Douglas Wilson has posted a response
to those (like myself) who took issue with his "Eleven Signs That Your Church Is Effeminate."
I've talked enough on this subject, so I'll mention just one thought: Wilson sidesteps the issues his original article brought up. He defends himself and complementarian thought in general terms, saying that a church is "truly feminine" (a good thing) when you have "a worship service led throughout by men." But he doesn't address that he took a list of nongendered things such as certain chord changes and articles of clerical clothing and made them out to be complementarian gender roles. He may have done it in jest--I never doubted that--but humor reveals what you think to be true.What do you think about Wilson's response? Do you feel that calling the church "effeminate" is a negative thing? Why or why not?