An Interesting Exchange from Yesteryear
So, long time blogger Rachel Green-Miller*, joining hands with her oft-time linguistics college professor friend, Valerie Hobbes, have turned their attention to a book written by Nancy Wilson, entitled “The Fruit of Her Hand“. What’s interesting is how they came by it.
You see, in September (2015 – thus the “yesteryear”), they took aim at Nancy’s husband, Doug Wilson, complaining about his instructions to newlyweds, or those about to be wed, in a series of Blog Posts on Wilson’s blog. (https://dougwils.com/tag/c67-wedding-exhortations)
And rather than just read it and take what Doug himself says as what he believes, they instead decided to use (basically) numerology (or tea leaves) to declare what Wilson really, secretly meant, in spite of what he actually said and concluded. And one of those conclusions (incredibly enough) was that Doug Wilson thinks that wives should be silent, have nothing to say, and not engage the culture outside of their own homes, voiceless and invisible. Which of course is nonsense, and Wilson pointed that out in his response to these two women by saying:
“I would like to take this opportunity to introduce (for the very first time apparently) my wife Nancy. She is the author of six books, one of them a widely-used textbook.”
https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/s7-engaging-the-culture/the-critique-of-the-bluestockings.html
That was September.
So, of course October rolls around and now these two women have another article, now addressing Nancy’s book (which they totally already knew of and had read long before being told about it, golly, just last month by Doug. Right?) The result of which is basically, “We hate her too.”
All they could come up with was that Nancy’s teaching was consistent with her husband’s teaching, so their conclusions about Doug (and now Nancy) must be correct. Right? I know. It’s convoluted. I’m not a “linguist” professor or I would clearly not have as hard a time following this as I am. But the essence of it seems to be, 1) Make a claim about Doug. 2) Note that Nancy agrees with him. 3) Declare Doug to be in error.
Green-Miller/Hobbes (GM/H) ask: “Would her words support the conclusions of our article? Or would they contradict them?“
The point seems to be to show that Nancy’s teaching agree with Doug’s teachings, and therefore, the charge of “error” leveled against Doug Wilson is therefore valid. This is a non-sequitur. It is an invalid claim. You have to show that the claims of error that you are leveling against Doug (or Nancy) are actually error – not simply that Nancy agrees with him.
Nancy’s words can only confirm what Nancy believes. And her simply agreeing with her husband does not automatically make your conclusions true. Even if Nancy disagreed with Doug, not even that would make your conclusions true. So with a shiny new non-sequitur in hand, they start.
These two women reproduced snippets and quotes from Nancy’s book with the objective, it seems, not of deciding whether they were right, true, or scriptural, but whether they confirmed their last month’s article’s claims about her husband. Well, whatever. But let’s look and see if they did.
First Assertions: “1) The wife is something that belongs to her husband. 2) A wife is a garden that belongs to her husband.”
Given supporting quote from Nancy Wilson:
“As a Christian woman begins to see herself as a garden, she can take a more eager interest in making it a lovely garden that her husband delights to spend time in. …of course a husband is never trespassing in his own garden, though he can be made to feel as though he is an intruder. … In fact, in many ways, the husband is the garden tender, and the wife becomes a source of great joy and delight to the husband as he spends time in the garden he faithfully tends.“
GM/H offer no refutation of this. It is supposed that the reader will read it and be appropriately outraged and offended and move on to the next section as quickly as possible.
They make no mention that just before this quoted passage, Wilson had quoted the specific scriptures that describe the marriage in exactly these terms. That’s right, I’m talking about “that book”. That one book of the Bible that everyone knows is there but doesn’t want to spend too much time talking about about lest it make grandma (or maybe grandpa) swoon: Song of Solomon. Nancy’s description of the husband, wife and the garden analogy all come directly from scripture, which she gives chapter and verse references for, which GM/H quietly removed, or overlooked.
And, as if that were not bad enough… It could be worse if this were some patriarchal, testosterone-laden “mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragger” talking about “his woman” like she was a field he was gonna plow like an Amish farmer. But no. It is the wife herself talking about herself. She is the one who calls herself “a garden” for her husbands “delight.” And some of the language of SoS would definitely make a crow blush if you read it and ask yourself “Is it really saying THAT?” Yes. It really is saying that. That’s a good reaction to have to a LOT of scripture. “Yes. As easy or as hard as it may sound, that IS what scripture is saying to us.“
Here is the bit the article’s authors excluded from their quote:
Oh north wind, Awake!, Oh South wind, Come! Blow upon my garden, Let its fragrant aroma flow out. Let my beloved come to his garden And let him eat it's choice fruits.
SEVEN times SoS mentions the wife as a garden. Three of those times it is the husband referring to the wife as “his garden”. But FOUR of those times, it is the wife referring to herself as “his garden”. I think we can safely conclude that the idea of a wife thinking of herself as a garden that she keeps exclusively for her husband is established. And note, also, here that Christ (“my beloved”) and the Bride both agree on this point, both referring to the Bride as “his garden”. I suspect that makes a lot of people uncomfortable. It makes even me a bit uncomfortable, but it says what it says. It is uncomfortable because the world’s culture in which we are entangled, has redefined marriage and the relations between men and women such that it makes this idea of “belonging” to be obscene or offensive.
That a wife belongs to her husband is also directly from scripture. “Nevertheless, the wife has not authority over her own body; it belongs to her husband.” There, that settles it. Wives belong to their husbands. Can we move on now? No? Why not? Because it also says, right in the same place that “The husband does not have authority over his own body either. It belongs to his wife.” We belong to each other. This is why God tells us not to deprive one another. Do you see now how sinning against your wife, God equates that with sinning against your own body. You sin against your wife, but your body belongs to your wife. So, you are also sinning against your own flesh, because you are her own flesh, just as she is your own flesh.
