When Doug Wilson says he lies, believe him

This week, NPR’s Leila Fadel interviewed Doug Wilson. Excerpts aired on the radio, but you can catch the whole video interview here, all 42 minutes of it.

Forty-two minutes of Doug Wilson is asking a lot, and it certainly isn’t for everyone, so let me walk you through a few highlights.

Here’s a clip on the Christian theocracy he envisions:

Yes, it will be a Christian republic. Gay people don’t belong, Muslims don’t belong, non-Christians of all sorts don’t belong—various accommodations will be made for some, as long as they know their place. They won’t hold office. They probably won’t vote. Notably, in this interview Wilson refrained from asserting what he’s said elsewhere about the possibility of banishing homosexuals as an alternative to executing them, which is also biblically permissible.

And then, there’s the propriety of rape.

Here is a particularly disturbing and revealing clip on why Wilson believes that women who fail to place themselves under a man’s authority and protection are asking for it…as in, tacitly endorsing the propriety of rape.

I wish Fadel had paused between her questions here. I’d love to hear Wilson explain how he, as a Christian pastor and proud protector of women, has no qualms about calling women cunts and “small-breasted biddies.” Because he doesn’t.

And the reason why is important, and it’s the same reason he uses to explain (with lots of confusing words) about “the propriety of rape” for women who do not place themselves under the authority of a godly man. They get what they have coming. Do they deserve it? Of course not. But also, yes:

Here’s how he explains this nonsense:

One consequence of rejecting the protection of good men is that you are opening yourself up to the predations of bad men. I fully acknowledge that this is not what such women think they are doing. They think they are rejecting the patriarchy, or some other icky thing, but when they have walked away from the protections of fathers and brothers, what it amounts to is a tacit (implicit, in principle, not overt) acceptance of the propriety of rape.

Does this mean they deserve to be wronged? Of course not. Does John Piper deserve to be mugged because he won’t carry a gun? Do I deserve to have my truck stolen because I left it unlocked? Did the oysters in The Walrus and the Carpenter deserve to be eaten because they were so stupid?”

And then there’s also Wilson’s very reasonable views on repealing the 19th Amendment. Here’s a clip on Instagram, with Beth Barr’s commentary:

The problem is, when you ask women who attend CREC churches, Doug’s assurances that this isn’t about gender, it’s about households, and that single women are allowed to vote, fall apart. Women who are technically allowed to vote are strongly discouraged from attending the congregational meetings where voting happens. Thus, women don’t attend, and they don’t vote.

Tia Levings covers this issue on her excellent Substack:

NPR platformed Doug Wilson in an interview that addressed his views on Head of Household voting. His response was predictable: giggly, dismissive, arrogant, patriarchal, and grossly dishonest. He attempted to make it sound palatable to journalist Laila Fidel, who is Muslim, single, and childless, and in so doing, he lied about the reality for single women in the CREC.

Doug: “I don’t want women voting as individuals because I don’t want men voting as individuals. What I envision is a system which we have practiced in our church here for decades. And that is Household voting. In our polity, in our church system, about 7% of votes are cast by women because we have a number of women who are heads of their households.”

Laila: “So in a future Christian theocracy, where the 19th Amendment is repealed, what is my role in public life? Do I get to vote? Do I get to run for public office?”

Doug: “No, you wouldn’t hold office because you couldn’t vow to uphold the Christian Constitution. Whether you voted or not would have nothing to do if you’re a woman. If you’re the head of the household and Christian, you would vote.”

He’s lying. Doug’s basket of loaves and fishes includes a red herring and a straw man, and he’s shaking it in front of us like bait called “it’s not so bad” by moving the goalposts. There’s not even 7% of women in his theocracy voting, because they are under their father’s households until marriage, and subsumed by their pastor or male relative if widowed.

This is why Wilson is so tricky to interview and write about. He lies. He contradicts himself. Wink wink, nod nod. If you call him out on it, he backpedals. Or he dodges. Or he spews more word salad. He muddies the waters, saying you didn’t understand the context, he obfuscates, he “jokes,” he uses “satire,” he speaks out of both sides of his mouth.

All the time.

It’s not easy to cut through the crap, but there is a consistent message. God’s order is hierarchical, and not just with respect to gender. (Wilson is at the top of all the pyramids he’s built, imagine that!) And, Wilson’s political theology is fundamentally incompatible with American democracy. Sometimes he’s honest about that, sometimes he goes on about how much he loves the Constitution.

Dishonesty isn’t just one of Doug Wilson’s annoying quirks. It is deliberate strategy.

Wilson, you see, teaches the practice of “lawful deception.” That’s right, the Bible might say “Do not bear false witness against your neighbor,” aka don’t lie, but Wilson can even wiggle out of the ninth commandment. God said don’t lie to your neighbor. God didn’t say don’t lie to your enemy.

If the person you’re lying to is outside the covenant, or “assaulting” or “betraying” the covenant, lie away! If they’re outside the fold, which presumably means someone who has not properly submitted themselves to God’s order, which Doug will interpret for you, lying is completely permissible.

It’s not only ok to lie, it’s necessary to lie: “To prevail in conflict is not possible without deception.” In a “just war, deception is not a problem at all.” Think about Rahab!

Do you see where this is going?

Who is Rahab in this picture? Leila Fadel?

Who is outside the covenant? Who is at war with the covenant, as Doug understands that covenant?

I’m pretty sure I am. You probably are, too.

People get upset when national media covers people like Wilson, and I’m sympathetic to the concern that doing so only amplifies their voices. But I’m afraid that ship has sailed. We need to know exactly what we’re dealing with, and I’m not sure there’s another way do to so than to let them speak—but it’s equally as important to know how to interpret their words, despite their best attempts to obfuscate.

Full disclosure: At the end of the interview, Doug said that he was impressed with recent interviewers, including Fadel (who, by the way, was brilliant). People aren’t just slinging mud, he said. They’re informed. They know what he’s written and what he’s said. You’re welcome, Doug. I’ve spent countless hours over the past few months fielding calls from the media trying to wrap their head around the self-proclaimed Christian nationalist now preaching in the Pentagon, and I’m not the only one doing this. We take the calls because we no longer have the luxury of pretending this nonsense doesn’t matter.