Via amazon.com:
A Virtuous Wife, who can find one? March 15, 2016
By Terri Rice
This review is from: Virtuous: A Study for Ladies of Every Age (Paperback)
Nancy Wilson maintains a blog where she writes about all sorts of spiritual stuff and much of what she writes there gets compiled into books for women.
“Courage is not something necessarily that people think of as female virtue, but I think there are good grounds to believe otherwise. Courage is a virtue that enables us to be fearless and brave in difficult or dangerous situations. A courageous woman can be described as plucky.”
“Courageous” would apply to the sexually abused woman who finally speaks up and is attacked by the pastor under who’s watch it all happened. Especially when that pastor goes on to publicly demean, humiliate and further abuses her. A truly virtuous woman would seek to shut this man up, especially if she were the wife of the pastor. Now, I am in no way implying that this author is “that” pastor’s wife, I am merely saying that that would be courageous.
A virtuous woman is a woman who protects the weak and vulnerable. A virtuous woman would bravely speak up and tell her pastor husband that writing about other women’s breasts is unseemly and revolting. That woman would be downright “plucky.” Now I am in no way implying this pastor’s wife sat silently by but rather pointing out the virtue in a woman that would abide a husband who demeans women.
Yes, a virtuous plucky wife is indeed a wonderful thing. Unfortunately this author does not ever get around to the virtuous woman and as such I have to give this book a 1 star rating at best.
I recommend Elizabeth Elliot, Corrie Ten Boom, Anne Lamott, Ann Voskamp as women of virtue. Heck, Miss Piggy or Minnie Mouse would have better things to say about virtuous women.
Add Lisbeth Salander, Jessica Rabbit, and Jenny McCarthy to the list of women who would “have better things to say about virtuous women” than Nancy Wilson. And would be more qualified to say them.
Jessica Rabbit should get Doug Wilson’s stamp of approval: she has big boobs.
I’ve never liked Elisabeth Eliot much. Her books on dating, etc, really caused problems in my college ministry group. As I’ve gotten older, I’ve found even more reasons not to trust her writing. Here’s a good example: “Created to be His Doormat: Wende Benner’s Story”
I haven’t read Elisabeth Elliot so thanks for the link, Rachel. I had to revamp my previous review on this book because the The Douglas had it removed for content from Amazon, so I decided to throw in a few notable women including Miss Piggy. I do think Jessica Rabbit though really nails it for patriarchal appeal in her voluptuous virtuosity and I wish I had included her.
Elisabeth Eliot’s “Passion & Purity” is what inspired Joshua Harris to write “I Kissed Dating Goodbye”. Maybe not the only inspiration, but one of the later editions includes a preface written by Harris that mentions his response to reading Eliot’s material.
I came across a revolting quote by Elisabeth Elliot when asked at a talk,
“Should a woman remain in a home where she is being physically abused by her husband?”
Elisabeth Elliot then made a reference to 1 Peter 2 about slaves being beaten and said,
“I don’t think that requires a woman necessarily to stay in a home where she is literally being physically beaten to death. But on the other hand it might.”
There is no doubt in my mind that Doug’s behavior is not only tolerated but encouraged by his wife. For many years I remained silent about the role Kirk women played in supporting their husbands. I felt sorry for them. But they are not children under the authority of a parent (although they continue to live as though they were). It is very odd, in fact nauseating, that they apparently continue to embrace the role of daughter rather than an adult wife, to their husband. I am no longer reluctant to criticize them. They are fully complicit in their captivity by their unholy submission. There is nothing admirable or godly about going along to get along. Note to those silly women: God will never be pleased that you parked your brain and your voice at the wedding altar. It is a rare woman who rebukes Doug on his blog. This signals to me that Kirker mothers intend to raise their sons to be bullying louts while keeping their submissive daughters dangling breathlessly over the man their father will chose for them. Doug and CREC male members (toadies everyone of them) are clear about their right to objectify women; their unwillingness to call Doug out speaks volumes about their own character flaws and moral failures. Terri Rice’s recent insightful and well reasoned comment was entirely accurate when she addressed the silence from the congregation on so many issues. Just one more example of the Kirk Kult under the thumb of a petulant, self-ordained, answerable to no one, pastor living life to its fullness while allowing his narcissistic personality disorder to rule the flock.