Let me conclude this with a quote from Dr. Peter Masters, from the Sword and Trowel, 2012, entitled “Mutual Debts in Marriage:
“This is a case where we need not only to read, but also to ‘hear’ his words: ” ‘…nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.’ “The last two phrases employ all the same words with the exception of two, and by this, Paul draws attention to a central feature of marriage. Think of it! – ‘his own wife’, ‘her own husband’, to possess. She belongs to him, and he belongs to her. Each is for the other a precious possession, one to be held closely to, one to be valued, esteemed, appreciated and loved. ‘His own…her own’ to guard. My only one. In Genesis 2 we read how Eve was made from Adam’s side, and he uttered the words, ‘This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh.’ Do we think he was speaking only biologically, and making an obvious physical observation? Or do we realise that while he uses the language of a literal biological fact, he is actually expressing his deepest feelings? This is what he thinks of Eve, and not merely a biological observation.”
Second Assertion: “A wife’s role is one of passive response.”
Given supporting quote from Nancy Wilson:
“Contemporary Christian women, created by God to be responsive, are vulnerable to temptations to be deceived. We must learn to think like Christians and resist the temptation to believe everything we read or hear.”
“What if your husband fails to provide for you? What if you are hopelessly in debt, and he is not bringing home an adequate paycheck? … First, do not seek to protect him from the consequences of his folly. (emphasis added for later) … Of course you must be a support and help and source of encouragement. But that is a completely different thing than trying to shoulder responsibilities that are not yours. When a wife tries to bear the responsibilities that her husband should be bearing, she suffers (ditto). … When the bill collector calls, hand your husband the phone. But do so respectfully, praying that God will use it to bring about a change. When there are overdue bills, look to him for his direction—whether or not he provides it. … Quit scrambling, trying to come up with funds to meet deadlines. It is his responsibility. … Are you trying to find an extra job so that you can keep the house, boat, car? Often women rush into jobs to “help out,” thinking it will only be short term. The kids are farmed out because “it’s just until we pay off the car.” But then, after the car is paid for, there is something else. And pretty soon, you are working outside the home full-time, the kids are on their own, and you are still in debt. Then it is too hard to quit—who will pay the bills? You need to get out, go home, and take care of your kids. “But,” you say, “my husband wants me to work.” I have heard this before, when, in fact, the husband wanted very much for the wife to come home, and she was the one resisting the move. … So do not think your happiness lies in how your husband is doing, or in how many possessions you have. Your happiness and joy lie in Christ alone. If you are trusting in Him, He will see you safely through.”
[This isn’t an issue in our family, as my wife has complete control of the finances. I take an allowance out of each paycheck to pay for my car’s gas, and lunches when I don’t take something along. Otherwise, I stay out of it. I do not even have a debit card for our account. And why? Because my wife is just far better at this stuff than I am. I would not do nearly as good a job of it, and it is one of those things that I delegate to her because she is just better at it than I am.]
GM/H's only question to this is to ask, "But how does “passive response” play out in a marriage?
I do not know where they get the idea of “passive” response. If you read either Wilson, Nancy or Doug, one thing you will know right away is that they are very much in favour not of passive response, but enthusiastic, energetic, engaged, active and even aggressive response. I mean, you cannot get a more enthusiastic response than how Nancy describes the character of the wife in Song of Solomon. Nothing “passive” there. At all. That is a wife aggressively pursuing her husband.
GM/H: Nancy gives a lengthy example for what a wife should do if a husband doesn’t provide for his family. According to the example, a wife should trust in God to provide, trust her husband to lead, and not work to provide the necessary funds.“
There is much selective editing going on here in this quote. GM/H seem to conclude that Nancy would just have the wife “trust God”, and then, well, nothing. Perish I suppose.
But, each of the ellipsis (“…”) in the text they quote indicate text that was skipped over. Probably for brevity, as it’s a very long passage they are quoting, and quoting all of it would be lengthy. So, GM/H have condensed it down to a more concise rendering.
Only one problem. See the ellipsis after the word “suffers” (previous emphasis) in their quote above? I highlighted it for ease of finding it. That “…” after that word contains the answer to the question they are asking. They omitted it for some reason. Here it is:
“And obviously, when the husband’s abdication includes desertion, a wife must take on many financial responsibilities – she really has no choice.”
So much for Nancy telling women they must stay at home and just perish if their husband doesn’t make enough money. I won’t go so far as to say that they lied, but that was certainly a deceptive edit.
Again, in the their quote, do you see the word “folly” (also highlighted in the above quote). The ellipsis after that – which was also missing – contained this:
“Even though you may want the Lord to ‘wake him up’, most wives don’t want the Lord to be too rough on their husbands. We want to shield the blow, ease the hardship, or take on some of the responsibility ourselves. But this will only drag out the problem. You must let the consequences fall on his shoulders, no matter how painful it might be for you to watch. I am certainly not suggesting that you take morbid delight in watching your husband go through difficult times.”
If that is what these two women think is “passive response”, then I’d have to say we all need a lot more passive response, because if you garner anything from Nancy’s words, it is that “passive response” means “actively trust in the Lord”.
Third Assertion: “a wife’s function is to take whatever is given to her (for example, money) and transform it into something useful in her appointed station, the home.”
Given supporting quote from Nancy Wilson:
“Your finances are tight. You confess your anxiety to your husband and to the Lord. You resolve to trust God and pray for your husband, and you pray for patience. Meanwhile, you show a brave spirit and a joyful countenance to your family, and a creative flair in the kitchen. “I’ve found a new way to cook beans!” You hunker down and think of creative ways to respect your husband.“
Honestly, I cannot imagine any Christian believer would express any doubt or disagreement with this.
