on Doug Wilson: toward intellectual honesty

argue with integrity

There is a certain stratum of winsome and nuanced individuals who’ve been busily writing up a storm of censorious nonsense about Doug Wilson. In the next few paragraphs, I’m going to submit a defense of him. There are two reasons for this.

First, I am a member of a Reformed Presbyterian church that belongs to the CREC (Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches), which is not “Doug Wilson’s denomination.” The CREC is not and was never under the ownership of Doug Wilson, although he was one of several founding members and has, in the past, been one of several presiding ministers. Christ Church in Moscow is part of the CREC, not necessarily representative of it. Nonetheless, there’s always someone raising an eyebrow when I mention for any reason that I’m part of the CREC, and always some sage advice to “be careful around those people.” My brother in Christ, I’m those people. Yet, “those people” aren’t the kind of people you think they are. You’d be surprised how many Reformed folks don’t know or care about Doug Wilson at all, and I take the liberty of speaking for the majority in saying that we’re tired of being associated—nay, identified—with his antics. The CREC revolves around two descriptors: Reformed and Evangelical. However, yeah, Wilson’s church is a member of the Communion, and most members share most of his beliefs, even if we take exception to his presentation or practical application of them. So, I hate to nominate myself for pariah, but I read his books and get a lot out of them, and I won’t accept the flatly ignorant take that anyone who extracts value from his work must be brainwashed. Insulting a woman’s intelligence in that way is exactly parallel to what some people think Doug Wilson is doing, making them no better than him.

Secondly, the discourse surrounding Wilson is largely, if not exclusively, intellectually dishonest. While I myself hold mixed views on Wilson, I aim to balance, if not directly counter, the public opinions that are being swifly and loudly espoused without recourse to the broader logos of Wilson’s work. I’m not the guy’s biggest fan myself—the flamethrower campaign during last year’s No Quarter November was a bridge too far for me—but I think he is an important defender of many uncomfortable truths, and I am a little annoyed at my feed being clogged up with articles that are, with few exceptions, as blockheaded as the authors believe Wilson to be. I want to know: if Wilson’s ideas are so obviously a blight upon the face of this country, then why can’t his naysayers present them clearly, contextually, and courteously? Why are they hiding behind sneaky editing and academically condemnable citations? And why are they obstinately ignorant of his larger body of work? More importantly, if Wilson is nothing more than the criminal many make him out to be, we can simply disregard him. But he’s not a cultural force because of his alleged crimes. The world is full of criminals with negligible cultural sway. So we can’t continue to base rational discourse surrounding the Moscow Mood on decades-old accusations, even if those accusations are valid (debatable, but for my purposes, dismissable). But we find ourselves doing just that. In the absence of an articulate rebuttal to federal patriarchy, the conversation has descended to cognitively lazy caricature. Though I’d like to see someone engage with the conceptual arguments Doug is making, most are instead committing brazen intellectual fraud.

The frame of mind against which I bring my rebuttal can be summarized in three articles that together represent a sufficiently full-orbed affirmative constructive, as we would call it in policy debate. These three articles are “Doug Wilson, Women, and the Weight of Eternity,” “Doug Wilson's Daughters,” and “Doug Wilson—Just The Facts, Ma'am.” I am also openly rebuking those who are sharing such articles without mention of the paucity of intellectual honesty and rigor therein. The authors of the three cited articles contend that Doug Wilson:

• denigrates women and aims to give others the permission to do so

• does not see women as full human beings

• devalues pregnancy and motherhood

• undercuts women’s value to society

• seeks to remove women’s freedoms

• sees women as sex objects

• has and/or will seek to perpetrate or encourage the perpetration of violence against women

• has acted criminally

• supports criminal acts

The substance of my opening defense comes from Federal Husband, which I found extremely clear, kind, helpful, and practical. In Section 2, Wilson lists as common failures of men with regard to their wives: mental infidelity; harshness and bitterness; “being a blockhead” (not taking your wife’s personality and preferences into account); having a condescending attitude; undercutting a wife’s authority in front of the kids; and disputing or demeaning his wife (FH, 29-33). In the same chapter, he offers the following on women and marriage:

Feminine weakness is not a weakness. No woman should ever be evaluated apart from her creation design or divinely-appointed purpose. . . . As the calling varies, so does the equipping. (33)

A man who insists on respect and honor for his wife is clearly an honorable man himself. A man rarely stands taller than when he stands for a lady. (35)

He should be saying ‘thank you’ many times each day, and he should insist that his children learn to follow his example. (35)

Is this guy really an inveterate despiser of women? Or is it possible that there are further distinctions to be made?

