Nancy Wilson's Blog, page 38

A Little Poetic Justice

For those of you who are not reading twitter or following all the comments on Anthony Bradley’s blog, you will be astounded to see that this very same gentleman wrote a great article one year ago (almost to the day) for World magazine called “Libel is not Love” in which he chastises Christians for doing the very thing he is now engaged in doing to my husband. And the amazing irony is that he is taking Rachel Held Evans to task for going after Mark Driscoll! The world goes round.

He says, “My concern is how Christians handle conflict with other Christians in public.”

Our concern as well, Dr. Bradley.

Next Month’s Party Budget

Some of you may wonder why our family seems “hardened” to controversy, so I should give you a little back story. When our kids were little, Doug wrote a weekly column for our local newspaper, and back then our community was the one blue dot on the otherwise red map of Idaho. In other words, there weren’t a whole lot of conservatives in town, and the letters to the editor were often filled with critical letters about him. One day I opened it to see this from one of the liberals in town: “Dear Editor, Doug Wilson is a complete idiot. Signed, So-and-So.”  I felt like someone had slugged me in the stomach. When Doug got home, I showed the horrible thing to him, expecting him to be outraged. Instead, he laughed out loud and said, “You should write back and say, ‘Editor, So-and-So doesn’t know the half of it! Signed, Nancy Wilson.’” As a result of that conversation, which I consider as a turning point in my perspective on these things, I cut the letter out and put it on the fridge, where it stayed for some time.

As the years have gone by, the charges have ramped up. He’s been called a racist, among other equally hateful things. I remember having a hard time with this because I knew he wasn’t. Why would people tell outright lies? Doug helped me to see that lies are all our adversaries have. And many of these people were and are outright God-haters. They don’t pretend to be otherwise. Others are misguided. Some have a personal grudge they are hoping to ease by yelling out all kinds of bitter lies.

But if you allow yourself to get bitter back, or to nurture hurt feelings, you are the one who suffers. If they really are lying, and they are, then we must do what Scripture tells us to do, and that is to rejoice. Having opportunities to apply the Word is always good for us. A couple of posts back I quoted John Bunyan and Spurgeon and others. Who remembers the names of their adversaries? Yet we are still blessed by their writings and faith. So we consider it our Christian duty to rejoice when the hate-mongers fire up their websites, whoever they are. You can read my husband’s latest blog post on this whole topic here.

That is a terrific way to keep perspective. Let me give you an example. Years ago on the day one of our beautiful granddaughters was born, I had just come home from the hospital when Kinko’s delivered a box containing hundreds of pages of “charges” against my husband, all dutifully signed and even notarized by a couple of malcontents. I took a brief look at the gist of it, and then I put the lid back on. I had a beautiful new grandbaby! We had much to rejoice in already, but I realized that the enemy wanted to distract us away from our joy. We have, by faith, agreed with God’s perspective on these things. We choose to laugh at false charges, no matter who brings them. And we know that God uses these things for good; it is for our benefit. It is an opportunity to trust Him. And He is always faithful. He knows the truth about us all. He knows my husband is no racist, etc. We don’t have to convince Him! And we’ve never yet had an adversary of this kind who really cares what the truth is. They like their lies just fine, thank you very much.

So we have learned that when our adversaries say laughable things, we laugh. God has a sense of humor, of course, and we have learned to laugh with Him. He has, in the midst of these seasons of slander, given us some rather funny times. But if you get all wounded, you miss the funniness.

This latest round of slander fired against my husband has left me feeling bad. Not hurt. Nowhere close to hurt. But I feel so bad when I see a Christian man who should know better making a big public blunder. It’s embarrassing and I feel bad for him. That’s what Professor Anthony Bradley (a professor at King’s College and a research fellow at the Acton Institute) has done when he goes off to get some “research data” from this crowd. Pitiful. I told my husband that he should have interviewed some of the protesters at Bloomington. (This is where my husband was invited to speak to a Christian group and a bunch of protestors showed up. You can see some of that here if you want.) They could have given him some hot stuff too.