That the wife’s “station” (whatever that means to them) is the home is expressly stated in scripture. Not only stated using the word “home”, but also a great many examples of women being at home, caring for their home, building their home, keeping their home, raising children in their home, even running a commercial enterprise from their home.
I can only imagine that these two women are offended that a wife might actually take pride in being thrifty and wise and making do with scant resources. I’m guessing that the idea of putting on a happy countenance in the face of adversity is offensive to them. I’m guessing that neither one of them have fed their children with food they obtained from a food bank, or a church charity program. That is a humbling experience as much for a mother as for a father.
So, in this third section, I cannot imagine any believing Christian taking exception with the idea of a wife taking scant resources and being prudent and diligent in using them wisely.
Would they be as outraged by Nancy’s description of a supportive wife as they would be if Doug had provided this example of a providing husband?:
“Your finances are tight. You do your best to assure your wife that the Lord will provide; that the famine is temporary and the economy will recover from this attack, and the drought will end soon. You pray and ask God for an end to the famine. Meanwhile, you show a brave face, and you go out and try to drum up clients. You make sales calls. You make offers. You negotiate. You propose. You exclaim, “I have found a new client!” and you praise the Lord, and you provide for your family as God has commanded only you to do.“
Would they find that as offensive? My guess is, yes. They would take offense at “You provide for your family as God has commanded only you to do.“
The commandment to work to produce food from labour was given to Adam, and only Adam. God at no time turned to Eve and told her to seize Adam’s plow and start tilling the land. She is not built for labour. Adam is. This doesn’t change simply because the industrial revolution made men’s work easier. It’s not about how easy or hard the work is. It is about who God tasked with doing it. And God was clear.
“Because you have listened to your wife, [and done this evil], cursed is the ground because of you; In toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you; and you will eat plants of the field; By the sweat of your face you will eat bread, [all the days of your life]…“
If I really wanted to offend these ladies, I would point out that Adam’s first sin was not eating the forbidden fruit. Adam’s first sin was “listening to his wife.” While it is not explicitly included in the text of the Genesis account, it is nonetheless very clear by implication, that God expected Adam to lead his wife, not the other way around. And it is obvious, here, that God faults Adam for “listening to his wife“, as an example of not leading, and attributes Adam’s failure to lead as a contributing cause for the current calamity. (Oops, too late.)
Fourth and Fifth Assertions: “Women’s role in sex is surrender. … Wives [know] little about sex and even about their own bodies, requiring instruction from their husbands.“
Given supporting quote from Nancy Wilson:
(Note: GM/H have presented Wilson’s quotes out of order. I have put them back in the right order)
Now I am not telling you how to do this [enrapture your husband]. I am simply telling you that you must. It is your duty before God to help your husband in his obedience of this command. You are given to him by God to satisfy him, to delight him intensely, and to rejoice with him. There is an important reason why I am not telling you how. That’s because you need to ask your husband. Only he can tell you what will delight or enrapture him.
Nevertheless, your husband’s desire has probably not suffered a dip [due to pregnancy or breastfeeding hormones]. This is an obstacle, but again, it is not insurmountable. Sometimes you will have to work harder to “feel like it.” It is not always necessary to consult your feelings anyway. … If a wife is not feeling “in the mood,” she simply has to apply the golden rule. Does your husband always “feel” in the mood for a heart-to-heart chat? Perhaps not. But do you want him to tell you he is not in the mood but only talking because he loves you and knows you need it? Of course not.
GM/H offer no commentary beyond simply quoting Wilson. I assume they believe the text is outrageous enough on it’s own that everyone will just agree with them without explanation. So they do not offer any explanation for what is wrong with it. So I have little to go on here. In fact that is true of almost the entire article. They are simply quoting Wilson, and assuming that their readers will be outraged and offended, and they offer scant, if any commentary or refutation on any of it. I believe this may be because their stated intent for the article is only to establish that Nancy’s teaching are consistent with her husband’s teachings. Although, how that is in any way wrong, I cannot imagine. This would be like trying to condemn them for being in unity – something God commands of husbands and wives. So, I will spend much of my time commenting on Nancy’s writings, and not the mostly-nonexistent conclusions of the articles authors.
In this section, again, there is much selective editing.
For instance, they quote Wilson saying, “It is your duty before God to help your husband in his obedience of this command.” But they have omitted that part where Wilson says what that command is.
Here’s the bit they did not include in their quote. I cannot reproduce all of it because Nancy devotes SIX entire pages of her book to cover what Green-Miller and Hobbs reduced to just two, very much out of context, quotes.
She begins by setting up two entire sections of the book (“Satisfaction” and “Overcoming Hindrances”) by quoting Proverbs 5: 18,19, where God gives husbands three very specific commands concerning their wives.
“May your fountain be blessed, and may you rejoice in the wife of your youth. As a loving doe, a graceful deer – let her breasts fill you with delight at all times, and be forever enraptured (some versions, “intoxicated”) with her love.“
If I might just stop and take a moment to say what a stunningly beautiful verse that is. It is poetic, moving, intimate and powerful. It also contains very specific commands that husbands are required by God to do and observe.
Wilson goes on to explain, and I am going to have to paraphrase the next six pages of her book to keep it short enough to post as a blog post.
The verses immediately prior to and following vs 18,19 are talking about husbands NOT seeking the breasts of any other woman. Only his own wife.
Solomon speaking to his son: “Should your fountain be scattered abroad, your stream in the streets? [Her breasts] are for you alone, and not for strangers. Why should you be intoxicated, my son, with a forbidden woman and embrace the bosom of an another?”
(This is why pornography is wrong, guys! Pay attention!)