Wilson on pregnancy

One author has claimed that Wilson “has managed to both reduce women to their reproductive value and minimize the value of that reproduction.” That would be a great representation of him if the clipped statements from the YouTube Short that this author cited (really, Mary?) encapsulated the whole of his teachings on the subject of maternity or the whole of his character as a man.

Contra van Weelden’s slipshod assessment, Wilson in his writing and preaching repeatedly advises men to treat their pregnant wives with honor and dignity, to teach their children to see pregnancy as lovely and blessed by modeling that vision himself, and to refuse to allow rudeness and invasion of privacy around pregnancy (Federal Husband, 35, 84-85).

In addition to the testimony of Wilson’s own work, you want to ask yourself whether you’re willing to accept the testimonies of his wife and daughters. Don’t commit the essential misogyny of claiming these women were brainwashed simply because you disagree with them. The year is 2025 and these women are public-facing individuals. If they wanted to come out with something sensationalist, they would. Instead, all of them agree that Wilson has been a man of his word when it comes to honoring pregnancy.

In Reforming Marriage, Wilson details ways that men can be helpful around the home when his wife is discouraged by the exhaustion of mothering. Wilson suggests that a husband watch the kids “so that his wife can get out by herself at least once a week” and “also arrange for a regular babysitter so that he can take her out—she needs a sabbath” (123). Wilson’s children have reminisced often on their father’s having done precisely this, taking them to the library or out to restaurants on Saturdays to give their mom a break.¹ Going on, Wilson urges men to

recognize that the kids are placing demands on his wife’s body all day long—they want to nurse, they want to be carried, they want to be held, etc. This means that he should be sensitive to how he approaches her sexually. He must not be just once more voice in the clamor. (123)

And to further denigrate the labor of pregnancy and motherhood, he slips in this little dig: “a husband should encourage his wife by reminding her of the eternal value of the work she is doing. When she and her children have been there ten thousand years, bright shining as the sun, then that apparently eternal pile of laundry will finally come into perspective” (124). Speaking on the “hostility of the world” toward childbearing, Doug recommends that men counter this hostility with encouragement: “He must not only appreciate the work she is doing for him, he must let her know constantly how much he appreciates it” (124).

He says that “One of the most valuable things I ever learned from my father was the loveliness of a pregnant woman. So instead of mockery and flippant jokes, Christians should honor those whom the Lord has blessed” (124). Now perhaps you will point out, if you’ve done the homework and followed van Weelden’s link, that at first, Doug appears to have mocked and joked about pregnancy, making him a hypocrite. But if you pay close attention, you will observe that he is not doing that at all.

“Women are the kind of people that people come out of” is an accurate statement and is appropriately applied in a culture that doesn’t know that the difference between men and women is that women are the ones who are capable of carrying babies and men are the ones who are not. Hello? “It doesn’t take any talent to just² reproduce biologically” perhaps a blunt way of putting it (I hasten to reiterate that I’m not the guy’s biggest fan), but there’s no reason to get butthurt. Why? Because the point he’s making is that motherhood does take talent, and that the mere act of reproducing in the purely biological sense of meiosis and mitosis is not an accurate summary of the sacred work of motherhood. He’s making a case for the importance of the woman in the home, and explaining why popping out a kid and then dropping them off at daycare while you pursue your career isn’t okay. Van Weelden conveniently chopped the part where Wilson elaborated, “The wife and mother, who is the chief executive of the home, is entrusted with three or four or five eternal souls.” He’s saying to women, Your work is essential. Your presence is critical. You are irreplaceable.

