I love George Gilder "Men and Marriage". Read it a long time ago and it made a big impact. Seems like so many of the discussions we are having today come right from Gilder but this is the first time I have heard anyone from online space refer to him. I haven't even watch the video yet. I am looking forward to it
Thanks for taking the time and effort to address many of the questions and concerns, and with friendliness. I’m still not sure I can recognize the exact congruence between Gilder and Pr Wilson’s approach… but I do understand much better the reasons for publishing him and the surprise at , as you described it, “criticism from the right.” I appreciate the work you all have put into encouraging Christian men and families through the years.
This really highlighted the problems in Gilbert's book rather than trying to answer why what Gilder says is fine. There are still humanistic and social contract presuppositions and he's just trying to baptize it with Christianity.
I have not read the book yet, though I ordered the box from Canon. Hopefully they don’t have supply chain disruptions this time. I look forward to seeing what all of the hubbub is about. Gilder is a serious thinker. His information theory of wealth was a pivotal piece in my understanding of economics.
I think you’ll find the book rather disturbing. As an aside, Gilder was invited onto a talk show after his first book on sex was published back in 1973, and he was physically attacked by several women in the audience, who rushed the stage at him. His books on sex are disturbing because he is very blunt about how he views society and sex roles. He says that feminism - all feminism - is pure fantasy. He calls it sexual suicide, where most men become and remain sexual nomads, never settling down. And women, in their delusion, believe freedom can be found in a career. But it cannot be so. He says that such women are delusional because in the end, they are not truly free. They are as free as far as their paycheck will take them, which for most women is maybe one month. And the men in a sexually liberated society will exploit women for sex. In my opinion, this is an accurate description for about half of the adult population in the US.
I think you’ll find the book rather disturbing. As an aside, Gilder was invited onto a talk show after his first book on sex was published back in 1973, and he was physically attacked by several women in the audience, who rushed the stage at him. His books on sex are disturbing because he is very blunt about how he views society and sex roles. He says that feminism - all feminism - is pure fantasy. He calls it sexual suicide, where most men become and remain sexual nomads, never settling down. And women, in their delusion, believe freedom can be found in a career. But it cannot be so. He says that such women are delusional because in the end, they are not truly free. They are as free as far as their paycheck will take them, which for most women is maybe one month. And the men in a sexually liberated society will exploit women for sex. In my opinion, this is an accurate description for about half of the adult population in the US.
No fault divorce effectively turns this on its head in terms of having responsibility without authority. Not before God of course for the Believer; however, effectively on a societal/cultural basis, which has created the polarization you describe. Obviously, it is far more complex than this. However, at its foundation, this is the core.
@ShopRat-cf9tr That is the problem. No Fault Divorce de facto changes Marriage from a Till Death Do Us Part covenant ratified before God into a mere man-made contract that happens to be highly slanted in favor of women. Oh, by the way, enlistment is much more like a temporary covenant than a contract. Once you swear that Oath, the Military owns you for the duration of the enlistment and in fact have various devices to extend that enlistment if the Military needs without your agreement.
@@johnslagboom1836 Do you believe it was caused by the sins of the past? Because women were stuck in bad marriage ( and what do you define as bad marriage- loveless ( I've got bowling and tuesday nites, and I have lodge meetings on wednesday nites, and have poker nite with boys on Thursday -and I have golf lineup for the weekend) , abusive, cheating. Pick the adjective. So She doesn't have a job ,other then changing diapers and cleaning and other Domestic duties ( better have dinner on the table by 5) or the financial means to support herself , and her children, and in so the husband holds that over her and he's in control and becomes a mandate for abuse. If the captain of the ship is incompetent there's bound to be a mutiny. and that is how the divorce laws became lopsided? The problem is they haven't kept up with times , did you know 40% wives make more than their husbands in 1973 it was 14%.