1) You are to rejoice with the wife of your youth. Given the “breasts” part, it is clear that this rejoicing is the marriage bed; sex. Nancy explains:
“Given the context of the passage, it is clear that this is speaking about rejoicing sexually. He is to keep himself pure by not dispersing his “fountain” in the streets, nor embracing the seductress. Instead, he is to be enraptured by his own wife. The sexual relationship between a husband and a wife should be characterized by rejoicing! Christian wives need not be shy, or embarrassed, or feel guilty about what God has called them to rejoice in. Neither should a wife view sex as a mere duty or obligation… No, it should clearly be joyous! Can you describe your behavior in bed with your husband as rejoicing? If not, you need to think about why it isn’t.“
[Note: May I just add that it is to be joyous and rejoicing for both the husband and the wife. Not the husband alone. Pay attention, guys. You have obligations here, too. Are you conducting yourself in this marriage bed in such a way that your wife gets to “rejoice” also?]
2) You are to enjoy her breasts.
Again, no analysis, or commentary is offered. GM/H simply hope that suggesting that a husband should delight and be satisfied with his wife’s breasts is just astonishingly outrageous, and as such, no wife should be required to subject herself to such obviously debasing and dehumanising treatment. They would envision this scene as a wife sitting there bored while her husband gropes her. So, again, I can only add what Nancy Wilson herself has offered, as an example not of passive response, but active, engaged, enthusiastic response in the fuller context that was omitted in the claim that “Women’s role in sex is surrender.“:
“Christian men are constantly having to avert their eyes from other women’s breasts, whether it is on the covers of magazines, at the grocery checkout, in films (which maybe they shouldn’t be watching) and of course the women who dress indecently at the office or on the street. All these women’s breasts are forbidden to him and it is a regular nuisance to have them constantly thrust in their faces. Only his own wife’s breasts are not forbidden. These are breasts they are not only allowed but commanded to enjoy. The question is how are they to let their wives breasts satisfy them at all times if they can never get near them? The obvious word to wives is to see to it that your husband’s do enjoy your breasts. This is very clearly connected to your responsiveness in warmth. Is your husband sure of a warm response when he approaches you sexually? Or does he have to prepare himself for a brush off? You are his wife. Your breasts are his to enjoy. Let him. Enjoy his enjoyment of them. Do not withhold from him what God has commanded him to be satisfied with. Certainly it is difficult to be satisfied by something that you have no access to.“
3) You are to be intoxicated [enraptured] with her love always.
This is where GM/H derive this silly notion of “passive response” and “the wife must get instruction from her husband about her own body.”
Honestly, the more I’m writing this, the more angry I am getting that there are people out there, like these two women, writing nonsense like this. The damage they are doing to marriages is immeasurable. Have these two women ever sat down and asked themselves, “Is what we are doing helping and encouraging husbands and wives live together in peace and unity as God commands? Or is what we are doing driving a wedge between husbands and wives, and causing division? Are we taking advantage of women’s tendency to be affected more by emotions to cause division between them and their husbands?”
To answer this charge against the Wilsons, I had to buy Nancy’s book so that I could answer intelligently, not out of ignorance. And in reading the book, the picture that Nancy is painting is nothing like these few out of context quotes that these two women are posing. This is extremely irresponsible and harmful advice they are giving to women.
Let’s address how Nancy claims that “women need to be passive, and do not know their own bodies and need to have their husbands instruct them”, shall we? Here’s the full context of this charge that they are leveling:
“The final point to consider is what it means to be enrapture your husband with your love. This means that you must be more than simply responsive. You must be active in the sexual relationship. (Whoops! There goes “passive” out the window. -Ed.) You certainly must delight him in a passive sense, but there’s more required to enrapture him. My dictionary says that enrapture means to “fill with intense delight.” This implies a great rejoicing on the part of both partners. What you do to your husband doesn’t simply delight him; it fills him with intense delight. The picture is not one of a husband merely getting a green light, but a very warm reception. He is filled with delight. This is not a teaspoon full once a week. It is a picture of a cup that is overflowing.“
This may seem like an overwhelming command. It probably is difficult for most husbands to obey it faithfully. The husbands obedience is not the wife’s responsibility to address. Her own obedience is what I’m addressing here.
I’m not telling you how to do this. I’m simply telling you that you must. It is your duty before God to help your husband in obedience of this command. You are given to him by God to satisfy him, to delight him intensely, and to rejoice with him.
There’s an important reason why I’m not telling you how. That is because you need to ask your husband. He is the only one who can tell you what will delight and enrapture him. Undoubtedly when women take on this task seriously they find much joy and delight themselves.
Do you see now why this is so infuriating to read? There is no believing Christian couple who do not see the truth of Proverbs 5:18,19 in light of how Nancy is unpacking it. It is a powerful verse that shows a husband drawn only to his wife, and a wife who is drawn only to her husband, because that is how God designed marriage, and they glorify God by conducting themselves in the way God has ordered things. GM/H are openly disputing this by teaching other women that the Wilsons teach (and by implication anyone who does not agree with GM/H) that “wives don’t know their own bodies and need instruction from their husbands.” This, as you have just seen, launches out deep into outright deception. Neither of the Wilsons teach any such thing.
Sixth Assertion: “Husbands are the “resident theologian”.
Given supporting quote from Nancy Wilson (Note the green text):
“We must cultivate a taste for books that will build us up in the faith—not take us to fantasy land. You might want to start with biographies of saints greatly used by God in the past. Be selective. Look to your husband for suggestions. … If you miss church, request a tape. Take sermon notes, jot down questions, and afterwards ask your husband questions. … Because women are prone to deception, we must have our guard up. Everything we hear must be weighed in light of Scripture. So what does a wise woman do who needs spiritual help? … Go to your husband first. He is your head and he is responsible before God to shepherd and pastor his home, starting with you.“
Again, no commentary or refutation is attempted, other than “Doug also expects husbands to be the ones to teach their wives about theology. Nancy concurs.”
