“Men are dominant and always will be dominant!” “What kind of patriarchy do you want to have!” Such a true statement and question! We have Pagan Roman Patriarchy and Biblical Patriarchy. Some men in the church act out Roman patriarchy and call it biblical patriarchy, giving biblical patriarchy a bad name.
Our LORD, GOD and SAVIOUR did create the simplest fabric (H²O) to sustain all of life here on earth. Just as the Jordan and the Euphrates are made of this fabric, so to also are the Bow and the Elbow. 🌱LIFE IS BUT A VAPOUR (H²O)🌹 HOLY BIBLE Habakkuk 3:9 Thy bow was made quite naked (bare), according to the oaths of the tribes (oaths were sworn over your arrows), even thy word, Selah. Thou didst cleave (divided) the earth with rivers. 🙌ALLELUIA🙌 A-men' 🌿
I listened to an update /history of the scourge known as scientology today. We in this country have "embraced" many an ill gotten and ill conceived proposition, but this one takes the cake. Our basic understanding of all things life on the planet has been so distorted that to speak anything that nears the truth can land you in several circumstances of litigation. My son was saying to me today how much he appreciates my input, and with a tear in my eye I reminded him that God's word is that powerful, and that when we throw ourselves at His mercy he gives us all that is required for life on the planet and so much more. Thank you Doug for helping we, your brothers and sisters in the Church to navigate in these turbulent times
A lot of young Christian men these days are giving into red-pill rhetorics about subjugating women. However, the authority of God and Jesus Christ has always been a loving and sacrificial one. Thank you for this video!
So women shouldn't be subjugated to men, and we shouldn't be subjugated to Christ? Christ is loving, AND we are his subjects. Men should be loving, AND women should be their husband's subject.
@@basedbulgarian511 You are correct. The first witnesses to Christ's resurrection were women. The first Christian evangelist was a woman (Mary Magdalene), Jesus honored the unnamed woman that anointed Him and washed His feet with her tears. In fact, we never see Jesus subjugating or suppressing any woman.
@wet-read Because the Bible says, "Wives, submit to your husbands." Someone always has to submit. I have to submit to my boss at work. Women have to submit to their bosses. Why is it ok for women to submit to their bosses, but not their husbands? Good husbands love their wives and would think of them first in every decision they make. Good husbands would die for their wives if necessary. Would their bosses die for them? Husbands should consult their wives before making decisions, but the final say is the husbands. Women should trust that their husbands have their best interests in mind and that they are capable of making good decisions. Women should pray for their husbands to be given wisdom. It is hard for men and women to find a good spouse in America today. Men aren't willing to take on responsibility, and women aren't willing to submit to a husband. They would rather marry the government, which does not care about them other than as a voting block.
(8:30) _Feminism wants men to have responsibility without authority. The masculinist reaction wants men to have authority without responsibility. But the two must necessarily go together. In a well-ordered household they do and in the economy of God as I've also taught for decades, authority flows to those who take responsibility_
Do you understand that "Supply Side Economics" is from Karl Marx? Do you understand that the Reagan years took the US from the world's largest creditor nation to the world's largest debtor nation in 6 years? Reagan tripled the national debt, and increased the yearly deficit nearly 10 fold. Additionally, the 2 recessions that occurred during the Reagan years ('82, '86) were the worst recessions (only to be superseded by GW BUSH and T***P economies) since the Great Depression. All of this while Reagan proposed and signed into law 10 tax increases.
@@manager0175 Bush raised taxes significantly. If both his and Reagan's 10 tax increases led to these recessions as you suggest, then how is that an indictment against supply side economics (a position I don't hold to)? Wouldn't a counter argument be that these recessions happened because Reagan, and particularly Bush didn't remain faithful to supply side economics? And why didn't those tax increases lower, not potentially worsen the deficit? Wasn't the deficit driven by an important historical event that justified massive military spending?
@@Chief_Of_Sinners You said "Bush raised taxes significantly. If both his and Reagan's 10 tax increases led to these recessions as you suggest.." I never suggested that. I pointed out those items because it is contradictory the "conservative" idea of lower taxes and small government. The recessions (and subsequent tripling of national debt, etc.) were directly caused by "supply side, trickle down economics". The fact is, lowering taxes for the wealthiest has never created more jobs than raising taxes on the wealthiest. The fact is, every GOP president since Teddy Roosevelt has had at least 1 recession. 4 GOP presidents have had 2 recessions. Ike had 3 recession. 10 of the past 11 recessions occurred when a GOP was in the presidency. The factual data is clear for over 100 years. Nothing has been more of an abysmal failure than GOP "Conservative" economic policies.
What would be the example for a husband taking responsibility for the wife's guilt? How would it play out? Could you create a simulated general issue and show me this principle played out? My wife and I have been married a little over a year. I just want to know what this looks like because if i'm just being frank it sounds like even though everything may not be my fault i will certainly be treated as though it is. Again I ask. Please show me an example so I may understand. Thank you. God bless.
Your wife backs her car into another car in a parking lot and causes some damage to it. It's not your fault; nobody thinks it's your fault, but it's your responsibility to make sure it's taken care of properly. Maybe it's reassuring her that accidents happen and telling her to call the highway patrol to fill out a police report when she calls you upset right after it happens. Maybe it's handling the insurance claim for her. Maybe it's encouraging her to handle the insurance claim herself, but making sure it gets done, and helping her through all the paperwork.
I can only speak for my own limited experience, and after 18 years of marriage, I can unequivocally state that the first year of marriage was the hardest. There's an old black-and-white movie that we watched together called Period of Adjustment, which was helpful, or at least cathartic to my wife. It takes time to adjust to a new life together and to each other's quirks and immaturity. at the time, I thought that we were far too immature for children, and so we delayed having them, but in retrospect, I now realize that nobody is mature enough for children until their third or fourth child. Do not delay the divine desire expressed in Malachi 2:15. To your specific question, I would put it this way: As the protector and head of my household, just as Christ is head of the church, it is my responsibility to address the negative inputs and destructive influences of the world coming into our home, and into the minds of my wife and children. Do not allow the lies of the world to permeate your household through compromised media, education, churches, etc., lest you lose your wife and children to them. If my wife and I are not on the same page on something critical, it is my responsibility to find a better way to communicate and guide without allowing strife to take root in my heart or hers. Any breakdown or failure is viewed by me as a failure of effective leadership on my part, as I have much to learn from the example of leadership set by Jesus, not only in the gospels, but also in the early chapters of Revelation, in which he provides praise and encouragement, followed by corrective leadership, to his body the church. In all things, follow the voice of the Holy Spirit.