I wish I had known about this book years ago. I delayed marriage and paying for it economically now. My life seems to be tragedy. I justified singleness and delaying marriage thinking that I was sacrificing for the greater cause of the kingdom. But seems like a big mistake in retrospect. Got caught up in the idea of singleness and marriage as a burden. I thought I was following the Bible. The search for the right person and the idea of "its better to remain single than getting married to wrong person" seems to have not worked
Sometimes we expect men to do things that not even God will do…God takes responsibility for you when u submit to His will, when u step outside of God’s will, u are on ur own
I'm a huge fan of nearly everything Canon+ is and does. However, even after this explanation, I think you guys missed it on this one. Let me try and explain... All of the downstream-from-Dougs-encounter-with-Gilder stuff I hear, I agree with. Nearly everything you've mentioned in this video that makes the book valuable to you, I find valuable as well. But as a customer of Canon+, I need to tell you why this book actually bothers me. You seem to have characterized the backlash to this book as min-informed miscreants who just need to "read past the first page." I have, and the book still bothers me. The reason I subscribe to Canon+ is to have a vast library I can pull from of solid books written from a biblical worldview. I'm not in the app to have a library of what brought about the Moscow project, nor do I subscribe to gain access to the books that influenced Doug Wilson. I support the app because of what I hope it will be - a repository of sound biblical theology and media. After going through the book, the thought that kept coming to mind was "this book lacks a biblical worldview." Yes, there are some things Gilder gets right. But there are some things he gets terribly wrong, and if I'm suggesting this app to a friend of mine who doesn't know the vast backstory of why this book is valuable to Doug, then they will walk away scratching their head at best, and making conclusions about the biblical soundness of Canon+ at worst. You mention all the other books that came out of the Doug Wilson brain blender (Reforming Marriage, etc.) as a result of Gilder - are those books not enough to carry the torch of the ideas you want to get across? Saying that the backlash is only by those who need to read Gilder the most, to be honest, sounds like a massive blind spot, guys. I've never seen you guys champion a book so much as you have this one (it's plastered EVERYWHERE). It just doesn't make sense with all of the biblical worldview errors in the book. Honestly, I'm still confused.
This is the start to the discussion on the elephant in the room. The problem as I see it is that the disordered society has entered the church and men have abdicated their responsibility in most churches today. The only way to get that back is to tear it down and rebuild ordered the way Christ commanded it to be.
a value proposition is what differentiates your [book] from the rest in the field. our campaign thesis, that differentiated us from the current field, is that fathers are what our civilization needs most to progress in a healthy way.
Most people react to provocative writers as Hegelian sophists. They say I agree with "X" but don't go to the extreme of "Y," so I believe in "Z." Most people are fearful of identifying with anything deemed to be extreme. Truthseekers must avoid having their beliefs dominated by the subtle deceptions of dialectic fluidity.
So.... So many things. First, to have true authority means a way to give discipline if that authority is not kept or followed. Such as children. The rod of correction must be used because rebellion is in the heart of every child. And the rod of correction will beat it out of them. Authority does not mean only the right to tell women what to do, it means there needs to be the ability to enforce it. Even a servant is said not to be corrected with mere words. Same with a woman. You cannot correct her with mere words and good, godly leadership. There has to be something more. Even Hosea was not able to control Gomer for her rebellion. Or, God with Israel. Although both of these were shown to be good leaders/husbands. It takes more. A contract is not a contract if it cannot be enforced. That is why unilateral, no faut divorce is not a contract or covenant. There is no way for the man to enforce it. This was the main argument in 1917 when Russia instituted no-fault, unilateral divorce under Marxism. A contract is not a contract with no enforceability. It is simply legal co-habitation. Doug Wilson is right that if a wife goes astray, it is the man's fault. Not the man in the marriage, but the men who allowed or gave women the allowance to vote and to initiate divorce in the United States and England. And it is our (current men's) fault for allowing it to go on. Women don't run America. Men do. At any time, we can take it over. We are simply allowing women to have a say. That is why men have stronger muscles over women. Men can always take charge over women (in general) whenever they want. They either don't understand it, won't accept it, or don't agree with it. But one way or another, men have authority over women in the world. That was the meaning of the curse. Women will desire to have a husband in order to have children, but that man will rule over her. Sometimes good, and sometimes bad. Coverture law at common law ruled the land in America and England for hundreds of years. Women were seen as property of the man. This was taken from the bride price and biblically speaking. When the women took on her husband's last name, she became a legal extension of him. Same with the children. Only men were allowed to vote, change laws, rule the court system (common law), and make decisions for the family (king of his own castle). Not the woman, children, or slaves. This all changed when the woman's suffrage movement jumped on board with the slavery movement demanding equal rights. The women used the 14th Amendment, that was created to make blacks equal to whites, as meaning to all people. But that was not the intent. Black men were still supposed to be in charge of their wives as well as the white men. And this is also where women started to demand an amendment to vote. To change laws! Don't be stupid men, of course that is why women wanted the right to vote. Single women and widows had many rights that the men had. They could have jobs and own land. However, a woman who is under her father's authority (Numbers 30:2-16) and a wife was subject to the male authority in their life. Numbers 30:8-9 gave widows the ability to provide for themselves. Women were seen as under their father's authority until married. Most of the time. Only in rare cases was this not true. Men need to take back America and their families through the muscles that God gave them. Not through the vote or the political machine. It is already too late for that.
