Doug Wilson Says Publicly Sympathize With ‘That Vice Article’ About Us and You’re ‘Disqualified’

“Every Christian leader, pastor, board member, writer, thought-influencer, or teacher who read that Vice article and then publicly voiced their solidarity or sympathy with it—in any way, shape, or form—has disqualified themselves. They are DQed, flat out. They need to step down.”¹ — Doug Wilson

OPINION: The article² in question describes allegations of abuse, sexual misconduct, and strict authoritarian control within the Christ Church community here in Moscow, Idaho, where Doug Wilson presides as Senior Minister. While the article was published in Vice, a secular publication (not without controversy), this particular piece reads like standard investigative journalism with interviews, quotes, and the first-hand testimony of eight women. (My wife and I personally know some of these women and had heard many of these accounts prior to the article’s release.)

Doug would have us believe that all of these reports are false and that all of the women are liars,³ without any concession that even one point within the article is true. This is not only irresponsible but also incredibly damaging and retraumatizing to these women who already feel abandoned by their spiritual leaders. Where is Doug’s pastor’s heart of compassion for these women? Even if he truly believes they are lost, where is the shepherd who leaves the ninety-nine in search of the one that went astray (Matthew 18:12-14)?

And why should we believe Doug and not the eight women who came forward? Is it because he holds the office of pastor and is therefore above examination? Scripture states, “Do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses” (1 Timothy 5:19, ESV). But contrary to Doug’s belief, this verse actually supports these women’s testimonies, not Doug’s claims.⁴ Witnesses are not always required to be observers of the exact same event.⁵ In the Old Testament, if two Israelites witnessed the same person bowing down to an idol on two different occasions, it was enough to condemn the person to death (Deuteronomy 17:2–7). And regarding church elders, if a sin pattern exists (such as drunkenness or a quarrelsome spirit), and two or three people witness separate instances of the same pattern, such witnesses should be accepted as evidence to be examined (and it seems they would be, even according to Doug’s own church constitution).⁶

So what’s really going on? I believe Doug is lifting the veil and revealing that his leadership style reflects more of a bully and less of a humble under-shepherd. He seemingly rules by fear, threatening those who would dare to question his integrity. In one fell swoop, Doug authoritatively declares that no peer, no fellow pastor, no credible person of any kind can publicly sympathize with the article without disqualifying themselves. This is not healthy spiritual leadership. As Garret Kell observes: “Beware of pastors who cannot receive critique or who become defensive whenever questions arise. A church where criticism is treated as high treason is not a spiritually safe environment for the pastor or those under his care.”⁷

I believe that Doug’s response shows instead that he is disqualified from ministry because he does not meet the requirements for a pastor as laid out in Scripture: “Therefore an overseer must be…not violent but gentle” (1 Tim. 3:2-3). As Michael Kruger rightly observes: “While at first glance this qualification may seem to refer to physical abuse only, the Greek word for ‘violent’ (plēktēs) is all-encompassing. The Louw-Nida Greek lexicon defines it as a ‘person who is pugnacious and demanding; ‘bully.’’ The HCSB captures this sense in its translation: ‘not a bully but gentle.’”⁸ Instead of expressing care and concern for those hurt under his ministry, Doug has instead chosen to respond in full attack mode, dismissing their accusations outright and then attempting to use his spiritual influence to disqualify anyone who would dare to oppose him by publicly sympathizing with the article. Those are the actions of a bully. Not a biblical pastor.

Further evidence of Doug’s disqualification from ministry can be found in the biblical requirement that elders be: “above reproach” (1 Timothy 3:2, ESV). This “describes a person of such character that no one can properly bring against him a charge of unfitness.”⁹ Scripture also requires elders to be “respectable” and “well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.” (1 Timothy 3:2, 7, ESV). Even a cursory glance at the various controversies surrounding Doug reveals that these women are not the only ones bringing a charge against Doug’s teachings and counsel. I believe it is clear that he is not gentle, he is not above reproach, he is not respectable nor well thought of by outsiders¹⁰ and has therefore fallen into disgrace.

