious kind. It reduces the blamed to a scapegoat.
Modern American men have no actual power in their homes. The wives do as the wife can fall back to the state to enforce her will. But the man does not.
So why don't we hear "Christian leaders" talking about and doing activism to restore power to men?
Why?
Why are they pushing men to take "responsibility" without power?
This is hatred against men.
A hard teaching. My heart goes out to men today. But those who do this deserve honor!
Crucifixion is hardly honorable. It was for the most despicable elements of society, today that would be men.
So Jesus was "despicable"? Did you even watch this?@@aztec0112
Doug: You NEVER give specifics on what a Christian husband is supposed to do when his ‘Christian’ wife chooses to live in open rebellion against his authority.
This following hypothetical example is for millions of Christian men in USA:
Suppose a wife is inclined to use manipulation tactics to do whatever she wants whenever she wants however she wants (pursuing an easy life of comfort).
Suppose this wife’s standard response is this: rapid interruptions with open contempt (in front of the kids), ‘don’t preach at me’, tears & cries of abuse in front of the kids (to turn the kids against the man), refusal of physical intimacy, threats to cry ‘abuse’ when the man attempts to gain authority, threats to take the kids & the house, etc.
If the man raises his voice to counter the interruptions, he is a verbal abuser.
If he divorces her, he is disobeying Christ, he is now an adulterer, he loses the kids and the house, etc.
So, please, specifically explain how a Christian man is supposed to exercise Christian authority in such a scenario.
PS: Don’t cop out with ‘you should have screened better’.
My millions of friends will tell you that ‘Christian’ women are masters at good behavior prior to marriage.
I've answered this several times in this thread so keep reading
@@cosmictreason2242Thank you. The practical step-by-step path to digging out of this hole will be very helpful to Christian men. Specifically, if the wife refuses to join the man to his appeal to the elders, then what next? I do see some good discussion in the thread. I have never seen this addressed in a video, but I may have missed it.
I also see some references to threat of Biblical divorce, which is a concept I have never heard discussed. Very interesting.
It's not a cop out whatsoever. Men generally end up with terrible wives because (1)they didn't do a good enough job of vetting them before they got married and (2) they got married for purely superficial reasons. If they vet potential partners with the upmost scrutiny and get married for reasons other than "i want to have sex with her for the rest of my life", they wouldn't be in that scenario. A single woman will always show if she's worth marrying.
You have millions of friends? Or are we to assume you are being hypothetical?
@@RecalledtoLifeThe Bible, (Ester 1:17-19) says warns that prominent feminists (Vashti) will teach ‘ALL’ the other women to treat their husbands with contempt.
I have personally witnessed this phenomenon among acquaintances, and it is very common statistically. With a divorce rate of 50% even among Christians.
If you read the comments on any relationship video, you will see dozens or hundreds of comments saying exactly the same thing.
Modern women treat their husbands with contempt; by the millions. (Statistics: 160M men * 50% professing Christians * 50% divorce rate = 40M pool of candidates, of which it is reasonable to assume a significant portion meet my criteria).
Thousands of comments, a statistically huge percentage, are all that Feminism and the courts and the ‘marriage counselors’ have fundamentally changed women; even Christian women. Many will say they married a ‘sweet, kind, wonderful’ Christian woman, and she changed over time. Her friends and the marriage counselors became divorce instigators.
To answer your question: I am ‘writing for a friend’. My wife is good and we have been married for decades.
If I'm the father of a child, and I commit capital offenses, then should I take personal responsibility for those offenses or should I allow my child to be punished for what I did? And if my child does suffer a penalty for what I did, should I respond by just living as though it never happened?
Not following
@cosmictreason2242 King David and the execution of his son. It's always confused me why King David did not demand to be held personally accountable for committing murder and adultery.