Doug WIlson's views on this entire subject are remarkable to me. It's clear that he's brilliant, and he's diagnosed a lot of the problems well, but he has done such a bad job at understanding the root of the problem that his solutions are all... well they're not terrible and they're also not good. They miss the point. It's as if he came to a billiards competition and played a perfect game of snooker. It's not about dominance. If your model for Biblical masculinity is based on out-of-context snatchings from psalms, or even well-studied paragraphs in the New Testament epistles, you're always going to miss the point, because you haven't read the most essential paragraph in the New Testament epistles (Ephesians 5:21-31, although ironically you quote it frequently). Our model for husband and wife behavior is Christ and the church. Our model for masculinity is Christ. And if you see Christ as a dominating figure, you don't know him very well. Christ's posture towards both the Father and to mankind is one of humility. Though he is rightfully lord, he doesn't take equality with God as something to be used to his own advantage. It is because of his great _humility_ that he is glorified, that every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess. So there's no sense in which "domination" can even be the right subject of discussion. If you view things through the lens of dominance and submission, you can't understand what submission is actually supposed to look like. And this is where Wilson's theological presuppositions preclude him from understanding the Bible. Christ isn't dominant over us - he is humble and gentle, and that's why he doesn't force himself onto us - he gives us a choice. It's a betrothal, not an abduction. If you see Christ's work as _irresistible_ then you can't ever come to reasonable opinions about the proper relationship between the sexes - because the human relationship is modeled after Christ (and not visa-versa). Therefore the presence of consent-based marriages in Christian cultures is evidence of the Spirit leading us into all truth, and not evidence of Christian praxis diverging from theory. Otherwise, I'd like to see Wilson encouraging arranged marriages and forbidding divorce to the woman, but he doesn't. I don't see how reformed soteriology leaves any option for sensible views on sex, and I'm glad that Wilson is as happy to be inconsistent on this point as he is on the idea that God loves the people he, ostensibly, did nothing to save.
If Christ is Lord and master (kurious) and we are as slaves, (doulos), what part of the dominant/submissive relationship is not clearly spelled out in that. Christ to the church. Husband to wife. Seems pretty clear to me.
@@bfinn6160 It's clear that Christ is lord, yes. But it's his _behavior_ as lord that contradicts the idea. What did he do? He washed his disciples' fdet as if he were the slave -- even the one who was going to betray him. He proceeded to allow the people who should have hailed him as their king and God, to kill him in the most brutal way imaginable. Besides, nowhere is that kind of language used to describe the relationship between husband and wife, and when Paul _does_ use that language, he makes it very clear that it's a metaphor (he was speaking in human terms so that they would understand). But marriage is a metaphor for the reality of Christ and the church, not the other way around.
@@josephbrandenburg4373 I struggle to see how you think that what you said disagrees with anything that Doug teaches. Doug does not in any way deny the servant-role of the husband. A good husband is more than willing to take responsibility and lordship in his marriage while ALSO being a servant. "But Jesus called them to him and said, You know that the rulers of the Gentiles Lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave, even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” This does not contradict the above teaching by Doug.
I haven't read Gilder's book, so I am not trying to be dogmatic, but hearing the position from Wilson makes Gilder sound like a soft feminist. It sounds like the point being made from Gilder's position is that men need women's approval/permission to be men. I can't find the timestamp but there was a point where Wilson made it sound like men can't be "...generals, warriors, leaders..." without feminine approval. I think the Biblical way of wording this is that men need women's cooperation to be the complete creation that God intended. Just as women need men to be complete as God has made them. Specifically, a man is made whole with his wife, and a woman with her husband.
@@CanonPress Ok, I didn't think that Gilder or Wilson held such a position. But after growing up in a society where women are constantly catered to as being superior to men, anything that sounds like it ( women are sexually superior) comes across as a type of feminism. It's not so much a critique of what you teach as a comment on how it sounds from my perspective.