Wilson on women and society

Now let’s pivot and address some further concerns about Wilson’s views on women in society. Section 3 of Federal Husband is a real banger. Writing on marriage and society, Doug observes that simplistic, masculinist views fall short of the biblical vision for the organization of society, and that underestimating or undervaluing the nobility and intelligence of noble and intelligent women is an embarrassment and a disservice to everyone:

In the hierarchical and biblical view, the relationship of women to men is first familial, and then as a consequence, a larger (and very complex) cultural and societal relationship between the sexes emerges. This means that wives are to submit to, and provide help to, their own husbands (and no one else). As a result of this submission in countless families, a larger patriarchal society will in fact emerge. However, this patriarchal society will necessarily contain a number of women who are far more intelligent, educated, and ‘stronger’ than numerous individual men. No society is truly patriarchal unless it contains a significant number of noble women, ‘stronger’ in many ways than a number of the men. But for the masculinist egalitarian, a highly educated noble woman is considered a threat to ‘men,’ and as someone who is being uppity—someone who resists Peter’s teaching about the weaker vessel. But whose weaker vessel is she? The biblical answer is, her husband’s. She is not society’s weaker vessel, and she is not Joe-on-the-street’s weaker vessel. (62-64)

Through submission to their husbands, some women can have far more influence in a culture or subculture than some of the men do. This is very good; this is the strength of the weaker vessel. (64)

The masculinist problem is that of seeing women generally having to submit to men generally. In contrast, the biblical pattern is that particular women are to be in submission to particular fathers and husbands. This prevents their submission to other men, which, considering some of the men out there, is a good thing. This means a particular noble woman could in many respects be the superior of a particular man. She would not be his weaker vessel. This would be an excellent reason for her not to marry such a man—from that point on, Scripture would require her to be a respectful and dutiful wife to him. A man of lesser abilities is able to be a biblical head to some women but not to all. A woman of greater ability is able to submit joyfully to some men, but not to all. Understanding this will take us back to the biblical pattern of complex hierarchy in society and also bring us to reject the simplistic hierarchy of “Me, Tarzan; You, Any Given Female.” (65)

For example, what happens when women studying their Bibles get ahead of their husbands spiritually? For some reason, people always assume that the solution is to slow the women down rather than to speed the men up. (67)

Those who claim or insinuate that Wilson is an incorrigible misogynist either a) have read none of his books or b) are doggedly committed to proof-texting. There’s always a way to misconstrue an author or speaker’s meaning, and another word for that is “slander.” It’s fine to oppose Doug’s stance on the 19th Amendment. It’s not fine to pretend that he thinks women are dumb and wants to make us all slaves.

contextual obligations

One of the greatest contentions among Wilson haters is that he has called women some unsavory names. They attribute to Wilson their own inability to distinguish between categories, and they deliberately deceive with their editing choices.

Does Wilson think all women are “sexpots”? No, but he describes Sydney Sweeney as one—probably because her American Eagle ad is precisely designed to present her as a “conspicuously sexy woman.”

Does Wilson think all women are “harpies”? No, but he thinks “smash the patriarchy feminis[ts]” are, and I agree. Rabid misogynist that I am, I would definitely apply the same term to someone who takes pleasure in calling herself a nasty woman and loudly denigrating men, since “a foul malign creature” is a pretty good description for that type of person.

Does Wilson think all women are “bitchy”? No, “but if a woman full of estrogen is disobedient to the law of God, then that can make her bitchy.” WHO AMONG US has not used the word “bitchy” to describe a woman who is being bitchy? Not to mention that he’s not assigning the adjective to all women, nor is he insinuating that a highly estrogenated woman must or will be bitchy. And as we all know from Carol Dweck’s mindset research, saying someone is being bitchy is also not the same thing as calling her a bitch. (And I am fully assured that we’ve all done that.)

Does Wilson think women are “cunts”? No, and he’s not even referring to women when he says that. “So let me tell you what this symbolism really means. This is what they are saying. They are shamelessly declaring to the world that they are just a couple of cunts.” Synecdoche is the figure of speech in which a part is used to represent the whole. Here, Doug is simply using the part to represent the part. I agree that he could have used the word vaginas, but the point he is making is that transgender advocates are inadvertently reducing themselves to their body parts, and he is making his point as strongly as possible. Yes, he is being intentionally offensive, but not in the way that Trueba wants you to believe.

I am not here to defend Wilson’s use of crass language. In most of the instances above, it’s not scripturally defensible, since it fails the test of 2 Corinthians 6:3, Colossians 4:6, etc. That being said, his failure to meet the standards of his own religion is no excuse for others to willfully misinterpret him and proceed to leverage their own point of view in opposition to that falsehood; and I say “willfully” because no intelligent person could misunderstand his meaning in context.

