Dinesh D'Souza highlights Marvin Olasky's Christian fidelity...

Back in the eighties, New York State's King's College (not to be confused with King's in Wilkes-Barre or Cambridge, nor King in Tennessee) invited Dad to consider serving as its president. Dad declined the kind invitation and since then I've kept an eye on King's.

In the early nineties, King's went through bankruptcy. Later at the turn of the millenium, Campus Crusade for Christ International (recently rebranded as "Cru") infused cash into King's and moved it to the Empire State Building. They brought Marvin Olasky in as Provost and a couple years ago a newly-minted Ph.D. from Clearnote Church, Bloomington saw these beginnings as auspicious and took a position on King's faculty.

Then came a sad day. King's drank the Kool-Aid and hired one of the more high profile self-promoters among American civic religionists, Dinesh D'Souza, as their president. Declares the New York Times, it was a "canny choice."

Most moths don't live to tell you that bright lights burn. We'll all wait to see if King's College survives the Klieg lights it chose.

Two days ago, World reported the married D'Souza has been out on the Evangelical conference circuit accompanied by a 29 year old woman he introduces as his "fiancé." Speaking at First Baptist North Church in Spartanburg, SC, alongside Cru's Josh McDowel...l a month ago, conference organizers were scandalized by D'Souza's immoral conduct and spoke to him about it. Still married to his wife of twenty years, D'Souza saw nothing wrong with travelling with a woman not his wife, introducing her as the woman he is engaged to marry and checking in and out of the same hotel with her at his side.

When World reported this scandal, D'Souza resigned from King's and issued a vicious attack on World and Marvin Olasky.

As D'Souza sees it, he's justified travelling with a woman other than his wife because his wife refused to accompany him when he moved to take King's presidency, he informed the chairman of King's board of trustees of the separation two years ago when he took on King's presidency, he began work on divorce papers two weeks ago, and so on.

As he resigned, D'Souza put on pitch-perfect New Yorker chutzpah, whining, "Denise and I were trying to do the right thing. I had no idea that it is considered wrong in Christian circles to be engaged prior to being divorced...." (Denise is D'Souza's fiancé.)

For many years D'Souza was a Roman Catholic so we can assume he knows Jesus said:

...whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery. - Matthew 19:9

Cru hired him, so we can assume D'Souza knows the Biblical command:

Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. Give no offense either to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God; just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit but the profit of the many, so that they may be saved. - 1Corinthians 10:31-33

Abstain from all appearance of evil. - 1Thessalonians 5:22

The Biblical clarity of God's Moral Law of marriage has prevailed from before the Fall in the perfection of the Garden of Eden down to this very day. But here is the president of a Cru-funded Christian college, Dinesh D'Souza, sniveling that he had "no idea that it is considered wrong in Christian circles [for a married man] to be engaged" to a woman other than his wife.

This is a bald-faced lie and it's almost worse than D'Souza's public immorality because it indicates the depths to which we Evangelicals have sunk in our serial-monogamy polygamous world. D'Souza resigned, but look at his public self-justification and it's clear he's no dummy about what plays in Peoria. If you doubt it, google the story and take a look at the many comments defending D'Souza and attacking World for running the story.

Few unbelievers would talk as if it's acceptable to have lunch alone, ride in a car alone, and travel alone with a woman they introduce as their "fiancé" while they're married to another woman. Such conduct is shameful even among men claiming no Christian faith! Many unbelievers work hard to honor their marriage vows and protect their marriage. And if the business they work for requires them to eat and travel and stay at a hotel alone with a woman, they would find a way around or complain about such compromising situations, or they would begin to look for another job.

And this would be true for men who have absolutely no romantic interest in the woman they're eating and travelling and hoteling with.

Yet here we have a married man who claims Evangelical Christian faith, is the president of a Cru college, and proudly declares this woman his "fiancé."

