Recently Doug Wilson released a post refuting the article that vice wrote about his domineering stance towards women and their sexual autonomy. The Vice article expresses all of Doug’s teachings that seem naturally to lead to the domination of men over women. The author refers to a significate amount of Doug’s published works, but also they include the testimony of a woman going under the pseudonym Jean who received council at his church. Reading the article alone is bad enough, even if only half of it is true but what seemed more interesting is Doug’s response to the accusations.
Doug comes out the gates hot and ready to throw the Vice author out with last week’s trash, and like most of what Doug writes, it is overblown with slights, references, and 5 dollar words, which in the end produces a similar effect to masturbation, albeit of an intellectual nature, but it’s masturbation no less.
His response is characteristic of one whose feeling of guilt has spurred him into an endless tirade of linguistic games such as “what about” as in what about all the bad articles I think this person wrote, “but it’s not fair” as in its not fair because they have their secular bias and haven’t read all my works and the ever-favorite Christian game “I’m like Jesus” as in repent to me about all the nasty things you said in response to this article because I am holy like Christ and if you don’t, you’re not going to heaven.
Doug writes upwards of 4000 words, all in a vain effort to “not give them what they want” but in doing so, in providing “a response that not what the reaction that our adversaries are trying to elicit,” he gives them the response that they predicted. A response that anyone could predict if they have ever accused anyone of anything.
In the following, I would like to draw some attention to the cloud of controversy that seems to surround this man who believes himself to be quite upstanding, but then again, don’t we all think we’re upstanding regardless of the position in which we find ourselves? Oftentimes the more we believe in our own righteousness, the less righteous we are. I don’t intend to change the mind of those who adore him but only to provide a warning to those who have only begun to hear of Doug Wilson and to use his story as a prime example for others like him in the Christian community.
Reasons So That You Might Doubt
He admits that he will deliberately dodge the answer because he does not see the need to answer them directly, throwing in a poor attempt at humor by taking a dig at the credibility of vice and other publications.
“This is not to say that we would never answer charges like this specifically, but right now there really is no need for anything like that. In fact, there is actually a need not to. It might become more necessary later if a reputable publication were to pick it up, like The Atlantic or Hustler.” – Like a Tabloid Tarantula, Doug Wilson
Needless to say, there are a plethora of rebuttals that could be offered by the Christian as a means to side-stepping questions much as Christ did when he was routinely pressured in bad faith. However, I find that it is generally best practice to assume that we are not Jesus in any circumstance, especially in those cases where we are potentially in the wrong. Such is the case for Doug in this instance.
In all fairness, he does offer an offhanded and insubstantial reply to one of the questions in one of his quote boxes that predictably links to a sales page for one of his books on the question at hand.
“Must my wife have sex with me whenever I want it?
Don’t be a fathead.
It was a serious question.
Yes, she must have sex whenever you want it. And you must refrain whenever she wants to refrain. You have authority over her body, but never forget that she also has authority over your body.”
Fidelity, Doug Wilson pp. 109-110
Shortly after stating that he will not be giving any answers, Doug writes that the author of the Vice article reached out to him and asked for an answer to several questions. He responds by calling out her “agenda” and sending her the following link, which contains denial statements of all the controversies he has been embroiled in over his writings, another telling fact of Doug’s guilt. I think it will be worth our time to take an ever so slightly closer look at the man who’s all too ready to slam a critical author for acting in bad faith.
Denouncing one’s perceived behaviors and views through word of mouth is one very minor step in clearing one’s name. After all, many will call out to Christ by word of mouth, yet he will cast them out as anathema. Many who served by their words alone will become unknown to the one who knows all. So the proof of any inward revelation is found in verifiable behavior. The likes of which remain to be seen from Doug.