One can say with integrity, “Wilson is often needlessly crass, ungracious, and cruel toward those he deems enemies or antagonists.” One can’t say with integrity, “To Wilson, women . . . are sexpots, harpies, bitchy, cunts” and then go on to (probably inadvertently) call into the question the existence of good men (“the so-called protection of so-called good men”) based on the fact that one takes issue with this particular man, who perhaps is under the illusion that he is a good one. In so doing, Trueba is committing the very sin she implicitly accuses him of by generalizing in a derogatory manner. It’s an easy mistake to make if your research consists of typing your preconceived thesis into a search engine, but tough to reconcile if you conduct any deep reading.

Wilson is being rude. Trueba is being dishonest. You be the judge of moral superiority.

The problem with Wilson is that he is exactly like all of us. He falls short of his own standards, contradicts himself, oversteps the limits of propriety, thinks he’s cleverer than he really is, chugs out articles too quickly to acknowledge every possible caveat, and most damnably, speaks from inside his own perspective and out of his own frustrations. Should he be held to a higher standard as a pastor? Yes. Does he bear responsibility for his words and actions, given the extent of his influence? Absolutely. But our responsibility as authors and audiences must still be borne by us. If his lack of charity appalls us, then it becomes our responsibility to supply the lack. We can make a start by listening to what he says in the way that he says it, and thinking about it for longer than a day or two, rather than chopping it up and feeding the pre-digested moral panic to our followers.

The moral panic really takes off when we look into Wilson’s attributed statements on rape.

well, this is embarrassing

Does Wilson believe in “the propriety of rape”? No, he’s rejecting it, but saying that women who think they are strong enough to protect themselves from bad men are fooling themselves, and are acting as if there were (here I’m employing the subjunctive mood: used to describe a hypothetical scenario contrary to fact) any propriety of rape:

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.

Additionally, I’d like to point out that the blog post Trueba attributes to Wilson, claiming that he is “explicitly sympathetic to male rape fantasies,” is cited in the most horrifically unaccountable way possible. I think I am the first person to point this out. Trueba cites an article at Patheos called “Marital Rape? Doug Wilson on Dominance and Submission in the Marriage Bed,” whose link to the original post, ostensibly by Wilson himself, is broken. Fishy! After casting about the internet for a while, I finally tracked down the source: the block quote in Patheos can be found in a blog post by Rachel Held Evans (rest in peace) in which she quotes a Gospel Coalition post by Jared Wilson, in which he quotes Doug Wilson’s book Fidelity: What It Means to Be a One-Woman Man.³ It’s a master class in lazy research.

Anyway, my favorite part of the actual Doug Wilson quote is the fact that Wilson is just echoing C. S. Lewis, who wrote in That Hideous Strength, “obedience—humility—is an erotic necessity” (146). Lewis’ fictional Director is the spirit behind Wilson’s claim that

Because we have forgotten the biblical concepts of true authority and submission, or more accurately, have rebelled against them, we have created a climate in which caricatures of authority and submission intrude upon our lives with violence. (Fidelity)

Violence against which obedience guards:

Yes, we must all be guarded by equal rights from one another’s greed, because we are fallen. Just as we must all wear clothes for the same reason. . . Equality is not the deepest thing, you know. (THS, 145)

For years I’ve been saying that if C. S. Lewis were alive today, we would hate him as much as we hate Doug Wilson, and when Wilson is dead, we will love him like we love Lewis.

facts for me but not for thee

Another contention I have with the failure of discourse on Doug Wilson: it’s easy to nail someone to the cross for failures you never would have made only because you’ve never been in their position. I’m not going to dodge the very real concerns about the charges against him, on which I have read extensively. These are the reasons for which, I reiterate, I’m not the biggest fan of the guy, and I once again testify that he is not representative of the Communion to which he belongs.