Imagine the damage to the Glorious Name of our beloved Lord Jesus Christ had the good folks at World not reported this scandal. Riding the wave of his quite-successful documentary screed attacking President Barack Obama, 2016: Obama's America, D'Souza would continue to preach to the Evangelical choir as president of Cru's King's College while unbelievers watched his immorality and made snide remarks about the shameful rutting of Evangelical celebrities.

It's Focus on the Family/Family Research Council's 1999 Gary Bauer scandal all over again, only this time it's even more bodacious and salacious.

D'Souza is defending his immorality by accusing World of "libel." Puffing his chest way out, he declares he and his fiancé "were not having an affair."

Ruminate on that one for a while. He's married, he's travelling alone with her, she's his fiancé, but they're not having an affair! Could anyone other than an Evangelical believe such a lie?

The razor D'Souza's parsing this thing with is cutting a line no one could find with a microscope. It boggles the mind. It turns the face pink. It produces catcalls and guffaws.

Marvin Olasky was no fool. When D'Souza was hired, he saw the flame, knew it was hot and would burn, so he left King's and moved to Asheville, North Carolina, where he continued his main gig as editor in chief at World. Two years later, the trustees of King's College would do well to plead with him to come back to New York City and lead King's College until it has some Christian gravitas, some track record of feet-anchored-firmly-to-the-ground Christian wisdom in its hires, and certainly a new chairman of the board of trustees who knows enough to move on to another candidate when the chosen one confesses that he and his wife have broken their vows.

For D'Souza to blame the scandal on World and accuse my good friend Marvin Olasky of exposing the sin simply out of personal spite is disgusting. Marvin is faithfully married to the love of his life, Susan; he's demonstrated great humility and meekness under many vicious public attacks over the decades; I've privately watched him through several of those attacks and it's been clear to me that jealousy and spite are foreign to his character.

All of us should speak up in defense of World and Marvin Olasky.

They have honored the Name of Christ by this courageous action. They knew full well they would be attacked for it, yet they did their duty and have defended the honor of our Lord and His Church.

May God have mercy on Dinesh and Dixie D'Souza, and D'Sousa's ex-fiancé, Denise.

Tim Bayly

Tim serves Clearnote Church, Bloomington, Indiana. He and Mary Lee have five children and fifteen grandchildren.


I have discussed this with others, but I think we have to show care here.  If we believe (as I do) that marriage is indissoluble then Dinesh did err.  I don't think the State's recognition of the dissolution matters at all at this point (given the rampant promotion of pseudogamy).

However, his claim of _abandonment_ is a serious charge.  Traditionally a woman who abandoned her husband because she didn't like the move would be persona non gratia in all of the right circles.  That would include serious church sanction.  I'd rather hang them both.


Did not Dinesh abandon his wife? He is the one that moved away, right? 

I genuinely thought that this post was satire until about halfway through. Wow. It's hard to believe. It's 1 Corinthians all over again--sexual immorality in the church, but a kind that makes even pagans blush.

I've seen some argue that his wife had a duty to follow him wherever he went, period. I'm not so sure about that.

I'm with Mike Foster on who abandoned whom.

No, he may be at fault but a wife who refuses to accompany her husband, all things being equal, is in that regard the guilty party.

I hope that the following statement does justice to both Tim's perspective as well as Carl's:  "Where your treasure is, there your heart will be also."

Dinesh is down on three counts:

(1) Wanting to have a "mere christianity"

(2) Ignoring the sacrifices Paul calls us to make when we're married

(3) Deceiving others into believing that his words and presence are worth $10K an appearance.

Can you expand on what you mean by number two?

David, regarding Mark's comment, it's at least a reasonable interpretation of the part of 1 Cor. 7 where Paul notes that a married man is interested in pleasing his wife--so there is at least some tension about who abandoned who in the case of D'Souza and his wife. 

My thought is that I don't know who abandoned who, but for sure King's needs to come to grips with the fact that a professorial candidate who is on the outs with his wife--whoever is at fault--needs to repair the marriage first.  How many there did not deal with this?