@@nothosaur That was David's punishment. But since we're speculating, consider the alternative : David says its ok he's gonna die, cause at least his son will carry on his legacy (mind you, a legacy of adultery and murder). God's like, "oh no you don't!" Meanwhile the kid gets to go to heaven
@cosmictreason2242 The penalty under the law for adulery and murder is death. Do you deny that? David is aware that this is the law. Do you see deny that? The child was the most innocent party involved. Explain to me why the innocent child should be tortured to death over 7 days instead of the responsible adult. Why does David spend the rest of his life a free man?
@@nothosaur the penalty for sin is death. EVERYONE who lives, lives because God is deferring execution of the death penalty. That did not change for David, it was already the state he was in.
Young single men, consider how 1 Cor 7:25-28 should be applied in our current context. What risks are you taking by getting married? Many men have been raked over the coals emotionally and financially, their wives taking as much as they could and turning their own children against them. Some in evangelical and conservative circles want to shame young men into marriage, implying they are not taking the responsibility they should. Young men, think about these things carefully. The decision you make will affect the rest of your life.
I'm being responsible by waiting. I'm on my purpose. I stood arms length from Paul Washer when he tried to offer encouragement indirectly, standing with a group of mostly women; "i think these young men need T injections, because in my day you ladies wouldn't have left here without a marriage proposal." But it grieved my heart, because i had spokwn with the three that had been at my table. One pursuing a masters degree thousands if mikes away from family. Another one resisted the idea of dresses because it felt legalistic and constraining to her. Another one was a new believer and very depressive, and didn't shave her thick arm hair. The anti dress one also wanted to do overseas missions, as did one or two others in the circle who, to be honest, may as well do that since they were obese or otherwise unappealing. They expressed disappointment when Paul tried to give them a reality check by tellingca story of being on the phone with a woman defending an orphanage from a mob od reypists with AKs on the roof. He explained that women's roles are very limited, eg you can't teach men. Feminism is so thoroughly baked into the culture that these women at a confessionally Reformed conference were disappointed to hear that their choices in life will be constrained by their sex. Brother Paul, i wish i could make you understand, i still wukk jump on the mm first good opportunity that presents itself, and indeed i have attempted 4 times already with less than excellent options, showing that I'm not picky. But i promise you, i max meab bi bitterness by this. But the women just aren't any good. Im sorry
Wouldn’t you be disappointed to hear that your choices in life will be constrained because of your sex?? While, simultaneously, overweight men at conferences are deciding you “just aren’t any good” as a woman because you have arm hair (which god gave both sexes, just as he gave them both nipples), or sometimes you wear trousers, or are overweight yourself, or “otherwise unappealing”?
I think you have shown yourself to be picky and hypocritical and immature! Lucky these women all got away.
@@cosmictreason2242 I agree with much of your sentiment. Paul Washer's White Knight comments have turned me away in recent years. He has chided men to "Man Up", which is true, but he is judging with unequal weights and measures, because every time he tells men to man-up, there are career-oriented, independent-minded women in his audience that applaud, but he does not turn the any attention to their selfishness and neglect of biblical marriage and childbearing either. It is certainly a discouraging time, and it is easy to get black-pilled because of what much Wilson says in the video, men get blamed for everything, even when it is not their fault; conversely, with approximately 80% divorce rating, many times it is a woman's fault. But as Wilson correctly states, this is where men take responsibility. I agree with Wilson generally, but I would take it a step further. Men are to take responsibility, while also holding women accountable to their actions and calling them to holiness. Thus, in your situation, the appropriate manner in which to speak to this career woman is to gently, but firmly remind her of 1 Timothy 2:15, and that her current pursuits are not the most fruitful and obedient way for her to spend her singleness, as she ought to be proactively be training for homemaking. If she is open and receptive to this biblical council, she may be reasonable enough to consider further pursuits. If she gets offended, defensive, or otherwise rejects this council, than that tells you everything you need to know about her, and you should move on, towards the hope that the faithful remnant does exist, and to keep putting yourself out their to find that faithful remnant. Men, are responsible for leading, but women responsible for following, and in the dating realm, this is a little more cut-and-dry than in marriage where a covenant is already in place. If she is showing signs on not being able to be led, cut the cord and move on to someone who would be.
