Tag Archives: douglas wilson

Wilson’s Quadruple-Speak: To Doug Wilson’s Defenders

The greatest difficulty in demonstrating the dishonesty of Doug Wilson lies in the very thing he does so well- speaking out of both sides of his mouth. On one hand he teaches plenty of things that tickle the ears of right-wing Christians. Fathers rule the home, and their wives should submit. That all sounds Godly and Biblical because it is. So, when someone comes along to appropriately point out how he undermines those things on a regular basis like some feminist-Christian, the typical reaction is disbelief or automatic dismissal. This article should hopefully lay it out for his readers as to why people like myself see him that way.

Continue reading

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.


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.

Doug Wilson Plays the Motte and Bailey

Last Friday, Doug Wilson came onto The Gospel Truth to discuss his book Reforming Marriage.

At 30:15, the host, Marlon Wilson, brought up a question I’d typed in the form of two chat messages. Unfortunately, he brought them up in the wrong order. Here’s what I said:

After reading the question, Marlon first asks Doug if what I said was true. I think it’s interesting that Marlon first asked to confirm if Doug really did write what I said he wrote. The easy answer should have been, yes, that’s true.

Instead, Doug answered thusly at 30:50 (I’ve tried to cut out extraneous words, ums, uhs, stammering, and other things to make it more reader-friendly):

The word “despot” there is the word that Paul uses, “despotes”. And so, those statements from “Reforming Marriage” and from “How To Exasperate Your Wife”, harmonize. And they harmonize this way: The wife is the executive of the home. Alright. So, when I was in the navy, I served in the submarine service. The captain was the captain of the ship, but every ship had an executive officer, the XO. And the captain was the final authority in the home, but the executive officer was like, in a company, you’ve got the CEO, and then you’ve got the chief operating officer, the COO. My understanding is that God’s pattern in marriage is that the husband is the protector and provider for the home, and he’s the captain, the head of the house. But, when it comes to the management of the house, like, what goes in the dishwasher when. “Don’t put paper plates in the dishwasher,” Mom says, right. Or, since Mom is the one keeping everything clean, she says, “I really want everybody (to) kick your shoes off by the door, by the front door.” You know, things like that. She’s the executive of the home, and she’s running the home. And that can happen without the husband relinquishing his headship or his authority. So, if she says, let’s say it’s a rinky-dink kind of thing, where she’s the one that does the grocery shopping, she stocks the fridge. I remember when our kids were teenagers, and Nate was moving into the age where he would drink lots and lots of milk, Nancy’s impulse was to, “I just went to the store yesterday, I just bought that! Limit the milk!” And I said, “No, our kids can drink as much milk as they want.” So, I make an occasional decision as the head of the home, this is what we’re going to do. But when it comes to the running of the house, that’s her area of expertise. That’s what she does. Now, if she thinks that I would have any question about something, Nancy runs it by me, but I believe that… Wifely submission is something we believe and practice, but, in 43, coming up on 44 years of marriage, actually, we’re coming on 45. 45 Years of marriage(…)So, um, coming up on decades of marriage, the instances where Nancy and I differed about something, and I made a decision and she needed to submit to it, has probably happened less than ten times. Everything else is just ordinary (lack?) together, talk-it-thorough, that sort of thing. Submission is assumed in everything we do. Headship and submission is assumed. But, if you are having a showdown every other day, and you’re pointing to the Bible verse in Ephesians 5, and you’ve got bigger problems. You’ve need to go get counseling.

Doug said that the word despot is the word used by Paul, which is despostes. In How To Exasperate Your Wife, he didn’t say Paul used despotes. He said oikodespotein. Here’s the quote (bolding is mine):

As the apostle Paul is urging young women to marry, he lets a very interesting comment fall in passing. “I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully” (1 Tim. 5:14). The word translated here as “guide the house” is oikodespotein. 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.

How To Exasperate Your Wife (Page 11)

Perhaps Doug has argued for the word “despotes” in another book or article. Or maybe he was thinking of “oikodespotes“.

