Category Archives: Fake Christian Patriarchs

If Your Husband is a Godly Man, Submission Will Be Easy!

Such is the message that continues to be preached to Christian women by other Christian women who should know better.

Back in 2010, Nancy Wilson published her book Why Isn’t a Pretty Girl Like You Married? and Other Useful Comments. Earlier this year she published Single and Satisfied: A Grace-Filled Calling for the Unmarried Woman. According to the Amazon description, this new book is actually the second edition of the first book.

This is the second and revised edition of Why Isn’t a Pretty Girl Like You Married?

Any regular reader of mine won’t be shocked to learn that Nancy Wilson delivers the same poisonous lies about wifely submission today that she did ten years ago. The following quote appears in both books, almost on the same pages:

The Bible requires wives to submit to their own husbands, so a woman ought to marry a man that she respects. If she respects him, she will be able to freely submit to him. If he is the kind of man who is eager to please and obey God, she should not have trouble following him. The Bible also requires wives to respect and honor their husbands. So it follows that a woman should marry a man that she can easily look up to. Respect and honor are far more easily rendered to a respectable, honorable man.

Page 71 of “Single and Satisfied: A Grace-Filled Calling for the Unmarried Woman”, and page 73 of “Why Isn’t a Pretty Girl Like You Married? and Other Useful Comments”

Nancy Wilson doubtless has more experience being a Christian wife and mother than your average woman. In spite of all that, to this day, she is still preaching feminist falsehoods, laying the seeds for marital strife in the minds of single Christian women. Paragraphs like these demonstrate why even older Christian women shouldn’t be allowed to teach anyone at all unless they are well and thoroughly vetted by their male spiritual leaders first. Let’s walk through it and explain where she goes wrong:

The Bible requires wives to submit to their own husbands, so a woman ought to marry a man that she respects.

True.

If she respects him, she will be able to freely submit to him.

A. Being able to submit “freely” is not a biblical prerequisite for submission, nor can it be. Slaves couldn’t “freely” submit to their masters, but that didn’t stop God from commanding their submission.

B. Who says a woman can’t submit, freely or otherwise, to a man she doesn’t respect? Those commands of submission in the Bible go out to women across the board. That includes women who are already married, which would include women married to men they didn’t respect. Could they not submit to their husbands then? Is that something they are simply unable to do, in Nancy Wilson’s mind?

If he is the kind of man who is eager to please and obey God, she should not have trouble following him.

Completely and totally false. Incorrect. Unbiblical tripe that no older Christian woman should be caught dead preaching. Remember, this is from Nancy Wilson, an experienced wife and mother, and a woman who has given marital counselling. She has a great deal of personal interactions with women who struggle in this area. Apparently none of it has clued her into the struggles Christian women have in following their husbands.

The desire to disobey your leader is one all humans experience, from young to old. We are sinners that love our sin. It’s an evil, perverse desire of ours that we will experience whether or not the one in charge of us is eager to obey God. That’s our lot in life. Disobedience feels good. We don’t need our parents/bosses to be unbelievers before we experience a desire to disobey them. We’ll want to disobey them with or without their help. A Christian woman will still want to disobey even a Godly husband. She will have plenty of trouble following him because she herself is a sinful human who loves to sin for its own sake. Thus, Christian women will always have trouble following even a man who loves and obeys God.

The Bible also requires wives to respect and honor their husbands. So it follows that a woman should marry a man that she can easily look up to. Respect and honor are far more easily rendered to a respectable, honorable man.

Women should definitely marry men they can easily look up to. No question there. The lie comes from what came before; That obeying, showing respect, etc. will all be easy if the right steps are taken. This is false. It’s never going to be “easy”. Christian women should marry a man they can look up to so they can reduce the intensity of the difficult struggles to come. Nancy Wilson fundamentally denies this. Yes, she does say respect and honor are “far more easily rendered”, but immediately prior to this she was saying that, “If he is the kind of man who is eager to please and obey God, she should not have trouble following him.” There is a basic expectation that a woman’s struggle to obey and honor her husband can be made easy, or even dodged altogether. Again, this is simply false, and it’s something that single Christian women should never be taught. They’re going to have enough difficult obeying their husbands and calling them Lord in the best of circumstances. The last thing we need planted in their heads is the thought that if their husbands are doing their job, they won’t want to undermine him. Rebellious women are already chomping at the bit for excuses to justify their disobedience and disrespect. You think they won’t seize upon teachings like this, when they in their sinful rebellion are looking for some way to tear their husbands down while still appearing to be the good guy? Of course they will.

The Brazen Hypocrisy of Bnonn & Foster

I got Bnonn and Foster’s newsletter this past Saturday. Subject is “Our notes from 2021 week #19”. In it, they say the following:

The West has descended into sexual chaos. But the Lord calms every storm in his own time.

