Collin Hansen Sounds Off on Jen Wilkin (TGC Style) - Part 2

All right, everybody. All right, everybody. All right, everybody. Last video for the week, we're going to continue with this Jen Wilkin thing. Man, last episode just ended on such a surprise. Just such a welcome surprise.

We had Colin Hansen over here, you know, in the moment, correcting Jen Wilkin on her complete and utter nonsense. And, you know, obviously, you know, and there's so many layers to this. Like Colin said, you know, hey, you're, you know, you said that the solution wasn't an elder board, but what about Moses?

You know, Moses, you know, God gave him an elder board. And that's actually, you know, when you think about it, that's actually more, that's a better analogy than, you know, Adam alone at the beginning of time kind of thing.

It actually applies more directly, I would think, to the situation. And so, I mean, I was not expecting that. I was expecting Colin to just say nothing because either he agreed with it or he just, you know, he knew it was stupid, but he's not going to tell a woman it's stupid on Women Appreciation Day.

How could you do that? But he did it and he didn't call it stupid, but he essentially did. And I got to take my hats off to that guy one more time for Colin. I have a feeling it's not going to happen again, but he did it and you got to give him credit.

I'm all about giving credit where credit is due. I'm not going to say the Gospel Coalition is good now, and I'm not going to say that Colin Hansen is good now, but you got to give credit when it's deserved.

And I'm going to give Colin Hansen all the credit in the world that he did correct, you know, Jen Wilkin. Now, Jen Wilkin tries to shut it down, like she tries to reassert her dominance in this situation, and I really do feel like that Jen is really the, excuse me, the dominant, the dominant presence in this interview, which is so weird and unbecoming and all that kind of stuff.

But she does it in the stupidest possible way. Like what she tries to, you know, kind of clap back with is really just kind of contradictory to what she said in the first place and really doesn't help her point at all.

But it just really goes to show you the dynamics here. But I got, you got to be proud of Colin Hansen. I'm proud of him. Colin, if you watch this, I'm proud of you, buddy. I really am. I cannot say that.

I cannot stress that enough. But, but hey, you know, look at this. We're up to 99 views in six days. I'm sorry, 999. We've almost got a thousand views. That's pretty good. I mean, listen, you get a thousand views.

That's nothing. It's not easy to get a thousand views. Now, of course, when you have 211 ,000 subscribers and six days ago you drop a video that has less than a thousand views as of right now, that's not so, that's no bueno.

That's not really good engagement there. I think the Gospel Coalition's YouTube channel is, is dying. Anyway, let's continue. Enough giving.

Colin Hansen credit for anything. An article that was written that talked about how Genesis chapter two is showing us this beautiful picture of male, female difference. But if you look at what Genesis chapter two is doing, basically Adam is shown a parade of animals that go in front of him who have been each created according to its kind.

And so I actually have a secret pet theory that that's potentially the animals going by two by two as they will in another section in Genesis, because he looks on them and every time an animal goes by and he's giving them names, he's basically categorizing them.

He's thinking that one's not like me. That one's not according to my kind, not according to my kind. And then when Eve is created, he sings a hymn to sameness. He says, bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh.

She shall be called Eshah because she came from Ish. In other words, she shall be like me because she came from me. And so when we don't start with what we share, we have a tendency to over-focus on difference.

And anytime you over-focus on difference, you're going to push people away. You're going to objectify people. This is what happens in other settings where I look at you and say, we have nothing in common.

It's easier for me to push you down, to see you as just completely other than me. And the cultural narrative is men are from Mars, women are from Venus. The Genesis narrative is men are from the same garden created by the same God tasked with the same cultural mandate and made in the image of God together.

So our differences matter. And in a day and age where differences are what are under attack, it's understandable that we would talk about them. But when we lose sight of sameness as the starting point, I think we devalue women in that conversation.

Man, it's like one of the hard things about, you know, reviewing or responding to something Jen Wilkins says, it's that it really is a stream of complete nonsense. It's like, there's a thousand different ways to attack what she says, because pretty much every word is just a stream of consciousness.