@@BossBattle21Isn’t there enough nuance to say that 1) husbands make up the foundations of societies and lead households and nations into glory, AND 2) the very nature of female se-xuality incentivizes men to basically “settle down?” The whole point is that the female se-xual cycle naturally lasts from the conception, to the birth, to the rearing of the child, and the male se-xual cycle lasts… about an hour or so. For a woman, s-ex has years long consequences, potentially. For a man, it has none. Within marriage, the female s-exual cycle basically “holds down” and harnesses a male’s se-xuality. That’s not to say that women are above men; only that women (by biological design) harnesses a man’s power to her BECAUSE of her se-xual cycle lasting years.
@@mcgheebentle1958 I understand the point Gilder and Wilson are making. My statement is from the perspective of someone who stumbled into this topic yesterday from one of Wilson's videos. I also understand why younger men find Gilder's vocabulary choice disturbing. Gilder didn't go through being told constantly that men are inferior (over and over). When that is the constant drum beat you've heard your entire life and you realize that many Christian have been saying it too... I understand both sides of the argument. I don't think Wilson was wrong in reprinting the book. The young bucks are over reacting. Wilson and Co. are ignorant of what it's like growing up being force-fed feminist fodder.
@@BossBattle21 I think that’s why we need to hear Gilder and Wilson all the more right now. I think we can be tempted to be too reactionary. Yes we grew up in a world where men are told they are inferior, but we should be very very cautious to not be reactionary to that. We should say true things, regardless of what our society is saying. And sometimes it won’t be a message that goes entirely contrary to society. We need those older and wiser voices that can temper our instinct to be overly reactionary to what we were told all of our lives. Because it is tempting to be reactionary, isn’t it.
Friendliness to the catholic business as it stands is suspicious. They are literally the most significant business threat to the entire universe seems technically likely from my perspective, I have to say this is actually safe to trust while I certainly am not saying we should be afraid of them, acknowledgement is opposed to them and everyone else is actually reasonable in some regard I think, I need to pray following my acknowledgment of them, they need to not be flattered far more than they need to not be slandered for the time being, it may be either a warning or somewhat optimistic that reform may occur if I acknowledge them, I should actually decline in doing it in a comment like format probably but I personally would advocate praying for them on a regular basis. Adoption of a Westminster confession of faith could likely aid that they could begin to seem like friends to everyone, but I would still be favorable to churches like Christ church in Moscow and reformed baptist churches increasing personally, I’m not opposed to the conservative Presbyterian churches that don’t practice infant communion I just wonder if they would become somewhat obsolete if necessary changes did occur. You may need to pray that God would not want you to be scared of them. You may need to pray that God would not oppose you in relation to your wealth, and that he would not let the devil, demons, and angels oppose you because of your wealth, that is not meant as any kind of jab, there is some divine opposition correlated with wealth is technically perceivable, I have to say with the largest religious institution it is dangerous toward literally everyone technically apart from necessary reform, God is opposed to the proud of course, God can not be a villain if he is actually favorable to them in relation to monetary success, I reiterate we should not be scared of them may have to be prayerfully maintained.
With great responsibility comes great power. If you take no responsibility when things go bad in your life or others then you limit your ability to do anything to correct the situation. Christ took responsibility for the sins of the whole world though they were not his. Our lives are to be modeled after Christ and by following Christ we can see God's continued redemptive work manifest in our own lives, families, neighborhoods, towns, school districts, states and so on. "But wanting to justify himself, he asked Jesus "And Who is my neighbor?"
I greatly admire Doug Wilson. He’s one of my favorite thinkers of our time. God bless you sir.
"Disagree like a grownup." Great advice on a variety of fronts.
Authority flows to people who take responsibility 🤯
I learned that in Narnia ;)
It SHOULD flow...
Society has rigged the system in the favor of Promiscuous women.
I wish I'd been mentored by the likes of Doug when I was young. So much pain could have been spared.
Same. That's why I have made it my goal to mentor others like Doug does.
I love George Gilder "Men and Marriage". Read it a long time ago and it made a big impact. Seems like so many of the discussions we are having today come right from Gilder but this is the first time I have heard anyone from online space refer to him. I haven't even watch the video yet. I am looking forward to it
I was surprised as well. M&M was a required text in my seminary class on Pastoral Ethics 20+ years ago. My wife read it as well. Loved it.
Amazing 80's trailer for the book at the end. :) I loved it.