That aside, my assertion was more than that Doug used the word despot to describe the wife’s authority. I made sure to mention that he meant the wife, as despot, could order her husband around. The obvious point being that Doug, in the book this episode was named after (Reforming Marriage), condemns bossiness on the husband’s part, but allows the wife to do just that in another book (How To Exasperate Your Wife). Doug asserted that the two statements harmonize. But if you look at his answer, he harmonized nothing at all.

Remember, there’s two conflicts asserted by me in my chats. One is hypocrisy when it comes to allowing bossiness for the wife but not the husband. The second is a challenge to Doug to explain how he can allow the wife to order her husband around when he knows full-well that wives are to submit to their husbands. Keep that in mind, and now look over Doug’s entire response. Listen to it in the video. Despite speaking at great length in response, he never even tried to show how he resolved either of the issues I raised.

Instead of harmonizing what he wrote, Doug resorted to professing a completely different view. In How To Exasperate Your Wife, he didn’t write all this nonsense about XO’s and COO’s. He wrote that a wife is a “despot” and proceeded to grant to wives the authority that a despot would naturally have. Several pages later in the same book, Doug Wilson only fortified his belief:

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

How To Exasperate Your Wife (Pages 17-18)

A husband is a guest in his own home? His wife has authority to tell him to stop in his tracks and remove his shoes? She decides what he eats? He conforms to her pattern? And he better do it with a smile on his face? Wow. It sounds like the wife is ruling over him. Sounds pretty bossy if you ask me. One might even call it despotic, which is exactly why Doug would shrink away from defending it.

However, he doesn’t have to defend what he wrote in How To Exasperate Your Wife. He could always just renounce what he’s written, but he can’t do that. His whole scheme as a feminist-in-patriarchal-clothing relies upon him playing the motte and bailey. In person, he’ll assure you that a wife should submit to her husband, and any authority she has over his household is, of course, subject to his veto. Then you buy How To Exasperate Your Wife expecting to find the same biblical model being proclaimed there, and you find this bizarre monstrosity has taken its place.

But honestly, what else is Wilson to do? Well, if you’re familiar with his work, he talks about masculinity being the glad acceptance of responsibility. If what he wrote is indefensible, then he could just withdraw the book from sale, say that he was wrong in this area, you know, basic stuff a man would do if he were gladly accepting the responsibility for correcting his error. But Wilson simply cannot do that, so the game must go on.

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

The DWC Files #2: Wilson VS. Genesis 3:16

Remember in Genesis 3:16 when God told Eve that her desire was going to be for her husband? Do you remember being taught that her desire for her husband was the same as the desire that Sin had for Cain later on in Genesis 4:7? If you’ve read most conservative books on marriage, that’s usually what you’ll find. You’ll also be told that this desire is not sexual or affectionate, but one of a possessive, dominating desire. Doug Wilson is a man who taught that for years in print form, and who knows how many sermons and lectures.

Back in 2017, in his article called The Feckless Evangelical Bridge, he announced that he was reconsidering “the standard interpretation” of that verse. A more correct way to say it would be to say that he was reconsidering his standard interpretation. It’s one that he had taught less than a month prior to his reconsideration. But to say it like that would be too close to admitting you seriously misled your audience, something Wilson would never do. So, I decided to challenge him in the comments. I have altered the formatting with some bolding and italics to make it easier reading.

Prince Asbel #203268
“On the other hand, Foh’s interpretation is a novelty. Prior to this fairly recent attempt to parry the feminists, the standard interpretation was simply that the woman would be oriented toward her husband, and therefore subject to him.”

So, Douglas Wilson, is her interpretation false? Is Calvin’s true? I can tell that you’re undermining Foh passively, but you won’t say straight-out that her interpretation is false. In fact, your mere assertion that it’s not standard hardly persuades me that Foh’s is wrong. The standard interpretation you’re proposing isn’t any more true because it was the typically accepted interpretation. I want a man who has penned as many books as you have to give us a direct definitive answer void of flower commentary. Is it false to interpret Genesis 3:16 as a curse upon the woman that she would seek to rule over her husband? Yes or no?

Douglas Wilson #203274

Prince, I am not ready yet to reject Foh’s approach outright, although I am currently leaning against it. My point was that we can capitulate to feminism either way we go, and so we have to be careful.