When an otherwise respectable man like Professor Bradley does something foolish like linking arms with this crowd, it brings to mind Ecclesiastes 10:1 : Dead flies putrefy the perfumer’s ointment, and cause it to give off a foul odor; so does a little folly to one respected for wisdom and honor.

I have no idea why this nice man thought mining from the other team would make my husband look bad. Any fool could rummage around on the internet to find stuff like this. We expect more of actual professors. But I know God means it for our good, and I’ve seen Him use this tactic for our good over and over. In fact, if this keeps up, I’m going to have to dip into next month’s party budget.

Having him link up with some of these old-timers has brought back a bunch of fond memories. This is what I mean about seeing God’s sense of humor in the midst of slander. Like the time one of our very public “detractors” accidentally left a long message on our answering machine in which he was requesting food stamps and left his name (spelling it out for me so there could be no mistake) and number. I of course called him to let him know he had gotten the wrong number. That was a howler! Especially because we knew him to be fully capable of making a living all by himself. But he was busy firing up controversy and couldn’t be distracted by a job.

Bekah has a great story about ol’ Potok (that’s what we’ve been calling him for years at our house). He is the head of the leftist Southern Poverty Law Center, and one of the “authorities” Professor Bradley has gone to for information on my husband. And I thought it would be best if you heard this story straight from Bekah, a star witness.

So, Mom asked me to tell you all about my little brush with greatness I had a while back. ‘Twas truly awesome.

There was a history conference being held in Moscow, and the topic of said history conference was “Revolution.” Someone, somewhere, I forget all the details, started a rumor similar to the recent debacle, that the conference was actually on slavery (and the virtues thereof.) Of course, it wasn’t on slavery, and even if it was it wouldn’t have been about the virtues thereof . . . but this didn’t slow down the rumor train one little bit, despite the fact that we announced and announced till we were blue in the face that it WASN’T ABOUT SLAVERY!!!!! Somehow they were all too worked up by this time to notice.  Many people were called into action – crusades were mounted against Douglas Wilson and anything he’s ever touched. Ridonculous stories were spread about him. This was the moment that Rachel bumped into the lesbian wearing the anti-Doug Wilson sandwich board. A full page ad in the newspaper announced that Doug Wilson needed to get out of town, and attached a bunch of signatures of people who would like him to leave. (Interesting side note: those signatures were incredibly interesting. There were the usual suspects – all the leftists and lesbian activists were there . . . the same ones who are currently posting nasty links over on Anthony Bradley’s blog – but so were some other Christians, who had gotten disgruntled and left our church over paedobaptism or whatever, and then decided to sign on with the God-haters asking Douglas Wilson to get the heck out.) This is when the New Saint Andrews front window was smashed in, the sidewalk in front of the building was decorated with swastikas and other charming things, etc. Anyway, it was during this breezy moment, the Southern Poverty Law Center got involved. They began issuing alerts about the hate levels of Moscow folks. (Not the Moscow folks who were so quick with the swastikas, or the folks telling Dad to get out of town . . . no. Not them. Rather, it was a hate alert about the people planning a conference about Revolution and who were possibly even going to go to the awful length of bringing up the poetry of Percy Bysche Shelley. Incidentally, the speakers were against Revolution.) A large scale protest was mounted – with a lot of people, time, and energy being used up to protest the Slavery Conference. Of course, the anti-slavery protest was going to be happening outside the building where we were all going to be inside hearing about the French Revolution, but that didn’t appear to matter to the protesters. At some point, the Southern Poverty Law Center determined that things were so bad in Moscow they needed to get in on the actual action of the protest instead of merely issuing hate alerts from afar – and Mark Potok decided to come in person to help out. He likes to be on hand when Hateful Events are going down . . . and no doubt a conference that will be discussing the philosophy of Nietzsche brings him running every time.

We heard that he was coming. Ben was in charge of lining up speakers for the New St. Andrews weekly forum called Disputatio. He thought this would be a great opportunity to actually meet the guy who was busily spreading the word about how evil we were . . . and he thought we might actually make progress if there could be a face to face meeting and an intelligent discussion. So he invited Potok to trot along over to Disputatio while he was in town and tell us what he thinks of us.