Thanks for taking the time and effort to address many of the questions and concerns, and with friendliness. I’m still not sure I can recognize the exact congruence between Gilder and Pr Wilson’s approach… but I do understand much better the reasons for publishing him and the surprise at , as you described it, “criticism from the right.” I appreciate the work you all have put into encouraging Christian men and families through the years.
What a blessing this discussion was. Thank you gentlemen.
Gilder's book "Men and Marriage" is incredible. I have nearly completed it in two days.
This was great
This really highlighted the problems in Gilbert's book rather than trying to answer why what Gilder says is fine. There are still humanistic and social contract presuppositions and he's just trying to baptize it with Christianity.
This is good teaching.
in what ways actually or practically is constructive male dominance being "outlawed"?
I have not read the book yet, though I ordered the box from Canon. Hopefully they don’t have supply chain disruptions this time. I look forward to seeing what all of the hubbub is about. Gilder is a serious thinker. His information theory of wealth was a pivotal piece in my understanding of economics.
No supply chain issues this time! Fingers crossed.
I think you’ll find the book rather disturbing. As an aside, Gilder was invited onto a talk show after his first book on sex was published back in 1973, and he was physically attacked by several women in the audience, who rushed the stage at him. His books on sex are disturbing because he is very blunt about how he views society and sex roles. He says that feminism - all feminism - is pure fantasy. He calls it sexual suicide, where most men become and remain sexual nomads, never settling down. And women, in their delusion, believe freedom can be found in a career. But it cannot be so. He says that such women are delusional because in the end, they are not truly free. They are as free as far as their paycheck will take them, which for most women is maybe one month. And the men in a sexually liberated society will exploit women for sex. In my opinion, this is an accurate description for about half of the adult population in the US.
I think you’ll find the book rather disturbing. As an aside, Gilder was invited onto a talk show after his first book on sex was published back in 1973, and he was physically attacked by several women in the audience, who rushed the stage at him. His books on sex are disturbing because he is very blunt about how he views society and sex roles. He says that feminism - all feminism - is pure fantasy. He calls it sexual suicide, where most men become and remain sexual nomads, never settling down. And women, in their delusion, believe freedom can be found in a career. But it cannot be so. He says that such women are delusional because in the end, they are not truly free. They are as free as far as their paycheck will take them, which for most women is maybe one month. And the men in a sexually liberated society will exploit women for sex. In my opinion, this is an accurate description for about half of the adult population in the US.
No fault divorce effectively turns this on its head in terms of having responsibility without authority. Not before God of course for the Believer; however, effectively on a societal/cultural basis, which has created the polarization you describe. Obviously, it is far more complex than this. However, at its foundation, this is the core.
@ShopRat-cf9tr why do you think wives should be like sailors? have you ever been in a relationship?
@ShopRat-cf9tr That is the problem. No Fault Divorce de facto changes Marriage from a Till Death Do Us Part covenant ratified before God into a mere man-made contract that happens to be highly slanted in favor of women. Oh, by the way, enlistment is much more like a temporary covenant than a contract. Once you swear that Oath, the Military owns you for the duration of the enlistment and in fact have various devices to extend that enlistment if the Military needs without your agreement.
@@johnslagboom1836 Do you believe it was caused by the sins of the past? Because women were stuck in bad marriage ( and what do you define as bad marriage- loveless ( I've got bowling and tuesday nites, and I have lodge meetings on wednesday nites, and have poker nite with boys on Thursday -and I have golf lineup for the weekend) , abusive, cheating. Pick the adjective. So She doesn't have a job ,other then changing diapers and cleaning and other Domestic duties ( better have dinner on the table by 5) or the financial means to support herself , and her children, and in so the husband holds that over her and he's in control and becomes a mandate for abuse. If the captain of the ship is incompetent there's bound to be a mutiny. and that is how the divorce laws became lopsided? The problem is they haven't kept up with times , did you know 40% wives make more than their husbands in 1973 it was 14%.
1000 ++ likes for this discussion!
See the Crosspolitic interview with Gilder this week.
