Doug Wilson Says ‘To Prevail in Conflict Is Not Possible Without Deception’
“To prevail in conflict is not possible without deception. Where you are weak, he should think you are strong. Where you are strong, he should believe you are weak.”1 — Doug Wilson
OPINION: God’s Word is very clear: lying is sinful (Acts 5:1–11; Colossians 3:9; 1 Timothy 1:9-11). Bearing false witness is sinful (Exodus 20:16; Matthew 19:18). God “cannot lie” (Titus 1:2). Jesus is “the truth” (John 14:6). Satan is called “the deceiver of the whole world” (Revelation 12:9) and “the father of lies” (John 8:44). Doug Wilson is fully aware of the Scriptures condemning deception; he even references several of them in the section preceding the aforementioned quote, titled “War Is Deception,” in his book Rules for Reformers. However, his assertions are in direct conflict with the clear teaching of God’s Word. To grasp why his views on deception are problematic, let’s examine some of his arguments (taken from the same book where the above quote is found).
First, Doug posits that covenant is the key to knowing whether or not you can be deceptive:
“The key is covenant—unless a covenant is assaulted or betrayed, the duty of believers is to speak the truth in love (Eph, 4:15).”2
The implication is stark: If a “covenant is assaulted or betrayed” we are not required to speak truth? But Wilson does not define what constitutes assault or betrayal, nor does he specify the meaning of covenant, leaving it up to his readers to decide for themselves when deception is permitted.3 In effect, Doug is teaching that if someone is not in covenant with us, whether they have broken that covenant or were never in covenant with us to begin with, we are not required to speak the truth. We are permitted to deceive them. This could conceivably include a large portion of the population, whether our non-Christian neighbors or an atheist business partner.4 But this concept is not found in Scripture. It’s another case of Doug stating something as truth without any biblical evidence (see articles here).
He then takes it a step further:
“False witness destroys amity.5 If the amity is already destroyed on other grounds, or if the amity needs to be destroyed, then deception is lawful.”6
This is no longer about covenant—it makes deception lawful against anyone who is not a friend, or anyone whose friendship you want to end. The door is now wide open. Doug then backpedals:
“Having said this, we have to remind ourselves that God hates the sin of bearing false witness… . God does not only prohibit the invention of such lies, He prohibits us from circulating them.”7
Which one is it? Can we lie to anyone who isn’t a friend or use deception to intentionally break a friendship? Or is all false witness a sin? Doug does not resolve the contradiction. Instead, he adds more categories. He devises a wartime ethic and a peacetime ethic: we are at “liberty to use deception after the shooting starts” and have “a duty to scrupulous truth-telling in a time of peace.”8 Then he expands it further, justifying deception in “times of heightened tension.”9 The pattern across all of these arguments is the same: Wilson begins with a narrow exception (covenant, amity, wartime) and then widens it until the exception swallows the rule.10 What remains is not objective biblical truth but a type of situational ethics or moral relativism: deception is wrong unless one deems it necessary.11
While Scripture does contain passages involving deception—Rahab, the Hebrew midwives, David feigning madness before Achish—Doug’s error is not in acknowledging these cases but in building a general ethic of deception from them. Rather than treating them as rare and extraordinary exceptions, he treats them as normal precedent.12 This is epitomized by his unqualified assertion later in the book: “To prevail in conflict is not possible without deception.”13 He is no longer limiting himself to wartime. “Conflict” could include business disputes, church disagreements, or even marital arguments.14 That Wilson feels comfortable making such a sweeping statement about something Scripture calls sin reveals how far his ethic has drifted from the biblical text.
Are there cases where lying or deceit might be the right choice? Perhaps, but such cases are so rare and extreme that most of us will never need to make that choice.15 The Apostle Peter, quoting Isaiah, says Jesus “committed no sin nor was deceit found in his mouth.” (1 Peter 2:22, NET) This is who we are called to follow: “So get rid of all evil and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander” (1 Peter 2:1, NET). Peter does not qualify the command. He does not say “put away deceit, unless the conflict demands it.” But Doug does.