@@cosmictreason2242 One had "thick underarm hair"...the others were obese and "otherwise unappealing." Then there are the "less than excellent options" despite your not being picky. Next time give us a physical description of yourself to complete this devastating picture.
@@RecalledtoLife i didn't say underarm. It was her forearm
The captain in your example is responsible because he has the ability to respond ie response-ability. He has this ability because he has authority. He can discipline a sailer, he can create rules, he can in days of yore have a sailer flogged. The problem is that while the church is undercutting a husband’s authority even stirring up mutineering wives, they are holding the husband accountable. This accountability comes with no authority to correct the mutiny, ie no response-ability. If the husband disciplines his disobedient wife even as Christ disciplines the church, the churchmen accuses the husband of abuse and ducking his responsibility to be the head of his wife. What should the church be doing? Glad you asked. She should be vocally and unequivocally condemning all forms of female rebellion while giving their backing to the husbands’ rule in the home. Kinda like how the upper brass supports a captain’s command of the crew on a ship. The allusion to Christ is further instructive, Christ is not responsible for the rebellions church, but disciplines it even removing its lamp stand, he does more than just say “that one’s on me”. He sends the Spirit to comfort and illuminate, He sends preachers to declare His law/Word, He disciplines, He requires repentance, He rules! Doug has given husbands no Christ-like remedy while cheering on the mutiny. Holding men accountable without authority to respond is not responsibility, it is scapegoating.
I agree with your thesis in general but i don't know that it applies to Doug
The husband is the captain, Dave. He is a real authority, and he can make the rules, and he can discipline his wife for breaking them. That is the nature of marriage. This needs to be fully understood by both men and women before they get married. They need to know it and be committed to it. Most Christians would do best by ignoring the watered-down version of headship and submission they hear from churches, and build their marriages on real authority.
They also need to know from the start that marriage is for life, and only broken by death.
Truth bomb there. Well said.
The 19th amendment has been a disaster
“We live in an anti-covenantle age” - you hit the mark. Marriage, work, just everywhere so called “leaders” don’t want to be leaders, they just want the prestige and the power. Undeservingly.
Someone who is held responsible without having authority is a scapegoat who receives blame, not responsibility. One can have responsibility only when having authority. The only way men can take responsibility is if they they are given authority. That is, legal authority over their wives. Saying that Christ accepted "responsibility" for our sins is playing a word game.
Excellent!!
Out of curiosity, is the 19th Amendment in sync with Christendom 2.0?
That’s an on-going debate
They could have fought no fault divorce or family law a lot easier than the 19th...
Most Christian leaders are well in the tank for the status quo. They just need more men volunteering for the grist mill that is marriage.
If the sins of the fathers are not to be imputed upon their children unless their children are doing the same sins, then the father being responsible for the sins of the children is a non-thing.
Maybe it's the intercessor aspect of Job that God found so appealing because it alluded to Christ.
I respectfully disagree. Christ did not HAVE to take responsibility - He freely chose to. However, you are saying that the Man MUST take responsibility, that he has a divine duty to do so. One thing is not like the other. Hence, this comparison is a false equivalence. Even the illustration of the captain taking responsibility for the actions of the seaman - well, isn't he supposed to make sure that only reliable, responsible people are ever in that situation? An irresponsible, unreliable person however was duties that he was unfit to do. The captain is both guilty and responsible.
Thank you! This is something that bothered me about what he said as well. If taking on our sin was somehow God's responsibility then what he did for us would no longer be grace. It's the very fact that God had no such obligation to take our punishment in our place that makes it His grace to have done so.