Shortly thereafter, I was home with my three small children and my enormous pregnant belly. I was doing my usual thing, sweeping up the dining room every 6 minutes and trying to get the Sharpie out of the couch. The phone rang. I answered, “Hello?” and what I heard was this . . .

“This is Mark Potok, P-O-T-O-K, have you heard of me?”

Unfortunately I hadn’t. I had no idea who he was. Ben may have told me he invited him and I forgot, or maybe I never caught the guy’s name. But I had absolutely no clue who he was! I hemmed and hawed for a second, madly going through the files in my head to see if I had ever heard of P-O-T-O-K. It was awkward. He, I think, sensed that he had struck out there and eventually just asked for Ben. I gave him Ben’s office number, and he called to decline the invitation to speak. Turns out there’s a bit of a pattern there I think! However, I’ve always loved that as an introduction to a phone conversation. “Hello there, this is Bekah Merkle, M-E-R-K-L-E, have you heard of me?”

Anyway, I hear that P-O-T-O-K is back in the game again, with his professional views of Doug Wilson being called upon. So just bear in mind that he too refused to speak with us when invited! Dialogue is not their strong suit.

So all this is to say, that we have learned the secret of rejoicing in times like these. Why not? God is in heaven. He has ordained even this. He often writes stories with this plot line, and we have seen His faithfulness to us over and over and over again. That’s why we can rejoice and celebrate in Him.

It’s a big question!

We’re on the countdown! Someone new is coming our way, and he might be wearing a green hat. Never mind that the list of things that need to get done is looking a lot like it did a few weeks ago. Never mind that we aren’t really ready. We’ve had a baby around a lot of times before. It will work again! This is the phase of pregnancy that God so kindly uses to prepare us. As my sister in law says “bring on the hurt!”

Passing Around the Mic

A few quotes from Thomas Watson (taken from Heaven Taken By Storm):

“The reason so many have been tricked into error is because they either did not know, or did not love, the truth.”

“Those who fly from the Word as a guide shall be forced to submit to it as a judge.”

“Those who slight God speaking in His Word shall hear Him speaking in His wrath.”

And now from Charles Spurgeon:

“The more prominent you are in Christ’s service, the more certain are you to be the butt of calumny. I have long ago said farewell to my character. I lost it in the earlier days of my ministry by being a little more zealous than suited a slumbering age. And I have never been able to regain it except in the sight of Him who judges all the earth, and in the hearts of those who love me for my work’s sake.”

And of course John Bunyan:

“In my preaching I was really in pain to bring forth children to God. I was not satisfied unless some fruit did appear in my work. If I were fruitless, it mattered not who commended me, but if I were fruitful, I cared not who condemned.”

And Best Of All from Psalm 31:20, “Thou shalt hide them in the secret of thy presence from the pride of man: thou shalt keep them secretly in a pavilion from the strife of tongues.”

Just Another Douglas Wilson Quote…

Taken from a sermon last year. Emphasis mine.

The authority of a husband is not absolute. No human authority is. There is nothing here to indicate that Abigail was in the wrong, and much to show that she was in the right. She honored the lawful authority of her husband in much the same way that David honored the lawful authority of Saul—while knowing that God was going to change everything shortly. She honored Nabal more than Nabal did, which is how David treated Saul. She is a feminine counterpart to David. Biblical submission prohibits rendering to any creature the absolute submission that belongs only to God. And beware of men who demand absolute submission beneath them, and are scofflaws toward the authorities above. There are many men who want to reserve to themselves the right to be blockheads, and they also think biblical submission means that their wives are required to not notice.