Here are six things pastors should do to help address the madness and restore sanity in the long term:

1. Teach and exhort women to pursue feminine beauty and household management skills;

2. Teach and exhort men to pursue manly excellence in health, wisdom, finances, and leadership;

3. Address the sins of men and women equally;

4. Exhort both men and women to not unduly delay, but cautiously pursue marriage;

5. Encourage married couples to raise up lots of kids in the nurture of the Lord;

6. Teach the married couples the basics of discipline and family religion.

The third point stands out, as this was one of the things Bnonn and Foster explicitly refused to do at the very beginning of their ministry:

(It’s not rocket surgery. Weak men and brassy women are both screwing patriarchy up. Indeed, it’s so obvious as to be uninteresting. We’re not here to endlessly reiterate the problem. We want to fix it.

Who will do that?

Who should we appeal to?

Who should we reprove and rebuke and exhort and train in righteousness?

If we have to choose, should it be the men of God, or the women of God?

We don’t believe there’s even the slightest question about this decision. The answer is always the men. Caldo suggests that for “any leader who wishes to be taken seriously,” “no less than half of his engendered instructions should be directed at women to be quiet and have some respect.” But this flies in the face of the basic dynamic of power. A 50/50 split makes no sense because there’s a fundamental 80/20 here. Pareto’s Principle alone would tell us that if we’re trying to fix a structural problem within a hierarchy, we should start with the people who have the actual power to fix it (not the perceived power). And since God built patriarchy into creation, that means the men. Men are the ones who have the power.

The problem we face is not caused by brassy women taking power. By definition, they don’t have the power to do that, or they wouldn’t need to take it! It’s caused by soft men raising up brassy women, who then demand power, which the soft men trip over themselves to give.

Thus, to solve the problem, we must speak to the men. We can either treat the symptoms, or we can treat the disease; we haven’t the energy to do both. The symptoms are brassy women who demand power. The disease is fathers—pastors, leaders, husbands—who raise them up and capitulate to them.

https://www.getdrip.com/broadcasts/420243878/1b3c279aa8d580054dbbd

Bnonn and Foster had decided to enter the fray to fight for biblical masculinity. They were readers of Dalrock, and they denounced feminism and complementarianism. But, there was a problem, because one way Dalrock distinguished himself was by his willingness to read and expose the poisonous teachings found in books and articles written by Nice Christian Ladies. He also proved that Christian teachers would find any excuse under the sun to get away from having to confront the sinful behavior of women. They were an obvious source of trouble that needed to be countered. It became clear to anyone familiar with his work that exposing and criticizing evil men and women within the church equally was a necessary component of any Christian red-pill ministry.

This is where the problem comes in, because Bnonn & Foster just weren’t up to the task. One would assume they had succumbed to cowardice like most complementarian phonies already had. If you ask them, however, that’s not the reason why. It’s because:

  1. It wouldn’t make mathematical sense.
  2. They didn’t have the energy.

I don’t think any regular reader of Dalrock believed #2. Which is ironic since the name of this article on their Patreon page is titled: “The Blame Game (or Step up or Shut Up)“. While Bnonn & Foster were busy trying to talk smack, they came up with the lamest excuse ever. They just didn’t have the energy. (Maybe they just needed to step up or shut up then!)

As far as #1 goes, as you can see, they were adamant on this point. Cane Caldo’s advice didn’t make sense, supposedly, because it flew in the face of the basic dynamic of power. An 80/20 split would make way more sense. And yet here they are over two years later telling pastors to:

3. Address the sins of men and women equally;

But guys, don’t you understand? Pastors just don’t have the energy! And besides, it doesn’t make mathematical sense anyway.’

I assume Bnonn & Foster’s rebuttal would be to quit making excuses. ‘Step up or shut up, man!’ And yet, that proves that their red-pill Christian skeptics were right all along. Bnonn & Foster were making lame excuses to get out of having to confront women on their issues.

Nowadays it seems they’ve changed their mind on that. Emphasis on “seems”. Remember, they haven’t removed their errant newsletters from the Internet. Both those links still work. There aren’t any addendums cautioning the readers against believing the phony excuses they’ve offered in the past. No apologies to the red-pill Christians they sneered down upon. This would be easy to do.

But who am I kidding. They probably just don’t have the energy.

Cozying Up To Canon Press Confirmed.

Yesterday Bnonn & Foster sent out their weekly broadcast email, this one titled “Our notes from 2020 week #49.” In it, they confirm that the book they are working on is going to be published by Doug Wilson’s publishing company, Canon Press.

Our book is due out in Spring ’21 from Canon Press. We thank you for your prayers and encouragement, and we’ll continue to keep you up to date.

Back in September I laid out the evidence for Bnonn & Foster’s desire to collaborate in ministry with Doug Wilson. Foster said on Twitter that he got a contract to publish a book, but he did not say if it was with Canon Press. Now they’ve confirmed for us that it is.

I doubt this is the only work they’re planning on doing with Canon Press. Sadly, it appears as though their influence is only continuing to grow.

Maybe they’ll partner up with the Kendrick brothers to make another husband/father-bashing flick. They’re also fond of pretending to care about masculine dignity for husbands and fathers. Who knows?

Why I’m Still Suspicious of the IGTBAM Project.

I occasionally scan over Michael Foster and Bnonn Tennant’s Twitter feeds. They both say a lot of good things about marriage that a patriarch like myself can agree with. Did I have these guys wrong or something? Are they really the defenders of biblical masculinity they claim to be? Was I wrong to be suspicious of them early on?