Of course, it would be insane to require anyone to spend all their time rectifying every claim against their moral standing, and no good faith actor would think otherwise. However, the story changes when you discover a pattern of offense that originates with one individual. Having more than ten spurious viewpoints and behaviors challenged to such a degree that you have to keep a link on hand that “denounces” each controversy constitutes, in my opinion, a pattern worth looking into and questioning. I’ve listed his statements below for future reference.
1. I deny we should be executing people for homosexual acts.
2. I deny that slavery was a positive good.
3. I deny that secularism has a clue about racial reconciliation.
4. I affirm justification by faith alone.
5. I deny that I support child abuse in any way, shape, or form.
6. I deny that I am a plagiarist.
7. I deny that I am too proud to apologize.
8. I deny that I insulted any women with the c-word.
9. I affirm the necessity of the righteous horse laugh.
10. I deny that wives should come under church discipline for “not doing the dishes.”
If you take the time to look through his document of denial, you will find some accusations received more air time than others. Now, if the duration of defense or number of justifications is any sign of guilt, one might draw a correlation between the number of his responses and the perceived guilt or negative feelings he may be experiencing over each issue. Such a diagnostic may not be sufficient to prove guilt. In any case, it may at the very least provide grounds for doubting Doug’s innocence.
Talk Time and Guilt
Reading through the denial document provided by Doug, one can parse out the issues that he seems to care about by the sheer amount of time he spent defending each position. He presumably finds Christianity true and enjoys his rendition of the faith. His doctrinal views are essential to his salvation, as he spent three hours talking about them and links to written transcripts of the talks and other third-party sources to support his claim. But, of course, if he did not believe in justification by faith alone. That would be the least of all the accusations against him, as some other allegations include views regarding the execution of people for homosexual acts, child abuse, and a positive view of slavery.
In conjunction with his defense of “faith alone,” there is another denial containing a large number of justifications, with nine written pieces, regarding his views on secularism and racial reconciliation. It seems essential to Doug that he disavows any notion that he believes atheists and secular people, in general, have anything worthwhile to say in regards to racial healing in America. Obviously, guarding against this alleged controversy has to do with his position on salvation and views of the Christian faith in general. Again, it is crucial for him to not oust himself from his in-group but also that his worldview corners the market for moral solutions, but again, though he spent considerable time covering his religious beliefs, there are far worse allegations on his docket with much less substantial evidence as is the case with his denial of child abuse.
Reading through the defense mounted against his alleged support of child abuse, one is left with a desire for something more substantial. He links to ten posts and seems to have written the most extensively on this topic, but many of the posts come across as nothing more than a thin slip, a night shift on the body of a gruesome nightmare. For example, when Doug provided “proof” that there was a secret courtship and assured us that it “can be verified,” he shares the following link, which, if followed, takes you to a page where he offers nothing more than that some text in quotations. Of course, even if such an agreement were made, it would not annul him of guilt. Nevertheless, imagine offering text in quote marks to any serious person without any conceivable way of verifying the words; I hope they would not trust a word you were saying, especially if it were regarding something as serious as being complicit in child abuse. You can read his response at the link here or above, and let me know if you find it compelling.
Reading any further through his defense against the child abuse allegations only serves to worsen one’s view of Doug Wilson as he, with all the self-awareness of a bloated and rotting carcass, demands that the confirmed abuse victim provide receipts where he provides none. The mere hypocrisy alone is enough to elicit a gag reflex. I won’t continue talking about his specific grievances outside his most recent support of spousal abuse. The child abuse scandal happened many years ago, and there have been several much better-written articles on the topic. You could visit the following link at The American Conservative for something more in-depth on the story.
In reading the above sections, I hope that you have begun to doubt, even in the slightest way, the good nature of Doug Wilson. The spurious way in which he doles out evidence and the sheer amount that is doled out when he begins to defend himself in areas he finds important. It seems to be in line with the behavior of a man who has a guilty conscience and not that of an innocent one.