And there's not a whole lot going on up there. You know what I mean? I saw someone called Kamala Harris, you know, 85 IQ, which I think is unfair to George Costanza. That's George Costanza's IQ. 85. 85.

Well, I do think that Jen Wilkins is actually, she's not low IQ. I don't think that she is, but she's got wrong beliefs and she's got to defend them somehow, you know, because she really desires her feminist views to be correct.

And she's got to defend them somehow. And when you're trying to defend something that's wrong, you're going to come up with a lot of crazy, wild stuff. And so there's always a thousand ways to attack it.

So you get like a one minute clip of her, and it's like, I'm going to like, I can't attack at all. But one thing I thought was interesting in that rant of hers, as she corrects Colin Hansen. And look, Colin is, Colin, look at his face.

He doesn't even, he doesn't know where to begin either. Look Colin, I feel you buddy. I feel, I got a kindred spirit here in Colin Hansen. Because Colin Hansen, he needs to present this in a good light, but this is a face of like, man, what is she talking about?

What in the world is she talking about? But anyway, one thing I thought that, you know, and I've heard her say this before too, you know, the cultural, the culture is saying men are from Mars, women are from Venus.

You know, they're just so different. The culture is always focused on the differences, but the biblical view is focused on the sameness. You know what I mean? It's the sameness. And I got to be honest with you.

What planet are you on, Jen? What freaking planet are you on? The culture is focused on the differences? Are, like, how, how opposite of what's real and true and what's obviously in front of our, that's like looking up at the sky and being like, wow, you know, the culture, the sky is obviously green.

The culture says it's blue, but I mean, like, it's so, it's unbelievable. How could you be that wrong? How could you be, here's how you'd be that wrong. She's got these beliefs that she needs to push through and she's got to push them through any way she can so much so that she's going to tell you with a straight face and very satisfied with her, with herself here.

Look at this face of satisfaction. That the culture is focused on the differences between men and women. I don't even have to give you the litany of things I could give you to show you how that's obviously not true.

It is obviously not true. It's obviously not true. I'll give you one. This is just one kind of big area of, uh, that it's just so obviously not the case. Every hero from the past, from our movies and from our comic books and from our culture has one by one being replaced by women as if it's no big thing.

James Bond's going to be a woman. 007 is going to be a woman because obviously the culture is so focused on the freaking differences or how, how out of your mind could you be? This is insane. What she's saying.

It's not correct. It's not true. It's obviously not true. This is equivalent to the, to the party telling you how many fingers am I holding up? And you've got to say three somehow, but you can see, I can see there's two.

It's this two fingers, but you've got to somehow get, make it say three. And you can't lie. It's not good enough to lie. You can't, they'll know if you're lying. So you got to tell them how many fingers are there.

Holy smokes. What can you say? Honestly, what can you say? I don't know what to say. Colin doesn't know what to say. He he's looking in the distance, like Michael, he can't believe what this broad say.

What is he going to say now? Now, listen, listen. I, I underestimated Colin before. So let's maybe he can come through in the clutch. Maybe he will have something to say. He's obviously willing to correct Jen Wilkin, the great Jen Wilkin.

He's done it. He has just gotten done doing it. He's done the thing. And now Jen has corrected him and he went on another insane rant. Can he do it too? Can he go two for two? This is, this is going to be impressive.

If he does, let's see what happens. I really don't know what's.

Going to happen. I think Jenny highlighted a couple of things there. Interesting. The men are from Mars. Women are from Venus. Question. Is he doing it? That is a dominant cultural narrative, but it's, it's alongside the other cultural narrative that you just, you just identified there.

So there are some that push us in the, we're different. There are some that push us in. We're basically the same. We're interchangeable in there. And those can all be overlapping. I guess it helps us to see that we shouldn't be calibrating the biblical teaching to counterbalancing a biblical, a cultural narrative because the Bible itself is the norm, the Bible itself.