I wish I had known about this book years ago. I delayed marriage and paying for it economically now. My life seems to be tragedy. I justified singleness and delaying marriage thinking that I was sacrificing for the greater cause of the kingdom. But seems like a big mistake in retrospect. Got caught up in the idea of singleness and marriage as a burden. I thought I was following the Bible. The search for the right person and the idea of "its better to remain single than getting married to wrong person" seems to have not worked
Sometimes we expect men to do things that not even God will do…God takes responsibility for you when u submit to His will, when u step outside of God’s will, u are on ur own
I'm a huge fan of nearly everything Canon+ is and does. However, even after this explanation, I think you guys missed it on this one. Let me try and explain... All of the downstream-from-Dougs-encounter-with-Gilder stuff I hear, I agree with. Nearly everything you've mentioned in this video that makes the book valuable to you, I find valuable as well. But as a customer of Canon+, I need to tell you why this book actually bothers me. You seem to have characterized the backlash to this book as min-informed miscreants who just need to "read past the first page." I have, and the book still bothers me. The reason I subscribe to Canon+ is to have a vast library I can pull from of solid books written from a biblical worldview. I'm not in the app to have a library of what brought about the Moscow project, nor do I subscribe to gain access to the books that influenced Doug Wilson. I support the app because of what I hope it will be - a repository of sound biblical theology and media. After going through the book, the thought that kept coming to mind was "this book lacks a biblical worldview." Yes, there are some things Gilder gets right. But there are some things he gets terribly wrong, and if I'm suggesting this app to a friend of mine who doesn't know the vast backstory of why this book is valuable to Doug, then they will walk away scratching their head at best, and making conclusions about the biblical soundness of Canon+ at worst. You mention all the other books that came out of the Doug Wilson brain blender (Reforming Marriage, etc.) as a result of Gilder - are those books not enough to carry the torch of the ideas you want to get across? Saying that the backlash is only by those who need to read Gilder the most, to be honest, sounds like a massive blind spot, guys. I've never seen you guys champion a book so much as you have this one (it's plastered EVERYWHERE). It just doesn't make sense with all of the biblical worldview errors in the book. Honestly, I'm still confused.
Watching
🤔 Well Said
Great video.
+1 for the Eagles reference
what a great stinger for the book at the end, LOL
What points do people disagree with Gilder on?
This is the start to the discussion on the elephant in the room. The problem as I see it is that the disordered society has entered the church and men have abdicated their responsibility in most churches today. The only way to get that back is to tear it down and rebuild ordered the way Christ commanded it to be.
Very sobering
Never have I purchased a book so fast.
Can’t wait until it arrives…🤓
Hope you enjoy it!
George Gilder is not my best friend.
He may have done some good things, but his philosophy is fundamentally flawed.
What is “valu prop”?
a value proposition is what differentiates your [book] from the rest in the field. our campaign thesis, that differentiated us from the current field, is that fathers are what our civilization needs most to progress in a healthy way.
Most people react to provocative writers as Hegelian sophists. They say I agree with "X" but don't go to the extreme of "Y," so I believe in "Z." Most people are fearful of identifying with anything deemed to be extreme.
Truthseekers must avoid having their beliefs dominated by the subtle deceptions of dialectic fluidity.
God found Adam ,Abraham, Moses responsible but they weren't guilty.
Still no
So.... So many things. First, to have true authority means a way to give discipline if that authority is not kept or followed. Such as children. The rod of correction must be used because rebellion is in the heart of every child. And the rod of correction will beat it out of them. Authority does not mean only the right to tell women what to do, it means there needs to be the ability to enforce it. Even a servant is said not to be corrected with mere words. Same with a woman. You cannot correct her with mere words and good, godly leadership. There has to be something more. Even Hosea was not able to control Gomer for her rebellion. Or, God with Israel. Although both of these were shown to be good leaders/husbands. It takes more. A contract is not a contract if it cannot be enforced. That is why unilateral, no faut divorce is not a contract or covenant. There is no way for the man to enforce it. This was the main argument in 1917 when Russia instituted no-fault, unilateral divorce under Marxism. A contract is not a contract with no enforceability. It is simply legal co-habitation. Doug Wilson is right that if a wife goes astray, it is the man's fault. Not the man in the marriage, but the men who allowed or gave women the allowance to vote and to initiate divorce in the United States and England. And it is our (current men's) fault for allowing it to go on. Women don't run America. Men do. At any time, we can take it over. We are simply allowing women to have a say. That is why men have stronger muscles over women. Men can always take charge over women (in general) whenever they want. They either don't understand it, won't accept it, or don't agree with it. But one way or another, men have authority over women in the world. That was the meaning of the curse. Women will desire to have a husband in order to have children, but that man will rule over her. Sometimes good, and sometimes bad. Coverture law at common law ruled the land in America and England for hundreds of years. Women were seen as property of the man. This was taken from the bride price and biblically speaking. When the women took on her husband's last name, she became a legal extension of him. Same with the children. Only men were allowed to vote, change laws, rule the court system (common law), and make decisions for the family (king of his own castle). Not the woman, children, or slaves. This all changed when the woman's suffrage movement jumped on board with the slavery movement demanding equal rights. The women used the 14th Amendment, that was created to make blacks equal to whites, as meaning to all people. But that was not the intent. Black men were still supposed to be in charge of their wives as well as the white men. And this is also where women started to demand an amendment to vote. To change laws! Don't be stupid men, of course that is why women wanted the right to vote. Single women and widows had many rights that the men had. They could have jobs and own land. However, a woman who is under her father's authority (Numbers 30:2-16) and a wife was subject to the male authority in their life. Numbers 30:8-9 gave widows the ability to provide for themselves. Women were seen as under their father's authority until married. Most of the time. Only in rare cases was this not true. Men need to take back America and their families through the muscles that God gave them. Not through the vote or the political machine. It is already too late for that.