The Insecurity of a Dominant Man
Many of the other points brought up through the Vice article refer to the domination of men over women. Again, a common theme to be found in many American churches, especially of the verity that Doug touts. Reformed churches have a poor and sorted history regarding their treatment of virtually anyone other than men, particularly men of an overtly masculine nature.
In my personal experience, having been in reformed circles, it is easy for me to believe that many of the headings in the Vice article are true of Doug and his teachings. I’ve met many guys like Doug who would see nothing wrong with any of the headings, such as Lordship in the Home, A Man Penetrates, Conquers and Colonizes, and Wives Need to Be Led with a Firm Hand. To be honest, they would never share such sentiments in public or so few words, but if you listen to them long enough, one can parse out the meaning they are aiming at with a wink and a nod.
Of course, my personal experience has nothing to weigh in on Doug’s potential to fall in line with such beliefs. However, I think it is indicative of a more broad trend within the American reformed church. Unfortunately, this trend has left many marginalized groups out in the cold and victims of emotional, spiritual, and occasionally physical abuse.
It would seem that abuse stemming from these religious groups finds an explanation not so much in the religious doctrines themselves. However, many of them are indeed problematic, but rather in the psychological makeup of the individual. Though the doctrines can also be problematic, as one particular study notes, norms that promote male authority over female behavior on the grounds of gender alone significantly increases the likelihood of abuse.
The dominant personality is given to lines of external justification to support their behavior. This type of person was best exemplified in the supporters of fascism in Nazi Germany. The citizens who were enraptured by the cult of personality surrounding Hitler were drawn in the potential of having their insecurities quelled. They desired a sense of pride and certainty that the controlling and domineering ideology offered them. Consequently, whenever the individual is unable to dominate and control that which he believes he has authority over, the authoritarian personality desires the punishment or destruction of the uncontrolled.
In interpersonal relationships, the expression of this destruction is made manifest in a variety of abuses. The verbal, emotional, and physical abuse aimed at the rebellious individual rarely subsides until the point of submission of complete domination is reached. Provided the battered person has not fled from the reach of the authoritarian personality.
The inability to allow the subjugated individual to experience their autonomy stems from the authoritarian figure’s insecurity and fear of uncertainty. The lack of control experienced in the face of another’s freedom is indeed frightening and causes many to behave with pathological tendencies. Unfortunately, in Doug’s frame of view, he lacks the epistemic, philosophical, and spiritual tools to deal with the freedom of the spirit.
His apparent lack of ability to deal with freedom in this existential sense, which can be seen not only in his doctrinal positions of spiritual predestination, determinism, and the roles of men over women but also in his dealing with abuse as noted in his previous controversies, leads me to believe that he possesses the domineering personality as described above. However, simply noting his proclivity for the dominant and insecure personality does not mean Doug Wilson is definitively an abuser, only that men like him are given to abusive tendencies. His teachings prop up vicious habits espoused across his various platforms.
A few citations from his work might prove the point a bit further. Although I have been around the critical online sphere long enough to know that those who already love Doug will not be swayed by direct quotations or, for that matter, anything else I’ve written here. Those who have bought into Wilson and his teachings are likely unswayable; it’s baked into the system they believe in and share. It’s a rather unfortunate lot that the ones I seek to dissuade the most are beyond my reach.
Nevertheless, there is still important work here as I am writing to those who have either never heard of Doug Wilson or those who already do not like Doug Wilson. So I will continue to what I think is the most apparent reason to disavow Doug Wilson. To the few hate readers that have been clinging on and made it this far, you may be lost beyond this point. We will be going to a place where you dare not travel if you wish to keep your sanity. We will be heading to Doug’s direct words.
Quotations From The Possessed
“You haven’t consumed the idea but you have been consumed by the idea, and so you won’t be able to relinquish it.” (Dostoyevsky, Demons)
Doug Wilson has spent a lot of time online cultivating a brand between his podcast, blog, and YouTube channel. As a result, you can find an almost endless amount of Doug. Unfortunately, his online prescience, coupled with his collection of authored books and his defect for verbosity, means that he has language surrounding virtually any area one can comment on under the sun. So in this section, I will be simply sharing some of his views in his words that seem to show his desire to subjugate, dominate, and ultimately abuse.