Doing God’s Will

A few excerpts from Thomas Watson’s The Lord’s Prayer:

The manner in which we do God’s will is as important as the thing itself. We obey acceptably when we obey from the heart. …

Many do God’s will by halves. They pick and choose like a lame horse that favours one leg. To play a lute you must strike every string or spoil the music…The command, not comfort, is the ground of duty. Secondly, we obey sincerely when we do God’s will with a pure eye to his glory. The Pharisees obeyed for vain-glory. He that does God’s will rightly desires God’s honour to be lifted up in all the world rather than his own glory. A gracious soul makes God his focus and obeys his commands with the pure motive of lifting up his glory.

Ephesians 6:6

A Note for Rachel Held Evans

So I’ve heard from more a few quarters that I too should throw in my two cents. Well, since you asked…

A Note for Rachel Held Evans:

In your follow up post to the initial critique of Jared Wilson’s 50 Shades..you write the following,

“Let’s give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they did not mean to be hurtful, and let’s engage the content of The Gospel Coalition post instead of criticizing the character of the authors, who very few of us know personally.”

Great! Even if we grant (for argument’s sake) that they were hurtful at all, why didn’t you begin your initial blog post with that quote? Why didn’t you begin with a call for a respectful discussion? Instead, your very first call to action was literally for your followers and readers to all “get angry” (your words). Instead, you blogged/tweeted quotes without any context and without any reference to what the authors were trying to say, and now you act coy and innocent when people draw the very conclusions you led them to, and react (anger, anger!) just how you suggested. At this point, you don’t just get to say, “I never accused Jared Wilson or Doug Wilson of promoting rape or sexual violence against women, so let’s just strike that narrative from the dialog.” Sorry, Rachel, the arsonist doesn’t just get to throw on her firewoman helmet. Striking that narrative at this point would require something more like a retraction and, dare I say it, an apology? “Get angry” came from you. Are you now sorry that it did?

You obviously feel strongly that the gents made some word choices that were poor and insensitive. You obviously differ on their views of submission (even if you weren’t engaged in misunderstanding them). But did your approach really move anyone towards meaningful dialogue? There was, and is, some real dialogue to be had here. It’s a great topic for discussion (and edification) among cool heads.

I am all for a heated discussion when there are differences of opinion on Scripture and how it plays out in our lives, but as far as I can tell, that was never your point. You demonstrated more concern that the pro-S&M crowd could feel stung by some of the discussion than concern for the rampant slander you set blazing against two ministers of the Gospel.

If you want to talk about using wisdom in one’s rhetoric, if you want to talk about insensitivity in word choice, if you want to underscore the fact that words can do damage, how about trying to practice what you preach. Thus far, on that topic, you’ve been nothing but a blogging contradiction.

10 Reasons to be Glad When Your Husband is Slandered

*Though this may apply to all kinds of husbands, it is particularly the case when your husband is a minister.

1. It makes him look good.

Of course it does! Karen Grant said that “big lights attract big bugs” and if there are some big uglies out there around the light, well, he must be big enough to be a threat to bring out all the bugs. And the light usually sticks around longer than the bugs.

2. It makes you grateful.

I never thought to thank my husband for not being a racist. Of course, if he had been a racist, I never would have married him. But once people start calling him one, then I find I have one more blessing to thank God for.

3. It’s a good sign.

It’s a danger sign, according to Scripture, when everyone only has nice things to say about you. (Luke 6:26)

4. It’s a reason for a party.

If Jesus says we are to rejoice and be exceeding glad when people spread lies about us, then that means God wants us to throw a party! (Matthew 5:11-12)

5. It’s God’s way of a promotion.

1 Peter 4:14 says that when we are reproached for the name of Christ, the Spirit of glory and of God rests on us. Now that’s a promotion!

6. You are in good company!

Jesus was slandered, Paul was slandered, and most, if not all, of the prophets and apostles were slandered. What great preacher was not slandered? Your husband must be doing something right.

7. It’s a sign that your opponents are desperate.

Well, think about it. If the true stuff about your husband is not going to start a riot, then the troublemakers have to make up some spicy stuff. It’s the oldest device in the world, seeing that it started with the devil. And lies are the language of the devil.

8. It reveals who your friends really are.

Nothing like a good controversy to test loyalties. You may be surprised at which of your friends are hitting the “like” button on your slanderer’s post. But, it’s good to know now rather than later.