He actually did it again.

I mean, he did it in a winsome way and you can't, you can't listen. A leopard can't change his spots. A leopard can't change his spots. An Ethiopian can't change his skin. We all know this. It's in the book.

So he's going to be winsome. And he, and, and, and one of the ways of winsomeness that you need to understand is that if you're going to disagree with someone, you first have to agree with them and then prove that you don't agree with them.

It's a very weird, it's very, it's off-putting. I don't like it. And it happens all the time. It happens in public conversations like this. It happens in private conversations like this. I can't tell you how many conversations I've been in where, you know, it's contentious, we're disagreeing.

And the other person, because they're winsome, will say, Oh, you know, we're really saying the same thing. We're just kind of it in different ways. And I look at them and I'm wondering, have you been in the same conversation that I've been at?

We're not saying the same thing. I mean, it's okay. I'm not, you don't have to say the same thing as me. Like we don't have to agree on this. It's totally cool to just sit in the controversy and, and, and sit as, as opponents on this issue.

I can still be your friend, but that's the winsome way. You've got to say you agree, even as you don't. He says, yeah, you know, it is one of the dominant cultural narratives. And then in the next breath, he's like, but it really isn't.

The really, there's this other one about how we're the same and how, you know, women can be admirals too. You know what I mean? Why not? Women can, women can pilot, can be captain of the ship too. It's just as good.

Why not? We see it in the movies. Remember Admiral Holdo from the second new Star Wars movie where she's wearing a lady's nightgown, has pink hair and you know, she's the Admiral. Yeah, sure. That, that makes perfect sense.

But I just can't, I gotta, man, maybe I, maybe I just got, I'm all wrong about Colin because listen, he didn't do it the way I would hope he would do it, but he basically did it. He basically did it. And he makes a great point in, in his refutation, if you want to call it that.

I'm going to, I'm feeling generous. I'm going to call it a refutation. This is the second in a row refutation from Colin Hanson. And that, that look that he gave to Michael Krueger where he's like, well, he's crazy.

This girl's crazy. That was right on, man. I'm reading his body language. Like I'm on point with that. I'm on point with that, but he makes a great point. Don't miss it. He said, yeah, yeah. You know, you're right about the women in Mars and Venus, but you're actually wrong because the culture is talking about the sameness.

By the way, this is a good point to bring up. We don't have to just counterbalance things. We've got a word from the Lord on this. Like God, God has told us what's what God has told us about this. Now, obviously I understand that Colin is not going to, maybe I shouldn't even say that.

Maybe I shouldn't even say that because he surprised me twice. What I was going to say was he's not going to actually believe the scripture as robustly as he can about men and women, about sexuality, but maybe he does.

Maybe he will, because I've underestimated him. Well, just once, because I gave him time the second time because I didn't want to be fooled again by his appearance. Man, maybe you really can't judge a book by its cover.

I've always been of the opinion that actually you can judge a book by its cover. I mean, that's why it's there. So you can judge the book by it. But man, I'm impressed. Am I crazy to be impressed by Colin Hansen here?

Let me know in the comments if you think that this is another example of old gullible AD being impressed by nothing. Maybe it is. I don't know. Man, I'm just very impressed. And Michael over here, look at his body language.

He's nervous because I think he's a smart guy. He sees what Colin's doing. He's basically saying, Jen, dude, twice in a row, what are you talking about? There's never going to say it that way, but in their way, in the winsome gospel coalition way, Colin Hansen two times in a row has said, Jen, what are you on about?

Man, I'm impressed.

I'm impressed. It's telling us what we should be doing. It's a beautiful story. And so it shouldn't be enough for us to say, well, the world's saying this, therefore we should say that. Well, the world will say this and that, but the Bible says this, and this is what God wants us to.

Emphasize there. That last part was a little bit more aggressive too. Man, I'm not going to sit here and be fooled by Colin Hansen permanently, but in this conversation, he came in and he was ready. And I had zero expectations.

