REBUTTAL TO WILSON’S INANE SERMON – PART 20
In his speech to the New Jersey FFWPU Andrew Wilson give these fatuous thoughts:
"We talk about subject and object all the time. Women are object. Men are subject. Is that true? Not exactly. In a marriage, yes. In a marriage the husband is the subject. The wife is the object but as Rev. Ahn used to talk about Margaret Thatcher was the subject over Great Britain and when it came to the government her husband was object. So when it came to ruling it was her position was subject. When she was back home with her husband she was object. When she was out in public she was subject. So it depends on the relationship.”
This is nonsensical. The meaning of Subject and Object relationships is extremely important in the Divine Principle and in Father’s teachings. He often used the terms in his speeches. Wilson’s words on this topic are pure gibberish. What he writes is unintelligible and meaningless. He asks if men are subject and women are object and then answers by saying, “not exactly.” What on earth does that mean? Then he says men are subject and women are object in marriage. So, which is it? Men are subject and women are object “not exactly” or “yes”? Then he says a married woman is object to her husband only in the home like Margaret Thatcher was. Wilson teaches that Thatcher was subject by day and object by night. While she was away from home she was her husband’s subject because as Prime Minister of England she was every man’s subject. Did Margaret Thatcher stop being the Prime Minister of England when she walked into her home? Did the people of England know that their Prime Minister became object to her husband—that she became his follower when she was in their home? If she got a call at home from someone in the government that England was being attacked and they needed her immediate command for the military was she to say that in her home she was no longer in the subject position and her husband would have to make the decision?
Or was she supposed to assign someone like the Deputy Prime Minister to take over being the subject of Thatcher’s husband by taking her position as Prime Minister when she was at home and she didn’t need to be called? And if she was called, then she would have to stand outside of her home while she was on the phone making executive decisions because she couldn’t make them when she was in her home and under the authority of her husband. All of this is nonsense. Margaret Thatcher was the subject of her husband every second of every day just like she was subject to everyone in England 24/7. She was the final decision maker to mobilize the armed forces and it didn’t matter if she was in her home or not.
Then Andrew says some cryptic haphazard line that subject/object “depends on the relationships.” That’s all. What does he mean? No one has the slightest idea what he is talking about. Everything he says begs questions. He doesn’t throw any light on anything. When you finish listening to his blather you are worse off than you were before you were subjected to his vacuity.
He goes on to talk about the relationship of mother and son. He says the mother is in the subject position and the son is in the object position. To him this means Hyung Jin is supposed to follow his mother no matter what she does. This is nonsense because we are supposed to follow God before we follow anyone else. Andrew did not follow his mother and leave the Unification Movement when she had him kidnapped and deprogrammed. It is ludicrous to think Hyung Jin should follow his mother when she desecrates Father’s words and traditions after she has usurped his position as Second King.
Wilson goes on to say, “To children the father and mother are co-authoritative subject partners.” He does not explain what in the world this means. This is Andrew’s new theology for the world that is all brand new from the teeming mind of a feminist on a power trip. All by himself he comes up with some cockamamie idea that fathers and mothers are co-leaders to their children. How is that supposed to work? How do children relate to parents that have equal authority? They are going to side with the parent that gives cake and ice cream for breakfast. In every sector, every area of life there is leader/follower relationships. In business, in government, in churches, in sports, in clubs, in everything there is hierarchy so they can function. To exempt the family from this is to make the family dysfunctional. Yeonah uses the terms “Head Coach” and “Assistant Coach” for the husband and wife. There is no such thing as co-authoritative coaches.
My wife and I recently went to a see a St. Louis Cardinals baseball game. Each team had a head coach, several assistant coaches and the players. All of these men are multimillionaires. They are all professional. They are all equal in value but they do not have equal roles. They have different roles. When an assistant coach gives the head coach some advice or he gives a command to a player no one feels abused or insulted. There is structure. There is order. And it is beautiful to watch. No one in a so-called inferior position gives an order to someone above them in rank. And everyone obeys those commands from someone above them in authority, and in the words of Ephesians 5, they obey “in everything”. The only time someone would not obey is if they are asked or commanded to do something immoral, illegal, or in some way deserving of not being followed. That did not happen in the game we saw. The same goes for the family.
Wilson then says, “We shouldn’t get sidetracked by this subject/object issue.” Thanks Andrew. Now we all know exactly what subject-object relationships mean. The FFFWPU should be ashamed to have Wilson as their spokesperson. When Wilson explains something the only reaction a normal person thinks to themselves is— WTF? When coaches fail to create a winning team they are fired. Wilson should have been fired long before Hyung Jin fired him. He has been writing and blabbering for years.
I’ll continue next time to show how brainless Andrew is on this topic of subject/object.
(FB post by Jon Quinn)
No comments:
Post a Comment