Short Answer: No.

Long Answer: After all the work Dalrock did exposing the war Doug Wilson wages against biblical masculinity (see here for all of Dalrock’s posts related to him), no patriarch worth a dime would call him a bright light. Maybe a quick refresher is in order to explain why: Continue reading

Stop Calling Doug Wilson a Patriarch


Douglas Wilson is an author who has written extensively on marriage for decades. In discussing difficult issues surrounding sexuality and marriage with my family and my church family, I’ve often had to explain why I dislike his material on marriage so much. He seems ever so traditional and patriarchal, and he’s hated by feminists. What could he say or write that would make me distrust him? Is he not a Patriarchal brother-in-the-Lord?

Let me ask the reader: If you’re a Patriarch, then you are unquestionably in charge of your wife and children. Is that correct? If the answer to that question is yes, then let’s follow it up with another question:

Would you expect a Patriarch, one who writes about marriage for decades, to consistently undermine the authority of the husband, and give authority to the wife over him?

The obvious answer is no. In a patriarchal marriage, the husband is in authority over the wife. He tells her what to do, and she obeys, not vice versa. Even an enraged feminist can comprehend that. Douglas Wilson is far and away more intelligent and level-headed than an enraged feminist, so there’s no way he doesn’t understand that better than they could.

My third question is: Then why does he write like he opposes that axiom?

Most people familiar with Doug Wilson do not know how off the rails he can be when it comes to patriarchal authority. Allow me to quote him from his book How to Exasperate your Wife, pages 17-18:

A wife therefore has true authority over her home which no one, including her husband, can take away from her. She must be obedient to him, as this verse states, but this is a clearly delimited obedience.(…)In a certain sense, a husband (as the head of his wife) is an honored and permanent guest, but he should learn to see himself as a guest. He wipes his feet at the door, he eats what is served to him, and he seeks to conform to the pattern established by her

There is nothing patriarchal about this drivel. This kind of thing would never be written by me, and there’s a simple reason for that: I don’t believe it. If I believe in father-rule, then I would never declare the wife to be the ruler of the home, much less the despot. Douglas Wilson wrote the above quotes because that is what he believes. It is not patriarchy, and would never be written by Wilson if he were a Patriarch himself.

From page 11 of How to Exasperate your Wife:

The wife is to be the ruler or despot of the home. This means that when she tells you to take your shoes off at the door, you will take your shoes off—and cheerfully.

That’s right. You WILL take your shoes off. That’s Wilson’s emphasis, not mine (although he used italics). I challenge any fan of his to quote him saying that to women in any context, let alone wives to husbands. Yet he will say it to men, and make sure you know he means business. Wifey orders you around like a kid? Fall in line, and you make sure to smile while you’re at it.

Let’s continue with an excerpt from his 21 Theses on Submission in Marriage blog article:

The Bible does not teach husbands to enforce the requirement that was given to their wives. Since true submission is a matter of the heart, rendered by grace through faith, a husband does not have the capacity to make this happen. His first task is therefore to love his wife as Christ loved the church. He is to lead by example.

Again, more drivel. The husband is the wife’s authority, and he is to teach the scriptures to his family (Ephesians 6:4). The wife is also required to ask him questions at home should she desire to ask a question about them (I Corinthians 14:35). Her requirement to submit to him is just one of many biblical truths he would be required to teach her. And since he would teach, why would he not enforce? I mean, you can’t make your child submit as a matter of the heart either, but a father would never let that stop him from demanding the child do as he is told. So why would a Patriarch, of all people, avoid enforcing his wife’s requirement to obey God’s command to obey him?

As I said before, this sort of thing would never be written by me. The answer to why I would not is the same as it was before: I don’t believe it. The reason Douglas Wilson wrote that is because that’s what he believes. He thinks husbands should lead by example, I.E. not enforce his authority over his own wife. No Patriarch in his right mind would ever teach such a thing.

What makes it even more absurd is that Douglas Wilson is fully-aware that if you are in authority over someone, you are entitled to whatever it is that’s owed to you from that person under your authority (How to Exasperate Your Wife, Pg. 16):

Those under authority owe certain things to their liege-lord, and the one in authority has the right to require it of them.

But when it comes to husbands requiring their wives do as they’re told, all of a sudden, this basic truth about authority is chucked out the window (The Authority of Servanthood):

If you are talking with your wife and requiring something of her because you want something done, then you are wrong.

Doug Wilson can enrage the feminists all he wants. While they’re foaming at the mouth when he pays lip service to the husband’s headship, he’s preaching to rational Bible-believing Christians exactly what those same feminists believe about that headship. How dare you tell a wife what to do because YOU want something done. Who do you think you are, the boss man??

Is the husband the head of his wife the way Christ is the head of the Church? Absolutely. Is he the boss man? Not even close. – How to Exasperate Your Wife, Pg. 18

So please, dear fans of brother Wilson, stop calling him a Patriarch. Just because he riles the feminists proves nothing. He is not a patriarch, never was, and barring a clear, straightforward denunciation of what he has preached for decades, he never will be.