I was responding within the context of your earlier comment when you said, "a wife who refuses to accompany her husband, all things being equal, is in that regard the guilty party". 

If you are correct that she refused to accompany him [the implication here sounds like you're saying she wouldn't accompany him to King's College], then I would say that it sure sounds like such a man has valued his job/"ministry" over his wife.  At the least it sounds like there were concerns between Dinesh and Dixie that Dinesh may not have properly addressed in his attempt/desire to do "ministry".

However, after re-reading the Fox News article that Tim linked, I see that Dinesh doesn't clearly state that the reason she wanted a divorce was because he had accepted a position to King's College.  So, I retract #2 until this issue is verified.

Even after retracting #2, there is still a sense of bewilderment on my part:  how can a group of people (e.g. King's and the Baptist church where the conference was held) who claim to love Christ and follow His word, consider what Dinesh was doing "ministry", especially given the contex of his marriage difficulties? 

I remember a great example of a similar situation when I was in France - of all places. A church member was teaching the "youth" in our church.  He stepped down from leadership when he and his wife started having difficulties because he knew he could not provided the proper kind of leadership and example to the youth in a context where he and his wife needed to sort out their problems.  I believe this is the kind of godly example Dinesh should have presented, especially if he really wants to do Christian ministry in a way that honors and glorifies God's Name.

Consequently, I think the most important and pressing issue to deal with is not that Dinesh can call what he's doing "ministry" when he and his wife are having marriage problems.  The issue to deal with is why are others, supposedly Christian leaders, calling what he's doing "Christian ministry" given the problems in his marriage.

I believe this is the kool-aid that we've drunk:  that we some how think a greater celebrity status is worth more than a man who truly knows God. 

Doesn't this show the treasure of our hearts?

Our only hope is the fact that Christ said the "gates of hell will not prevail" as He built His church.


I don't disagree with the part about what King's needs to consider but what you seem to be proposing is that a wife has a veto on a husband's authority as to occupation and residence.  A good husband does not disregard his wife's feelings and thoughts on those topics but isn't ruled by them either.  There are appropriate grounds for making a decision which is counter to those feelings just as there are inappropriate grounds. 

There are lots of grounds for piling on D'Souza but moving because his wife preferred not to come with him is not definitively one of them. 

The issue to deal with is why are others, supposedly Christian leaders, calling what he's doing "Christian ministry" given the problems in his marriage.

Even more to the point why would you hire a man who does not understand any historical Christian teaching on either marriage or divorce (or is too dishonest to admit he understands).

If your wife won't come with you, then don't go. She may be wrong in not following her husband's lead, and she may even have the wrong motives for not coming, but it is not good for a man and woman who are married to be separated, as Paul discusses in I Cor. 7. The husband is the head of the household, and you don't leave your wife behind for a promotion and in any meaningful sense continue to function as a husband when you are your wife are not even living under the same roof.

If your wife won't come, and there is that much division in your household, then that husband has something of greater importance to the kingdom of God to work on besides running a college.

To me, this is like David being on the roof when he should have been with his men at the battle. The compromise began long before he spotted Bathsheba taking a skinny dip. Dinesh should've been with his wife, working with her and their pastor to mend whatever was and is ailing in that relationship.

To me, this is like David being on the roof when he should have been with his men at the battle.

A man who is in battle is away from his wife.  You have a point, if the wife is in such rebellion that she won't accompany her husband there are serious problems.

Right! Kind of ironic, but the point I was making, which I think you picked up on, is that when we are not where God wants us to be, this represents a compromise, one which might set us up for a further slide. We fail to carry out our duties, as commanded by God, and this leads to yet unforeseen temptations which our heart is not prepared to resist.

Someone once told me when I was young that the lure of adultery begins much sooner than the rendezvous in the bedroom. It starts with a wandering mind, then looking, then maybe ending up in social situations which might otherwise look innocent, but where your motives are not pure and your choices are therefore not wise. It is the opposite of feet that run from temptation.

