Apologia Radio Ep. 547: "Debating Doug Wilson"

Host: Jeff Durbin (with Bradley Pierce & Luke McElroy)
Date: October 30, 2025
Main Theme: A review of Jeff Durbin and Bradley Pierce's recent debate with Douglas Wilson and Toby Sumpter on "smash mouth incrementalism" vs. abolitionism in anti-abortion legislative strategy—examining the biblical, theological, and practical ramifications.

Episode Overview

This episode provides an in-depth analysis and internal critique of the debate between abolitionism/immediatism and Doug Wilson’s "smash mouth incrementalism" approach to abolishing abortion. Jeff Durbin, Bradley Pierce, and Luke McElroy break down what happened during the debate in Moscow, Idaho, reflect on their arguments, and scrutinize the biblical consistency of incremental legislation in moral issues such as abortion.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Setting the Stage: Debate Dynamics

• Jeff Durbin reflects on the unusual difficulty of debating close friends and theological allies like Doug Wilson and Toby Sumpter, leading to slightly blurred formal debate boundaries due to their camaraderie.

  “We're so close...we kept slipping into just like regular conversation. That was really challenging...” (09:24)

• Praise for Doug Wilson’s debate prowess and kind character, highlighting his famous encounters with Christopher Hitchens and Dan Barker.

  “Doug annihilated Christopher...he was not arrogant, was not mean spirited towards him and just really loved him.” (09:47)

2. Defining the Theological Conflict: Smash Mouth Incrementalism vs. Abolitionism

• Abolitionist Position: Christians must advocate only for God’s standard of justice in legislation—no compromise or promotion of "unjust" laws (e.g., heartbeat bills, 12-week bans) even if these make incremental progress against abortion.

  “You can't put forward legislation that God hates...Smash mouth incrementalism says...we can compromise.” (13:14)

• Smash Mouth Incrementalism: Coined by Doug Wilson, this approach contends that even if incremental laws are partially unjust, they’re permissible (and to be celebrated) if they reduce abortions en route to full abolition.

  “Smash mouth means...we’re not going to stop there, we’re going to keep going towards abolition. Along the way we can compromise…” (14:10)

3. Biblical and Philosophical Principles at Stake

• The abolitionists argue from principle, emphasizing God’s command: “Justice, and only justice, shall you do.” (Deut. 16:20, referenced at 21:45)

• Presuppositional apologetics: Durbin points out that compromise in lawmaking is akin to abandoning Christian distinctives in apologetics—“no neutrality, no concessions, no compromise...” (27:08)

  "You cannot convince people to love God's standards of justice by approving of and celebrating injustice." (21:45)

• Critique of pro-life bills:

  • Highlighted as showing partiality ("allowing the murder of certain babies without heartbeats or who can’t feel pain"), acquitting the guilty (exempting women from penalty), and thereby institutionalizing injustice.

• Pragmatism vs. Principle: The hosts reject the pragmatic argument ("stop the bleeding with partial measures"), comparing it to running fouled plays in a game:

  “What would we say about a coach that told his team to run plays that are against the very rules of the game?” (31:08)

4. Incrementalism: Righteous Vs. Compromised

• Jeff and Bradley note that Doug Wilson once advocated for “righteous incrementalism”—winning in pieces without “slow surrenders” (Doug’s 2005 article).

  “If I am engaged in worshiping false gods, a righteous incrementalism does not mean tapering off from six idolatrous events a year down to two... Incrementalism means keeping ourselves from idols entirely.” (41:38)

• The critique: Doug’s "smash mouth incrementalism" is seen as a “slow surrender” (allowing some injustice while moving toward justice), opposed to his past advocacy for no-compromise incremental progress.
• Language sensibilities: Hosts highlight the sometimes overblown abolitionist aversion to the term “incrementalism,” clarifying that "righteous increments" (pieces consistent with God’s justice) are not the same as unjust compromise.

5. Addressing Doug & Toby's Defenses

• Partial but Praised Kings (Asa, others): Doug and Toby argue that Scripture praises kings who didn’t accomplish all desired reforms (e.g., didn’t remove the high places), yet who were still labeled “good.” Durbin and Pierce respond:

  “That’s not an example of a king actually building new high places... [Smash mouth incrementalism] is saying you can build new high places to get to no high places.” (56:47)

• Laws on Divorce, Slavery, Polygamy, Blood Avenger: Doug/Toby offer these as biblical precedents for God allowing or regulating injustice due to human hard-heartedness.