In fact, maybe I did have expectations. They were very negative expectations based on how we started this whole thing. But man, I underestimated him. I really did. I'm like the Phillies and he's like the Mets and I'm underestimating him.

You know what I mean? Wow. Wow. What can you say? I mean, that last part was real aggressive. This is essentially what Jen was kind of saying earlier, and he doesn't address this to Jen because he can't, of course, directly address it to her.

That wouldn't be winsome. But he's saying, look, we can't play this game where the culture is saying this, so we're going to say this. Now, I do think that if the culture is saying something, you may want to be emphasizing certain things in response to the culture.

You know what I mean? Because that's where, hey, if the culture is on fire, you need to bring the water hose. If the culture is underwater, that same water hose isn't going to do any good. You're going to need to bring some sandbags or something, or I don't know what you bring to stop a flood.

You need to adjust your emphasis sometimes based on what's going on, what the context is. I do think that. But you're right. The message doesn't change. The content doesn't change. Yeah. Yeah, man. Wow.

Impressed. Very impressed.

Related to that, I do want to find out what you guys think about gender-specific spaces. Let's.

Talk about... Let's go back a second here. He changes the subject, or he kind of moves on. And again, I've got a low bar for Gospel Coalition-affiliated people, but in the low bar, he cleared it. He basically said, that's that, and he's going to move on.

Doesn't give Jen an opportunity to respond. And Jen's body language... Correct me if I'm wrong, but it did not look... She was not pleased. She was not pleased. And then she smiles in a minute, but I think she's getting her composure.

But this body language here is a woman who's not pleased. She was just contradicted two times by Collin Hansen in a row. In a row. The first time she tried to clap back, then Collin clapped back to her clap back, and then changed the subject.

Wow. I'm telling you guys, listen, maybe I'm naive, but I think you need to give hats off again. Let's just take it off. My Puerto Rico hat, you got to hand it to him. That was really good. Very impressive.

I was not expecting that to happen. Wow. Wow. Tell me if you think I'm an idiot, or if I'm naive about this. I mean, maybe I am. I don't know. I haven't seen what happens at.

The end. But so far, pretty good. I want to find out what you guys think about gender-specific spaces. Let's talk about female-specific spaces here. Is that still valuable in this environment? I mean, we're talking about how they must work together, but is that still a place that we should.

Be encouraging? Absolutely. Yeah. I mean, I don't think a female-only space, therefore, is a zero-sum game. Like if I have a female-led space in campus ministry and being in para-church, that's often the case, but we always congregate and come together and do fellowship together.

So I really wouldn't understand why you would bifurcate the two and keep them separate. I would think that the benefit would be of having a female-led space and only... I just don't, like, I think, again, this is.

An invented problem. Like, I don't, and I don't believe this is really a problem where, because what sounds like they're talking about is complete segregation. A female-only space and a male-only space, and there's no fellowship together.

That's what she said. That doesn't exist. It just doesn't exist. A female-led space. Now, that might be a real thing, where there's really not a lot of female-led spaces, but when you think about it, where are those in the Bible?

I mean, I'm sure they had, you know, gatherings, and there was probably one that was, like, maybe a little bit more, you know, mature in the faith than others, but were they learning the deep things of theology at those times?

I mean, that's not... doesn't seem what the Bible seems to indicate. The Bible seems to indicate that they were teaching the women to love their husbands, love their kids, and, you know, these kind of things, so that the Word of God would not be blasphemed.

I mean, it's just missing. I mean, so I don't know. Let's continue.

Space would be the vulnerability and the maturity and the ability to be able to see a woman model her vulnerability in a way that's safe, but then also you being able to also share and grow in that space.

However, in the presence of men, that's not always as accessible for different reasons, and may not be as comfortable. So I do think a female-led space and female-only space has its benefits, and it is pretty, I think, foundational.

It would have been better to ask... the first.