‘Taking responsibility’ and what Job did (which was to cover over their sins) are two very different things.
How so?
Doug WIlson's views on this entire subject are remarkable to me. It's clear that he's brilliant, and he's diagnosed a lot of the problems well, but he has done such a bad job at understanding the root of the problem that his solutions are all... well they're not terrible and they're also not good. They miss the point. It's as if he came to a billiards competition and played a perfect game of snooker.
It's not about dominance. If your model for Biblical masculinity is based on out-of-context snatchings from psalms, or even well-studied paragraphs in the New Testament epistles, you're always going to miss the point, because you haven't read the most essential paragraph in the New Testament epistles (Ephesians 5:21-31, although ironically you quote it frequently). Our model for husband and wife behavior is Christ and the church. Our model for masculinity is Christ. And if you see Christ as a dominating figure, you don't know him very well. Christ's posture towards both the Father and to mankind is one of humility. Though he is rightfully lord, he doesn't take equality with God as something to be used to his own advantage. It is because of his great _humility_ that he is glorified, that every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess. So there's no sense in which "domination" can even be the right subject of discussion. If you view things through the lens of dominance and submission, you can't understand what submission is actually supposed to look like.
And this is where Wilson's theological presuppositions preclude him from understanding the Bible. Christ isn't dominant over us - he is humble and gentle, and that's why he doesn't force himself onto us - he gives us a choice. It's a betrothal, not an abduction. If you see Christ's work as _irresistible_ then you can't ever come to reasonable opinions about the proper relationship between the sexes - because the human relationship is modeled after Christ (and not visa-versa). Therefore the presence of consent-based marriages in Christian cultures is evidence of the Spirit leading us into all truth, and not evidence of Christian praxis diverging from theory. Otherwise, I'd like to see Wilson encouraging arranged marriages and forbidding divorce to the woman, but he doesn't. I don't see how reformed soteriology leaves any option for sensible views on sex, and I'm glad that Wilson is as happy to be inconsistent on this point as he is on the idea that God loves the people he, ostensibly, did nothing to save.
If Christ is Lord and master (kurious) and we are as slaves, (doulos), what part of the dominant/submissive relationship is not clearly spelled out in that. Christ to the church. Husband to wife. Seems pretty clear to me.
@@bfinn6160 It's clear that Christ is lord, yes. But it's his _behavior_ as lord that contradicts the idea. What did he do? He washed his disciples' fdet as if he were the slave -- even the one who was going to betray him. He proceeded to allow the people who should have hailed him as their king and God, to kill him in the most brutal way imaginable.
Besides, nowhere is that kind of language used to describe the relationship between husband and wife, and when Paul _does_ use that language, he makes it very clear that it's a metaphor (he was speaking in human terms so that they would understand). But marriage is a metaphor for the reality of Christ and the church, not the other way around.
@@josephbrandenburg4373 I struggle to see how you think that what you said disagrees with anything that Doug teaches. Doug does not in any way deny the servant-role of the husband. A good husband is more than willing to take responsibility and lordship in his marriage while ALSO being a servant.
"But Jesus called them to him and said, You know that the rulers of the Gentiles Lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave, even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
This does not contradict the above teaching by Doug.
disagree. Christ is Lord.
Stirring the pot lol
I haven't read Gilder's book, so I am not trying to be dogmatic, but hearing the position from Wilson makes Gilder sound like a soft feminist. It sounds like the point being made from Gilder's position is that men need women's approval/permission to be men. I can't find the timestamp but there was a point where Wilson made it sound like men can't be "...generals, warriors, leaders..." without feminine approval.