He is saying if you as a Christ follower, and husband are to imitate Christ. If that is happening, you are taking responsibility for things even your aren’t guilty of. That’s being the head of your family as Christ is head of the church. It’s not a question of “have to”. It’s a matter of imitating Christ, which is what we do as Christ followers
@@bschell Nowhere in scripture does it teach that we are to take responsibility for other people's sin. Absolutely nowhere. None of the verses Doug quoted suggest that. The very concept is Biblically nonsense because only Christ was blameless and therefore only Christ could shoulder the sin of others. Doug had his own boomer-culture-inspired teaching and tried to work backwards to make the Bible somehow try to teach it, but it doesn't.
@@LawlessNate tell me you’re not married without telling me you’re not married. Read Ephesians 5 and come back.
@@bschell Tell me you're a boomer without telling me you're a boomer.
As Christ is the Savior of the world and all people in it, I suppose He is responsible if I don’t follow Him?
I'm sorry, but that is not biblically accurate. Christ is the savior of all those who put their trust in Him as their only hope of salvation before God. Those who don't will face eternal punishment for their own sins including the sin of unbelief.
@@TheMudSlinger 1 John 2:2
@@TheMudSlinger Of course, let's not forget, I can't have faith unless it is given by God as well, so, I'm kinda waiting on Him there too. Ephesians 2:8-9
Nice turn on the argument. Not entirely accurate, but it does reveal the shallowness of the argument.
@@pilotandy_comYou are responsible for your decisions and your rejection of Christ. Period.
I am respectfully informing you that You are regurgitating Calvinist talking points. Beware that Calvinism is false teaching from the pit of Hell. Hell gives you a convenient excuse to ‘wait for faith’. No, you must repent and submit. Your choice. Your responsibility. No excuses. Period.
If a man wants to have a family, he can move to the Philippines. Women there are truly feminine.
This is just propaganda unfortunately
Or they try and poison you like that Filipina did to her husband.
I actually looked up some of the scripture you quoted to support your point, and oh boy you're butchering it... You clearly already had the "a husband is always guilty for his wife's sin' notion in your head and so you just chose some bible verses that you thought, incorrectly I might add, somehow taught that point. What you ended up doing is quoting a bunch of Bible verses that don't even remotely suggest such a thing. It's like you expected people to just blindly believe you that the passages you quoted had anything to do with the point you tried to make.
Job 1
The point of Job 1-5 isn't that his children were somehow evil sinners and Job was somehow taking responsibility for their sinning. The passages DOESN'T say that his sons cursed God; Job offers the sacrifices not because he thinks that they did curse God, but simply because of the possibility that maybe they did, who knows. The point being made by the passage is that Job was an exceedingly Godly man.
To try and suggest that the children did, in fact, curse God is an isegetical assumption. The text doesn't say or suggest this. Then you use this isegetical assumption as the foundation (of sand) to try and build a theological point that's completely unrelated to the context of the passage. Again, this part of Job 1 is trying to highlight how godly Job is. It doesn't say or suggest anything about Job somehow being responsible for his children's potential sin.
Also, you said "Job is a covenant man, and he knows how covenants work." Again, a completely isegetical assumption. Where in the Bible does it suggest Job lived in a time where God had a covenant? It doesn't. In fact, considering that Job himself was the one doing the sacrifices one might assume that he didn't live under a covenant as he didn't have a priest do those sacrifices for him. Again, this is simply you blindly assuming something the text doesn't say and then running with it.
Proverbs 10:5 "He who gathers in summer is a son who acts wisely,
But he who sleeps in harvest is a son who acts shamefully."
This passage doesn't even remotely teach your idea that if one person in a family is shameful that therefore someone else in the family is also somehow is shameful by extension. It doesn't outright say that. It doesn't suggest that. It doesn't somehow suggest this in its proper context. It's simply a non-sequitur to quote this verse to try and support the point you're making.
Proverbs 17:2 "A servant who acts wisely will rule over a son who acts shamefully,
And will share in the inheritance among brothers."
Again, trying to quote this verse to support the point you're making is a flat out non-sequitur. The verse doesn't say or suggest anything about the son acting shamefully somehow bringing shame upon other people in his family. It doesn't say or suggest that the servant is therefore shameful; that would actually be contradictory to what the verse suggests.