Your wife bumps into a guy, and he gets mad and wants to fight. The husband is the one who fights even though he did not initiate it. That is a crude example that involves several rude people, but I think it demonstrates the point. In other words, you are accountable for her, and she has a duty not to misrepresent you. You are now a union, 1 in 2 bodies.
Here is a simple example of the husband taking respobsibility for his wife: The wife goes a little crazy with the credit card buying things for the house and name brand clothing for the new born twins, blowing the budget. Husband must figure out a way to work for extra income to pay off that high interest card and not send out the wife to find a job as she is taking care of the babies and keeping house.
your primary job as the husband is to protect and take care of your wife. when she is at fault, yes you must be aware of that fault, but the blame should never go to her. find ways in which you will keep her from making the same mistake again.
@@manager0175 that does not say "husbands submit to your wives." Not unless it also means "parents submit to your children and masters submit to your slaves"
@@cosmictreason2242 Well, let me offer another consideration in this matter. I contend that the greatest example of submission was the Kenosis (the self-emptying of Christ to become human). Is that not a worthy example to follow? In terms of parents and children, I raised my daughters to call me into question any decision I made (my wife too). They made their case, I made mine. I never had to demand their obedience nor submission. What it did do was present to my kids (and my wife) that I was human and made mistakes just as any human does. It also fostered good communication and mutual respect. And I still maintain that a child's respect is something a parent (in my case, a father) must earn (on a daily basis) not owed just because they fertilized an egg. It doesn't fit into the current "authoritarian father, submissive mother, obedient children" model, but it does foster a calm household, with mutual respect and very good communications. Welcome to the post modern world, post-modern marriage and parenting.
@@vanessaloy1049 "cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons" there is recognition that different races have different tendencies that are negative. to feign ignorance of these differences is irresponsible. we can prove that much of the differences in success between races in america is largely due to predictable genetic traits. denial of this is much to blame for the resentment between the races.
Also guys, don't forget, when the moscow boys use the Kenservative memes they're doing it because they've taken dominion over everything they find funny. But when other Christians take dominion over White Boy Summer, it's wrong. Moscow - Rules for thee, but not for me
Patriarchy isn’t actually inescapable while it likely would be better if it was. It must be made to be inescapable in the sense that if it were fully allowed to go away we would basically have to expect significant increase of chaos, it would mean men had generally become so insufficient that women more or less would have to try to behave as men should be, and this certainly could lead up to being the president of a country we do need to try to evade this, I certainly am in favor of a current president not being impeached primarily in relation to this but God certainly is sovereign and involved regardless of what occurs. We have to insure that abortion, pornography, homosexuality, and gender confusion are ended on legal levels, we need to work quickly and efficiently to try to gain the favor of God if there is any real hope of that I need to think that there is because if there isn’t we should all just flee to Russia probably.
Excuse my ignorance, I'm in Europe, I watch a lot of this man's videos and have come to enjoy them, but what is this ' Moscow ' he often refers too. I've guessed it's not the capital of Russia but some kind of movement or a place in America with a movement in it ? But what exactly is it ? Thanks in advance for info
@@adventureinallthings Sorta. Canon Press, Wilson's church, and a college/seminary are all present. According to Wilson and the guys at CrossPolitic most people view the city as split evenly between the people of New St Andrew's church (where Wilson pastors) and the rest of the town. I'm pretty sure there is a secular university there as well. A lot of Christians have moved to that area recently having been inspired by the Christian community idea that Wilson/Canon have been preaching.
@@BossBattle21 ok thanks, that clears it up, he talks a lot about it but for an outsider without context, it's very confusing. I don't think he realises a lot of people watching have no idea, 'Moscow' sounds like ' the Kremlin '
Glider made a factually false statement on page 1 of chapter 1. I am not arguing with the entirety on the contents of the book. Glider was illegitimately comparing the behavior of unregenerate men to regenerate women. The sexual pathology of women is far more subversive to the survival of civilization than male. I think the youngsters got a bit overboard. But blocking them all is quite cowardly. Gliders book may have substantial utility. But his statements are overtly offensive precisely because they are based on dubious or exaggerated premises. It's also a product of it's time, written from a position of weakness. I am only commenting on that singular page. Others can determine how helpful it actually is. You should consider the possibility you are wrong. Also Unblock William Swollace.
Wilson's blindness is that he doesn't recognize that there is no authority that men wield ... regardless of whether they "assume responsibility" or not. Assuming responsibility without the authority to fix the problem is simply being scapegoated for blame. Which is exactly what Feminism does. This is why the shell game of words that these "christians" play around "male responsibility" is so dishonest. They refuse to act to deliver authority back to men - even knowing it was men like Gilder who were significant in stripping that authority away from men decades prior. So the game is really all an anti-male endgame.. which is to say.. it's feminist at its core and Christianity as led by these boomers are functionally feminist in their teaching and practice. If they want to teach the return of responsibility to men, there needs to be activism to return authority to men. Otherwise, men and women need to be made to own their own actions and Christianity needs to hold women responsible for their own behaviors - like the overwhelming divorce rate and rampant feminism in the pews.
Well, I think you have to right the shop first by killing all the idols of feminism, then after that you can start to teach male responsibility again. If you teach male responsibility without first righting the ship, it will just get interpreted through the lens of feminist if assumptions.
I agree. Society has to be unfeminized to its traditional balance before the Church can make demands of men. The Church should be leading this charge but strangely they are absent from that entire conversation much less have any active efforts in trying to make actual societal changes.
if you don't think women should be trusted to make good decisions, how can you expect them to decide to fix this problem. even if you don't think men caused our current situation, men must be the ones to lead women out of it.