But does she? Again, the missing context – in this case, the paragraph immediately preceding the quote that they actually used. In fact, GM/H begin their quote with the last sentence of the paragraph I am going to reproduce here. And, remember, according to GM/H, Nancy is supposedly teaching that only her husband should teach her theology. Does this support that claim?:
“Christian wives tend to leave the “fat books” and the theology to their husbands. While this may look submissive to some, it is actually disobedience. It is not enough that we know Proverbs 31, Ephesians 5, 1st Peter 3 and 1st Corinthians 1 and 14. We have to know more than how to be a good wife. After all our first calling is to be good Christians, and if we are good Christians then we will be good wives and mothers. As I mentioned earlier we mustn’t be afraid to study topics other than those which deal directly with being a wife and a mother. We see in Scripture that women became disciples along with the men. What is a disciple? It is not a mindless follower. A disciple is a student – someone enrolled in the class. This can even be seen in passages of scripture which some have sinfully misunderstood and written off as “anti-women”. When Paul prohibits women from teaching men, he (in the same breath) requires Christian women to be students of the word. Let a woman learn!! (1st Timothy 2:11) Because biblical learning is what is required of us, we ought not to be afraid of it. We must overcome our ignorance! Along with Bible reading, we must avoid bad teaching, whether it is on TV, in Christian books, or from the pulpit. We must seek out good teaching. We ought to read good solid books on Christian doctrine. It is good for us. We must cultivate a taste for books that will build us up in the faith not, take us to Fantasy-land.“
And immediately following GM/H’s claim that women should only “ask their husbands for suggestions“, Nancy says in the next paragraph:
“The more you read, the more you will find your thoughts and conversation reflecting your reading, and the more you will want to read. Knowing scripture will also safeguard you from your mother Eve’s vulnerability to deception.“
So, does Nancy teach that only her husband can teach her theology? No. She does not.
She does suggest doing so under the guidance of her husband, and she does teach that her husband is her head, and therefore has the God given task of guiding her (because that is what it means to be a head). That is a commandment from scripture, and is not up for debate. Unless of course you make a living teaching women to doubt scripture, and instead go with their feelings on the matter. And what else am I supposed to assume given the misleading selective quoting, and the deception by omission?
Seventh and Eighth Assertions: “Husbands are created for and called to work, and wives are created for and called to support their husbands in that work. Put simply, his calling becomes her calling.”
Given supporting quote from Nancy Wilson:
“He is one of a kind, and God has prepared special work for him to do. You have the privilege of being God’s appointed helper for him. … Your husband will appreciate your obedience and be set free to live up to all God has called him to be. … The first question to ask and answer is, “Who is this woman’s husband?” Next we must ask many subsidiary questions. Is she fulfilling her ministry to him? Is he her priority? Is she helping him? Is her house in order? Is he leading her in this ministry? Is her identity as a Christian woman centered, under Christ, around her relationship to her husband? … But if the answer to any of the earlier questions is “no,” then her ministry is likely independent of her husband, much like a separate career.“
Here is one case in which I would have a slightly different take than Nancy Wilson. I do not know about “one of a kind”. And I do not think God has appointed me to any “special work”. However, that my wife is appointed as a helper to me is clearly established in the Genesis account. And NOT “after the fall”, but before it.
Adam had existed for a long time in the Garden that God had created and set him to work tending. Possibly for a very long time. Adam was present for all of the creation account. Eve was not. Adam named all the animal kingdom. Eve was not present. Adam continued in the Garden from the time creation was concluded, until God decided, “It is not good for the man to be alone.” This is potentially a long time. Adam received all of the instructions and commandments from God. Eve did not. Again, she was not there. She got those commandments and instructions later from Adam. Eve knew the commandments of God, even though she was not present when God gave them, for we see her tell the serpent, “God has said that we may eat of any tree of the Garden except this one…“. That means that Adam had relayed those instructions to her because she was not there when God commanded that. God didn’t repeat himself. Adam did.
When God said, “Let us make a helper suitable to him“, that’s where Eve came in. After the Fall, all the work that God had given Adam was still there (tending the earth), and still on Adam to perform, only now it has been made difficult. Cut off from their food supply, the Tree of Life, God decrees “Out of the sweat of your face you will work the soil to produce the food that you will eat, all the days of your life.” That command was part of Adam’s judgment, and was laid on Adam. Eve is not commanded to work and toil. Adam is. And, again, at no point was Eve instructed to lay her hand on the plough. She is not designed for such hard labour. Only Adam is. Adam is the one commanded to work.
Eve’s part in that, then, since she is not designed for toil and labour, must be something else. The only work specifically mentioned for Eve is childbearing, which now also – like Adam – will be hard and painful (and potentially dangerous). Since only Adam is commanded to work, Eve’s work as a helper must be to help support Adam himself as he carries out his assigned work. In a sense, Eve’s work is Adam himself. That is what it means to be a helper “suitable to him.” Not suitable to his work. Suitable to him.
Since Adam is tasked with leading, and Eve is tasked with following him, then it stands to reason that it is not at all a far stretch to say that Adam’s work is Adam’s work, and Eve’s work is to support his doing that work. That essentially does mean that where Adam goes, Eve goes. What Adam’s “calling” is, it is Eve’s work to support him in that calling. There is nothing, in the entire body of scripture, God’s word, that denies or contradicts this, or suggests any alternative.
It is worth noting that God does not call Adam to be a help to his wife’s work, because he too is not built for that kind of work. He cannot bear children. God has given to them each work that is suited to – and compatible with – their physical bodies.