9. Believe it or not, your church will be healthier for it.

When your congregation sees your husband stand firm, it gives them great confidence.

10. It gives your daughters opportunities to write some awesome blog posts!

Splashing into it again!

Good morning, good morning! I thought I’d just cruise by this whole thing one more time, and then perhaps we can let it dwindle into extinction. Sound good? Here’s the thing. There are obviously many, many feathers in the air, and the likelihood of this post calming everyone down may be slim to none. But – there are clearly several groups of people following along on this, and so I’ll parcel out my responses and address the groups individually.

Group 1: People who agreed with me, and who get it

Hello there. Cheery wave.

Group 2: Rachel Held Evans fans, who found this blog accidentally and who were passionately offended by my remarks

Hello there. Cheery wave. Actually, we’re in completely different camps – and one or two very controversial blog posts are probably not enough to clearly understand where we at Femina are coming from. But suffice it to say that we’re not the oppressed, trodden-upon women that we’ve been caricatured as being. Submission doesn’t have to look like slavery . . . true submission never does. And to be perfectly honest, this is a much more fun place to stand than over in the camp where there’s a lot of indignation and hurt feelings. Seriously – things are a lot more cheerful over here. Come by and hang out for a while and I think you’ll see what I mean.

Group 3: “I’m totally confused. I’d like to be on your side here, but why on earth did you hit that bee’s nest, why on earth did you hit it so hard, and I have a pit in my stomach about the whole thing.”

OK – you’re the group I really wanted to talk to. My guess is that you’re probably 80% of the crowd, and you’re the ones not commenting. Am I right? So here’s the deal. Let’s walk through this a bit more slowly. Rachel Held Evans is a feminist egalitarian who, among other things, refers to God in the feminine, is defensive of homosexuality, and whose forthcoming book involves her taking all the biblical commands to women, following them as literally as possible and then showing how ridiculous they all are. She’s a woman who has made her name by being a bit of a shock-jock. She talks rough and tough, and gets all crass on the guys she’s going after. But here’s the thing. She also makes her living by professionally getting her feelings hurt. Most of the tag lines for her posts could be, “They’re being mean to us women” or, “They’re being mean to them and I’m the gutsy one who will stick up for the underdog.” But she always plays the underdog card. She’s become a pro at grabbing her knee and falling down in front of the ref – but usually on behalf of someone else. She manages to achieve a “don’t mess with me” attitude along with a “you’re hurting my feelings” message. In case you missed the irony, that’s really funny. It’s also really hard to argue with.

Some people thought I was being incredibly demeaning to women in my post – objecting to all the stereotypical imagery I used. “Stamping her little foot,” “Smelling salts,” “Squeaky voice,” etc. But here’s the thing – I was actually making a point with that. If she doesn’t like the stereotypical “little woman” thing . . . then she should stop being the stereotypical little woman. She’s ready to cry and get her feelings hurt at the drop of a hat, and she does so because it’s very hard for a man to argue with a woman who’s pulling that trick. It’s effective. (But it’s also doing the very thing that she objects to men saying about women.) Then she’s ready to flip-flop into a “how dare you” mood as soon as that suits her purpose. Also hard for a man to argue with. She’s perfected the art of seizing the moral high ground by falling down and acting wounded. If she truly was a weak little woman – well, of course I wouldn’t have gone after her the way I did. But to be honest, she’s not a weak little woman. Her tactics are incredibly conniving, and honestly I think she’s doing an amazing disservice to women by acting like this.

So why go after her at all? Like I said, she makes her living by getting her feelings hurt – usually on behalf of someone else. In this case she chose my dad as the target. She was full-on in wounded mode . . . on behalf of women who are used and abused by men like him and by his teachings. So who would be the biggest victims in her opinion? Well clearly, if her accusations were true, the biggest victims of Dad’s evil misogynist ways would be me, my sister, and my mom. And to be honest, her tactics make it very hard for a man to go after her – she’s very good at flipping things around and making him look like a bully. So I thought I’d have a go. I have no problem giving the Russian arm bar to a woman who’s spent the last decade rolling on the floor grabbing her knee, and is now claiming that it was my dad who knocked her down.