At the same time, it’s oddly convenient that “Just the Facts” always means “Just the Facts that Support My Case.” It’s funny how the people calling for tenderness and understanding who are the least capable of it when confronted with folks they don’t like. Forgiveness and sanctification are bestowed on every Christian—except, apparently, Wilson, whose misdeeds (or errors, depending on where you stand) from fifteen to twenty-one years ago are still chronically levied against him. What I find interesting about the Sitler case in particular is that Wilson was operating under the assumption that Christ can change people’s hearts and lives, and might have thought that five years after Sitler’s sentencing, Sitler was repentant and ready to begin a new life in Christ. That’s kind of the whole point—of the justice system, and of divine mercy. All of us recognize the serious nature of the case, including the elders of Christ Church, but Christians also need to recognize the serious nature of Christ’s forgiveness. Wilson made a terrible, terrible counseling mistake. But he made it because he took forgiveness seriously. That’s the risk you take in counseling and it’s also the risk you take in giving grace on a day-to-day basis. Some people don’t live up to the grace you give them.

It’s tragic that the Open Letter from Christ Church on Steven Sitler detailing the elders’ perspective on the case is read and misleadingly cited by Harms as a statement from Wilson declaring that “he did nothing wrong and would make the same decision again.” Wilson makes no such claim in that document. In point of fact, the letter describes and corrects the misperceptions of the situation; details the gospel tenets that guided the elders’ counsel with regard to the necessity of hard consequences (including prison time) and lifelong repentance, as well as ministry to broken sinners; and addresses the steps that are currently being taken to ensure the safety of children in the congregation, etc. Importantly, the letter quotes Judge Stegner as having stated that “‘an age-appropriate relationship with a member of the opposite sex from Mr. Sitler is one of the best things that can happen to him and to society,’” indicating that Wilson did not, as Harms claims, operate in opposition to the judge’s counsel, but rather acted in concert with it.

intellectual honesty

As I’ve ruminated on all of the above, weighing the pros and cons of sharing my thoughts, I’ve asked myself why I care, and the reason is this: the fundamental indignity of cherry-picked, sloppy argumentation should place it beneath notice, and far beneath the applause, of thinking people. What I’ve gathered from the echoes of the shrieking reactivity to a short-form, legacy-media cut aimed at compressing the work of fifty years into seventy-seven minutes is that the self-congratulatory hordes of unabashedly unthinking people have somehow wrangled themselves into the belief that they are the real thinkers. Real thinkers would recognize the duplicity of selective presentation and unmitigated bias, and we have to confront that kind of behavior. Thinking and reacting are definitionally opposed. Only ignorance and deceit can confuse the two.

I can’t do anything about the deceit, but I can do something about the ignorance, so I’m telling you now: stop treating secondary sources as primary ones. Stop letting other people do the thinking for you. Stop succumbing to instinct. Instead, rise to rationality. Learn to ask, “Is this true?” And if an author provides their sources, follow. the. links!

When I first heard about ol’ Dee Dub four years ago, I couldn’t stand him. I heard one episode of his podcast and was pissed off. So I read his books.

Sometimes, dear reader, you have to actually contend with a thought. You are not its master until you have mastered it. And you are certainly not the master of other people’s thoughts that you simply imported and shelved without even removing the packaging.

I already know that my positions on many topics place me in a microscopic minority. More importantly, I’m not interested in being the fool who grabs a passing dog by the ears. I’m not above a little intellectual conceit, but I’m not so far gone as to think I can persuade an entrenched feminist to change her stance on Wilson. Frankly, if someone wants to lie awake at night twisting their guts over Doug Wilson’s perceived evils, all I can say is, I’m glad to know they lead a relatively peaceful life.

My issue isn’t that some people dislike Wilson. Most people do. My issue is that I keep seeing hit pieces of incredibly low standards circulating among people I respect, and I find it alarming that the sheer intellectual dishonesty of the authors has gone completely unaddressed.

Maybe it’s because Substackers only want to post “hot” takes if those takes are wrist-tested for an audience of overly sensitive intellectual infants. We’re all bottle-feeding our audiences to some extent due to the fact that the platform is subscription-based, but at some point we have to ask ourselves if it’s time to introduce solid foods. Maybe it’s because we (and I’m talking about Christians) still don’t have a liturgy of rebuke and repentance. Maybe it’s because we have no stones. We are really good at acquiescing and applauding, but not evaluating. Before writing this essay, I waited, hoping that someone would make it unnecessary; I would have been thrilled to see even one person agree with reservations, but no. We are a culture of tribal sycophants in which reservations signal disloyalty.

words mean things

I’ve noticed that the ire doesn’t stop with Wilson, and I wanted to address a particular aspect of that ire. One author is apparently especially alarmed by Wilson’s daughter, Rachel Jankovic’s, use of the word “whore” in Jankovic’s book, No Time to Be Dumb. She quotes Jankovic:

At the center of the entire world and all of history is this: a whore made into a virgin bride. It’s very important we understand that. The church is the whore, restored from great unfaithfulness. Individual Christian women have been through the same transformation.

