Doug Wilson Says If Your Wife ‘Continues to Rebel’ by Not Doing the ‘Dishes,’ ‘Call the Elders’ for a ‘Pastoral Visit’

“Suppose for a moment that he [a husband] wants to really serve God in their marriage, and she [his wife] appears to be distinctly rebellious about changing any of her ways. What course should a man pursue?…he should require something very simple, i.e., that the dishes be done after every meal before anything else is done. The first time the dishes are not done, he must sit down with his wife immediately and gently remind her that this is something which has to be done. At no time may he lose his temper, badger her, call her names, etc. He must constantly remember and confess that she is not the problem, he is. By bringing this gently to her attention, he is not to be primarily pointing to her need to repent; rather, he is exhibiting the fruit of his repentance. He does this, without rancor and without an accusative spirit, until she complies or rebels. If she complies, he must move up one step, now requiring that another of her duties be done. If she continues to rebel after patient effort, he should at some point call the elders of the church and ask them for a pastoral visit.”¹ — Doug Wilson

OPINION: If we strip away the fluff, here’s what Doug appears to be saying: A husband who desires to faithfully serve God, does so by commanding his wife to serve him. And if a wife “continues to rebel” against the “simple” task her husband requires of her, then he should “call the elders of the church and ask them for a pastoral visit.”

Imagine the threats behind closed doors, “If you don’t do what I say, I’ll call the elders and they’ll excommunicate you!” And lest you think this is an empty threat, a wife was excommunicated from Doug’s Church in 2018 for “doing the bare minimum in not caring for [her] home and children.”² This type of domineering relationship advocated by Doug is not found in Scripture. Nowhere are husbands called to demand submission from their wives, let alone require obedience in such a patronizing manner.³ Scripture always chooses to address wives directly regarding submission, never husbands (Col. 3:18; Tt. 2:5; 1 Pet. 3:1, 5). Nowhere are husbands given the authority to unilaterally decide that washing the dishes is their wife’s duty, and especially to enforce such duties under threat of an elder visit. In fact, quite the opposite, as Kathy Keller wrote: “Rigid cultural gender roles have no biblical warrant. Christians cannot make a scriptural case for masculine and feminine stereotypes,”⁴ whether washing dishes or making sandwiches (as Doug teaches, “…in the general scheme of things, the apostle Paul wants the women to make the sandwiches.”).⁵

But really, if we are going to go looking for a stereotype, it would be men who wash the dishes: “…and I will wipe Jerusalem as a man wipeth a dish, wiping it, and turning it upside down” (2 Kings 21:13, KJV).⁶

A husband does not serve God by demanding servitude from his wife. Rather, a husband serves God by serving his wife (Ephesians 5:25; 33). Literally serving. Not “serving” in the “I’m serving you by forcing you to do the dishes” interpretation Doug seems to be advocating. In his book Get the Girl, he writes:

“This setup has created an opportunity for beta pastors to get in there and muddy the waters. They can say, for example, that obedient women want a man who is a ‘servant leader.’ But what they mean by this is a man who leads by serving, instead of what they ought to be pointing to, which is the more biblical pattern of serving by leading.”⁷

I believe Doug reads “headship” and “submission” in Scripture and instead of defining them biblically, defines the terms through his own cultural lens—a lens that views women as subservient to the wishes and desires of men, rather than as co-heirs and sisters in the Lord.

God did not create Eve because Adam needed a servant. Rather, Adam needed a “helper” or better translated, an indispensable “partner,” because of a purposeful deficiency in Adam.⁸ “Any suggestion that this particular word [“helper”] denotes one who has only an associate or subordinate status to a senior member is refuted by the fact that most frequently this same word describes Yahweh’s relationship to Israel. He is Israel’s help(er) because he is the stronger one.”⁹ As Matthew Henry observed: “The woman was … not made out of his [Adam’s] head to rule over him, nor out of his feet to be trampled upon by him, but out of his side to be equal with him, under his arm to be protected, and near his heart to be beloved.”¹⁰

The oneness and equality of the marital relationship described in Scripture is the cornerstone to any understanding of headship and submission. It is not the man’s will imposed on the woman, but rather a oneness, a unity that finds its basis in the image of God, the imago Dei, as specifically represented in the divine Trinity (John 17:11; 1 Corinthians 11:3).