If what she said about Dad were true, then the women influenced by his teachings would be weak, downtrodden victims, desperately needing her champion voice to come along and liberate us. My post was intended to show that’s not the case, and that no matter how much she rolls around on the floor, I’m not buying it.

Lastly – a number of you pointed out that I didn’t interact with her actual arguments. True. That wasn’t my point. My dad has very ably done that here, here, and here. Jared Wilson has very ably done that here. They didn’t need me to come along and add my two cents. The only thing I wanted to accomplish was to have someone out there loudly point out what this woman is doing. That’s not something a man can easily do – she’ll spin it to make him look like a big meany. And people are trying to make it out that I’m the big meany . . . but that’s fine. I’m a big girl. I can take it. And I promise I won’t fall down and cry.

One more thing. I posted this in the comments yesterday, but in case you missed it I’m cut and pasting it here!

Aloha to the great swirling internet world! I can’t respond to everyone’s thoughts, so I won’t even try . . . but let me toss out a general footnote or two to the conversation.

First – to all the people who feel that I’m wounded, hurt, angry, bitter, or in pain: I appreciate your concern (to those who were concerned)- but I’m awfully afraid you have the wrong takeaway. Try re-reading the post, but this time read it with an overlay of “funny”.

Second – To the people who thought I was bragging about learning formal logic etc. That wasn’t my intention at all. Not bragging – pointing out that my father wasn’t the oppressive ogre that some people are imagining him to be. I’ve heard men say that women don’t need an education because they only need to be able to have babies and mop floors . . . but my dad isn’t one of them.

Third – I enjoy it that people are actually trying to paint me as a misogynist. Good one guys.

Fourth – and I repeat myself, I haven’t been angry or had my feelings hurt all day. Jolly as can be over here. I’ve been the daughter of Doug Wilson long enough to hear him accused of pretty much everything under the sun. I’m pretty used to it now. Once, I was solemnly informed that he forced our whole congregation to make their own toothbrushes. (Not true – but a rather awesome thing to accuse him of.) A ripe little story circulated a while back that he charged my husband $70,000 to marry me. (Not true.) I’ve been informed that he’s a racist. (Not true.) I’ve been told he is a drunk, who spends his weekends down at the bars. (Not true.) I’ve been told he’s a misogynist, a perjurer, a Neo-Nazi, and a skunk. (Not true on all counts.)

But just because it doesn’t make me cry and get wounded when I hear those things doesn’t make them ok to say. And when I hear a woman accusing him of being misogynist, and one who promotes rape at that, I don’t mind stepping out and saying what I think about it. But again, do re-read it and realize that I’m as chirpy as the day is long over here. Let’s remember that RHE was the one who specifically stated that everyone’s first step in responding to Doug Wilson should be to “get angry.” That was her approach, not mine.

Daddy Issues

A little while ago I was kneeling on the bathroom floor, shampooing Blaire’s hair as she sat in the tub. My four-year-old Chloe came in to supervise and inadvertently pulled the whole shower curtain down on me. The metal rod cracked my head, all the little metal hooks making quite the racket as they scattered about. It was a bit of a surprise. Chloe stood firm beside me, tucked her hair behind her ear, and said, “Well. That happened.”

This seems surprisingly descriptive of the recent blog debacle. In the wake of Bekah’s witty wild post, I felt the need to get in on the shower curtain crashing action. Consider my hair tucked behind my ear.

When I was in college, but still a teenager, I began volunteering at a local crisis pregnancy center. It was not affiliated with our church, but it was part of my early childhood memories as my parents had helped start it. It was, I believe, my first real experience of working alongside of Christians who were from many different churches. I was not at all surprised by some of the differences we faced, but a few really stood out to me. One particular instance comes to mind when I was asked to watch a video that was part of the training for the abstinence program.