Absolutely. Nancy is complicit. Her books preach the same message and lay the same burdens on women.
“It is very odd, in fact nauseating, that they apparently continue to embrace the role of daughter rather than an adult wife, to their husband.”
Yes, this was another lightning bolt moment of revelation for me at That Blog: When Doug asserted that the husband was responsible for the woman’s sins. (I think, if my PTSD from being involved at that site is allowing me to recall accurately, I also remember him, at the same time, saying if a woman wasn’t performing well in the bed, then the man needed to do something about it . . . as well as saying the woman needed to care about what she looked like for her man — but didn’t lay that responsibility on the man . . . UGH. Um. I think you are all correct . . . the man has a serious problem . . . )
Anyway, back to the husband being responsible for the woman’s sin: Well, at first that sounds like a big relief for the woman. But then come the ramifications. The husband’s fixation with the woman’s doing everything just right, the husband’s responsibility for rebuking his wife and bringing sins (not keeping the kitchen tidy enough . . .) to the elders. . . Add to that, that whether they will admit it or not, they are still human, there will be the natural propensity to take things personally/affecting his ego/affecting his image — all in bearing a weight God never intended. Unless the wife is a real simpleton and/or never opens her own Bible and/or lives in fear, how could it not devolve into a father/child or slave type of relationship rather than one based on acceptance, respect, friendship, and enjoyment.
They do call it love, though. They MUST treat their wives this way. If the women don’t like it, they are rejecting LOVE — rejecting what the husband is doing “good and right” by being their wife’s Holy Spirit and priest in all things. With their wordsmithery, again they have given words new meanings and themselves more allowances. They have made a hell out of what was meant to be a heaven.
It is oppressive and suffocating rather than loving and thriving. When a woman turns robotic in order to constantly trying to impossibly please her husband on every level, there comes resentment. If she tries to be her own person, the husband resents it, corrects it. In short, he demands perfection, and perfection isn’t possible. And because he is “responsible” for her sin, he does the “Doug thing” . . . gets harsher and creepier. You know, marriage can be hard enough to get right without adding this kind of crazy to the craze. At times, I feel very sorry for those women. Should I not?
The whole time he was having that disgusting meme contest, I was mostly tempted to put a comment at her blog under the post where she goes virtuously on and on about making sure children do right/not sin in the smallest of matters which included when and where to wear a hat. All that as her husband is at his site mocking those who initially voiced concern over the contest and contest image. So, she wants us to have our kids take their hat off here and there — you know, be virtuous in the smallest of details, but it’s okay for the dads and teens to laugh as they have this picture pop up on their screen for weeks ad nauseum while frequenting her hubby’s site?
Honestly, what a fool she looks like. If she were courageous, she’d either confront him, or she would take her site down so as to not make her family look like a bunch of hypocrites. I wouldn’t doubt that he possibly makes her have a blog for appearances of a happy wife and all. Or else she’s elevated herself on a pedestal as well and can’t even begin to consider the concerns of those outside the cult. They are the makers of the rules, and their pragmatism knows no bounds (hmmm…similar to their Trump accusations…)
Have you seen his banner advertisement and the Grace Agenda itinerary?
For the ladies, “Dangerous Women”. Oooooooooh, they are so dangerous when they can’t even not happen to wash the dishes without fear of their husbands turning them into the elders. And for the men, of course, Sexual Apologetics. Creepy. Courage would be for the ladies to go attend these “all-men” seminars on such topics. If he would “talk” as he does on a blog for all to see, can you imagine what it is like among men who think it’s their duty to be fixated on such images and topics. Maybe they’ll have a slide show of all the images on Mrs. Trump’s own site and have a meme contest for each and every image.
They call it wordsmithery — they as in those who work themselves up in a illogical lather to defend him. So cultish to not see it for what it is. It took me a long time to see through it because he had been so lifted up as some sort of very intelligent man. I kept trying to force my mind to go through his loops even when common sense and simple logic said things weren’t adding up. When he began to block those that disagreed with him (they were making better stronger cases than his blog minions), I finally started to dare to think that Doug might actually be very wrong on very much. Then I also became acquainted with this site. I hope others will escape Cult Doug. If what he represents is Christianity, then I’ll be glad to apologize when I get to heaven. For now, I think it is something very creepy with a pseudo-intelligence and religious facade.