Okay, I’ve always had a problem with the idea that the husband is responsible for his wife’s behavior. It seems to contradict free will. It sounds like a husband is responsible for the free will choices of another person, which I’ve always thought impossible. It also seems to suggest that morality is relative. That if a husband is a bad husband, then the wife is not guilty for her own sins. Please tell me I am wrong. How does federal headship make it possible for one person to give up their personal accountability to another person? I thought that everyone was responsible for their actions, not the actions of others.
You’re missing the distinction between responsibility and guilt. They each bear the guilt for their own sins, but the husband, as the head, is responsible. Just as the head of any other organization is responsible for those he leads even when they are at fault. Think, military leader, CEO, Pastor, etc; those positions each come with a measure of responsibility-some more than others-a husband’s is very broad, even as his authority is.
I agree that you're missing the distinction between responsibility and guilt. I find that we can grasp this concept just fine when it relates to children. If your minor child damages someone's property, who's the guilty party? The child. Who's legally responsible for the damages? Most likely, you.
"She is the queen" kind of lost me. Women should not be the absolute arbiters of their society's reproductive future (ie who they choose to marry and what their family should be). Otherwise, power/authority still flow back to the woman based on the incentive structure this creates (men trying to please the whims of women in order to be chosen by them). It isn't my intent to misrepresent your position, but to me it appears you've circled right back to feminism.
@@troyhailey I did not. My argument is the incentive structure. If the woman's choice comes first, she is still the main driver/originator of everything that flows from that point forward. For example, she has the ability to pick a man agreeable do whatever she demands, or on her terms. A man that permits her to NOT have children. Or pick a man not even suited to raise a family, etc.
@brianh1161 I don’t read his point that way, possibly because I have read so much of his work. He has a series on here, “Dear Darla” about a young woman and how she should wait for a husband, evaluate suitors, and submit to her father through it all. That might help you fill out the picture of what he believes on this topic.
@@kaylar3197 Fair enough, thanks for clarifying. I am still of a mind that coverture is going to absolutely have to return for any feminism-reversal efforts to truly matter, but we’re a long way from that.
@@brianh1161 I'm not positive I understand your use of the word "coverture", but I'm gonna assume from the context that you mean the structure of society will have to change. Am I close? I agree; I also think the most effective way to do this is through healthy, God-honoring families and unashamed, Bible preaching churches. I'm not sure how that counters any of Doug's points here; he is talking in ideals and principles, not giving a practical step by step "how to get from here to there". Also, the series I mentioned is not addressing the culture at large, but Christian women who are already committed to God's design.
@@kaylar3197 Coverture, meaning men are the legal guardians of their unmarried daughters and wives. Otherwise, anything short is just a mirage of a male-run society, because it only exists with the permission of women, implicit or explicit. This co-existed with Christianity for the better part of 2000 years, during which period no Christian thought leaders seemed to have a problem with or at least spent any notable time opposing.
Support for Gilder is disgusting especially at this point in history. He ushered in feminism. And we should have the courage and clarity to say it. "She chooses the king" - just even by saying this leads to the "women rule the world" mentality that permeates society today. By calling men "disposeable" (hello, no-fault divorce) and Gilder's blatantly plain argument that men were unnecessary to the raising of children (which then became enshrined in DECADES of custody law), we have seen the absolute destruction of families and society to the point that single-mothers are rampant (has anyone checked Tinder, Hinge, OK Cupid, FB dating, etc lately?) and... we have copious amounts of peer-reviewed data showing that single-mother raised children are the predominate source of societally destructive children. There is no excuse for Gilder's thinking at this stage. We can and should do better. If there was anything "good" in his thinking - take it and craft the new message going forward. But for the love of everything Holy. stop ALL the nonsense about "men are here to serve women" and "men are disposeable". I don't care how it is explained or nuanced - if that comes out of person's mouth or is put on a page then f*** them and they need to be buried in history.
I am pretty sure that feminism predates Gilder's writings (That earned him "Male Chauvinist Pig of the Year") by over half a century, but as to the two things you detest, that "men are here to serve women" and "men are disposable", the first statement comes from the logical conclusion of these two passages: Mark 10:41-45 “Even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” Eph. 5:25-26 "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless." The same passage in Ephesians, a couple verses back, also says: "Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything." These two ideas, that the man is the head, AND that the man is servant, are a basic tenant of the Christian faith. We can find the two ties together in Matthew 20:25-29: "But Jesus called them to Himself and said, 'You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant.'" "Men are here to serve women" is a concept that comes from scripture, and ALSO male headship comes from scripture. Scripture teaches that rulers are to serve, and that men rule over women. So when you say "f*** them and they need to be buried in history", you are cursing the Lord of Glory, though I am sure you did not have Him in mind when you said it. We are not saying that a man is unimportant when we say that men are disposable. We mean that, after a sexual encounter, the man can go off the very next day, get killed in battle or die protecting his wife and child from an intruder, and his wife and child will be able to continue on without him. He was necessary for the creation of the child, the protection of the wife, and the survival of his nation, but he can be destroyed (disposed of) without the necessary destruction of the object he died for. In fact, his sacrifice is often tied to the preservation of the object. The man is disposable by design, in case the family or civilization is struck in such a way that a loss is necessary. He can plant his seed, and then die to protect it. In the woman's case, if she dies, so does the seed. There are other areas beyond the realm of propagation where the man is "disposable", and other areas where the loss of the man would be far worse than the loss of the woman, but I used propagation as an example to demonstrate that your blanket condemnation is foolish.
Lol you just made the argument (completely unfounded, but you made it) for studying Gilder as being such a towering intellectual presence that he ushered in feminism, no fault divorce, and the child custody laws that reign across every courthouse in America.
@atysinger The comment was in context of the thread and the fact that Wilson is speaking to the Church. Gilder didn't invent feminism or no fault divorce, etc. He did directly influence the church to accept and even celebrate these horrific ideologies and societal changes by the arguments he made. He thus helped to usher feminism into the church. But yes, go off midwit.