While I can understand Trueba’s concern about exposing young girls to strong language, I have a hard time picturing how Christian teenage girls are supposed to reach maturity under the helicoptering that would be necessary to prevent them from stumbling across this word, given that the Scriptures use this kind of language from beginning to end (Genesis 38, Jeremiah 3, Ezekiel 16, the book of Hosea, Revelation 17, etc.). The biblical story is indisputably about “a whore made into a virgin bride,” and we know that because the Bible says so. Additionally, “whore” is not just a derogatory term we use for women we don’t like; it has a specific meaning, and it just so happens that that specific meaning is what is being intentionally applied to the people of God who sell themselves to idols, in a figurative image that is as close to literal as possible. So when a Christian author advises young girls to not dress or act like whores, she is saying, “Do not dress or act like a woman who sells herself.” Would it be better if we used the word prostitute instead of whore? Personally, I don’t have a real problem using the same word God used. Maybe Christians should develop some spinal fortitude.

Pertinent to the case is the fact that Jankovic’s book is specifically written and marketed to teenagers, i.e., people who are in the process of sexual development and maturing into adults. Coddling them is unhelpful and has been shown to increase the likelihood of their experiencing sexual abuse. Were the book advertised as a children’s book, I could understand the outrage, but frankly it’s misogynistically infantilizing to act as if teenage girls are naturally inclined to the misapplication of the term “whore” to themselves. Give young women some credit—they’re not all that stupid! Moreover, teaching a teenager what “whore” means is likely the best insurance against her thinking she is one. There is an enormous difference between teaching a woman to be ashamed of her body and teaching her to be ashamed of selling her body. She won’t know the difference if we don’t teach the difference, and precise language is the sine qua non of clear teaching. Jankovic is modelling what all Christians need to do: say what we mean!

conclusion

In my own research on Doug Wilson, which I’ve been at since 2021, the vicissitudes of my personal opinion have ranged from extreme revulsion to tempered approval, but I like to think that where I’ve landed is a detached and defensible shore of intellectual generosity. I say “generosity” because I’m not sure “honesty” is enough. You have to be willing to give someone the benefit of the doubt to read an entire book that they’ve written, and I’ve just finished my fifth Wilson volume.

I think that Wilson often goes too far, not in what he says, but in how he says it. I think he plays too much into the zietgeist and engages a little too readily in the culture war, even though fighting the culture war is something all Christians have to do in some sense. I don’t think I would particularly enjoy having dinner at his house, although who knows—if I got the chance, I’d take it.

However, I think the newest crop of Wilson haters have also gone too far, both in what they’ve said and how they’ve said it, and also in what they’ve left unsaid and how they’ve hidden it. I think they’ve engaged too readily in outrage and not taken the time to investigate the man qua man, as a human being, and as the author of many, many long-form works in addition to the short-form rage bait. I think these authors present themselves as the type of people who wouldn’t condescend to have dinner at his house; if they are charitable people, they are keeping that a secret by intentionally misrepresenting, misquoting, and cherry-picking. No charitable person asks, “What do you mean by that?” and turns away when their interlocutor opens his mouth to answer.

Trueba, Harms, van Weelden, and those like them are being disingenuous at best, and their method of discourse is not acceptable. These writers are not people I follow; they’re not people I admire; they’re not people whose views I agree with; but they are people I want to be able to respect and understand, and they are people who are clearly having an influence on those I do follow and admire and generally agree with. Most of you, dear readers, typically post articles that are thoughtful and well-researched, articles that contend generously with opposing viewpoints. But I’m looking for the nuance and integrity in the discourse on Wilson, and it’s not there. The subject upon which the discourse operates could be anything, but the discourse must always be honest and fair.

This article isn’t about Doug Wilson. It’s about intellectual honesty.

1. I didn’t keep tabs on the episode numbers where they talked about this, but you’ll find it in several episodes of What Have You.

2. If it matters to you, “simply” is the quote.

3. Sounds like a good read. Putting it in my cart, I’ll let you know when I finish it.