Proverbs 19:26 "He who assaults his father and drives his mother away
Is a shameful and disgraceful son."
The passage doesn't say the father is shameful for what his son did. The passage doesn't say the mother is shameful for what her son did. Again, nothing about this passage even remotely suggests that the son brings shame upon others for what he does.
Proverbs 29:15 "The rod and a rebuke give wisdom,
But a child who gets his own way brings shame to his mother."
This is the first verse from Proverbs you quote that is actually somewhat related to the context about what you're trying to teach, but it still doesn't teach what you think it does. It's a parent's responsibility to discipline their children. Another example of this is Proverbs 13:24 "He who withholds his rod hates his son, But he who loves him disciplines him diligently." What's shameful for the mother is that as a mother she has the responsibility to discipline her children and yet the child getting his own way shows that she's failing to fulfill this responsibility.
Yes, the Bible says that husbands are to love their wives self-sacrificially. However, nowhere in the Bible does it say or suggest anything of the sort that when a wife sins the husband is somehow to blame. If a husband is doing absolutely everything he's supposed to on his end while his wife is doing ungodly, sinful things to hurt the marriage it's not somehow the husband's responsibility. Jesus taking punishment for our sin is a one-way application. Jesus can take our punishment in our place because He was sinless and without guilt. We can't even bear the burden of our own guilt, let alone somehow take the guilt or punishment of someone else for their wrong doing. Trying to suggest the husband is somehow always the one with responsibility for his wife's sin is flat out non-Biblical.
Not guilty, but responsible
@@philipmurray9796 What's the difference between "You're guilty of murder, and the punishment is death." and "You're responsible for murder, and the punishment is death."? There isn't one. Using a different word to mean the exact same thing doesn't magically make it a different thing. It's like what Catholic say they don't pray to saints and instead they only "venerate" them.
On this topic, Doug isn't letting scripture dictate his theology. Instead, he's clearly starting with this notion in his mind and then attempting to use scripture to try and teach his 'I believed this before I ever cracked open a Bible to double check' theology. I can know this because of what verses he quotes and how plainly and obviously those verses don't even remotely teach his theology. An honest, truth-seeking person who thinks that the Bible teaches their theology would check the verses' context, notice that the verses don't actually teach their theology, and then change their theology to better conform to scripture. Either Doug flat out didn't check the context of these verses whatsoever, at which point why bother believing anything he says, or he found that the verses' context doesn't teach his theology and quoted them anyways.
@@LawlessNate Adam wasn't guilty of being deceived by Satan in the garden. But who did God hold responsible? Adam was responsible for it.
@@philipmurray9796 Nowhere in the Bible does it say that Adam was responsible for Eve's sin. Find me one single verse that suggests that. You can't.
You can find verses that point out sin entered the world through Adam. If Adam refused to eat of the fruit that Eve offered to him and did literally nothing wrong and was still blamed then you'd have a case to make your point. That's not what happened. Adam ate of the fruit Eve offered to him that God specifically told him not to eat. Regardless of what Eve did, Adam sinned. Adam sinned and because of that sin entered the world; scripture establishes this. However, suggesting that Adam was also responsible for the sin Eve committed is a blind assumption that goes above and beyond what can be established by scripture. Scripture says that Adam is responsible for his sin, but nowhere does it suggest he was responsible for Eve's sin.
@@LawlessNate Paul does not credit Eve for bringing upon death, but Adam. 1 Corinthians 15:21 For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.
Military commanders have responsibility AND the authority to fulfil their responsibilities. Same with Jesus. Husbands? Not so much.
In fact they do have the authority . Just like with Jesus, people consoire to defy his authority, but God will vindicate him in front of his enemies
@@cosmictreason2242 Being vindicated is not authority. The definition of authority is:
The power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience
Husbands don't have that.
According the Jesus in Ephesians 5 - husbands are the head of their family - which is the authority Jesus gives husbands.
