There is a version of online discernment ministry - the kind I pioneered - that is genuinely brave, costly, and useful to the church. But there’s another kind, that is none of those things. The scoundrels and charlatans exposed by this useless kind of discernment are almost always already finished by the time the exposés start, the theology that produces them by the score is never criticized, and the discernment minister is a card-carrying member of the same movement he is pretending to police. That’s not discernment. It’s a public relations clean-up operation. It’s Controlled Polemics, only pruning from the heresy bush the heretics who’ve broken bad. It’s just an entertaining post-mortem on an already-cooked career. But that’s not discernment. That’s content creation.
Mike Winger is a California-based YouTube apologist who built an audience of nearly a million subscribers by doing something that these days is rewarded handsomely: producing long, carefully documented, serious-toned video exposés of false teachers and charismatic frauds. His channel, BibleThinker, positions him as the responsible adult in the room, the man willing to do the homework, sit through the hours of footage, compile the timestamps, and deliver a verdict the church was too polite or too compromised to deliver itself. His audience loves him for it. They share his videos with the confidence of people who believe they are watching genuine courage in action.
As one of the pioneers of online discernment ministry, one of those who helped build this genre of polemical theology along with the late Ken Silva of Apprising Ministries and very few others, and as the founder of Pulpit & Pen and Protestia, you’d think I’d be elated to see Winger’s success. It wasn’t that long ago that to do what Winger is now doing would quickly anathematize you to larger evangelicalism and instantly qualify you as the red-headed stepchild of modern Christianity. It was unpopular and thankless, and despite people alleging that you were “attacking people for clicks,” I assure you, back then, those clicks didn’t pay. So, one would be overjoyed that what I helped to start has been met with such great success by so many others.
I am overjoyed by it. I’m ecstatic to see the continued success of Protestia and so many others who are unfraid to lift up false prophets to scorn, to expose charlatans, and to compare what people claim the Bible says to what the Bible actually says. That is good, godly, honorable work, and no matter how many people hate it, it is a good and necessary part of heeding the command to “train the powers of your discernment with constant practice” (Hebrews 5:14).
That isn’t what Winger is doing. Sure, it looks like discernment, becuase goodness knows, there’s a long list of charlatans he’s exposed. But when you look more closely, and see the reason why, it isn’t what you might at first think.
Winger has gone after Benny Hinn, Shawn Bolz, Michael Brown, Todd White, Mike Bickle, Brian Simmons and his The Passion Translation, Che Ahn, and Rick Joyner. That’s quite a list, and they’re all scoundrels, every last one of them. God knows - and so do you - I’ve written about all of them (I hyperlinked them above with articles I’ve written about them), and most of them, more than 15 years ago and long before the scandals that Winger has used to do the same. But Hebrews 5:14 tells us that mature believers have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil. The keyword is "trained," and it implies a willingness to engage with the hard cases before they become easy ones.
If what Christian discernment is, is a post-mortem on the careers of scoundrels, those whom the church is already broadly aware are wolves in sheep’s clothing, then it isn’t truly discernment. It’s just tale-bearing. Discernment is more meaningful than that. Its purpose is to warn fellow Christians, in advance of some obvious public moral or doctrinal failing, so that the individual is to be marked and avoided. Discernment, done well, will always earn far more jeers than applause.
Discernment, for example, was warning the world that Beth Moore was a feminist who inwardly supported female pastors back when Beth Moore was swearing up and down she was not a feminist who supported female pastors, but her trajectory, her actions, and even her words - when listened to carefully - said otherwise. Discernmemt, for example, was warning the world that Russell Moore was a Democrat operative who supported the policies and perspectives of Beltway Leftists, back when he was still denying it and the rest of evangelicalism was calling you a liar. None of it was popular. But it was discernment.
IF YOU PREFER TO LISTEN TO THE PODCAST ON SPOTIFY, CLICK HERE.
For example, Mike Cosper’s greatest contribution to Christendom was, and will remain, his professionally produced, well-received post-mortem on Mark Driscoll’s tenure at Mars Hill, called The Rise and Fall of Mars Hill, released in 2021. It received four out of five mics from Podcast Magazine and was one of the most downloaded podcasts that year. It was seven years after the fact, so while Cosper’s critiques of Driscoll were interesting and entertaining, they did the world absolutely no good whatsoever because the timing was well after Driscoll 2.0 had been reinvented and had already moved on to Arizona. But during Driscoll’s tenure at Mars Hill, Cosper was in tthe Young, Restless, and Reformed ecosystem at Sojourn Church in Louisville and offered not a peep of criticism while Discernment ministers were being castigated and ostracized for warning that Driscoll was wreaking havoc not only in Seattle, but upon the Reformed movement at large.