The woman who was speaking in the video was some kind of professional abstinence speaker to youth groups and Christian schools, and she made a point at the beginning to mention how she left her “Mr. Mom” husband at home with the kids while she engaged in this vital work.  At some point she told us all that our teenagers are facing pressure to have sex every day. This was why she traveled about showing them all pictures of STD’s. This was why she was facing the problem head on and talking to the kids about resisting. She also mentioned at this time how she took her junior-high son’s prom date out in advance and told her just what would happen if she laid a hand on her son.

When this video was over, (should I mention that the end could not come soon enough?) the woman who was watching it with me asked me what I thought about it. And I told her. I told her the plain old ugly unvarnished truth. Sex is not the problem. Threatening the children with STD’s will not keep them out of each other’s pants. The deep dark truth is that this is a problem that starts back quite a bit further. I mentioned the fact that I had not ever faced pressure to have sex. Never. Lewd guys on the street are not pressure. Pressure (as they were talking about it) was the result of being a young person in this world. But here I was – a young person who had forged most of my way through adolescence without ever having a zit- faced young boy calling the shots about my body. How did this happen? Was it some skill set of mine? Had I learned the secret technique of getting off the couch in the dimly lit room just in time? Nope. The truth was that the reason for my freedom had a name, and it was Dad.

I don’t mean by this that I had a father who raced about taking young men to coffee to threaten them about staying away from me. I don’t mean by this that I had a crazy overprotective father who wouldn’t let me out of the house, or wouldn’t let me speak to young men. I did not have a father who required me to conduct my life  in the constant company of turtlenecks, thick tights, and unflattering shoes. What I did have – and still do– was a sacrificial father. It was his sacrifice that provided us with an education. It was his sacrifice that engaged with the Word in Bible studies with a bunch of junior-high kids. It was his sacrifice that watched pop music videos with us, talking to us about what they were saying, what worldview they were pushing, and helped us work through this kind of thing ourselves. Dad was not on a power trip, and I feel confident saying that I think I would know if he had been.

While there are those who believe that authority is all about power and that submission is all about subservience, they are clearly not people who have experienced either. I always knew that my Dad answered to another authority. I always knew that submission was not inferiority. When my husband came along and we got married, my father gladly gave me away, and I gladly left.

I understand that this whole discussion is a bit like trying to have an oil pastel still-life workshop in a closet with a strobe light and a disco ball running. If you can start a fuss with key words like patriarchy, submission, authority, sex, and misogyny, you can be pretty certain that almost no one will be listening to anything other than their own baggage, their own worries about other people’s perceptions, their own anger, and their own refusal to deal with sin in their lives.

So pardon me if it offends any of you, but I am not worried about misogynists. But the only reason that they do not bother me is that I have never been without the protection of a sacrificial man. I am not worried about them because we are actively engaged in work that makes them ineffective. Back to my original story – we are working on raising daughters who are never pressured with premarital sex. We are working on raising young men who are looking to be protectors and not predators. We are working on repairing the fence that keeps the misogynists out.

A little later in my college life there was a big local dust up that involved many of the same trumped up charges and hot button issues. I was on my way to some event on the University of Idaho campus when I ran into a local lesbian activist wearing a large sandwich board. I don’t remember the full text of her sandwich, but I believe it opened with “Doug Wilson is a Racist!” I said something like, “What’s all this?” and she took off telling me all about him. I asked if she had met him. Nope – but she didn’t need to. She knew! I said I knew him quite well and he wasn’t. She didn’t care. She was yelling. She was getting hotter and hotter about it. “He totally is! He teaches it all day and all night! He is a huge threat to us all!”

And here is the thing. I grew up in his house. I grew up under his teaching. If he is such a tremendous threat with his teachings of male dominance and racism and such forth and so on, wouldn’t you think that the women closest to him would have heard it by now? Either he is an amazingly ineffective teacher, or it isn’t what he is teaching.

The sandwich board encounter didn’t really progress anywhere. It was not long into it that I could tell that this was one hurting woman. This was a woman who was unprotected, unloved, and insecure. She was, in short, suffering from some serious Daddy issues.