Perhaps in the same vein, I also bristle at "Complimentarianism" as a modern term invented to thread the needle between traditional roles and feminist sensibliities. Avoid directly addressing the critical issue of authority by focusing on the 'teamwork' aspect of the male/female relationship. Maybe I protest too much.
@@rebeccalindley153 what matters is the Bible and God. The entire nation and west is collapsing because it caters to lusts of persons like women instead of God.
@@jls0037cslewis1 The entire West is collapsing because Christians aren't getting married and having children and raising them properly, like God told them to. And, not accepting the human nature that God gave men is part of it. The Puritans had good sex lives, lots of children, and wrote about the proper treatment of women. William Gouge's treatise "Of Domestic Duties" is a example of proper treatment of women (and available to read on the net). And, a Christian man calling his wife "my queen," is a sign of love and respect.
@@rebeccalindley153 You're kidding yourself if you think the Puritans treated women better than any other societies at the time; Puritan women couldn't own property, couldn't buy or sell land (apart from widows who had not remarried), they couldn't sue in a court, couldn't participate in town meetings, or vote in general elections. Puritans didn't approve of any methods to prevent pregnancy, hence their families being larger than most other groups. Plus, Puritan ministers preached that the soul had two parts, the immortal masculine half, and the mortal feminine half. Also, women had to dress 'modestly', covering their hair and arms; anyone found guilty of immodest dress could be stripped to the waist and whipped until their backs were bloody.
Who is central? Jesus! And marriage reflects He and His church! What I just heard in that section was very much “thinking in an earthly way” …I wonder what happened to “By what standard?” He brought it back to that, but I don’t understand why he didn’t start there.
Our LORD, GOD and SAVIOUR did create the simplest fabric (H²O) to sustain all of life here on earth. Just as the Jordan and the Euphrates are made of this fabric, so to also are the Bow and the Elbow. 🌱LIFE IS BUT A VAPOUR (H²O)🌹 HOLY BIBLE Habakkuk 3:9 Thy bow was made quite naked (bare), according to the oaths of the tribes (oaths were sworn over your arrows), even thy word, Selah. Thou didst cleave (divided) the earth with rivers. 🙌ALLELUIA🙌 A-men' 🌿
Just take the L and move on guys. Do you moscow boys know any other response other than doubling down, digging your heels in, or digging a deeper hole?
Once again, Doug’s out here plainly employing the most obvious fallacy. It’s not whether he’s wrong for doing so, it’s which immature excuse will he use to justify it. You are so much better than this laziness. Christ is not well represented by poor logic. You of all people should know that. Yet you persist in claiming all sorts of ground for Him with it. His kingdom is not a house built on sand….and even if you aren’t laying a foundation, no house built OF sand will stand either.
I am very highly trained in logic and critical thinking. As a Christian man, it is my position that all logical and evidential apologetics fail. So I was curious about your comment "Christ is not well represented by poor logic". Does using "good logic" represent Christ well?
You shouldn't be surprised at the jumping to the conclusion of "going woke" when that is precisely the culture you have stoked. Moscow ran multiple shows claiming The Daily Wire of all places was going woke because they put a woman with a low cut top in a commercial. I'm a tremendous fan and long time commentor on your website. I'm not coming down against you, just calling balls and strikes as I see them. For a couple years now, several of your prominent voices, most notably Toby Sumpter, have been more trigger happy on calling other conservatives "woke" than Bruce Willis when the Nakatomi Christmas party goes south. What goes around comes around.
DW was and has drifted left though. In the current overton window they’re decently right wing. But by the objective standard which Wilson rightly holds to, they’re drifting slowly left.
When did they say DW is going woke? I remember Toby Sumpter saying they're proto-woke, which is very different--that the way their commercial treated women was exactly the attitude that caused the feminist revolt, not that it was part of the feminist revolt.
Just checking, in this whole comment thread DW = Daily Wire, correct? Doug Wilson just happens to share those initials too so clarification is needed. Daily Wire is clearly a woke sympathizer, and if you think it's determined by one woman's choice of clothes than you missed the point of that line.
A bigger offense may be supporting phony opposition like The Daily Wire at all. "Watch us be outraged about barbie and wokeness, but don't ever question who is really running all of this nonsense, notice patterns, or do anything meaningful about it!"
@@brianh1161 This is a good example of what I mean. If you're going to hurl mindless insults at other conservative outlets over minor issues upon which you disagree, you don't really get to complain when you receive the same.
“Men are dominant and always will be dominant!” “What kind of patriarchy do you want to have!” Such a true statement and question!
We have Pagan Roman Patriarchy and Biblical Patriarchy. Some men in the church act out Roman patriarchy and call it biblical patriarchy, giving biblical patriarchy a bad name.
Our LORD, GOD and SAVIOUR did create the simplest fabric (H²O) to sustain all of life here on earth.
Just as the Jordan and the Euphrates are made of this fabric, so to also are the Bow and the Elbow.
🌱LIFE IS BUT A VAPOUR (H²O)🌹
HOLY BIBLE
Habakkuk 3:9
Thy bow was made quite naked (bare),
according to the oaths of the tribes
(oaths were sworn over your arrows),
even thy word, Selah.
Thou didst cleave (divided) the earth
with rivers.
🙌ALLELUIA🙌
A-men' 🌿
The "Inevitability of Patriarchy;" what a brilliant name for a book... '-)
Not sure if you were being facetious but it already is a book title, written by Steven Goldberg.
@@holysmokes4493 Not facetious, but more of an "in" joke to those who read that book.
I listened to an update /history of the scourge known as scientology today. We in this country have "embraced" many an ill gotten and ill conceived proposition, but this one takes the cake. Our basic understanding of all things life on the planet has been so distorted that to speak anything that nears the truth can land you in several circumstances of litigation. My son was saying to me today how much he appreciates my input, and with a tear in my eye I reminded him that God's word is that powerful, and that when we throw ourselves at His mercy he gives us all that is required for life on the planet and so much more. Thank you Doug for helping we, your brothers and sisters in the Church to navigate in these turbulent times
What an awesome moment between father and son; you are blessed.
As a millennial, I love my faithful elders. The men are my church are fantastic spiritual guides.
What a shame that nobody likes reading anymore.