Question to be asked would be about men-only spaces. That would have been better, because of course they're going to be like, oh yeah, female-only spaces, of course, you know, because, that's their whole shtick.

They're feminists. But it would have been better if Colin asked the question in the opposite way to see what they would have said, because now that they've said what they've said about women-only spaces, they kind of have to agree that men-only spaces are okay, too.

But if they would have started with men, it would have been interesting to see how that would have kind of colored the conversation. I mean, I don't know what they would have said, but it would have just been interesting if he asked it the other way.

But you gotta hand it to Colin. I mean, he's just done two good things in a row. I mean, you know, that would have been pretty shrewd if he did that.

This point as well, I think I love the Gospel Coalition. I love the work that's being done. I think the downfall sometimes is in female spaces. We oftentimes only go to, like you said, the Jim Wilkins, the Jackie Hill Perrys, or the other big names, because we don't have access to women in our local congregation, because those women aren't being trained or equipped to be to know how to successfully mentor other women, and those women, the older women are oftentimes intimidated.

So I think that space needs to not only be there, but needs to be cultivated by the pastor and be resourced so that the women have a better opportunity to grow and flourish in their local settings, as well as like national platforms and settings.

Yeah, I mean, I would add to that,.

It's not just whether there's distinctive female space, but what's the content of it? What's the nature of it? What's the purpose of it? I mean, it's funny to ask that question.

That's actually a good point, because as I said in the last video, we have a direct word of the Lord on this one. You know what I mean? We have a direct word from the Lord on what the older women should be teaching the younger women to do.

And it's not exegesis. I mean, it just isn't. It's not exegesis. It's not hermeneutics. It's not systematics. You know what I mean? It's not that. Okay, so yeah, what's the content? That's a big, important question.

In fact, anyway, yeah, let's just continue.

I've been sitting here at the National Conference, the Women's National Conference. This is distinctively a female space, and Collin and I walk around with 9 ,000 other women here, so we feel.

That way acutely. Thank you for joining us in the estrogen pond. Yes. I couldn't find one,.

So they got taken over. But no, I think that's entirely legitimate. The question isn't whether groups do that, because I think you have men's ministry, women's ministry, youth ministry, you have other kinds.

The question is, what is the purpose of it? And the idea that it's just simply, well, we're going to teach men theology, but we're going to let our women just go and socialize. We're going to teach our men theology, but let the youth, as another example of a broken off group, go and just play games all the time.

I mean, any subgroup needs to be evaluated in terms of what we're trying to do there. And so discipleship has to be the centerpiece of all.

That. Now, that's not to say you want... It seems like there's no reason that there should be different content and different groups. We're going to teach the men theology, and we're just going to let the women socialize.

Well, obviously, those are not the only two options, but that's what he says. We're going to teach the men theology, let the kids play, as if that's some kind of bad thing. Why is that a bad thing? Why is that a bad thing?

Why? Let's just think about this for a second. Why would you teach the men theology and maybe not the women and the children in the same way? Why would you do that? Why? Probably, you know, probably for a similar reason to why a man might want to do some aggressive weight training and maybe some combat training or something like that, you know, some kind of Muay Thai or something.

Muay Thai, I just picked that one out of the air. Muay Thai. Maybe why you would want to treat a man how to throw hands and maybe not a kid or a woman, because it corresponds to their job. Their job as fathers is to teach their children, is to teach their wife, is to lead their wife in spiritual things, in physical things, in, you know, in protect their wives, you know, in, you know, like there's reasons why you would want to do that.

The women are supposed to be taught certain things. That's true. And there's nothing wrong with a woman learning theology, but what does the Bible say if she has a question? Ask her husband. So wouldn't it make sense for her husband to be knowledgeable of such things?

Wouldn't that make sense in the ideal situation? Now, I know there's always situations where the husband's not interested. The husband's not, maybe he's not even a Christian. Well, obviously that's not an ideal situation, so I'm not going to talk about the exceptions.