Many of the ideas Doug holds, defends and writes about seem to stem more from what Dostoyevsky might have considered possession. It appears that, though he has a background in theology, most of his commitments seem to be ideological and not intrinsic to the faith itself. As many others in history have held contrary views and maintained their orthodoxy. So it is fair to note that I don’t blame Doug for all the views he holds. He is human and subject to psychological programming like the rest of us. I do, however, think that his views, much like him, should be called into question for the danger they pose to the loved ones of those who hold them, as many statements here have been and could be uttered by an abuser to justify their behavior.
If you’ve seen these quotes before, which you likely have if you’ve followed Doug, feel free to skip through them and resume reading my commentary below.
Disclaimer: The content below may trigger some individuals, especially those with a history of abuse.
“If you were a male when you were conceived, this means that (at that moment) God was assigned to you the duties of provision and protection. If you were a female when conceived, you were being assigned the duties of bearing children and nurturing them. And making the sandwiches.” –The Lost Virtue of Sexism.
“If a woman were responsible to submit to men in general, her life would be unbearable no one can serve two masters. But a woman who is responsive to a godly man is protected from having to submit to other men, most of whom are less than godly. She consequently has a great deal more liberty than a woman who is not protected in this way. Thus the so-called “independent” woman is not under any kind of protection. She is truly on her own, but with the result being that she is buffeted about by all sorts of men. But if her father were doing what he ought to do, or if she were in a marriage relationship where the husband was doing what he ought to do, she would be protected from the insults and harassment of men in general This explains why some of the most “independent” women are so insecure, and why some of the most submissive women have a real security and strength of mind. Women inescapably need godly masculine protection against ungodly masculine harassment; women who refuse protection from their fathers and husbands must seek it from the police. But women who genuinely insist on “no masculine protection” are really women who tacitly agree on the propriety of rape. Whenever someone sets himself to go against God’s design, horrible problems will always result. The Bible says that we find the way to true self-discovery through self-surrender. Those who exalt themselves are humbled, and vice versa. In the feminist movement over the last several decades, women have been looking for (and have not yet found) themselves. This is because they have been trying to find and identify their role apart from God’s design. The beauty of biblical courtship is that it never leaves women unprotected.” – Her Hand In Marriage: Biblical Courtship in the Modern World, page 13
“Violent rape is a judgment of God upon a people. . . Violent rape is God’s judgment upon a culture, and individual women who are part of that culture are included in the judgment. . . . We see the same judgment at work in disintegrating cultures: “Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil” (Eccl. 8:11). Here the rape is not being perpetrated by foreign soldiers, but is the result of citizens turning on one another. Every culture is a gathering of sinners, and so rape is always a possibility. But when God’s hand of judgment is heavy upon a people, women are in far greater danger of sexual assault than at other times. It is interesting to note that in these, our “enlightened” times, a woman is far more likely to be abused in this way than before all the liberation happened.” – Fidelity: What It Means to Be a One-Woman Man., pages 82–83
“Male authority is an erotic necessity. In order to make love, a man must be hard and the woman soft. This is not just a physiological detail, but a metaphor for their whole relationship. Feminists, having demanded soft men, have discovered that it is beyond exasperating to be locked in a rape fantasy with some Caspar Milquetoast. Ravish me! she pleads with her eyes. Let’s go down to the aquarium, he says, and look at the endangered species exhibit. If you are going to go for soft, then another woman makes better sense. Lesbianism, it turns out, has an internal logic.” – Father Hunger: Why God Calls Men to Love and Lead Their Families, pages 142–143
“And revilers. God calls you to repent of the kind of venom that you spew at ministers of the gospel of free grace who stand against the sexual corruptions of this evil generation. You need to repent of all the venomous comments you made over the last week, directed at us, and there were quite a few of them. If you don’t repent, you are lost forever. Revilers will not enter the kingdom of heaven. If you do repent, you will be welcomed into the fellowship of the saints. We will welcome you as a brother or sister. But those are the only two options, incidentally—brother or sister.” – Like a Tabloid Tarantula
I could pull more from his past works and lay them all out, each as bad as the next, but I think such an endeavor would be even more tiresome than what I have done here.