There are countless examples of this type of autoposy-discernment. After Ravi Zacharias died, countless blogs and podcasts covered his extramarital affairs and womanizing. We were reporting this at Pulpit & Pen years before, and had angry, waving fingers in our face for challenging the Lord’s anointed. The same is true for Jerry Falwell Jr’s misbehavior, Michael Brown’s shenanigans, or any number of similar stories in which the facts were out there, but they had not yet reached a point of critical mass when institutional evangelicalism was forced to address them.
Here’s my point: If the only time the “discernment” ministry exposes a Christian leader is when it’s given no other choice, it’s not bravery, and it’s not discernment: it’s an institutional clean-up operation. More on that in a moment.
MIKE WINGER
Winger claims to be a “soft charismatic,” meaning he is a “Continuationist,” one who believes that the “Apostolic Sign Gifts” continue to the present age. These sign gifts were given by the Holy Ghost to the Apostles and all those upon whom the Apostles laid their hands, to demonstrate and verify their God-given authority to lead the church up until the close of the Christian canon (i.e., the completion of the New Testament Scriptures). The term is taken from 2 Corinthians 12:12.
“The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with utmost patience, with signs and wonders and mighty works.” (2 Corinthians 12:12, ESV)
The Biblical, cessationist argument is simple. There are two eras in the Old Testament - and only two - when “signs, wonders, and mighty deeds” were commonplace and exercised at will by God’s servants; when God handed down His law through Moses, and when God established the prophets, chiefly, Elijah and Elisha. In other words, the authority of those handing down Sacred Writ was demonstrated by the miracles performed by them. And when God delivered the New Testament, the authority of the Apostles was similarly established by miracles. As 2 Corinthians 12:12 explicitly states, the purpose of those miracles was to demonstrate Apostolic authority, and until roughly 1907 (the beginning of the Azusa Street Revival), it was broadly presumed by Christians everywhere that these special gifts were exclusively for that New Testament era, because the canon is closed and God now speaks through His Scripture.
There were exceptions to this historically (the Montanists, the Irvingites, the Quakers, etc.), but in each generation where Continuationism was revived, the rest of the Christian church denounced it as heresy. Today, that fringe belief has become commonplace and has produced the greatest spattering of heretics and scoundrels the church has ever seen. Continuationism is the first and greatest doctrine that has birthed countless cults - Mormonism, Seventh Day Adventists, Christian Science, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Oneness Pentecostals, Jim Jones, David Koresh, et al - all stem from that notion that God is not done delivering divine revelation, and after John the Revelator said ‘amen’ in Revelation 22:21, God might clear his throat and speak again.
But Winger’s views as a “soft charismatic” and those of “hard charismatics,” like Benny Hinn and Kenneth Copeland, are the same, which is the very problem that has led to modern charismaticism becoming a hive of scum and villainy. There is no doctrinal difference. On paper, it’s the same beliefs; the only difference is that one is wearing a seatbelt. The issue with Continuatitonism is not a rogue false prophet now and then arises, like Shawn Bolz getting caught using Facebook to conjure special “words of knowledge.” It’s all false. Every last bit of it. That’s why the true prophets are always just as surprised as the rest of us, or even more so, when someone like Bolz gets caught engaging in trickery. It’s why not a single charismatic prophet saw COVID coming. Their prophecies are less accurate than palm-reading.
Winger treats each of the charlatans he’s “exposed” like an anomaly, some bizarre exception to what is otherwise a solid, biblical movement, and himself as a brave reformer who is excising the occasional wolf in sheep’s clothing from the body of Christ. But none of them - Hinn, Bolz, Brown, Bickel, Ahn et tal - are anomales. None is an exception. They’re the rule. His failure is to treat the disease, which is charismaticism itself.