Too many people (these two writers included) are willing to take exceptional circumstances, or “edge cases”, and attempt to apply them as the normal condition. When people bring up examples of women working in fields, they just assume that’s God’s endorsement of it. It never seems to occur to anyone, “Hey, just because men and women have been sinning for a long time doesn’t make it right.” Seeing examples of men and women disregarding God’s order ought to be expected from sinful people in a fallen world. That doesn’t make it right. And it also doesn’t take into account women who are put in that position by men who have abrogated their responsibilities. Sinning against God often has implications that affect others than just the sinner alone. That’s what sin does.
This section goes on to talk about women in ministry, and I am not going to cover it. It’s too long. But it follows the same pattern she already laid out in the relationship between Adam and Eve’s given work. Women are not called to work apart from, or even in opposition to their husband’s work. They are to support their husbands in their work. I concur.
Ninth Assertion: “a happy wife is one who accepts the confines of the housework and childbearing she was made for.“
Given supporting quote from Nancy Wilson:
“The modern woman has been deceived, like Eve, and led away by her own lusts from her God-given domain and her God-ordained responsibilities. Loaded down with sin -discontent and envy – she is promised freedom and happiness if she will just forsake her domain (the home) and neglect her responsibilities (husband and children). … Notice the order of these good deeds. Our children are first. Next is hospitality. Then comes relieving the afflicted. The wife does not have to go outside her domain to “do good.” The home is the center of her activities, and these activities can be and should be pleasing to God. … Immediately I realized what [God] wanted me to do. He wanted me to do the dishes. But I still wondered if there was something else He wanted me to do. And I realized that, yes, there was something else. He wanted me to do them cheerfully.“
Note, here that GM/H state: “Here, too, Nancy’s writing is consistent with our conclusions.” But keep in mind that they are not saying whether Nancy’s claims or teachings are right or wrong, but only that they are the same as her husbands writings. They never really address whether what Wilson is teaching is biblically correct. It is just assumed that it is wrong without actually showing how it is wrong. They have not attempted any refutation of either Doug or Nancy. Again, that may just not be the intent of their current article, and they may actually attempt such refutation or disputation elsewhere. I haven’t seen it. Doesn’t mean it’s not there somewhere, though.
Again, the quotes above are taken from different sections of the book. No fault there. But it does lead to missing context, again, like before. That is because, again, they are taking a bit of Wilson’s writing, and not getting all of it. Again, no fault. They are trying to keep it short and to the point. Which is why their article is considerably shorter than my response.
But notice that bit about “Notice the order of these good deeds.” What good deeds are we talking about? GM/H haven’t told us what these good deeds are. Well, here is the fuller context, and like last time, and every time, the missing context is the scripture that Nancy is citing as reference for her claims. (You’d think two women with college degrees would understand the importance of citation and reference.)
Again, Nancy is working from scripture which GM/H have omitted. Nancy is working from 1 Timothy 5:10, which is dealing with wives who are widows, but wives nonetheless.
Here is where I would say that Nancy herself has engaged in a bit of “selective quotation”. She cites 1 Tim 5:10, and explains it. First, the scripture:
“…having a reputation for good works; and if she has brought up children, if she has shown hospitality to strangers, if she has washed the saints’ feet, if she has assisted those in distress, and if she has devoted herself to every good work.”
And here is how Nancy unpacked that:
“Women may do good in countless ways, and Paul shows us several examples. Bringing up children is the first listed in 1 Tim 5:10. Obviously, a woman who trusts God and submits to her husband will be better equipped to bring up her children faithfully than the woman who does not. … 1 Timothy also mentions lodging strangers and washing the feet of the saints as another means of doing good. This means that all of our hospitality can be pleasing to God whether it is extended inside, or outside of the Church. Finally, the apostle mentions relieving the afflicted. This general heading can cover all kinds of service.”
That also is just a bit misleading, in my estimation. She left off what the apostle actually (“finally”) ended with, which was: “and if she has devoted herself to every good work.“
And probably because she knows that the Progressive Feminist element at work in the Church today will overlook the obvious meaning (“every good work that is actually expected of them“), and instead apply it broadly: “devoted to every good work.” Not just this work. Or that work. But to “every good work”, all the way up to preaching the Gospel from the pulpit of a church, teaching men, and even to being a pastor or elder, and conducting wedding ceremonies. I mean, that’s the goalpost for these people, right?
Nancy is no doubt smart enough to know that, and left that bit of ammunition out of the arsenal. That was wrong. She should have just given the scripture as it’s actually written. There is plenty enough of God’s word, and Jesus’ teaching to establish your point without resorting to selective quoting.
Anyway… Back to the point, which is that I can’t think of much more to say about this section. You either agree with Nancy, or you don’t. I can say that no believing wife considers her home a “confinement”. It is only liberal progressive feminists who find the home to be a “confine”. For heaven’s sake, that was the whole drive behind the Second Wave Feminists in the 1960s. That she was “made for” her assigned work is already established. We are all, men and women alike, “made for” the work that God has assigned us. That is not in dispute by anyone except radical feminists and “transgender” activists.
Much of what Nancy has to say here is personal opinion. I happen to agree with it for one of two reasons. 1) It is historically accurate, and was the normal condition in America before radical feminism started making inroads into the Church [despite frantic feminist claims to the contrary], and 2) it promotes healthy, peaceful homes in which children will be brought up to be mature responsible adults, and it promotes marriages that exhibit the unity of husband and wife that God designed marriage to be, as a witness to the world, and a model of the relationship of Christ and his Bride.
Everything that we see Christ do in scripture is modeled by the husband, and everything that we see the Church do in response to the Lord is modeled by the wife. And when we faithfully walk in the roles in which God has placed us, we present a unified and powerful testimony to the world.
One thing that I would say that I wholeheartedly agree with is that God does expect all of us to do our work cheerfully and with thanksgiving, because that glorifies God.
I will say that the book has MUCH more to say than just what’s been quoted here.