@@bschell Authority means "The power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience". What power do husbands have to enforce obedience?
@@OscarSchneegans are you saying God doesn't have power to enforce no adultery in light of onlyfans?
Christ "assumed" responsibility for something he wasn't personally responsible for...in order to redeem sinners and save them from a deserved Hell. Husbands cannot nor are they expected to assume this responsibility. In fact, to even suggest they should (in order to be like their exemplar, which some contort or confuse Ephesians,5:25 into suggesting) is anti Biblical at the very least, and diverging into heresy at worst. Ezekiel,18:20, the soul that sinneth, it shall die, Ecclesiastes,7:20, there is not a man upon earth that doeth good and sinneth not (man is generic standing for human).
Maybe Mr. Wilson didn't mean that a husband is "responsible" for his wife's sins but as far as transgressions go, the wife is both guilty and responsible for her sins just as the husband is and the faithful, Godly husband can only attempt to correct a sinning wife but he cannot force her conformity (nor does God require it of him, for he cannot) to God's Word. He IS NOT responsible for her sins nor is he to assume her guilt, taking it upon himself...that is sin itself by the arrogant assumption of Christ's deity and His consequent power to expiate sins.
It's true that, Biblically, a head of household must take responsibility for the actions of his wife insofar as he can...but he CANNOT take responsibility for her willful sins.
Maybe I misunderstood Mr Wilson but it seemed to me he confused these notions.
"Fair?" ...One could argue that it's perfectly so. :)
Wise words as always. Masculinity means taking sacrificial responsibility
That's not all that it is, though. Without authority, initiative, mission, dominion, self restraint and aggression, all that sacrificial responsibility produces is a beaten slave. Because I'd we are so narrow with the definition, what can femininity be but the opposite of that? Selfish lack of accountability? .... No, that doesn't seem right. So, sacrifice without authority isn't masculinity. This paints a very different picture, of the dominant one suffering fit the submissive one. If we lazy this, we're develop a view of the man being obligated to serve women because women's desires are an authority over him and he has no power to choose to do otherwise. And that has led to an extremely toxic attitude toward men in evangelicalism. I am telling you this so you can avoid making that mistake, and not end up a lonely 30something single
There is a saying:
"Accountability is like kryptonite to a woman"
@@aztec0112 only a woman in sin, if you keep with the context
No, it doesn't. There's no such thing as "sacrifical responsibility". Doug's teachigns here aren't even remotely Biblical; look at the scripture he quoted for yourself and ask yourself if they actually support the points he's trying to make. It doesn't.
@@cosmictreason2242 I absolutely agree! Very well put.
That’s a broad overreach using “responsible” language and Ephesians 5. Let’s not forget that actual text that explains what loving her like Christ did the church looks like. Also, it’s irresponsible at best, cowardly at worst, to tell someone that they’re responsible, without clearing explaining the authority that God ALWAYS gives to those he gives responsibility. You can’t have responsibility without authority, make sure you share that. Otherwise you empower abuse
I’ll go with Doug’s on this one
@@toolegittoquit_001op is correct. Biblical husbandry is responsibility with authority. Responsibilities with no authority is simply slavery. Jesus gave his disciples COMMANDS
@@toolegittoquit_001 None of the scripture Doug quoted supported the points he was trying to make.
@@toolegittoquit_001 Of course you will🤣
@@cosmictreason2242 Exactly, even before you get to the command “love your wives like Christ loved the church”. You first have a command “Wives submit yourselves to your husbands as you do to the lord” And then It talks about headship, headship comes with authority and responsibility.
…or you can just choose to stay unmarried and live a life of self controlled celibacy. God even goes so far as to say through Paul it is the better choice (self control being key here).