Take, for example, the Kansas City Prophets, who were the original factory model for everything the charismatic movement has been trying to clean up ever since. Mike Bickle - who has since gone down for sexual abuse and a grooming scandal - organized the group. Paul Cain was the celebrity of the bunch, claiming prophetic gifting stretching back to the 1950s, until he was exposed for alcoholism and homosexuality. Bob Jones told women that God required them to appear before him naked for what he called “spiritual examination,” got caught in 1991, and died in 2014, having never faced anything resembling justice. John Paul Jackson broke away from the group and built a dream-interpretation ministry. Rick Joyner runs MorningStar Ministries and distinguished himself by personally restoring Todd Bentley to ministry after Bentley’s 2008 implosion, which was itself a scandal requiring its own cleanup crew. The entire operation was documented in 1990 by a pastor named Ernie Gruen in a report called “Documentation of the Aberrant Practices and Teachings of Kansas City Fellowship.” That was actual, real discernment. But nobody listened, and thirty years of wreckage followed. Doing a Cosper-style post-mortem on the wreckage isn’t helpful. None of Winger’s exposés addresses the actual disease, but only the symptoms. The disease is charismaticism, and scandal is not the exception. It’s the rule.
Winger doesn’t speak in tongues on camera or claim personal prophecies. He presents himself as sober, careful, and academically responsible. But his continuationism is the same disease as those he critiques. He is not telling charismatics that their theological foundation is rotten. He is telling them their HR department needs better quality control. That’s a distinction with enormous consequences, and it explains everything about which targets end up in his documentaries and which ones never get mentioned at all.
He is also, by any honest accounting, very good at what he does. The production is clean. The argumentation is organized. The tone is measured. He comes across as someone who genuinely grieves the damage these men have done to the church rather than someone enjoying the spectacle. That’s what makes him effective as an agent of Controlled Polemics, because it looks so real.
CONTROLLED POLEMICS
Controlled polemics is demanding accountability while functionally protecting the institution that produces the thing being criticized. It looks like discernment. It uses the vocabulary of discernment, the timestamps, the documentation, and the grave tone of a man who has done his homework and grieves what he found. But its targets are selected not by the severity of the theological danger they represent, but by the expendability of the person relative to the movement’s well-being.
The Controlled Polemicist never touches the institution itself. Controlled Polemics targets the symptom, never the disease. He arrives after the ambulance, documents the crash, and files a report that carefully avoids naming the road conditions that made the crash inevitable. The institution gets to look self-correcting. The theology survives. The machinery keeps running. And the Controlled Polemicist gets a million subscribers for his trouble, because an audience that wants to feel spiritually serious without paying the cost of genuine confrontation will reward the performance every single time.
Every large institutional body develops an immune system. The immune system exists to protect the institution, to identify threats and neutralize them before they endanger the host. What looks from the outside like the charismatic movement holding itself accountable is, on examination, the movement identifying figures who have become liabilities and executing them publicly before their scandals contaminate the broader institution. The theology survives every time. The premises go unexamined. The machinery keeps running. What gets removed is the personnel whose continued presence costs more than their removal.
AN EXAMPLE OF CONTROLLED POLEMICS
Todd Bentley’s ministry imploded in 2008 with a confirmed affair and credible reports of alcohol abuse. Michael Brown, who had championed Bentley and provided his theological cover, at first tried to defend him. But as the scandal worsened and more incriminating details were released, Brown eventually disavowed him once it became unmanageable. There came a point at which holding on to Bentley wasn’t worth it for the charismatic movement. Brown got to look principled. The movement got to look self-correcting. The theology that validated Bentley’s anointing, sent thousands of desperate people to Lakeland in search of miracles, and made the entire circus inevitable remained completely intact. Bentley’s theology wasn’t touched, and that’s both the point and the problem.
In subsequent years, Brown served as the charismatic movement’s chief behavioral apologist, defending the indefensible in a way that sounded credible. I had him on my own podcast, the Polemics Report, during its first season, and he admitted that Benny Hinn had prophesied falsely on numerous occasions, but concluded that Hinn was not a false prophet because “it wasn’t on purpose.” Within a three-year period, Brown had publicly defended Bethel during its “grave-sucking” scandal, its “Christian Tarot Card” scandal, and its “trying to raise the dead baby from the dead” scandal. That was his role in charismaticism: an apologist for the devil.
Brown has been the quintessential clean-up guy for the charismatic movement. The rules are simple. Defend the scoundrel, and rebuke the discerning critics. If the evidence is overwhelming and the public can’t be persuaded, then put a nail in the coffin of their ministry and claim to just be taking the trash out. Call it accountability - but only if and when there’s no other choice.