In my opinion, this quote gives us a clear glimpse into Doug’s core belief regarding the marriage relationship. It is not the beautiful, synergistic dynamic found in Scripture, but rather an ugly, abusive power dynamic, in which women are demeaned and degraded—implying that they are less imago Dei than men, and not worthy of equal respect. And while Doug strongly instructs the husband “At no time may he lose his temper, badger her, call her names, etc.”, a benevolent dictator is still a dictator. Such a relationship reflects none of the oneness and equality that God designed for marriage. His devaluation of women is clear through the way he instructs husbands to “require something very simple,” as if a woman is not capable of understanding something complex, and “immediately…remind her,” as though she is a child and might forget. This condescending view of women opens the door to widespread abuse and sadly, but not surprisingly, this has been true within the CREC community here in Moscow based on dozens of witness accounts.¹¹

Regardless of one’s beliefs pertaining to the marriage dynamic, Doug’s authoritarian view of headship cannot be found in Scripture. Headship means sacrificing yourself (Ephesians 5:25), serving rather than being served (Mark 10:45). It means loving your wife as yourself (Ephesians 5:33). It means honoring and living with your wife as a co-heir of the grace of life (1 Peter 3:7). It is also compatible and in perfect harmony with the call for all believers to be “submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ” (Ephesians 5:21, ESV). Headship to Jesus meant literally washing his disciples’ feet. This isn’t just some nice idea. It has practical implications for the marriage relationship and what it means to lead.

Doug gives carte blanche to husbands to lord it over their wives, “spending habits, television viewing habits, weight, rejection of his leadership, laziness in cleaning the house, lack of responsiveness to sexual advances—whatever.”¹² But Scripture instead threatens such overbearing men that their prayers will be hindered (1 Peter 3:7). Never are husbands called to force their wives into submission: There’s a reason God speaks through his Word directly to wives and directly to husbands whenever discussing roles and never gives a husband the right to discipline his wife.

Doug’s teaching on the marriage relationship should be seen as dangerous and wholly unscriptural. And it is my prayer that Doug himself will see his errors and repent and seek forgiveness from all those who have been harmed by his teaching.

NOTE: Doug wrote a “retraction”¹³ of sorts regarding this quote that originally appeared in an article¹⁴ which then found its way (slightly edited) into his book Federal Husband, which is the source of the quote in this post. So why am I still bringing it up? For two reasons: First, the book is still being published as-is. So, if it needs clarity, as he said it did, he needs to bear fruit with repentance and either pull it from the shelves or rewrite it. Second, his “retraction” hardly takes any blame at all, but rather boils it down to people’s wrong “interpretation,” our “politicized” age, and his “inept writing.”¹⁵ Nothing is stated about the fact that such writing flowed out of a flawed understanding of God’s Word, that he now sees and has corrected. When I spoke to Doug about this, he acknowledged he hadn’t been clear, but still held to the main idea of what he wrote, and again has done nothing substantial to rectify the unclarity. Doug needs to not only take responsibility for what he has written, but also bear fruit with repentance, and until he does so, his “retraction” is meaningless and empty.

Want More Context?

Here are some links to other blogs, videos and podcasts dealing with this and other issues in more depth:

Kristie: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZHieYZp_7o

Bekka: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYMYZqqYPNU

Jade: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aH8iiWAjNdM

Emilie: https://youtu.be/jTzgJlFuuZ0?si=1WxspaTpaVigna7U

https://theocast.org/church-discernment-and-purity-culture/

https://bredenhof.ca/2023/07/03/doug-wilson-the-bad/

https://bredenhof.ca/2023/07/10/doug-wilson-the-ugly/

https://rachelgreenmiller.wordpress.com/2015/09/30/a-question-for-wilson-fans/

https://kaeleytrillerharms.substack.com/p/pastor-doug-wilson-above-reproach

https://cryingoutforjustice.blog/2013/12/04/the-teaching-that-a-husbandfather-is-priest-to-his-family-is-unbiblical-and-promotes-abuse-part-3/

https://thewartburgwatch.com/2013/04/05/doug-wilson-on-doing-the-dishes-and-discernment-blogs/

Footnotes