They like reacting. Starts with the same three letters. Close enough? 😉
That was profound and edifying! The metaphors of wagers and a sign on bonus were thought provoking!
Canon Press are ecumenical reformers. And that's a good thing. Calvin was too.
A lot of young Christian men these days are giving into red-pill rhetorics about subjugating women. However, the authority of God and Jesus Christ has always been a loving and sacrificial one. Thank you for this video!
No, a lot of young men are just now fully realizing how deeply feminism is rooted in the church
So women shouldn't be subjugated to men, and we shouldn't be subjugated to Christ? Christ is loving, AND we are his subjects. Men should be loving, AND women should be their husband's subject.
@@basedbulgarian511 You are correct. The first witnesses to Christ's resurrection were women. The first Christian evangelist was a woman (Mary Magdalene), Jesus honored the unnamed woman that anointed Him and washed His feet with her tears. In fact, we never see Jesus subjugating or suppressing any woman.
@@joabthejavelin5119
Why does anyone have to be subjugated to anyone else? (in the context of close interpersonal relations)
@wet-read Because the Bible says, "Wives, submit to your husbands." Someone always has to submit. I have to submit to my boss at work. Women have to submit to their bosses. Why is it ok for women to submit to their bosses, but not their husbands? Good husbands love their wives and would think of them first in every decision they make. Good husbands would die for their wives if necessary. Would their bosses die for them?
Husbands should consult their wives before making decisions, but the final say is the husbands. Women should trust that their husbands have their best interests in mind and that they are capable of making good decisions. Women should pray for their husbands to be given wisdom. It is hard for men and women to find a good spouse in America today. Men aren't willing to take on responsibility, and women aren't willing to submit to a husband. They would rather marry the government, which does not care about them other than as a voting block.
Thankyou for speaking truth! God bless! 😁🙏
Sitting here with Federal Husband on my nightstand!
'Sage Against the Machine'.
(8:30) _Feminism wants men to have responsibility without authority. The masculinist reaction wants men to have authority without responsibility. But the two must necessarily go together. In a well-ordered household they do and in the economy of God as I've also taught for decades, authority flows to those who take responsibility_
the new studio set look nice.
Gilder's "Wealth and Poverty" was a major step in my exit from the left.
Do you understand that "Supply Side Economics" is from Karl Marx? Do you understand that the Reagan years took the US from the world's largest creditor nation to the world's largest debtor nation in 6 years? Reagan tripled the national debt, and increased the yearly deficit nearly 10 fold. Additionally, the 2 recessions that occurred during the Reagan years ('82, '86) were the worst recessions (only to be superseded by GW BUSH and T***P economies) since the Great Depression. All of this while Reagan proposed and signed into law 10 tax increases.
@@manager0175 I never voted for Reagan, although I once used his toilet at his Santa Barbara ranch.
@@manager0175 Bush raised taxes significantly. If both his and Reagan's 10 tax increases led to these recessions as you suggest, then how is that an indictment against supply side economics (a position I don't hold to)?
Wouldn't a counter argument be that these recessions happened because Reagan, and particularly Bush didn't remain faithful to supply side economics?
And why didn't those tax increases lower, not potentially worsen the deficit?
Wasn't the deficit driven by an important historical event that justified massive military spending?
@@manager0175Nerd really had to censor Trump. Childish behavior as usual.
@@Chief_Of_Sinners You said "Bush raised taxes significantly. If both his and Reagan's 10 tax increases led to these recessions as you suggest.." I never suggested that. I pointed out those items because it is contradictory the "conservative" idea of lower taxes and small government. The recessions (and subsequent tripling of national debt, etc.) were directly caused by "supply side, trickle down economics". The fact is, lowering taxes for the wealthiest has never created more jobs than raising taxes on the wealthiest. The fact is, every GOP president since Teddy Roosevelt has had at least 1 recession. 4 GOP presidents have had 2 recessions. Ike had 3 recession. 10 of the past 11 recessions occurred when a GOP was in the presidency. The factual data is clear for over 100 years. Nothing has been more of an abysmal failure than GOP "Conservative" economic policies.
I enjoyed eve in exile a couple years ago. The documentary was a fun extension.
May the God of Jacob, Our Father, give you a long, healthy life and protect you so that we all continue to receive your fruits of wisdom.
What would be the example for a husband taking responsibility for the wife's guilt? How would it play out?
Could you create a simulated general issue and show me this principle played out?
My wife and I have been married a little over a year.
I just want to know what this looks like because if i'm just being frank it sounds like even though everything may not be my fault i will certainly be treated as though it is.
Again I ask. Please show me an example so I may understand.
Thank you. God bless.
Your wife backs her car into another car in a parking lot and causes some damage to it. It's not your fault; nobody thinks it's your fault, but it's your responsibility to make sure it's taken care of properly.
Maybe it's reassuring her that accidents happen and telling her to call the highway patrol to fill out a police report when she calls you upset right after it happens. Maybe it's handling the insurance claim for her. Maybe it's encouraging her to handle the insurance claim herself, but making sure it gets done, and helping her through all the paperwork.
I can only speak for my own limited experience, and after 18 years of marriage, I can unequivocally state that the first year of marriage was the hardest. There's an old black-and-white movie that we watched together called Period of Adjustment, which was helpful, or at least cathartic to my wife. It takes time to adjust to a new life together and to each other's quirks and immaturity. at the time, I thought that we were far too immature for children, and so we delayed having them, but in retrospect, I now realize that nobody is mature enough for children until their third or fourth child. Do not delay the divine desire expressed in Malachi 2:15.
To your specific question, I would put it this way: As the protector and head of my household, just as Christ is head of the church, it is my responsibility to address the negative inputs and destructive influences of the world coming into our home, and into the minds of my wife and children. Do not allow the lies of the world to permeate your household through compromised media, education, churches, etc., lest you lose your wife and children to them.
If my wife and I are not on the same page on something critical, it is my responsibility to find a better way to communicate and guide without allowing strife to take root in my heart or hers. Any breakdown or failure is viewed by me as a failure of effective leadership on my part, as I have much to learn from the example of leadership set by Jesus, not only in the gospels, but also in the early chapters of Revelation, in which he provides praise and encouragement, followed by corrective leadership, to his body the church. In all things, follow the voice of the Holy Spirit.