Doug’s teaching and its application are among the reasons his reputation is poor among unbelievers here in Moscow. This is not because of the gospel, but because of what they perceive to be a pattern of deception. Doug himself has publicly advocated for the use of fake vaccine IDs.[^16] An abuse survivor alleged she was told to lie about what happened to her.[^17] A protest organized by Christ Church against the city’s mask order was framed as religious persecution after attendees were arrested for resisting officers, not for worshiping.[^18] Over the years, we’ve personally observed—and have repeatedly heard from other residents—numerous accounts alleging questionable or misleading conduct within Christ Church circles. While many of these experiences are not formally documented, their consistency reflects a widely recognized tension between the church’s public witness and its local reputation, which remains poor.16
By advocating for the use of deception, in my opinion, Doug Wilson fails to accurately handle the word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15, See more examples here). And the result brings shame to the name of Christ. He is not respectable or well thought of by outsiders. He does not demonstrate that he loves what is good (in this case, the truth), nor does he show himself able to exhort in sound doctrine. I therefore believe that he is not biblically qualified to fulfill the role of pastor (1 Timothy 3:1–7; Titus 1:5–9).
I pray that Doug would come to understand how his erroneous teachings are defaming the name of Christ among unbelievers and that he is, intentionally or not, giving his followers license to sin. I pray that he would recognize that the Bible stands in strong opposition to his instruction and that he would publicly repent and remove books and articles from publication that advocate for these ungodly deceptions.
Want More Context?
Here are some links to other blogs and podcasts dealing with this and other issues in more depth:
https://podtail.com/en/podcast/gospel-on-tap/truth-about-doug-wilson-and-fv-deceptive-practices/
https://heidelblog.net/2023/07/on-the-importance-of-reputation/
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
Footnotes
[^17] https://youtu.be/wGUKQmgWNN4?si=MNAeDIAz0ujWw1rV&t=1634
[^18] Christ Church organized a “psalm sing” in front of the Moscow City Hall to protest the city’s mask order. Organizer Ben Zornes told the Moscow-Pullman Daily News the event was aimed at criticizing the order. They were not arrested for worshiping, they were free to do so, and had been doing so maskless in their own church. Three attendees were arrested for allegedly resisting or obstructing officers and refusing to show ID. Yet the event was widely framed as religious persecution. https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/coronavirus/article245989050.html#storylink=cpy; https://religionnews.com/2020/10/07/hymn-singers-arrested-idaho-trump-tweet-democrats-doug-wilson-christ-church/; https://www.ktvb.com/article/news/local/3-arrested-moscow-church-event-no-masks-sue-city-constitutional-rights-violations/293-933c46e2-5485-4ca8-8536-adcd105e1670; https://www.ktvb.com/article/news/health/coronavirus/3-arrested-at-moscow-idaho-church-singing-event-to-flout-mask-order/277-c71a4104-972e-4c04-8cb1-f35f5f226984
Footnotes
-
Douglas Wilson, Rules for Reformers, Canon Press, 2014, p. 196, Kindle Edition. ↩
-
Douglas Wilson, Rules for Reformers, Canon Press, 2014, p. 83, Kindle Edition. ↩
-
Doug defines covenant elsewhere as: “a covenant is a solemn bond, sovereignly administered, with attendant blessings and curses.” (Douglas Wilson, Federal Husband, Canon Press, 1999, p. 12, Kindle Edition.). But the issue remains, is he referring to what he calls the “covenant of creation” (Douglas Wilson, Rules for Reformers, Canon Press, 2014, p. 146, Kindle Edition.) where absolutely everyone is in covenant with God, or is he referring to covenants we make with other humans, which might be limited to the covenant of marriage? He is not careful to define terms and therefore leaves a lot of room for his readers to justify deception. ↩
-
In an article on his blog, Doug appears to contradict the position regarding covenant, but he does not address this inconsistency there. He writes: “Scripture teaches us that deception destroys comity. This is why we are not to bear false witness against our neighbor (Ex. 20:16).” He does not mention covenant, even though in Rules for Reformers he claims that covenant is the key to knowing whether deception is permissible: https://web.archive.org/web/20240721103144/https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/s7-engaging-the-culture/a-biblical-defense-of-fake-vaccine-ids.html ↩
-
Amity means: friendship; especially: friendly relations between nations. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/amity This is also at odds with Doug’s teaching that “Scripture teaches us that deception destroys comity. This is why we are not to bear false witness against our neighbor (Ex. 20:16).” https://web.archive.org/web/20240721103144/https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/s7-engaging-the-culture/a-biblical-defense-of-fake-vaccine-ids.html ↩
-
Douglas Wilson, Rules for Reformers, Canon Press, 2014, p. 83, Kindle Edition. ↩
-
Douglas Wilson, Rules for Reformers, Canon Press, 2014, p. 83–86, Kindle Edition. ↩
-
Douglas Wilson, Rules for Reformers, Canon Press, 2014, p. 86, Kindle Edition. ↩
-
Douglas Wilson, Rules for Reformers, Canon Press, 2014, p. 86, Kindle Edition. Doug’s biblical argument is severely lacking in my opinion, calling the parable used by the prophet Nathan to confront King David, a “false story,” “godly deception,” and a “lie” and then says a prophet “deceived” King Ahab just because he hid his identity. ↩