Prince Asbel #203416

“Prince, I am not ready yet to reject Foh’s approach outright, although I am currently leaning against it.”

So you are undecided on this. You have written entire books on marriage, and you’re not sure you reject Foh’s interpretation of Genesis 3:16. That’s incredibly confusing to me. Given that you’re a man who has written books on marriage, I knew you must have interpreted this verse before. I doubt you had some wavering undecided opinion to offer your readers, so I did some digging into your books on marriage. What you’re saying now is a bit odd in light of the following quote from your book, For a Glory and a Covering: A Practical Theology of Marriage, page 75:

“As we have seen from Genesis, part of the curse for the woman was the desire to master her husband (Gen. 3:16).”

If I were to determine your position on Genesis 3:16 from what you’ve written in this book, it doesn’t seem to me that you’re undecided at all. Your interpretation is the same as Foh’s. Here’s the entire paragraph from which I extracted that quote, lest anyone think I’m taking you out of context.

“Being unprepared for real leadership. Many a wife desperately wants her husband to be a “spiritual leader,” but only to the extent that he leads where she thinks he should be going. But if man and wife agree, submission is really a non-issue. If you think that your husband is making the wrong decision, or is not acting when he should be acting, that is really the only time that submission (or obedience) could ever become an issue. As we have seen from Genesis, part of the curse for the woman was the desire to master her husband (Gen. 3:16). But in Christian circles, how would such a desire manifest itself? The husband has to be critiqued in very “spiritual” terms. “He is not very much of a spiritual leader. I would be submissive if he would start leading right.” And the whole thing can be couched as a prayer request to a number of sympathetic friends who are in the same boat.”

I understand you wrote this book in 2006. If all this means is that your views are changing and that you’re considering abandoning what you have said in the past, then okay. However, the more I read that paragraph, the more I liked it! You demonstrated exceptionally keen insight into the passive mock-pious manner in which a Christian wife would attempt to take authority over her husband. And do so to sympathetic ears whilst making a prayer request even! Most writers wouldn’t even dare to suggest such a thing, even though it’s exactly how it would happen in real life! I liked it so much that I read it aloud to my younger brother, and he heartily agreed that you’re right on the money.

But now you’re not sure your interpretation of Genesis 3:16 was right to begin with. In fact, you’ve gone out of your way to undermine it. I think that’s a regretful course of action for someone undecided at the moment. Why pre-emptively undermine an interpretation that helped give you such a keen eye for sinful rebellion if you’re not sure you weren’t right the entire time?

I look forward to your reply.

Prince Asbel #203614

To follow up my most recent comment, you also agreed with Foh’s interpretation of Genesis 3:16 [Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)] here as well:

“The prophecy that her “desire shall be for her husband” was not speaking of romantic getaways, but rather predicting that there would be a struggle for mastery. So instead of trying to gain mastery over her husband, she should struggle to gain mastery over this besetting impulse within herself.”


Prince Asbel #203615

That previous quote from your 21 theses on marriage was published a month ago, so therefore, you didn’t just hold to Foh’s interpretation eleven years ago. You held to it as early as last month! Also, from page 29 of your book Future Men:

“Part of the curse in Genesis is seen in how the woman desires to have mastery over her husband. When God tells Eve that her desire will be for her husband (Gen. 3:16), this was not referring to romantic getaways. The phrase is virtually identical to the one found in the next chapter, when God warns Cain that sin wants to have mastery over him (Gen. 4:7).”

I’m sure if I did some more digging I can find more. But it is quite clear what you have believed and what you have taught. It’s well documented. Again, I look forward to your reply whenever you get around to it.

Katecho #203855

Prince Asbel wrote:

That previous quote from your 21 theses on marriage was published a month ago, so therefore, you didn’t just hold to Foh’s interpretation eleven years ago. You held to it as early as last month!

Asbel doth protest way too much.

Wilson never said he didn’t hold to Foh’s interpretation. He even said he wasn’t ready to reject it, implying that he still holds it. However, he said he was “leaning against it”. That’s not a statement of having reached a conclusion.

So Asbel shouldn’t jump to conclusions on Wilson’s behalf, or try to rush him into one.