But Brown’s own history of scandal did not begin with the butt-patting that Winger would castigate him for. It began at Brownsville. In 1997, the Pensacola News Journal ran a four-day investigative series documenting staged healings, false claims of raising the dead, aggressive fundraising, financial opacity, and merchandise profiteering at the Brownsville Revival, where Brown served as head theologian and school president. Brown responded with a furious full-page rebuttal, accusing the paper of misquotes and misrepresentation, and the revival continued unchecked. In 2000, the Assemblies of God demanded financial accountability over a three-million-dollar loan and moved to rein in the school. Brown refused their credentials, cited personal convictions, took his students with him, and launched FIRE School of Ministry on his own terms, accountable to nobody.
It was in those early FIRE years that Brown groomed a young secretary he had asked to call him Dad, holding her hands, kissing her on the lips, and slapping her bottom, while simultaneously conducting a written relationship with a married congregant that Brown himself would later describe as an “emotional affair” and “adultery of the heart,” the notes for which his secretary discovered in his nightstand drawer. For the next two decades, Brown operated as charismania’s in-house apologist, defending Benny Hinn, covering for Todd Bentley, writing an open letter to John MacArthur in 2013 dismissing concerns about the movement’s extreme errors as applying to only a tiny minority, and in 2023 inserting himself as an advisor helping IHOP navigate Mike Bickle’s sexual misconduct scandal while his own identical pattern sat undisclosed.
Winger supported Brown despite all of those personal scandals, back when I was exposing Brown’s long history of charlatanism. Winger promoted Brown’s content to his audience and applauded his work. This was a Continuationist insider relationship between two men operating in the same ecosystem, one of whom had a million subscribers and one of whom needed that kind of platform access.
In November 2024, before the first major reporting had dropped about Brown’s affairs, he went to Winger personally and tried to get him to take his side, telling him the investigation was unjust and that someone had planted false memories in his accuser’s mind. Winger sat on that information for eight months. Why?
In February 2025, when Brown’s ministry suspended his work pending a third-party investigation, Winger quietly removed an old interview he had conducted with Brown from his channel and issued a carefully neutral public statement saying he currently had nothing to offer either in Brown’s defense or in support of the accusation. He was waiting to see which way the wind blew. Over the following months, Brown rejected the Firefly investigation findings, Brown’s elders accused his victims of operating with a “spirit of Jezebel,” and Brown returned to public ministry anyway.
Only after all of that had played out, only after Firefly’s conclusions were public, the cover-up fully documented, and only after Brown’s defenders were entirely discredited, did Winger begin editing his three-and-a-half-hour documentary and disclose the November manipulation attempt for the first time. He sat on it for eight months. The documentary arrived after the cover-up was already exposed, after Brown had no credible defenders left, and after the cost of continued silence had finally exceeded the cost of speaking out.
That is not discernment exercised at personal cost. That is a man who waited until the math changed and then called it discernment. This is Controlled Polemics in operation. It finds the wounded and finishes them. It’s public relations, disguised as discernment.
THE WINGER FILE
Winger is not a disinterested party in Charismania. He is a franchise stakeholder performing quality control, and that’s why he criticizes whom he does, when he does. It’s not about cleansing the church. It’s about public relations for his specific wing.
Let’s look at Winger’s target list:
Benny Hinn, a 4-hour review in 2024. Hinn has been a punchline for thirty years and has no serious defenders anywhere in evangelical life. The documentary cost Winger nothing because Hinn was already finished.
Shawn Bolz, a six-hour review in January of this year. Protestia had been documenting Bolz as a fraud for years before that video was published. The major charismatic networks had already quietly distanced themselves from Bolz. He was a liability the movement had decided to discard, and Winger showed up to film the burial and take credit for the funeral.
Brian Simmons and the Passion Translation, targeted since 2018, were already widely mocked as a charismatic vanity project before Winger weighed in.
Michael Brown in 2025, after every exhausted ounce of institutional capital had been spent defending him, only after Brown had already served his purpose and become a liability to the charismatic movement.
The theological claim that God continues delivering authoritative revelation outside the closed canon of Scripture, which is the founding principle of the entire charismatic movement and the source of its rot and corruption, is untouched by Winger. Ditto for Joel Osteen, of whom Winger once said, “He does seem to proclaim the true gospel of Christ.” The only charlatans Winger addresses are those whose continued presence damages Charismaticism. It’s a clean-up operation.