Your wife bumps into a guy, and he gets mad and wants to fight. The husband is the one who fights even though he did not initiate it.
That is a crude example that involves several rude people, but I think it demonstrates the point.
In other words, you are accountable for her, and she has a duty not to misrepresent you. You are now a union, 1 in 2 bodies.
Here is a simple example of the husband taking respobsibility for his wife: The wife goes a little crazy with the credit card buying things for the house and name brand clothing for the new born twins, blowing the budget. Husband must figure out a way to work for extra income to pay off that high interest card and not send out the wife to find a job as she is taking care of the babies and keeping house.
your primary job as the husband is to protect and take care of your wife. when she is at fault, yes you must be aware of that fault, but the blame should never go to her. find ways in which you will keep her from making the same mistake again.
Friendliness to Twitter is somewhat suspicious. Space X would be far less so. I need to drink some water. We should sing the psalms.
IOW (re one point), "Do you people even Fifth Commandment?"
LOVE thy wife / SUBMIT to thy husband, seems straightforward... Ya think those are the "strong suits" for the respective parties as decreed?😅
15:30 ish 😂meh the millennials wouldn't make it past 3:55 segue
Paul also taught "Submit yourselves, one to another." and "In Christ there is no male nor female, no Jew nor Greek, no slave nor free."
@@manager0175 that does not say "husbands submit to your wives." Not unless it also means "parents submit to your children and masters submit to your slaves"
@@cosmictreason2242 Well, let me offer another consideration in this matter. I contend that the greatest example of submission was the Kenosis (the self-emptying of Christ to become human). Is that not a worthy example to follow? In terms of parents and children, I raised my daughters to call me into question any decision I made (my wife too). They made their case, I made mine. I never had to demand their obedience nor submission. What it did do was present to my kids (and my wife) that I was human and made mistakes just as any human does. It also fostered good communication and mutual respect. And I still maintain that a child's respect is something a parent (in my case, a father) must earn (on a daily basis) not owed just because they fertilized an egg. It doesn't fit into the current "authoritarian father, submissive mother, obedient children" model, but it does foster a calm household, with mutual respect and very good communications. Welcome to the post modern world, post-modern marriage and parenting.
What if I told you that the folly of the elders is the post-war ideology that race, and generations don't matter...
don't forget most among doug's generation are responsible for the sexual revolution.
What biblical text supports your position?
@@vanessaloy1049 "cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons" there is recognition that different races have different tendencies that are negative. to feign ignorance of these differences is irresponsible.
we can prove that much of the differences in success between races in america is largely due to predictable genetic traits. denial of this is much to blame for the resentment between the races.
@@vanessaloy1049 things clearly evident in natural law.
@@kuhatsuifujimoto9621 That’s a common argument pro-abortion people frequently make, that children turn out poorly because of their genetic heritage.
Also guys, don't forget, when the moscow boys use the Kenservative memes they're doing it because they've taken dominion over everything they find funny. But when other Christians take dominion over White Boy Summer, it's wrong.
Moscow - Rules for thee, but not for me
Intro WAY too loud 😅
Patriarchy isn’t actually inescapable while it likely would be better if it was. It must be made to be inescapable in the sense that if it were fully allowed to go away we would basically have to expect significant increase of chaos, it would mean men had generally become so insufficient that women more or less would have to try to behave as men should be, and this certainly could lead up to being the president of a country we do need to try to evade this, I certainly am in favor of a current president not being impeached primarily in relation to this but God certainly is sovereign and involved regardless of what occurs. We have to insure that abortion, pornography, homosexuality, and gender confusion are ended on legal levels, we need to work quickly and efficiently to try to gain the favor of God if there is any real hope of that I need to think that there is because if there isn’t we should all just flee to Russia probably.
It's honestly hard to take this idea seriously, especially in a Christian context.
What idea
@@cosmictreason2242 the idea of the video
Then i don't see your problem with it
Excuse my ignorance, I'm in Europe, I watch a lot of this man's videos and have come to enjoy them, but what is this ' Moscow ' he often refers too. I've guessed it's not the capital of Russia but some kind of movement or a place in America with a movement in it ? But what exactly is it ? Thanks in advance for info
Wilson lives in Moscow, Idaho.
@@BossBattle21 Thanks for that... and is there a religious community there ? A town founded by religious or something ?
@@adventureinallthings
Sorta. Canon Press, Wilson's church, and a college/seminary are all present. According to Wilson and the guys at CrossPolitic most people view the city as split evenly between the people of New St Andrew's church (where Wilson pastors) and the rest of the town. I'm pretty sure there is a secular university there as well. A lot of Christians have moved to that area recently having been inspired by the Christian community idea that Wilson/Canon have been preaching.
@@BossBattle21 ok thanks, that clears it up, he talks a lot about it but for an outsider without context, it's very confusing. I don't think he realises a lot of people watching have no idea, 'Moscow' sounds like ' the Kremlin '
@@adventureinallthings
👍 You're welcome
Glider made a factually false statement on page 1 of chapter 1. I am not arguing with the entirety on the contents of the book. Glider was illegitimately comparing the behavior of unregenerate men to regenerate women. The sexual pathology of women is far more subversive to the survival of civilization than male. I think the youngsters got a bit overboard. But blocking them all is quite cowardly. Gliders book may have substantial utility. But his statements are overtly offensive precisely because they are based on dubious or exaggerated premises. It's also a product of it's time, written from a position of weakness. I am only commenting on that singular page. Others can determine how helpful it actually is. You should consider the possibility you are wrong.
Also Unblock William Swollace.
It's gilding.
Wilson's blindness is that he doesn't recognize that there is no authority that men wield ... regardless of whether they "assume responsibility" or not. Assuming responsibility without the authority to fix the problem is simply being scapegoated for blame. Which is exactly what Feminism does. This is why the shell game of words that these "christians" play around "male responsibility" is so dishonest. They refuse to act to deliver authority back to men - even knowing it was men like Gilder who were significant in stripping that authority away from men decades prior. So the game is really all an anti-male endgame.. which is to say.. it's feminist at its core and Christianity as led by these boomers are functionally feminist in their teaching and practice.