Tenth Assertion: ” She exists to serve and glorify him.“
[First off, this one is going to be contentious, and this is the one that is going to offend many.]
Given supporting quote from Nancy Wilson:
“Your job is to be a humble and willing servant, recognizing that God is at work, and He will bring to pass His will, using His appointed means. This should encourage you to pray for your husband, rather than nag him. Instead of feeling sorry for yourself, thank God that you have a husband. Thank Him that He is at work to do as He pleases. … This can mean following through when your husband requests something, instead of putting it at the end of the to-do list. It can include everything from when dinner is scheduled, to what kind of greeting your husband gets, to making him a cup of coffee. … Respect is a demeanor that should characterize wives in all their conduct toward their husbands and in all their communication to or about their husbands—this means courtesy in the home, where the husband is treated with honor. Remnants of this honor from a previous era are our traditions of Dad seated at the head of the table, Dad carving the turkey, [the American custom of] Dad having his own big chair, Dad leading the family in thanks at meals, and Dad doing the driving on the family trips. These are things that we assume culturally, but they come from the time when everyone knew and understood that Dad was the head of the house.“
Wilson has NOT said that she exists to serve him. She says that it is a wife’s job to be a humble and willing servant. Because that is everyone’s job. She is not saying that wives only are servants. She is simply showing that, in whatever position we find ourselves in, we are to approach that work as humble servants. Nancy happens to be addressing wives only, in her book. But it is just as true to say of husbands that they are to be willing and humble servants to their masters, or those in authority over them. And Both Doug and Nancy have repeatedly taught that. GM/H have read into Nancy’s words something that is not there, for sensational purposes, again to illicit a sense of outrage and offense without having to actually make the claim outright, or prove it.
I hope that both Green-Miller, and Hobbs realise that I am treading perilously close to embracing their own doctrine. Men and women are in this together. We are all called to learn. We are all called to submit. We are all called to serve… as believers.
But… In the Old Testament, God once asked of the Israelites, “If I am a Father, then where is my honour?” He expected the Israelites to know, instinctively, and culturally, without having to be specifically told, that the position of “Father” (thus Husband) is a position of honour, respect, and leadership. Because because you cannot be a “Father” without first being a “Husband”. And Wilson is very right in this that that position of honour has been reserved for Fathers for thousands of generations in Judaeo/Christian culture, and only recently in this last generation have people come along and started trying to deconstruct that and make it something “gender fluid”.
Serve and glorify? I don’t know about serve. We are all to serve one another. But as a “helpmeet” she does exist to help him accomplish his work. Not do his work for him, but to the best of her abilities, enable him to that which God has commanded him to do.
But about that “glorify” bit. This one is the one that will be controversial, because the only answer to it is “That is specifically stated, unequivocally, in scripture in those exact words, and testified to in imagery presented in scripture.“
“But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven. For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head. For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God. Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, but if a woman has long hair, her hair is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering.”
[NOTE: I usually do not use the ESV for citing scripture. I prefer the NASB, or the KJV. But I did cite the ESV in this case because it is the only translation (that I know of) that properly renders this text “husband and wife”, not “man and woman”. Women in general are not called to submit to men in general. The only man a wife must submit to is her own husband, and no one else. And the husband and the wife, both as believers are required to submit to the elders God has placed in the body. But women are not categorically required to submit to men in general. The ESV makes this distinction clear.]
This passage of scripture lays out the order and structure of authority in the Kingdom of God plainly and unambiguously: God, Christ, Husband, Wife (and I would add at the end, Children).
This is not a matter of “proper context”. There is no other scripture that you can drop it into or next to that will make it not say what it says plainly. Paul seemed to know this was controversial, even then, because he concludes with “If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do any of the churches of God.“
Apart from that plain declaration, the Bible is full of imagery that also sends this same message. We, the Church, as Christ’s Bride are presented to him as his glory. We all are presented to the world to glorify the Father. We, the Son and his Church, are presented to God as his glory.
The last, Eleventh Assertion: “The wife has no self and, it seems, no voice.”
I discussed this in the opening, and am not going to rehash it here. Nancy is not the only woman with a very strong voice. Doug also has two daughters who have published books also. It was Doug telling these two women, in a response to their article about his wife and her books that led them to THIS book that they are now quarreling with.
So, what do we do with all this?
For one thing, feminists want to paint a picture of men sitting comfy in their easy chair, while women cater to their every need. Yet, if they read either Doug Or Nancy Wilson’s books, they quickly find out that the hardest work and responsibility falls on the men. The husbands. Revisit Nancy Wilson’s advice about not trying to soften the blows of hardship on their husbands, but to let them suffer hardship and consequences of their failures, because that is God’s work in them. Think about the loss of income if women DO decide to stay at home. Would the husband’s job be easier if he alone was the one responsible for providing for his wife and children? No. It would me much harder in many cases. But that is what God calls us to as husbands and fathers. And he calls on wives to support their husbands as they face these trials. They are not told to go out onto the battlefield to fight those fights for their husbands. Husbands will face a judgment of God for how well or how badly they have fulfilled his command to “by the sweat of your face YOU will work to provide the bread that you eat.“
Women should be silent, have no voice, not learn anything except what their husbands teach them? This is neither the teaching of Doug Wilson, not Nancy Wilson. it is the teaching of Rachel Green-Miller, and Valerie Hobbs, hurriedly stuffed into the mouth of Doug and Nancy Wilson. And I think I have given enough evidence of that fact in this article.
Marriage and Submission. What is submission really all about? And why do some people have a strong aversion to it?