Iow if you've masturvsted or looked at porb sonce you've last pursued a relationship, you do not have that gift and must marry
Let's be careful; that's not what Paul was teaching. To be clear Paul taught that a life of celibacy can be a good thing, but only if that free time that comes as a result is then used to do godly things like witness to others and serve the church. He also didn't say that it's better for those to do this than it is to get married; he said to the people in that area at that time given their circumstances that this course of action was his personal recommendation, but he also stated that if people wanted to get married anyways that they were perfectly free to do so.
@@LawlessNate Paul said nothing of the sort that what he was talking about was for his day and time. He simply said because the days are evil… That goes for today as well. Also every stipulation you just added to the text, while true, is also true for everyone whether married or not. No matter what our situation, all our time should be to the service of Christ.
God never said it was the better choice through Paul. Paul said _he chose_ to stay unmarried because it allowed him to focus more on the task God gave him as an apostle. Paul's life was extremely dangerous since he was often beaten, stoned, and chased out of cities. Being married would've made his job more difficult, so he opted to stay single.
@@theeternalsbeliever1779 1 Cor 7 v1: Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman. (That should end the debate right there really).
then v2 but for reason of immoralities (not because of creation, not because of the symbol of bride and Christ) he says each man is to have his own wife (again, referring to lack of self control as he goes on further later. Then he adds a few versus later when writing about unmarried virgins and fathers:
1 Cor 7 v26/27: I think then that this is good because of the present distress, that it is good for a man to remain as he is. Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be released. Are you released from a wife? Do not seek a wife. (notice, he is not talking about what is good for him as you asserted, but giving his opinion and instruction for others to consider)
Add to this verses 32 to 34:
But I want you to be free from concern. One who is unmarried is concerned about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord. But one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how he may please his wife,
and his interests have been divided.
Why? Because the ideal to be focused on holiness and the things of the Lord and separate yourself (be holy) from the tings of the world which in 1 Cor 7 v 31 says this world is passing away (and Christ stated marriage is a part of this world and will not be a part of the next for men and women).
And here is where Paul flat out states it in 1 Cor 7 v 38 about a man keeping his virgin daughter. Here's the context as well: But if any man thinks that he is acting unbecomingly toward his virgin daughter, if she is past her youth, and if it must be so, let him do what he wishes, he does not sin; let her marry.
37
But he who stands firm in his heart, being under no compulsion, but has authority over his own will, and has decided this in his own heart, to keep his own virgin daughter, he will do well.
38
So then both he who gives his own virgin daughter in marriage does well, and he who does not give her in marriage will do better.
So for scripture, it comes down to basically we are all to concern ourselves with the spiritual things of God and not be concerned with the tings of this world. But if uncontrollable sexual desire causes you distraction and concern for the flesh and the tings of this world, then get married. But if you can keep it under control, you will do better to be single for the sake of the Kingdom.
Unsubscribing...
j/k
I like Doug Wilson's concept of households voting rather than individuals voting. In fact, I'm going to do him one better... Only households with a married couple, male and female, can vote. In fact, in order to vote, the household must have at least one child. No interracial households will be allowed to vote. Only households with ancestry going back before the 1965 Hart-Celler immigration act will be allowed to vote.
Look dude. Christ did what he did for us because we couldn't do it..
And Christ did it because it was the will of the father and it was Christ's honor to do so. Christ is glorified for taking the fall for us.
Whereas men are not glorified for taking the fall for their wives. Adam would not have been glorified for saying "take me instead". Because he was not what was required to be the sacrifice for her. He should have smacked the apple out of her hand, crushed the serpent, and said "cmon babe, let's go back to God". And if she refused, he should have left her there and asked God to make another for him.
And guess what? Women take vows too. They are responsible too. They're responsible to submit to the man's authority. It's a command. The man cannot make this happen and it doesnt happen as a result of the man engineering this perfect life that constantly controls the woman's thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. He can only control so much.
How can a man be responsible for that which he cannot have complete control over?
These assertions here really offer no perspective of hope. But instead it's a perspective of condemnation and vague performance-driven nonsense wrapped up in a sanctimonious call to action. And im so tired of edgy trending pastors making all these claims about all these problems and offering no solutions.