I think the Biblical way of wording this is that men need women's cooperation to be the complete creation that God intended. Just as women need men to be complete as God has made them.
Specifically, a man is made whole with his wife, and a woman with her husband.
all of the "it sounds like" in the above are not true
@@CanonPress
Ok, I didn't think that Gilder or Wilson held such a position. But after growing up in a society where women are constantly catered to as being superior to men, anything that sounds like it ( women are sexually superior) comes across as a type of feminism.
It's not so much a critique of what you teach as a comment on how it sounds from my perspective.
@@BossBattle21Isn’t there enough nuance to say that 1) husbands make up the foundations of societies and lead households and nations into glory, AND 2) the very nature of female se-xuality incentivizes men to basically “settle down?”
The whole point is that the female se-xual cycle naturally lasts from the conception, to the birth, to the rearing of the child, and the male se-xual cycle lasts… about an hour or so.
For a woman, s-ex has years long consequences, potentially. For a man, it has none. Within marriage, the female s-exual cycle basically “holds down” and harnesses a male’s se-xuality.
That’s not to say that women are above men; only that women (by biological design) harnesses a man’s power to her BECAUSE of her se-xual cycle lasting years.
@@mcgheebentle1958
I understand the point Gilder and Wilson are making. My statement is from the perspective of someone who stumbled into this topic yesterday from one of Wilson's videos. I also understand why younger men find Gilder's vocabulary choice disturbing. Gilder didn't go through being told constantly that men are inferior (over and over). When that is the constant drum beat you've heard your entire life and you realize that many Christian have been saying it too...
I understand both sides of the argument. I don't think Wilson was wrong in reprinting the book. The young bucks are over reacting. Wilson and Co. are ignorant of what it's like growing up being force-fed feminist fodder.
@@BossBattle21 I think that’s why we need to hear Gilder and Wilson all the more right now.
I think we can be tempted to be too reactionary. Yes we grew up in a world where men are told they are inferior, but we should be very very cautious to not be reactionary to that.
We should say true things, regardless of what our society is saying. And sometimes it won’t be a message that goes entirely contrary to society. We need those older and wiser voices that can temper our instinct to be overly reactionary to what we were told all of our lives. Because it is tempting to be reactionary, isn’t it.
Friendliness to the catholic business as it stands is suspicious. They are literally the most significant business threat to the entire universe seems technically likely from my perspective, I have to say this is actually safe to trust while I certainly am not saying we should be afraid of them, acknowledgement is opposed to them and everyone else is actually reasonable in some regard I think, I need to pray following my acknowledgment of them, they need to not be flattered far more than they need to not be slandered for the time being, it may be either a warning or somewhat optimistic that reform may occur if I acknowledge them, I should actually decline in doing it in a comment like format probably but I personally would advocate praying for them on a regular basis. Adoption of a Westminster confession of faith could likely aid that they could begin to seem like friends to everyone, but I would still be favorable to churches like Christ church in Moscow and reformed baptist churches increasing personally, I’m not opposed to the conservative Presbyterian churches that don’t practice infant communion I just wonder if they would become somewhat obsolete if necessary changes did occur. You may need to pray that God would not want you to be scared of them. You may need to pray that God would not oppose you in relation to your wealth, and that he would not let the devil, demons, and angels oppose you because of your wealth, that is not meant as any kind of jab, there is some divine opposition correlated with wealth is technically perceivable, I have to say with the largest religious institution it is dangerous toward literally everyone technically apart from necessary reform, God is opposed to the proud of course, God can not be a villain if he is actually favorable to them in relation to monetary success, I reiterate we should not be scared of them may have to be prayerfully maintained.
Taking responsibility when you have done nothing wrong is being a doormat.
With great responsibility comes great power. If you take no responsibility when things go bad in your life or others then you limit your ability to do anything to correct the situation. Christ took responsibility for the sins of the whole world though they were not his. Our lives are to be modeled after Christ and by following Christ we can see God's continued redemptive work manifest in our own lives, families, neighborhoods, towns, school districts, states and so on. "But wanting to justify himself, he asked Jesus "And Who is my neighbor?"
Tell that to trudeau, the narcissist…..
if feminism were a growing baby in the womb it would be the one and only time i would heavily favor abortion.