-
Doug continues his argument with a final category of “deception that occurs in spiritual warfare that is the result of the peculiar kind of blindness that covers the hearts and minds of those who reject God” (Douglas Wilson, Rules for Reformers, Canon Press, 2014, p. 89, Kindle Edition). But Doug stretches the definition of “deception” beyond its standard linguistic definition. Deception means: “the act of causing someone to accept as true or valid what is false or invalid” (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deception). Just because the “rulers of this age” did not understand God’s plan for redemption through the death and resurrection of his Son, doesn’t mean we should say that God is a “deceiver,” or that he “deceives.” In fact, God revealed his plan, and some did understand it (Matthew 2:2; Luke 2:25; 36)! But Doug comes dangerously close to attributing the work of the devil to God and fails to convey the nuance that a careful biblical teacher should provide (Luke 11:15–23). Scripture is clear that God cannot lie (Titus 1:2), and when deception is involved, as difficult it can be to fully understand, Scripture states that it can be at times by God sending a “spirit” to deceive (1 Kings 22:20–23). There is a similar situation in 2 Samuel 24:1 where God appears to incite King David to sin (though even here Scripture distances God from this direct action by saying ‘it/he incited’), but then in 1 Chronicles 21:1 clarity is found: “Then Satan stood up against Israel and moved David to number Israel.” (1 Chronicles 21:1, NASB95). In Ezekiel 14:9 the word והיתה can be translated as “deceived” (ESV), Leslie Allen gives important insight: “In the apodosis, a reference to divine deception is traditionally seen. However, Mosis’s research has shed new light on the text, especially his comparison of the syntactical construction of vv 4 and 7, with which one expects to find a close parallel here (see Note 14:9.a). Yahweh would bring into the open the mistake made by the prophet by holding him responsible for it and imposing on him, too, the sentence of excommunication. Here the nature of such an act as a divine sentence of death is clearly indicated (cf. Deut 4:3). In summary, the joint liability of both offender and prophetic accomplice is firmly stated: the latter’s mistake did not mitigate the former’s error.” (Leslie C. Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, vol. 28, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1994), 207–208.) Meaning the translation of “prevailed upon” (NASB95) is better suited or even better: “I will deal a blow to the prophets who made worthless revelations and offered false divinations: They will not be included in the assembly of my people” (Leslie C. Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, vol. 28, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1994), 186.). In 2 Thessalonians 2:11 it states that God “will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false” (NASB95). But again God is sending something or someone. God is not named as the one doing the deceiving. As Greg Harris writes: “God employed deception as a means of judgment. However, before judgment He openly presented His truth to the people, even announcing beforehand what would transpire… . God will use what (or who) the people will choose as a means of judgment against them. God will send the deluding influence with the express purpose ‘that they may believe the lie,’ the very embodiment of the lie they have chosen to replace the truth of God… . God will not lead such people into sin” (https://web.archive.org/web/20250216083739/https://tms.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/tmsj16d.pdf). ↩
-
Though I do not believe Doug himself would agree with their justification, as a teacher he has not been careful and is therefore culpable. ↩
-
“God blessed the Hebrew midwives for lying to Pharaoh (Ex. 1:15–21); He justified Rahab through her deception concerning the Hebrew spies (Jas. 2:25); David feigned madness to get away from Achish the king of Gath (1 Sam. 21:13–15). Such examples can be multiplied in Scripture many times over.” (Douglas Wilson, Rules for Reformers, Canon Press, 2014, p. 85, Kindle Edition.). Doug seems to believe that exceptions like these are common occurance in Scripture and that God clearly approved of all their lies. But this is not the case. Scripture never overtly endorses their deception. Rather we see that Scripture focuses on the fact that their actions showed that they feared God rather than man, and many times in Scripture we are not given God’s opinion about their deceit directly. As Walter Kaiser Jr. comments regarding the Hebrew midwives, “they are praised for their outright refusal to take infant lives. Their reverence for life reflected a reverence for God.” (Walter C. Kaiser Jr., “Exodus,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 2 Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1990, p. 306). ↩
-
Douglas Wilson, Rules for Reformers, Canon Press, 2014, p. 196, Kindle Edition. From the chapter: “Aphorisms, Tweets, Whatever” where Doug states: “In line with Rule for Reformers #4, Reformers must cultivate a high sense of humor, I offer the following section, which at least demonstrates a sense of humor, if not a cultivated one. Birds break into song when fighting for their country. I break into tweets.” And while some of the “tweets” are humorous, those regarding warfare are not—here is the context: “Following Sun Tzu, our first responsibility is to attack the enemy’s plan. In the second place, we attack his alliances. In the third place, we attack his forces.