It is important to note that I am trotting these ever-popular quotes out to enumerate best the faults that underlie Doug’s works. There are undoubtedly good things Doug has said through his works. I am also aware that some of these controversial statements can be explained away with context and the nature of Doug’s style. Doug himself uses the “it’s just my style” defense whenever his work is met with pushback. The defense is admirable but foolhardy. Most of what is quoted here have no stylistically neutral way of being supported. The content of the words themselves prevents them from being used in a way that would lead to optically desirable outcomes.
Conclusion
With his rhetorical skill, Doug finds himself in a state much like the man who, after mastering his math skills, runs off to start a Ponzi scheme and begins to defraud the banking system. Doug undoubtedly has theological, philosophical, and linguistic talent, but regardless of his skill and any factual statements he might speak by happenstance or otherwise, He should remain a character of dubious speculation at least and at most, maybe even at best, a person denounced made unfit for leading any congregation.
His skills, If anything, make him all the worse for his positions and more subject for denunciation. You do not hire the skilled mathematickan1who has been convicted of cooking the books to do your banking. Doug has misused whatever gifts he has been given to wretch up some of the most grotesque doctrines. He has advocated for abuse, albeit often with a wink and a nod with his stylistic defense at his side. He has made demeaning and domineering comments about women, endorsed a sexual predator, and plagiarized portions of his work.
The Vice article we began with lays out Doug’s troubled past and present. Suppose the people who Doug claims cannot know right from wrong can see his wicked actions. What then of those who Doug thinks have a claim to know good from evil? If the only people he views as legitimist moral agents, Christians, cannot speak against him, who else will condemn him? I suppose God himself is left for the task, what a rude awaking that will be for the “minister.”
If the Christian church is to regain any modicum of respect in the public eye, it must unhitch its cart from the horses of the obviously and gratuitously controversial and even potentially abusive leaders. For a man such as Doug, being cut off may turn out to be a blessing. Being turned away allows one the most time for self-reflection. Moreover, cutting out and off abusive leaders would help restore the church to a place where the downtrodden can find safety and rest. As it stands, so long as we let bad faith actors into our midst, Doug Wilson is only one of a larger pool; we cannot be taken seriously as ministers of peace, love, and hope.
Support My Work
If you enjoy my content and found anything written here to be of value, please consider supporting me!
Purchasing anything through one of the links below will provide me with a commission that will be used in sustaining my site, purchasing new equipment, and the procurement of pizza.
MerchandiseAudible
I didn’t know anything about Doug Wilson. I’m not sure I’m glad now that I do! Thank you for this thoughtful piece. I think people like he are so very dangerous precisely because much of what they say is true. It’s the “almost right“ path that will get you in the biggest trouble. And it’s the manner he presents himself to the world. The new testament writers that he’s so fond of quoting were all about living in unity. Not speaking or acting in anger but trying to find common ground so Christians could be unified. Not scoring the most clever “point” against your “enemy.“. First and foremost, we are supposed to love. Our enemies, our friends, everyone. That by no means prevents us from speaking and showing truth but in prayerful love. UGG! I am not on any form of social media nor do I watch any TV so I hadn’t heard of this whole thing
Thank you for the positive reply! I am glad that you found the peice to be both thoughtful and helpful. I agree that love is the supreme Christian ethic. I hope more can come to see the faith in that light.