When Christian Apologists Are Accused of Wrongdoing: The Wes Huff Controversy

There’s been a lot of noise online about Wes Huff and plagiarism allegations raised by a self-proclaimed “Bible scholar,” Dan McClellan, a well-known skeptic of Christianity who has built his brand around tearing down classical Christianity.

Many Christian content creators were incredibly quick to release videos defending Wes Huff. But then, some began to realize they may have moved a bit too quickly and backtracked on their previous comments. This was especially the case after Wes released a video apologizing for the mistake, attempting to justify it, and then, for some reason, deleted the video.

I was also tempted to make a video as soon as I saw Dan come after Wes. I understand the desire to be the first to respond to or address hot topics, so I’m not throwing any shade toward Christian content creators. I’m also a fan of Wes Huff’s work, as most people are. He has done great work making the case for the truthfulness of Christianity on some of the biggest platforms. I had the opportunity to meet him at last year’s Evangelical Theological Society meeting, and from the five-second conversation we had, he seemed like a very nice guy.

By the way, during this online frenzy, his three-year-old daughter was admitted to the hospital due to seizures. Based on what he shared on social media, she has since been released, and they are home resting. But we ought to keep the main things the main things and pray for him and his family. I can only imagine what he is going through. As a father, there is no worse feeling than seeing your child get sick. And as a content creator, there’s almost nothing worse than having your integrity attacked, especially as someone entering academia and working toward a PhD. I feel for him and am praying for him, as we all should.[1]

But I can’t help thinking about the “why” involved here.

I think the reason I, along with so many others, was tempted to quickly defend Wes wasn’t necessarily because we had solid reasons to believe he was innocent (there simply hadn’t been enough time to allow for a proper investigation!), but because we knew who was raising these allegations and assumed (rightly, I believe) what his intentions were.

Dan is no friend of Christianity and has built a massive following criticizing the reliability and ethics of the Bible. I’m not entirely sure what he believes. Some say he’s an atheist, while others say he’s a Mormon (I believe I recently heard him say he’s a Mormon). Maybe we can roll with “atheistic Mormon,” if that’s even a thing. Calling a spade a spade, he’s a skeptic of Christianity who extends his reach by making sure everyone knows he’s a “Bible scholar” in just about every video.

Christian apologists like myself see right through that. His arguments, many times, simply aren’t sound. And I know of several apologists whom he has blocked after they attempted to engage with his criticisms of their content. That doesn’t earn respect; it diminishes it.

So, why did Dan seek to investigate whether a paper Wes Huff wrote ten years ago was plagiarized? I heard him say he “stumbled upon it,” but that’s hardly convincing. It’s more likely, and this is just my assumption here, that his intention was to “take down” one of the most prominent Christian apologists today, potentially planting seeds of skepticism in the minds of Christians and fans of Wes who view him as some sort of primary authority.

In short, he went after a big name in Christian apologetics, potentially hoping to shake the confidence of those who look to Wes for answers about the truth of Christianity.

On the other hand, why were so many Christian content creators so quick to respond, not only to call out Dan’s likely motives but, even more so, to defend Wes?

For one, many of us saw through Dan’s intentions. But I think there’s a real temptation to “defend your own.” It’s almost tribalistic behavior. We see this all the time in politics, where Trump supporters defend and justify Trump no matter what, even when he’s clearly in the wrong (and vice versa with Democrats).

Thankfully, all the videos I saw openly acknowledged that plagiarism is a serious allegation. But many quickly moved to offering reasons why Wes may have copied material from others or simply tried to sweep the issue under the rug as “no big deal.” In reality, it was simply too early to make such judgments.

Dan’s attempt to discredit Wes, as though doing so would have any bearing on Christianity itself, is misguided. But so is defending Wes merely because of the source of the allegations and because he’s part of “our tribe.” Both impulses miss the mark.

Unfortunately, I’ve already seen plenty of atheists asking, “What will you Christians do now that your leader has been discredited?”

What will we do now? Nothing but pray for Wes.

What I most certainly will not do is think any differently about my faith. And this is what my whole spiel boils down to:

The truth of Christianity does not depend on any person (other than Jesus). Whether that person is an apologist, politician, pastor, scholar, or anyone else, Christianity is not rooted in anybody except Jesus.

So, Dan, if you want to “dismantle” or “discredit” Christianity, I wouldn’t spend so much of your time trying to dig up skeletons in the closets of popular apologists. It might make your already misguided audience proud of you and themselves for getting one up on us “dumb Christians,” but it doesn’t accomplish what you think it does.

Rather than focus on attacking the integrity of individual Christians, deal with the arguments being raised. And actually engage with those who challenge your beliefs rather than blocking them, as you’ve done with so many others.

And for Christians, especially apologists and content creators, let us not be too quick to speak on matters we don’t fully understand. I realize the temptation with social media is to be the first to cover this or that topic, especially when it’s relevant and particularly when “one of our own” is under attack. But we ought to be confident that God will bring about the truth with or without our impulsive reactions. Given enough time, we can make more substantiated judgments about the issue at hand (James 1:19; Proverbs 10:19; 17:27–28; 13:3; 21:23).

And lastly, for those who were really big fans of Wes and feel shaken up by these allegations: I’m glad this happened.

I am, of course, saddened for Wes. But perhaps it is through this difficult situation that the Lord is showing you that your faith is in the wrong place. Your faith should not be rooted in Wes Huff or any other content creator. Your faith is rooted in Jesus.

If Christianity is true, it was true before Wes, it is true while Wes is with us, and it will remain true long after he is gone.

Reevaluate how highly you esteem content creators, and remember the true source of our faith.

While the context is more geared toward Christians choosing to follow one person over another, I think it offers a relevant reminder of where our faith ought to be grounded:

“For when one says, ‘I follow Paul,’ and another, ‘I follow Apollos,’ are you not being merely human? What then is Apollos? What is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, as the Lord assigned to each. I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth. So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth. He who plants and he who waters are one, and each will receive his wages according to his labor. For we are God’s fellow workers. You are God’s field, God’s building” (1 Corinthians 3:4–9 ESV).

May God be with Wes and his family. I pray that his daughter is healed of whatever she is dealing with and that the Lord gives Wes peace that surpasses understanding during this time of trouble.

I also pray that the Lord softens Dan’s heart of stone and leads him to repentance—not for calling out Wes, but for not trusting in the One whose name alone saves. Amen.

Footnotes:

[1] I appreciate Dan for also publicly offering his heartfelt condolences to Wes and his family, apologizing that this happened during this time. Despite differences of belief, it's encouraging to see condolences offered.