In closing, let me add this. There are two states in which Christian men and women exist. They exist first as believers. In this state, both the husband and the wife are equal before God, and have the same access to the throne of God in prayer. As believers, they are no different as single men and women than married men and women. Secondly, some of them exist in the state and context of a marriage covenant. However, this marriage covenant has entirely different set of restrictions and obligations, different duties and different spheres of authority that do not apply to single men and women. Single men and women are free to devote themselves to the service of the Lord in whatever way they see fit, so long as it is within the bounds of what God has decreed.
“He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord: But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife… The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband.” — 1 Cor 7.
So, for instance, single or otherwise, God has ordained leadership, oversight, and authority in the church to men only. Why? We do not know. God has not deemed or seen fit to tell us why. He just has. And that is just the way it is, and I do not feel any urge or compunction to question it.
But when a man and a woman decide to enter into a contract before God, a covenant called “marriage”, things change dramatically because now they are going to be a model of the Church and her Lord. A witness before the whole world about exactly who God is, and how he has arranged and ordered his Kingdom. This means that married men and women can no longer conduct themselves as though they were single. A husband is now going to have to model the love of Christ for his Bride, the Church. And the wife is now going to have to serve as a model of the Church, and how she responds to her Lord. And chief among those things is submission.
Why is submission so important? One reason is a command that God has given to husbands and wives: that they live in UNITY with each other. To this end, submission is not a burden. It is a great gift. Submission is how a husband and wife can maintain UNITY in the marriage even though there may be disagreement. It is submission that makes it possible for a wife who thinks one way to live in unity with a husband that thinks another way.
I will grant right away that the harder task has been given to wives. They must “submit to their husbands in everything, just as they would to the Lord himself.” That burden is not on me. I am not required to submit to my wife. I am required to submit to MY masters – my employer, my boss (who happens to be a woman), the police, and ultimately the State, and to the elders God has put over me in the body of Christ.
And I struggle with that every bit as much as a wife struggles with submitting to a husband, sometimes. Especially these days (October 2021, as of this writing). Submission is not a feeling. It is a carefully thought out plan. I take assessment of my situation. I take note of my beliefs and convictions. I even take note of my feelings. And I weigh all of them and decide, “Do I submit to this?” And unless I am being told to do something that sins against God, then I submit to those authorities. It is sometimes just as hard for me to do as it is for my wife to submit to me.
We ALL live under authority. Different authorities, sometimes, but authority nonetheless. And God calls us to submit to all authority unless it would cause us to break his commandments, because he has ultimate authority.
When my boss (my head) at my employment tells me to do something, they know they can count on me to give them wise options and recommendations. Yet in the end, the last words out of my mouth are always “What would you like me to do?” And then I DO EXACTLY THAT, to the best of my ability, to their satisfaction, not my own.
And that is the exact reason why I am very highly regarded, respected, and trusted at work. Basically, “My employer rises up and calls me blessed“. They have full faith that when they ask me to do something, they have full assurance that it will get done. Because I know how to operate as one under authority, and more importantly, THEY know that. So my witness is a good witness and glorifies God.
THAT is how submission works. Submission confirms the confidence that people have in you. When someone under my authority consistently does what I ask of them, I know I can trust them. If I farm out some of my development work to a third party, and that person consistently does what I ask them to do, not what they want to do, or what they think they should do, I know it is safe to hire them again in the future. When they do not, I know that I cannot (and should not) trust them. I have to have confidence that where I lead, they will follow. Again, that is how submission works.
GM/H seem to want to either treat these two states as one, or else deny the other entirely. They want to acknowledge that men and women are equal before God as believers (if indeed they are both believers). But they then want to carry over that state into the state of marriage. If men and women are equal as believers, then they must also be equal as husband and wife. They seem to think that there is only the one state, and that the contract and covenant of marriage doesn’t change that. And indeed, it doesn’t – AS equal believers before the Lord. They are both still believers, and have the privileges of that state. But they are completely missing the fact that marriage is a contract, a covenant that is added on top of their state as just believers. Marriage is not just “two believers”, but a union of two believers in a covenant that imposes additional requirements and orders. They as believers are one thing. But they as partners in a marriage that God uses as a witness to the world of the union of Christ and his Church is quite another thing.
And blurring those lines is both dangerous and hostile to the work of the Holy Spirit. Something that Rachel Green-Miller, and Ms. Hobbs should be more careful to take into account.
Footnote:
* If you were to ask RGM if she is a feminist, she would of course deny it. And she does deny it. Check here if you’d like to read her own response to the charge, which has been leveled by many more than just me. https://rachelgreenmiller.com/2018/01/18/no-im-not-a-feminist-or-an-egalitarian/
However, what you will notice is that she is very careful to start almost every conversation or podcast, or blog article with the disclaimer “I am not a feminist.“, or “I am not an egalitarian.” or “I believe in qualified (careful now) male headship.”
But then goes on to say or write overtly Egalitarian things. So, if she opens with “I am for male leadership.“, you can be sure she is about to dismantle or denounce male leadership. If she opens with “I am not egalitarian.“, you can be sure she is about to attack gender roles in the Church.
It’s a “disarming” technique. If you point out that she is contradicting the notion of “male ordination”, she will answer, “But I already said that I support male only ordination.” If you point out that she is taking up a feminist banner, she will answer “But I already told you I am not a feminist.” It’s a preemptive disarmament strike against arguments that she knows she is going to be confronted with because of her doctrine.
The bottom line is a saying of mine that I have employed for a long time:
The saying of a thing has nothing to do with the doing of a thing.
In earlier times it was rendered “Easier said than done.” Feminism is not determined only by what you say. Feminism is determined by what you DO.
And devoting two entire chapters of a book, one to all the ways in which men can be feminine, and another whole chapter to a long list of ways that women can be masculine is pretty much the definition of “feminist” and cuts perilously close to the scripture’s teaching that “No masculine woman shall inherit the kingdom of God.” (isiTt)
Unius Libri 