If they want to teach the return of responsibility to men, there needs to be activism to return authority to men. Otherwise, men and women need to be made to own their own actions and Christianity needs to hold women responsible for their own behaviors - like the overwhelming divorce rate and rampant feminism in the pews.
Well, I think you have to right the shop first by killing all the idols of feminism, then after that you can start to teach male responsibility again. If you teach male responsibility without first righting the ship, it will just get interpreted through the lens of feminist if assumptions.
@@raker1980 what do you mean "killing all the idols of feminism"??
@@aallen5256The idea of women independence for one.
I agree. Society has to be unfeminized to its traditional balance before the Church can make demands of men. The Church should be leading this charge but strangely they are absent from that entire conversation much less have any active efforts in trying to make actual societal changes.
if you don't think women should be trusted to make good decisions, how can you expect them to decide to fix this problem. even if you don't think men caused our current situation, men must be the ones to lead women out of it.
Boost
Got it. Nothing we don’t like is caused by anything we like.
Have a nice day.
Okay, I’ve always had a problem with the idea that the husband is responsible for his wife’s behavior. It seems to contradict free will.
It sounds like a husband is responsible for the free will choices of another person, which I’ve always thought impossible.
It also seems to suggest that morality is relative. That if a husband is a bad husband, then the wife is not guilty for her own sins.
Please tell me I am wrong. How does federal headship make it possible for one person to give up their personal accountability to another person? I thought that everyone was responsible for their actions, not the actions of others.
You’re missing the distinction between responsibility and guilt. They each bear the guilt for their own sins, but the husband, as the head, is responsible. Just as the head of any other organization is responsible for those he leads even when they are at fault. Think, military leader, CEO, Pastor, etc; those positions each come with a measure of responsibility-some more than others-a husband’s is very broad, even as his authority is.
I agree that you're missing the distinction between responsibility and guilt. I find that we can grasp this concept just fine when it relates to children.
If your minor child damages someone's property, who's the guilty party? The child. Who's legally responsible for the damages? Most likely, you.
@@RachelRamey yeahh equating women with children doesn't feel helpful or fair! Just another way to denigrate half the population as lesser.
"She is the queen" kind of lost me. Women should not be the absolute arbiters of their society's reproductive future (ie who they choose to marry and what their family should be). Otherwise, power/authority still flow back to the woman based on the incentive structure this creates (men trying to please the whims of women in order to be chosen by them). It isn't my intent to misrepresent your position, but to me it appears you've circled right back to feminism.
@@troyhailey I did not. My argument is the incentive structure. If the woman's choice comes first, she is still the main driver/originator of everything that flows from that point forward. For example, she has the ability to pick a man agreeable do whatever she demands, or on her terms. A man that permits her to NOT have children. Or pick a man not even suited to raise a family, etc.
@brianh1161 I don’t read his point that way, possibly because I have read so much of his work. He has a series on here, “Dear Darla” about a young woman and how she should wait for a husband, evaluate suitors, and submit to her father through it all. That might help you fill out the picture of what he believes on this topic.
@@kaylar3197 Fair enough, thanks for clarifying. I am still of a mind that coverture is going to absolutely have to return for any feminism-reversal efforts to truly matter, but we’re a long way from that.
@@brianh1161 I'm not positive I understand your use of the word "coverture", but I'm gonna assume from the context that you mean the structure of society will have to change. Am I close? I agree; I also think the most effective way to do this is through healthy, God-honoring families and unashamed, Bible preaching churches. I'm not sure how that counters any of Doug's points here; he is talking in ideals and principles, not giving a practical step by step "how to get from here to there". Also, the series I mentioned is not addressing the culture at large, but Christian women who are already committed to God's design.
@@kaylar3197 Coverture, meaning men are the legal guardians of their unmarried daughters and wives. Otherwise, anything short is just a mirage of a male-run society, because it only exists with the permission of women, implicit or explicit. This co-existed with Christianity for the better part of 2000 years, during which period no Christian thought leaders seemed to have a problem with or at least spent any notable time opposing.
Support for Gilder is disgusting especially at this point in history. He ushered in feminism. And we should have the courage and clarity to say it.
"She chooses the king" - just even by saying this leads to the "women rule the world" mentality that permeates society today. By calling men "disposeable" (hello, no-fault divorce) and Gilder's blatantly plain argument that men were unnecessary to the raising of children (which then became enshrined in DECADES of custody law), we have seen the absolute destruction of families and society to the point that single-mothers are rampant (has anyone checked Tinder, Hinge, OK Cupid, FB dating, etc lately?) and... we have copious amounts of peer-reviewed data showing that single-mother raised children are the predominate source of societally destructive children.
There is no excuse for Gilder's thinking at this stage. We can and should do better. If there was anything "good" in his thinking - take it and craft the new message going forward. But for the love of everything Holy. stop ALL the nonsense about "men are here to serve women" and "men are disposeable". I don't care how it is explained or nuanced - if that comes out of person's mouth or is put on a page then f*** them and they need to be buried in history.
I am pretty sure that feminism predates Gilder's writings (That earned him "Male Chauvinist Pig of the Year") by over half a century, but as to the two things you detest, that "men are here to serve women" and "men are disposable", the first statement comes from the logical conclusion of these two passages:
Mark 10:41-45
“Even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
Eph. 5:25-26
"Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless."
The same passage in Ephesians, a couple verses back, also says: "Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything."
These two ideas, that the man is the head, AND that the man is servant, are a basic tenant of the Christian faith. We can find the two ties together in Matthew 20:25-29:
"But Jesus called them to Himself and said, 'You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant.'"
"Men are here to serve women" is a concept that comes from scripture, and ALSO male headship comes from scripture. Scripture teaches that rulers are to serve, and that men rule over women. So when you say "f*** them and they need to be buried in history", you are cursing the Lord of Glory, though I am sure you did not have Him in mind when you said it.