  • Durbin rebuts: In all cases, God’s biblical legislation mitigates injustice within fallen systems, protecting victims rather than establishing new injustice.

    “In none of those instances does God actually give a bill or a decree of injustice... He is making sure that justice is given in those instances, no injustice.” (70:29-73:59)

6. Faithfulness Versus Winning: The Prophetic Call

• Jeff presses Doug on his own well-known exhortations to courage over mere caution:

  “Desperate times call for faithful men and not for careful men. The careful men come later and write the biographies of the faithful men, lauding them for their courage.” (47:47 & 65:07)

• Doug distinguishes courage from recklessness but concedes:

  “If God wants you to do it, then that’s what you do...if God wants you to go up against insurmountable odds, that's what you do.” (69:04)

• The hosts frame uncompromising abolitionism as the true exercise of faith—charging “hell with a bucket of water,” in Doug’s own words—trusting God even when total success seems unlikely.

Notable Quotes and Memorable Moments

• Jeff Durbin (on principle over pragmatism):

  “You cannot get people to adopt particular elements of the Christian worldview by abandoning the Christian worldview along the way.” (21:45)

• Bradley Pierce (calling out the contradiction):

  “We can compromise on these clear issues of justice all the way there. We can support clearly agreed upon injustice and even praise it. Put bluntly, do evil so that good may eventually come.” (31:08)

• Doug Wilson (admitting the logic breaks down):

  "If you refuse to do what was within your power to do, then I think that's just rebellion against God. So consequently, if I'm a governor and an abolition bill makes it through...it would be wickedness for me to refuse to sign it." (61:44)

• Luke McElroy (addressing Doug & Toby’s real-world inaction):

  “When you have an opportunity, something tangible...and you didn’t support it, that’s where we get frustrated.” (68:37)

Important Timestamps and Topics

| Timestamp | Segment / Topic | |-----------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 05:52 | Explanation of the debate topic (smash mouth incrementalism vs. abolitionism) | | 13:14 | Foundational argument: Only advocate for God’s justice; abolitionist thesis articulated | | 21:45 | “Justice and only justice shall you do”—discussion of whether partial laws are biblically permissible | | 27:07 | Presuppositional apologetics analogy—do not abandon Christian ground for progress | | 31:08 | “Run all the plays”—debunking the playbook analogy; principle over expediency | | 39:16 | Defining increments: “Are they righteous increments?”; abolishing confusion over terminology | | 41:38 | Quoting Doug’s 2005 defense of “righteous incrementalism” vs. “slow surrenders” | | 50:17 | Cross-examination: Are abortion bills without full justice actually justice? | | 56:45 | Critique of “good kings who fail”—difference between omission vs. enacting unjust laws | | 70:29 | Addressing biblical examples: divorce, slavery, polygamy, and city of refuge; God’s law always seeks justice | | 65:07 | Doug’s famous quote on faithfulness and courage vs. cautiousness | | 68:37 | Real-world application: Frustration with inaction by smash mouth incrementalists in the face of actual bills |

Conclusion & Takeaways

• The debate exposes a crucial fault line among theonomists/postmillennialists: is it legitimate (biblically, morally, strategically) to advocate for and praise partial or compromised pro-life legislation, or must Christian political engagement always be uncompromisingly principled?
• Jeff Durbin and team argue that any legal concession to injustice constitutes a betrayal of both God’s law and the fundamentals of presuppositional apologetics.
• Doug Wilson and Toby Sumpter’s position is critiqued as inconsistent with both their past writings and with their own high standards of Christian courage.
• The hosts call for principled persistence and prophetic clarity—advancing righteous laws, even if victory seems unlikely, trusting God with the outcomes.
• The episode’s tone is charitable yet direct, maintaining respect for Doug and Toby while sharply disagreeing with their tactical approach.

For Listeners:
If you want to better understand the theological divisions within the Christian pro-life movement, the logic and biblical arguments for abolitionism, and hear substantive, respectful critique of influential Christian leaders like Doug Wilson, this is a must-listen. The episode dives deep—providing clear, real-world application, internal critique, and lots of candor.

Key Quote for Reflection

“Desperate times call for faithful men and not for careful men. The careful men come later and write the biographies of the faithful men, lauding them for their courage.”
- Douglas Wilson (47:47 & 65:07), invoked by Jeff Durbin in critique of ‘smash mouth’ incremental compromise.

[End of Summary]