I'm in academics, and so I understand on a personal level the lure of being called to come and run a program. It is much harder to resist than someone not involved in this niche might understand. That is why my wife and I have already discussed one with another that I am not going to take a job, no matter how wonderful from an earthly perspective, where my wife is not in agreement about the move. Of course, the rub is whether we will be faithful to follow through with this, but I pray we will.

That is why my wife and I have already discussed one with another that I am not going to take a job, no matter how wonderful from an earthly perspective, where my wife is not in agreement about the move.

To be honest that sounds like an abdication of responsibility.

Actually, I'm not piling on D'Souza as much as I am on King's.  When marriage breaks down, husbands do all kinds of stupid things--yes, it's still sin, but it's a sin clouded by lost love.  I've seen it happen, and way too often.

King's, on the other hand, as a theoretically Christian college, was engaging with D'Souza without the cloud of lost love to confuse things, and it appears they bobbled this badly, not confronting D'Souza about this two years ago.

Or, for that matter, they simply didn't address the issue that a recent convert from Catholicism just might not be the person to place in a position of high authority in evangelicalism.  As our host notes, it's a MESS for King's.

And a wife's veto power?  Perhaps we ought to ask ourselves instead whether King's, knowing they had a job candidate whose wife didn't support him enough to move to New York, ought to have asked whether D'Souza actually had the leadership qualities they desired.

I am noticing here, for what it's worth, that I am placing a lot of responsibility on the "lower leaders" and "followers" in an institution to police themselves.  I'd love to hear from you, David, or our gracious hosts on this matter. 

Hardly. I don't cease being the head of my household, and I don't abdicate anything related to that duty, by wanting my wife to be comfortable with a move that affects the home schooling of our children, leaving our current church family, a move that affects our support network, extended family, and a whole host of other factors. If you want to read my previous post as wringing my hands and asking her what to do, then you are reading into what I wrote.

I have the deciding the vote, but I am sure not going to leave my wife in town A while doing "the Lord's work" in town B. Even if in that situation my wife was being unsubmissive, the problem in my marriage represented by this disagreement is not going to be improved upon with me being absent.

Anyway, it sounds like Dinesh needs to head home and mend his relationship with wife, with the guidance of his church elders, and to spend less time talking about Obama.

You know what?  We don't know. We just don't. At least, I don't. You never really know what is going on in someone else's marriage.

Do we know that Dinesh's wife didn't cheat on him?  No, we don't. She may have, and he may not be saying so, for any number of reasons. You may be quoting Jesus at him, and he may be thinking "yeah, I agree."

Do we know who left who, and who was "at fault"?  No. She may have told him to get out, and good riddance. Heck, she may have attacked him with a frying pan.

She may have had good reasons, and she may not have. She may have had imaginary reasons (mentally ill).  We ...  just ... don't ... know.

He *may* be a huge jerk and clearly in sin - this public narrative being built may be all true. Or, he may not. 


While there are details we do not know, we know that if you are having marital problems, you need to be home working on them with your spouse, as much as is able with you. There was also a recent article where Dinesh was quoted as saying this divorce was begun two years ago with a lawyer in San Diego. If that quotation is accurate, that seems pretty strange.

His defense that he didn't realize it was wrong to be engaged and married to two different women simultaneously is too much. This is so naive as to be culpable, if not beyond credulity for a public Christian figure.

Somebody please page Jay Adams.

Because of the above discussion, I want to reiterate my point about the D'Souzas. While Dinesh D'Souza was engaged and traveling with Denise, he was married to Dixie. He and Dixie had vowed to cleave only to one another until death and they were estranged. That's all we need to know to condemn the husband, wife, and girlfriend. They're all parties to this shame. The husband has authority over his wife's body, the wife has authority over her husband's body, but neither of them has been exercising that authority.