TREAT THE SYMPTOM, MANAGE THE DISEASE
The problem with charismaticism is not that it occasionally produces a Shawn Bolz or a Benny Hinn or a Todd Bentley. The problem is that it cannot help but produce them, because the theological premise at the center of the movement demands it. When you build a religion around the claim that God continues to speak authoritatively outside of Scripture, that living men carry a prophetic anointing, that supernatural gifts of healing, tongues, and divine knowledge are available to those with sufficient faith and proper spiritual positioning, you have not built a church. You have built a market. You have created an apparatus that rewards the most dramatic claims, elevates the most convincing performers, and has no doctrinal immune system against fraud because fraud and genuine charismatic ministry are, by the movement’s own operating premises, indistinguishable. The false prophet and the real one look identical from the outside, and according to the theology, the only way to tell them apart is the “fruit,” which means the only accountability mechanism available is watching what happens after the fact, which is exactly the accountability mechanism Winger provides, and exactly why it changes nothing
This is why Winger’s entire operation is a facade. He is a Continuationist performing quality control on Charismaticism, which is the theological equivalent of a fish complaining about the water. Every charlatan he has documented is a direct and inevitable product of the theological system he shares with them. The difference between Mike Winger and Benny Hinn is not doctrine. It is degree. Both men believe God continues to speak beyond Scripture. Both men believe the sign gifts remain operative. Both men operate inside a framework that has no principled basis for distinguishing a genuine word of knowledge from a fabricated one, a legitimate healing from a staged one, a true prophet from a false one, except after sufficient time has passed for the damage to become undeniable. Winger’s documentaries are causing damage that is becoming undeniable. They are the predictable wreckage of a theology he has never once been willing to name as the cause. Until he does, every six-hour exposé he produces is just a longer version of mopping the floor while leaving the tap running.
CLICK DISCERNMENT
There is another problem with Winger’s target list beyond the timing. Every name on that list is either a legitimate cartoon or, at the least, their enemies project them to be. What they have in common is that they are all already under a social media dogpile. Winger’s discernment hitlist appears to be whoever evangelicals are piling up on today. Whoever the whipping boy is this week, Winger is bound to put out a video to criticize.
Admittedly, that’s something the typical onlooker probably doesn’t notice. But when you’ve spent 15 years as Polemics Santa, criticizing people atop the shoulders of evangelicals and not under their boots - and have the scars to show it - you notice the lack of courage in criticizing those whom the crowd has already set itself against.
When I first started criticizing Russell Moore, he was a crowd favorite, and I was warned it would “ruin your credibility.” When I first alleged that Mohler was part of the Social Justice problem rather than the solution, I was looked at as though I came from another planet. When I first started criticizing Thabiti Anyabwile and named him as a Black Liberation theologican and Cultural Marxist, it was anything but crowd-pleasing. When I called Jackie Hill Perry a “militant, butch, black woman,” I woke up to a call to boycott Pulpit & Pen by the vice president of my own denomination. Winger is almost exactly the opposite. He looks at who the crowd is already pelting with rotten fruit, jumps to the front of the crowd, and then lobbs a tomato.
There are two examples of this that I’ll briefly give.
The first is Greg Locke. Locke is a Tennessee pastor who made public accusations in 2021 that Kenneth Copeland and Joel Osteen are “demon-possessed pedophiles” (I’ve heard crazier ideas) and claimed he had evidence for this. I don’t think Locke is lying, per se, because those claims were shopped to me at Pulpit & Pen a year prior and appear to have been circulating. I recognized them for what they were at the time, which was an unsustained rumor, asked for evidence, and it wasn’t forthcoming to my satisfaction. If you ever thought Pulpit & Pen or Protestia reported salacious things, you should have seen what we didn’t print.
Winger forwarded the clip to a she-devil, man-hating scandal-monger named Julie Roys (who herself admitted to grooming a lesbian teenager for an improper relationship whilst her youth leader), gave it to the FBI, and produced a 13-minute video about a five year-old sermon excerpt on the importance of evidentiary standards and the gravity of unsubstantiated accusations, produced safely behind a camera with full editorial control and no risk of interruption. This is how the man spends his time. It’s not serious discernment. It’s clickbait to the highest order. Winger has spent years treating Locke as a punchline, quote-tweeting a Protestia report about Locke’s 2032 presidential speculation with “We can get ahead of this thing by starting a ‘Never Locke’ movement.” He saw a cheap shot and took it. The church doesn’t need that masquerading as a serious discernment ministry, because it isn’t.