There is absolutely nothing intelligent or logical or defensible or righteous in saying that the meme image is not something we’d want on a White House Christmas card and then turn around and rebuke those who say maybe it isn’t appropriate on the blog and then continue to turn around and upside down to allow for click after click for people — husbands, teens, and then oh, so respected wives — to look at an image unacceptable for a White House Christmas card. If it’s good enough to be on a “Christian” pastor’s blog and on the screens of our home, then it makes NO sense to reject it as a Christmas card. It was the perfect example of accepting the Kool-Aid from the cult leader. Incredible. It was a worked up anger as a way to enjoy his own titillations. He was rude to those concerned and protested too much all the way.
All of this reminds me of his buddy R.C. Sproul, Jr. I think it’s still on his site where he apologized for his Ashley Madison account. He had to put the disclaimer that he wasn’t there to do “research”. As if research would have excused that. Maybe this is how they excuse their little fixations and fetishes — in the name of “research” and “warning God’s people” and “making fun of the enemy”. I am also reminded of the CBD description of some of his curriculum “some of which includes both male and female nudity”. Yes, I’m sure it does. Our women can’t dress thus and such way in order to be virtuous, but our men can virtuously look at those that do. WHATEVER.
I fully expect him to fall and fall hard — or be discovered — as others over the recent years (Doug Phillips, etc). He’s too brazen and proud, and his creepiness is all too apparent — more apparent as the weeks go by. I do appreciate your site going up as a warning and a push back…as well as a place to vent. I’ve been keeping a lot in as you can tell 🙂
Nancy Wilson (and other women who hold to Doug’s nefarious views) may comfort themselves that as long as they are ‘under authority’, they’re fine. But they should remember that they will one day stand alone to give an answer for their own words and deeds. The solemn words of the New Testament as to the day Nancy will give account make no allowance for a ‘headship’ who will excuse or answer for her. Perhaps that is the first time she’ll experience what many Christians know to be blessedly true: that no one, absolutely no one, stands between them and Jesus.
2 Corinthians 5:10
For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each of us may receive what is due us for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad.
Matthew 12:36
But I tell you that everyone will have to give account on the day of judgment for every empty word they have spoken.
I’m not convinced that anyone involved in Christ Church, Moscow actually believes in Christ. I think they merely find the idea of Christianity to be a convenient front for hiding the true nature of their beliefs, which are more Islamic than Christian in nature.
Months ago, I would have said you were being too harsh. But now, I agree. Either they do believe in Christ and are gullible to get in such a mixed up representation of Christ, or they have the wrong Christ in the first place.
I had a long discussion with one minion. It wasn’t even about Christ, but we couldn’t even agree on some basic definitions of math and politics. What a shock to be in a group of “conservative” Christians and find out we had to get down to the very basics of defining our terms. Finally he mocked me saying, “I guess if I called you a Christian and included you with us as Christians, you’d want a discussion of terms first before I included you.” Of course! By then, I had a very bad feeling that we really did not have the same Christ. I’ve no desire to be lumped in with them here on earth. If we both make it to heaven, fine.
You bring up a good point about being “more Islamic”. Near the end of my commenting there, I decided I’d rather risk living under a reasonable secular government than whatever theocracy they were pragmatically promoting based on the Book of Doug. They pretty much ignore the New Testament of Christ and His teachings and make the Old Testament paramount. I was in shock when they couldn’t stomach making a very strong or even semi-strong case for monogamy based on the New Testament. All they wanted to focus on was how polygamy was “not so bad” according to the Old Testament. So add that to all the creepy of his “Christian apologetics” and “sexual apologetics.”
“Perhaps that is the first time she’ll experience what many Christians know to be blessedly true: that no one, absolutely no one, stands between them and Jesus.”
Beautifully expressed.
“Misogynist: A man who hates women as much as women hate one another.”
H.L. Mencken
Nancy approves of Doug disparaging other women.
Rachel Shubin understands the racket:
Thanks, Ulysses!