In such cases it is the duty of the civil and ecclesiastical courts of jurisdiction to make judgments concerning who properly bears what proportion of the blame. Did one, both, or neither of them commit adultery? Did one, both, or neither of them abandon the other? And in the case of the ecclesiastical court, do one, both, or neither of them evidence Christian faith?

Meanwhile they both live in a steady state of the violation of their marriage vows.

After two years of estrangement and no mention of any step taken by any of the parties involved to protect the D'Souza's marriage by formally appealing to the courts of jurisdiction, no innocence exists. Husband, wife, girlfriend, King's College trustees and faculty members, church elders and pastors and deacons and older women and members, churches and parachurch organizations who turned a blind eye while D'Souza preached or lectured, the D'Souzas' extended family members and friends are all parties to this destruction of a marriage, the fundamental unit of society.

All those who knew of the sin and refused to address it formally and publicly in order to protect the Name of Jesus--all of them properly bear the shame for the breaking the D'Souzas' vows. The D'Souzas' living situation itself has long been the in flagrante delicto.

Very sad.

As to the question of wives following husbands and husbands following wives for job changes, when a Christian couple arrives at an impasse over such matters, it's their privilege to take the division to their elders for adjudication. It's not the job of church members, but officers, to decide such matters. But today no one has the slightest expectation that church pastors and elders are willing to make the judgments necessary to true pastoral care, and so these things are relegated to gossip and the court of public opinion.

David Stewart has properly pointed out that we are ignorant of most of the details of this very public scandal. But not all the details.

We know the civil courts have made a principle out of their abdication of the duty of guarding the fundamental unit of society and vows made to the Lord God Almighty for decades now through the adoption of no-faul divorce legislation. We know in this case that the court(s) of jurisdiction of the Church of Jesus Christ have been silent when they ought to have spoken. We know the Board of Trustees of King College has not just tolerated, but enabled this very public scandal. We know Mr. and Mrs. Dinesh D'Souza have been living in sin without one another. We know Denise is a seductress.

Really, the fact that the authorities God has appointed for the punishment of wrong have done nothing to protect this marriage is the greatest scandal of all. I'd like to see World do another article on who knew what, when, where and how on the King's College board of trustees; who knew what, when, where, and how in the D'Souza's church or churches; and so on. It's almost immaterial what they knew about Dixie. The real culprits of the destruction of the D'Souzas' home are their civil and ecclesiastical officers who turned a blind eye and, when the scandal went public two years ago, refused to render and proclaim judgments against them.

Which is to say the D'Souzas are unchurched. Matter of fact, we're all unchurched, and intentionally so. The consistory records of Calvin's Genevan church ministry are filled with the D'Souzas' violations of their marriage vows. Yet today, Reformed churches make a principle out of withholding judgment, robbing the souls they've vowed to guard and protect of the very guardianship and protection at the heart of brotherly love and duty within the New Jerusalem who is our Mother.

This glorious institution founded by our Lord is universally recognized as so critical to Christian faith and life that, outside it, ordinarily there is no possibility of salvation, and yet we have conspired together to make a principle of its death.


Spot on.

 "We know Dixie is a seductress."

You mean Denise?

According to this Christianity Today article


Mr. and Mrs. D'Souza attended a Calvary Chapel church in San Diego. In that case, the D'Souza family has always been unchurched. Since Calvary Chapel churches have no membership, our Session regards them as not maintaining Word and Sacraments in fundamental integrity (BCO 2-2) and would warn any member leaving our church for a Calvary Chapel (BCO  38-3b).

I am an alumni of TKC, class of '71.  When I heard that Dinesh D'Souza was to be made President of our school, I was heartsick.  In the reports and articles regarding his appointment, it was not clear that D'Souza had made a clean break with Roman Catholicism.  I felt that D'Souza was getting the nod because of his long-term involvement in the conservative movement.  I am as far Right as you can find, but I believe that an Evangelical college should get an Evangelical president.  If he is politically conservative, then that is icing on the cake.  I spoke with many of my fellow TKC alumni, and they voiced similar concerns.