Wilson has changed his understanding on several important doctrines throughout his ministry, and I believe that has been to the better, and a blessing to many. I find it evidence of significant humility, especially when he shares his reasoning for the change.

Prince Asbel #204031

Wilson never said he didn’t hold to Foh’s interpretation. He even said he wasn’t ready to reject it, implying that he still holds it. However, he said he was “leaning against it”. That’s not a statement of having reached a conclusion.

This is gobbledygook. If he is presently leaning against it, then that implies he DOESN’T still hold to it. Talk about twisting words to no avail.

Also, if he hasn’t reached a formal “final” conclusion, big deal. He has concluded ENOUGH to go out of his way to undermine his own teachings in this article.

So Asbel shouldn’t jump to conclusions on Wilson’s behalf, or try to rush him into one.

He’s rushing into one just fine all by himself.

I find it evidence of significant humility, especially when he shares his reasoning for the change.

You and I don’t know what form Wilson’s final decision will take. If he’s going to demonstrate significant humility, that final decision (article?) will have to include a recognition that he has been teaching people the wrong interpretation of Genesis 3:16 for ages now. In print, and online (not to mention whatever sermons or lectures he has given wherein he said the same thing), and therefore, much of the insight and advice he has given which stems from that needs to be re-evaluated for its truth value, or rejected outright.

That may be humble, or it may be capitulation. At the end of the day, he’s undermining his own credibility. And none of you seem to have even noticed that’s what’s happening here. You say I protest too much- I say you and his other readers are protesting far too little. Acting as if there’s nothing to see here.

Wilson’s Scapegoat for Fat, Unkempt Women.

Back in 2018, Dalrock wrote Modern Christian teachers of the lesson in The Wedding of Sir Gawain. In there he showed us one of Doug Wilson’s most bizarre teachings- namely, that a man who properly loves his wife will cause her to grow in physical attractiveness. This was documented from Wilson’s “Reforming Marriage” book which came out in 2012. I recently discovered that he taught the same thing even earlier in 2006 in his book “For a Glory and a Covering: A Practical Theology of Marriage”.

Dalrock’s critical remarks for “Reforming Marriage” are just as applicable to this older book. Continue reading

The DWC Files #1: Oscar’s Terrifying Questions

Websites get remodeled all the time. Content is often lost in the transition, and that can include comments by the users. For the sake of preserving proof that there are Christians out there fighting against feminism and complimentarianism within the church, I’ve decided to collect some of the comments from Doug Wilson’s blog articles. Douglas Wilson’s comment sections used to be more accessible and less moderated only a couple of years back, and it used to be much easier for critics to scrutinize his material.

Oscar is one user who had the persistence to ask Wilson and his fans for a clear delineation between a husband’s authority and responsibility in marriage, and which of the two does he have? Does he have the power to enforce his authority upon his wife, and if so, how? He asked these questions repeatedly, quoted Wilson thoroughly, and never got a response back from him or his fans. You will see just how insufferable they could be, but Oscar didn’t let up at all. He kept up asking the scary, uncomfortable questions that no one, including the bold, brash, bite-back Wilson himself, has the guts to answer. No doubt his persistence disturbed the minds of the people there, so God-willing, they started to see their incoherent views for what they were. If you want to find these comments, they’re still on Wilson’s website here. (Archive Here.) I included more comments besides his when I found them relevant to the discussion. This is a VERY long post, but I hope you enjoy it.

Oscar #216964

Authority and responsibility are two different things that are supposed to go together.

au·thor·i·ty əˈTHôrədē/Submit
1. the power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience.

2. a person or organization having power or control in a particular, typically political or administrative, sphere.

Note that authority INCLUDES enforcement. A person who cannot enforce obedience has zero authority.

re·spon·si·bil·i·ty rəˌspänsəˈbilədē/Submit
1. the state or fact of having a duty to deal with something or of having control over someone.

2. the state or fact of being accountable or to blame for something.

3. the opportunity or ability to act independently and make decisions without authorization.

If you give a leader (a married father) responsibility for (a duty do deal with) a group of people (wife and children), but deny him the authority to enforce obedience to his orders and decisions, you set him up for failure.

That’s the situation in which Christian husbands find themselves today: all the responsibility, zero authority. Set up for failure. 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.