Doug Wilson Says ‘To Prevail in Conflict is Not Possible Without Deception’

Disqualified

“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 seem to 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

This is unbiblical with dangerous implications. If a “covenant is assaulted or betrayed” we are not required to speak truth? What does Doug mean by this? What does he mean by covenant?³ What constitutes assault and betrayal? Doug leaves it up to the reader to decide his meaning. It seems 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 is true without any biblical evidence (see articles here).

He continues in the next sentence:

“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 goes even further than his “covenant lie test” and basically makes deception lawful if a person is not a friend. This clearly opens the door to justify lying in a multitude of scenarios and can be manipulated to suit someone’s personal agenda. A repeating theme we’ve heard from various individuals within Christ Church is the leadership admonishing: “You are not being a friend to our church” when someone begins to question problems in the church. If this person is not a “friend” because they disagree with the church, does that give permission for the church to practice deception with that individual? It appears so.

Doug then backpedals a bit in the following sentences:

“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 muddles the answer in contradiction. (We have observed another concerning pattern living here in Moscow, that those bearing witness of abuse within Christ Church/other CREC churches are immediately accused of false witness, gossip, or slander, presumably in an attempt to silence them.)

Doug continues by seeking to devise a wartime ethic and peacetime ethic, where 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 But he again confuses his conclusion by saying we are also justified in using deception in “times of heightened tension.”⁹ Doug’s ethic on deception is so fluid it fails to bring any coherent moral guidance. He seems to be advocating for a form of situational ethics or moral relativism rather than seeking to uphold objective biblical truth.¹⁰

While I acknowledge that Scripture contains challenging passages concerning lying and deception (as detailed in the footnotes), Doug Wilson’s interpretation misapplies these instances and overlooks the consistent biblical injunctions against dishonesty. Instead of providing a nuanced understanding, I believe he effectively grants readers a path in which they can justify lies whenever they deem it necessary.¹¹ This is epitomized by his unqualified assertion later in the book: “To prevail in conflict is not possible without deception.”¹² No longer does he limit himself to war, but expands to reference conflict in general. Does this mean when I have conflict with my wife that deception is necessary?¹³ The fact that he feels comfortable with such a general, unnuanced statement about something the Bible calls sin, is extremely concerning.

Why does Doug open the door so wide for deceit, when Scripture is clear that we are not to be deceptive? 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). Are there cases where lying or deceit might be the right choice? Possibly. But such cases are so rare and extreme, that most of us will never need to make that choice. Doug uses such examples as Rahab lying to save the spies and the deception of the Hebrew midwives to justify lying as a common occurrence blessed by God.¹⁴ But those examples are extraordinary occurrences¹⁵ (and furthermore Scripture does not mention that God endorsed their lying).¹⁶ Deceit should not be a normalized practice for followers of Christ.

Doug’s teaching and its application are among the reasons his reputation is poor among unbelievers here in Moscow—not because of the gospel, but because they perceive Doug and his followers as deceptive, based on his writings and their own experiences. We’ve heard from various sources, both within and outside Christ Church, that some Kirker¹⁷ businesses have a bad reputation in the community due to questionable and unethical practices.¹⁸ We have personally encountered this type of deception, which does not honor Christ (see documented examples in the footnotes).¹⁹

In my opinion, Doug Wilson often 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 and nor is he 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://www.youtube.com/@sonsofpatriarchy

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

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://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. ↩
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. ↩
“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 deception is common occurance in Scripture by saying “Such examples can be multiplied in Scripture many times over.”. But this is not the case. ↩
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. ↩
Doug brings up many of the normal passages in the Old Testament where lying is not outrightly condemned when people lie to save lives (Exodus 1:15–21; James 2:25; 1 Samuel 21:13–15), but overstates the case by linking their lies directly to blessing and justification: “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);” (Douglas Wilson, Rules for Reformers, Canon Press, 2014, p. 83, Kindle Edition.). But Scripture does not do so overtly. 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 in the case of David feigning insanity). As Walter Kaiser Jr. comments regarding the Hebew 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). ↩
This is the name they gave themselves. Doug writes: “Kirk is the Scottish word for church, and once upon a time domain names were limited in the number of characters allowed. Christ Church was too long, and so we shortened it to Christ Kirk, and at some point I thought we should call our people kirkers, which caught on.” https://web.archive.org/web/20240225015545/https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/s7-engaging-the-culture/a-torrent-of-truth-or-what-we-actually-believe.html ↩
We are not saying this is true of all Kirkers. We personally know several Kirkers who do not fit this generalization and seem to be godly individuals. ↩
Some documented examples of what we see as deception and/or the misleading of others:
Staging a political protest under the guise of a religious “psalm sing” (they weren’t arrested for worshiping, but for resisting arrest and not showing ID to police officers): https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/coronavirus/article245989050.html#storylink=cpy
Doug advocating for the use of fake vaccine IDs: https://web.archive.org/web/20240721103144/https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/s7-engaging-the-culture/a-biblical-defense-of-fake-vaccine-ids.html
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
An abuse survivor being asked to lie if anyone asked her what had happened: https://youtu.be/wGUKQmgWNN4?si=ARg74zpYmEzctpBW&t=5480
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/ ↩

Doug Wilson Says ‘To Prevail in Conflict is Not Possible Without Deception’

Want More Context?

Footnotes

Read Next

Doug Wilson Says ‘Our Ministry’ to Convicted Ped*phile Has Not Put ‘Any Children In Our Church Community’ at ‘Risk’

Doug Wilson Says the N-word, C-word, S-word, B-word, and A-word Because ‘Godly Obscenity Exists’

Subscribe for Updates