When I spoke to Doug personally about his response, he only reaffirmed his position. My prayer is that his eyes would be opened to see his own sin, that the Lord would humble him, and that he would repent and seek forgiveness from those he has harmed through his teaching and counsel.

Want More Context?

A good place to start might be Doug’s own denomination’s investigation into his conduct, which sadly seems to have failed to produce real change: https://moscowid.net/communion-of-reformed-evangelical-churches-presiding-ministers-report-on-the-sitler-and-wight-sex-abuse-cases/

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

https://heidelblog.net/2023/07/on-the-importance-of-reputation/

https://www.youtube.com/@sonsofpatriarchy

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/

Recommended Resource: Bully Pulpit by Michael J. Kruger

A seminary friend recommended this book as a great read for all Christians in this age of celebrity pastors. Here are some quotes I found helpful:

“Spiritual abuse is when a spiritual leader—such as a pastor, elder, or head of a Christian organization—wields his position of spiritual authority in such a way that he manipulates, domineers, bullies, and intimidates those under him as a means of maintaining his own power and control, even if he is convinced he is seeking biblical and kingdom-related goals.”¹¹

“Abusive pastors are notoriously thin-skinned, seeing even the slightest bit of criticism as a threat to their power.”¹²

“The rich irony here is that the pastor who is unable to take criticism is often highly critical of everyone else. That is not a good combination—and it’s the classic mark of a narcissist.”¹³

“Narcissists can’t admit that others may be smarter or more talented than they are, which is why they always critique others. Nor can they admit that they might be inferior or mistaken, which is why they won’t allow critiques of themselves or the ministries they lead.”¹⁴

“As John Calvin put it, ‘Christ appoints pastors of His Church, not to rule, but to serve.’”¹⁵

“Third, even when a victim of abuse comes forward and is heard by the leadership body, the problem is often downplayed and minimized—it’s viewed as a conflict that is inevitable in any ministry. You’ll hear statements like, ‘Well, that’s just Pastor Bob. You know the way he is.’”¹⁶

“The counterclaims of slander—or gossip—are all too common in cases of spiritual abuse.”¹⁷

“Slander is not merely saying something negative about another person. Rather, it is saying something negative while knowing it is false (or at least having no basis to think it is true). In other words, slander involves a malicious intent to harm another person’s reputation by spreading lies about them (2 Sam. 10:3; 1 Kings 21:13; Prov. 6:16–19; 16:28; Ps. 50:19–20).”¹⁸

“There is a rich irony, then, when the accused pastor offers a strong countercharge of slander. If he has no evidence that the accuser is lying, then the pastor himself may be guilty of slander.”¹⁹

“The problem with gossip is not necessarily that it’s false information but that it’s information shared with malicious intent—namely, to harm a person’s reputation or to entertain or titillate others.”²⁰

“A person may share a negative report about someone without malicious intent. Indeed, victims of abuse may share their story with others for many legitimate reasons: to get advice on how to proceed, to get counseling and encouragement for what they’ve endured, or to warn others about the pastor’s bad behavior. This last reason is particularly noteworthy. One might even say that a church member has a moral obligation to speak up about the pastor’s bad behavior to protect other church members from being harmed. Paul seems to act in this way when he warns others about the bad behavior of Alexander the coppersmith: ‘Beware of him yourself, for he strongly opposed our message’ (2 Tim. 4:15).”²¹

“…there is one factor that can help clear up questions about whether an accuser has made a mountain out of a molehill: Has more than one accuser come forward? If multiple people have stepped forward with similar stories and claims, then their credibility goes up considerably. It is hard to imagine that all these people share the same proclivity to exaggerate and see something that isn’t there. Is that possible? Sure, it’s possible. But is it likely? In most cases, no.”²²

Footnotes