We are not saying that a man is unimportant when we say that men are disposable. We mean that, after a sexual encounter, the man can go off the very next day, get killed in battle or die protecting his wife and child from an intruder, and his wife and child will be able to continue on without him. He was necessary for the creation of the child, the protection of the wife, and the survival of his nation, but he can be destroyed (disposed of) without the necessary destruction of the object he died for. In fact, his sacrifice is often tied to the preservation of the object. The man is disposable by design, in case the family or civilization is struck in such a way that a loss is necessary. He can plant his seed, and then die to protect it. In the woman's case, if she dies, so does the seed.
There are other areas beyond the realm of propagation where the man is "disposable", and other areas where the loss of the man would be far worse than the loss of the woman, but I used propagation as an example to demonstrate that your blanket condemnation is foolish.
Lol you just made the argument (completely unfounded, but you made it) for studying Gilder as being such a towering intellectual presence that he ushered in feminism, no fault divorce, and the child custody laws that reign across every courthouse in America.
@atysinger The comment was in context of the thread and the fact that Wilson is speaking to the Church. Gilder didn't invent feminism or no fault divorce, etc. He did directly influence the church to accept and even celebrate these horrific ideologies and societal changes by the arguments he made. He thus helped to usher feminism into the church.
But yes, go off midwit.
@@mudskipper3170 lol make arguments not insults.
Perhaps in the same vein, I also bristle at "Complimentarianism" as a modern term invented to thread the needle between traditional roles and feminist sensibliities. Avoid directly addressing the critical issue of authority by focusing on the 'teamwork' aspect of the male/female relationship. Maybe I protest too much.
That book seems pretty cucked. I'm surprised that canon press is pushing this so hard
Hard agree. This seems like one of their takes.
Women, are nothing more than the Bible says, and it certainly says she is not a Queen.
Do you have a happy home?
@@rebeccalindley153 what matters is the Bible and God. The entire nation and west is collapsing because it caters to lusts of persons like women instead of God.
You should read Song of Solomon.
@@jls0037cslewis1 The entire West is collapsing because Christians aren't getting married and having children and raising them properly, like God told them to. And, not accepting the human nature that God gave men is part of it. The Puritans had good sex lives, lots of children, and wrote about the proper treatment of women. William Gouge's treatise "Of Domestic Duties" is a example of proper treatment of women (and available to read on the net). And, a Christian man calling his wife "my queen," is a sign of love and respect.
@@rebeccalindley153 You're kidding yourself if you think the Puritans treated women better than any other societies at the time; Puritan women couldn't own property, couldn't buy or sell land (apart from widows who had not remarried), they couldn't sue in a court, couldn't participate in town meetings, or vote in general elections. Puritans didn't approve of any methods to prevent pregnancy, hence their families being larger than most other groups. Plus, Puritan ministers preached that the soul had two parts, the immortal masculine half, and the mortal feminine half. Also, women had to dress 'modestly', covering their hair and arms; anyone found guilty of immodest dress could be stripped to the waist and whipped until their backs were bloody.
Who is central? Jesus! And marriage reflects He and His church! What I just heard in that section was very much “thinking in an earthly way” …I wonder what happened to “By what standard?” He brought it back to that, but I don’t understand why he didn’t start there.
Our LORD, GOD and SAVIOUR did create the simplest fabric (H²O) to sustain all of life here on earth.
Just as the Jordan and the Euphrates are made of this fabric, so to also are the Bow and the Elbow.
🌱LIFE IS BUT A VAPOUR (H²O)🌹
HOLY BIBLE
Habakkuk 3:9
Thy bow was made quite naked (bare),
according to the oaths of the tribes
(oaths were sworn over your arrows),
even thy word, Selah.
Thou didst cleave (divided) the earth
with rivers.
🙌ALLELUIA🙌
A-men' 🌿
Just take the L and move on guys. Do you moscow boys know any other response other than doubling down, digging your heels in, or digging a deeper hole?
Once again, Doug’s out here plainly employing the most obvious fallacy. It’s not whether he’s wrong for doing so, it’s which immature excuse will he use to justify it.
You are so much better than this laziness. Christ is not well represented by poor logic. You of all people should know that. Yet you persist in claiming all sorts of ground for Him with it. His kingdom is not a house built on sand….and even if you aren’t laying a foundation, no house built OF sand will stand either.
What's the fallacy, and what's the sand?
I am very highly trained in logic and critical thinking. As a Christian man, it is my position that all logical and evidential apologetics fail. So I was curious about your comment "Christ is not well represented by poor logic". Does using "good logic" represent Christ well?
The more I read about Gilder and his connections the more disturbing it is that y'all are publishing this book.
You shouldn't be surprised at the jumping to the conclusion of "going woke" when that is precisely the culture you have stoked. Moscow ran multiple shows claiming The Daily Wire of all places was going woke because they put a woman with a low cut top in a commercial.
I'm a tremendous fan and long time commentor on your website. I'm not coming down against you, just calling balls and strikes as I see them. For a couple years now, several of your prominent voices, most notably Toby Sumpter, have been more trigger happy on calling other conservatives "woke" than Bruce Willis when the Nakatomi Christmas party goes south. What goes around comes around.
DW was and has drifted left though. In the current overton window they’re decently right wing. But by the objective standard which Wilson rightly holds to, they’re drifting slowly left.
When did they say DW is going woke? I remember Toby Sumpter saying they're proto-woke, which is very different--that the way their commercial treated women was exactly the attitude that caused the feminist revolt, not that it was part of the feminist revolt.
Just checking, in this whole comment thread DW = Daily Wire, correct? Doug Wilson just happens to share those initials too so clarification is needed.
Daily Wire is clearly a woke sympathizer, and if you think it's determined by one woman's choice of clothes than you missed the point of that line.
A bigger offense may be supporting phony opposition like The Daily Wire at all. "Watch us be outraged about barbie and wokeness, but don't ever question who is really running all of this nonsense, notice patterns, or do anything meaningful about it!"
@@brianh1161
This is a good example of what I mean.
If you're going to hurl mindless insults at other conservative outlets over minor issues upon which you disagree, you don't really get to complain when you receive the same.
How'd you do that?!
💘