I hope that the TKC administration learns its lesson here.  Is it too late to get Marvin Olasky in the top spot?



Maybe it's just because I've been in a situation where I couldn't defend myself without hurting or embarrassing someone else that I strongly urge caution here.

Do we know that he is in such a situation?  No ... and neither did anyone (but a very few) know that about me. We don't know that he isn't, either.

I like reading political blogs, and D'Souza shows up there as author of many essays. Most recently, I connect him with the film Obama 2016.  I did not know anything about him beyond that.


 Take a look at the comments in the World Magazine article at:


  Those comments are the biggest story here. A married man proudly  and publicly announces a romance at a conference to which he has brought  his girlfriend.* A magazine reports it.  Its readers then bitterly attack the magazine on the grounds that reporting such things is unchristian and charge that the magazine must have sinister motives. The attitude of those readers is the big story. It is a chilling sign of the state of Christianity in America.

And now in these comments people are quibbling about whether the man's wife was at fault. Suppose she was. Even if you think that desertion is grounds for divorce, the fact is that Mr. D'Souza did *not* divorce her. He is still married. 

How can his liason possibly be excused, even if they sleep in separate beds?

*"Romance" is an appropriate way to describe what happens before engagement,  as is    "girlfriend" for the woman you are engaged to. (Unless the engagement was arranged by his parents, which seems unlikely.)

Thanks--I've made the correction.

Well said. The seriousness of Eve eating the fruit pales in comparison with the seriousness of Adam doing so. Similarly, whether or not Mrs. D'Souza should have moved along with her husband pales in comparison to how he retaliated.

On another note, discussions of "My Plan for When I Make an Important Career Decision, but My Wife Disagrees" sound a bit like "My Plan for When I Take an Important Doctrinal Stand and My Church Disagrees." They are both possibilities that, depending on circumstances, may warrant either a principled stand or a bit of self-sacrifice. Sure, it's good to have some general guidelines beforehand, but something about sacrificing the normal on the altar of the abnormal, perhaps?

Why don't you mention that Olasky is also divorced?? doesn't that make him also guilty of the things D'Souza did???

Also, most people at the King's College were...

[NOTE FROM TIM BAYLY: I've removed the rest of this comment because it's the sort of claim that should only be made by someone who identifies himself, publicly. So if you'd like to post it again with your real verifiable name, please do so.] 

Dear Susanne,

Divorce is not the issue. Divorce in the case of adultery or abandonment by an unbeliever is Biblical.


For the record...

Kings College was an institution existing in NYC by Royal Charter prior to the Revolution.  It moved due to the hostilities to Halifax, NS.  A replacement college, called Columbia was begun to replace the now missing college.

Since both Kings and Columbia still exist, it is more that a bit odd to see how many institutions claim the name.

It is a bit like me manufacturing go-carts in my garage and slapping the name FORD on them.  Would anyone consider anything I said or did after that seriously?

Marvin did a grave injustice to the facts surrounding Dinesh's circumstances and facts.  Marvin got it all WRONG! Yes, the facts will come out and the evidence to support the facts.  God will be the judge for Marvin and as far as Dinesh, there are a multitude of biblical scriptures which releases Dinesh from from the vow of marriage when a wife has an affair and leaves not only the husband but the  daughter as well.  The wife did not simply wish to not follow Dinesh, the wife left Dinesh for another man.  I have witnessed Dixe and this man together with my own eyes countless times.  Dixie was having an affair with a man she met in April of 2010.  Dinesh did not know about the affair and only upon moving to New York was he presented with this information.  She not only did not follow him , but any rumor for requesting Dinesh return to home on the west coast is complete rubish becasue she was not to be found in her house on the west coast.  Marvin, granted if you got the story correct and if you had the correct facts then your report would have been an honorable story.  Unfortunately this story will question you and the purpose of your story.

Add new comment