Victory in war, including culture war, is like the collapsing of a dam. Preparation is needed for the aftermath.
To prevail in conflict is not possible without deception. Where you are weak, he should think you are strong. Where you are strong, he should believe you are weak.” ↩ -
I am not saying that Doug would advocate such a reading, but I am demonstrating how unclear and unnuanced he has chosen to be. ↩
-
Meaning, if someone makes the choice to deceive, they will have to do so deliberately and with much thought and prayer, submitting to God that they believe it to be the right choice given the situation. For example, Corrie ten Boom lying to German soldiers when they asked if she was hiding Jews. ↩
-
Some documented examples of what we see as deception and/or the misleading of others:
Doug calling for a “maskless” walk-in at a local store and then saying he only assumed they would be maskless: https://klewtv.com/news/local/christ-church-pastor-comments-on-tri-state-outfitters-incident
Doug claiming non-Christians would have more rights under Christian Nationalism but then saying they wouldn’t be able to run for public office (35:15-36:57ff): https://youtu.be/niQ0Oune6vw?si=34RFcX61xIk5wFE3&t=2115
Doug not being forthright about royalties coming from book sales: https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=0tgyAAAAIBAJ&sjid=GfAFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1172%2C678230
Doug claiming that “our ministry” to a convicted pedophile has not put “any children in our church community” at “risk.” But Doug was ignoring the broader community and also failed to concern himself with the pedophile’s own son—who is part of the church community—and was the reason the issue was back in the local news. Doug officiated the pedophile’s marriage, and now the State was concerned for the safety of his son. This was why there was public outcry. https://web.archive.org/web/20240120171607/https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/s7-engaging-the-culture/an-open-letter-from-christ-church-on-steven-sitler.html and the news Doug is addressing: https://www.dnews.com/local-news-northwest/prosecutor-new-disclosures-of-conduct-by-moscow-sex-offender-are-states-worst-fears4e009e14 (backup link: http://sitler.moscowid.net/2015/09/02/moscow-pullman-daily-news-prosecutor-new-disclosures-of-conduct-by-moscow-sex-offender-are-states-worst-fears/ )
Doug saying “I have decided, after mulling over it for some years now, to discontinue identifying myself with what has come to be called the federal vision” but it is in name only because he then said in the same blog post: “This statement represents a change in what I will call what I believe. It does not represent any substantial shift or sea change in the content of what I believe…I would still want [sic] affirm everything I signed off on in the Federal Vision statement.” See: https://dougwilsonsays.com/blog/still-affirm-federal-vision/
You can find other examples in this long document of “Solemn Charges” (ex. charge 66): https://web.archive.org/web/20091028092334/http://geocities.com/solemncharges/Solemncharges.html
Plagiarism surrounding Doug Wilson: https://rachelgreenmiller.wordpress.com/2016/05/05/plagiarism-wilson-and-the-omnibus/ and https://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2019/03/stub-doug-wilson-and-plagiarism.html
And a long record of letters to the editor in the local newspaper that show their bad reputation here locally: https://moscowid.net/category/moscow-pullman-daily-news/letters-to-the-editor/ ↩