The second is Joel Webbon. After the assassination of Charlie Kirk, Webbon made a pointed but precise statement that if your pastor addressed George Floyd’s death from the pulpit but refused to say a word about Kirk’s assassination, that disparity was itself a red flag worth taking seriously, possibly worth leaving over. It was a statement about pastoral priorities and ideological capture, not a demand that every pastor hold a Kirk memorial service. Winger publicly mischaracterized it as Webbon telling people to leave their church if the pastor didn’t discuss the Kirk assassination, stripped it of its comparative logic, and used Webbon as his cautionary example of Christian nationalist extremism. It was, yet again, an easy, cheap shot for clicks.
Winger is not engaging in actual discernment. He is engaging in content production aimed at an audience that wants to feel theologically sophisticated by watching someone mock people they already mock. It is the Christian equivalent of a political commentator doing a hit piece on a candidate who just lost by forty points. The courage involved is exactly zero. If Winger is the serious theological heavyweight his audience believes him to be, the question worth asking is why he has never produced a single video on Gavin Ortlund, a man with real institutional credibility, a Christianity Today Book of the Year award, and a growing platform who has argued that Catholics are Christians, promoted the secular climate change agenda from a Christian pulpit, denied a global flood, and is methodically positioning himself as the next Tim Keller for a generation of young evangelicals who do not know what Tim Keller cost the church. Ortlund has defenders. Ortlund has platforms. Ortlund has the institutional weight of Big Eva behind him and a family name that opens every door in respectable evangelical circles. That is a real target. That is a fight that would cost something. Winger has never shown up for it, because entertainment discernment only works on cartoons, and Ortlund is not a cartoon.
Compare Winger’s hit-list to Protestia’s: Doug Wilson, Gavin Ortlund, Rachel Denhollander, Wes Huff, Kirk Cameron, Alistair Begg, John Piper, Jeff Iorg, Jason Whitlock, Tim Keller. To be clear, Protestia hasn’t anathematized all of the above to hell, but they have routinely done something Winger doesn’t: criticize the fan favorites when they need to be criticized. That’s courage. And it’s necessary.
And that is just one name from outside his own tradition. If Winger wanted to stay within charismania and find targets with actual defenders, the buffet would remain generously stocked. There are prosperity gospel preachers with nine-figure media empires who have taught demonstrable Christological heresy from their platforms for decades and never once appeared in a Winger documentary. There are worship leaders with serious documented allegations of spiritual abuse whose ministries continue operating at full capacity while Winger’s cameras stay pointed elsewhere. And above all there is the theological architecture of the New Apostolic Reformation itself - the claim that God has restored the governing offices of apostle and prophet to the earth, that these men carry binding spiritual authority over regions and nations, and that their words carry the weight of divine revelation - which is the single most dangerous idea currently operating under the Christian banner in America and which Winger has never once addressed as a primary target. He documents the fruit while carefully never touching the root, because the root is his root too, and pulling it would bring down the tree on which he has built his platform.
THE ONLY DISCERNMENT THAT MATTERS
Controlled Polemics does not produce accountability for its own architects. It produces accountability for expendable personnel. The cardinals are never on the hit list. The foot soldiers take the fall. The institution absorbs the scandal, releases a statement, and keeps operating. This is the mechanism Winger runs for charismania. The Bolzes get six hours. The Browns get a documentary after they have already been neutralized. The theology that manufactures all of the charlatans gets a pass indefinitely, because the theology is the product, and the product must be protected.
Real discernment names the disease, and not just the symptoms. It addresses the charlatans long before their careers already have one foot in the grave, and takes brave stances that will most often make the crowd angry rather than cheer. I’ve never seen Winger take a single polemical stance that wouldn’t poll well, and if it polls well, it’s probably not true discernment at all.
If you appreciate my work, grab a premium subscription to access exclusive content, article PDFs, the full archives, the ebooks, and more. Act now and get a HUGE 40% discount.
If you don’t do subscriptions, consider a one-time gift of your choosing by clicking here.