But wouldn't there, wouldn't it be appropriate, given everything the Bible says about women in church, children, and parents, and all this, wouldn't it be appropriate to have men to have some more theological training than women?

Wouldn't that make sense? Like, if a man, if we're at wartime, and men, you know, they're likely to go to war soon, wouldn't it make sense that we would have training for men to go into combat, and not have training for the women and children to go to combat?

Because they're not going to go to combat! The men are! The men are! So, of course it's going to be different in content. They've got different functions. I thought we were all complementarians here. They've got different functions, so of course their lesson plans, their curriculum is going to be different.

Again, it's like, like, why did God make this rule? We said, we asked the question last week. Is it just a random rule that there's really no reason? It's just God wanted to see if he wanted to, you know, if they would listen?

No, it's because he made men to do certain things. There's certain responsibilities. There's certain things that the man is required to do that a woman is not required to do, and he didn't create them to do that, and he didn't give them the faculties to do that, and so when they go and do it, it's not like the movies.

Admiral Holdo in the movies is not what normally happens when a woman decides to be an admiral. That's not the way it works. I mean, you can fight against nature all you want, but eventually nature's going to have the last word.

It's as simple as that. Like, how God created things is going to have the last word. It's very frustrating because you gotta assume these guys know better. They call themselves complementarians, and obviously a lot of my friends, you know, just egalitarianism with a little bit more fidelity to the Bible, but it's still the same thing, and it really does come across that way.

It really does come across that way. Yeah, sure, the children learn theology mostly from their fathers. That's the ideal situation. So, of course, that's where you'd probably want to spend your time training, the fathers.

Do I want to continue? Let's continue a little bit.

All those groups cordoned off all the time. We found this problem at the seminary level at RTS.

The kids are going to play. That's how they learn. That's what their job is. When they're kids, they're supposed to be playing. That's what they do. You know, and yeah, it's good to have kids do some work, too.

I mean, my kids do things, and they learn, and they learn the catechism. They learn in a kid way, but most of the time they're playing. They're doing stuff. They're pretending that just the other day I went to my basement, and I said, oh, hey, Ezra, and Ezra said something like, hi, I'm from the mines of Hyrule.

He was pretending to be some kind of thing. I don't know,.

Something from Zelda. That's normal. That's what they should be doing.

Well, you got to separate the kids.

Because seminary is mostly men, when we have a women's only ministry at the seminary, it can sometimes even exacerbate the problem, because they feel even more isolated. So what we tried to do is do both.

What are women doing at seminary? I mean, this is a fundamental question that I think is worthwhile asking. What are they doing there? What is seminary for? What is seminary for? Why do they exist? And if you answer the question, why seminary exists, the next logical question is, okay, what are you doing there as a woman?

This conversation is a few steps up where it should be. This is a more fundamental question. It's a more fundamental question. What is a man? What is a woman? What is ministry? That's the real question.

If you want to have a productive conversation here, those are the questions you need to be asking. It's way more fundamental than what they're trying. They're talking X's and O's, but really, where they're at, where this conversation's at, what it really needs to be about is, how do you play football?

What's the point? What is the point of football? It's not about blocking schemes right now. We're not at that level yet. We're still at the... What's the goal of football? That's where we're at. What sense does it make when people are confused what the goal of football is to talk about blocking schemes and A gaps and B gaps?

That makes no sense to talk about that stuff if you don't even know what the goal of football is. I'm going to stop there. That seems like a good stopping point. Apologize in advance. Well, not in advance.

I apologize after the fact for all of you non-sports fans out here. The A gap and the B gap stuff, that's more advanced minutia for people that are playing football, as opposed to something that a regular fan would know.

Anyway, I hope you found this video helpful. I'm going to get back to this next week, most likely. Let me know if you think I'm just a naive idiot for thinking Colin Hansen did good there, because I do think he did good there.

I'm not going to walk that back. He did pretty good there, and I've got to say, I'm proud of him. Hope you found this helpful. God bless.