Joe Boot is a famous Reformed theologian of the one-kingdom theonomic variety. He is the head of the Ezra Institute and one of the “collaborators” (their words) behind the Antioch Declaration, which appears to be a defining moment in what has been labeled Woke Wars II. Underlying the Antioch Declaration is the controversial decision to name Tobias Riemenschneider as a collaborator while he has been exposed for engaging in a campaign to discredit Pastor Joel Webbon.
The campaign consisted of Riemenschneider launching a podcast that attacked Joel Webbon on Eschatology Matters that was swiftly removed because it was deemed sladerous by the channel that broadcasted it. Since then a full Zoom call has been leaked exonerating Joel Webbon and providing evidence two specific lies Riemenschneider told about Webbon in his podcast.
One thing that’s apparent is that Tobias Riemenschneider did not act alone, a fact made evident by Riemenschneider’s claims that “big names” wanted him to talk about Joel Webbon and these same big names defending him.
James White has been the most prominent defender of Riemenschneider yelling at the internet to “sit down, shut up” and wait for Riemenschnerider’s response to the evidence against him (or an apology that would be greatly appreciated). However, Riemenschneider has only demanded ecclesiastical tribunals while promising to release counterevidence (private text messages) which have been weeks forthcoming.
Tobias Riemenschneider, on the Zoom call, struggle-sessioned Joel Webbon about associating with Stephen Wolfe, the author of The Case For Christian Nationalism over Joe Boot. Evidently, Joe Boot and the Ezra Institute have come to his aid. The Ezra Institute gave a statement on the issue.
The Ezra Institute neither governs nor controls the actions of any of its many volunteer Fellows in North America and Europe, nor are any of our Fellows authorized to speak formally on Ezra’s behalf. The opinions and views of our various Fellows are not necessarily the views of the Ezra Institute.
The Ezra Institute became aware of this now public controversy with the release of a podcast by pastor Joel Webbon which concerned a sensitive private pastoral situation involving a member (in pastor Riemenschneider’s case a former member) of their respective churches. Among other things that are now a matter of public record, pastor Webbon’s podcast attested to specific words, actions and intentions on the part of pastor Riemenschneider, raised questions about the rationality and stability of his thinking, and made distinctive claims about pastor Riemenschneider’s future legacy. The Ezra Institute recognizes the potential of this podcast to impact the reputation of Pastor Riemenschneider and those with whom he is associated.
Pastor Riemenschneider responded to the specific issues raised by releasing a statement in his own defence on the Eschatology Matters podcast ministry platform. The Ezra Institute did not offer or provide our platform for this response. The Ezra Institute is not authorized by any of its Fellows to interfere in their personal pastoral disputes, nor to speak on their behalf. This falls outside the interest, goals, objects and mission of the Ezra Institute. Among other things that are now a matter of public record, Pastor Riemenschneider’s Podcast challenged the account of events related by pastor Webbon and raised various questions about the issues dividing them. The Ezra Institute recognizes the potential of this podcast to impact the reputation of pastor Joel Webbon and those with whom he is associated.
It would have been our desire that the private pastoral situation and identity of those involved had remained a private disagreement among the Christian pastors and elders concerned. However, once one fulsome account became widely publicized, because of his biblical conviction that God’s law gives everyone the right to testify on their own behalf, respond to public complaints, accusations or allegations and to defend their own reputation (Prov. 18:13,17; Deut. 1:16-17;19:15; Is. 43:9; 50:8; John 7:51; 1 Cor. 6:1-5; 1 Tim. 5:19-21), our President and Founder, Dr. Joseph Boot, reposted Eschatology Matters podcast response of pastor Riemenschneider on his personal X account.
Whilst we are aware that further details have emerged that are not recounted here, the Ezra Institute holds no official position on the complex pastoral dispute between these men which has not been reviewed or adjudicated by an independent committee of faithful Christian arbitrators. We support the call for this whole matter to be carefully and fully investigated privately by an independent third-party Christian arbitration process in accordance with God’s Word (1 Cor. 6:1-7) and centuries of Christian custom and practice in all major denominations, followed by the publication of its summary results given that the controversy has been public. Only then would representatives of the Ezra Institute be able to comment on adjudicators findings in relation to one of our Fellows.
The Ezra Institute does not support the trial, summary judgment and sentencing of Christian brothers of either party in this dispute by social media users and podcasters and looks for godly resolution with appropriate repentance and restitution if required (Lev. 6:1-5; 19:17).
The Ezra Institute always remains open to discussing and debating theological, cultural and socio-political issues with both the skeptic and fellow believers for the advancement of Christ’s Kingdom. Requests for discussion and debate on these types of issues can be submitted through our website http://ezrainstitute.com or by directly emailing members of our staff team.
The Ezra Institute Executive Team [Emphasis added]
The Ezra Institute mistakes the Joel Webbon podcast as being the origin of the controversy, as Tobias Riemenschneider, James White, and Doug Wilson have all made public comments surrounding it, in vague terms. Webbon got out ahead, coming clean on the issue. Then Riemenschneider slandered Joel Webbon in response. Joe Boot apparently a part in proliferating slander, for which there is no apology because they cannot give an opinion without ecclesiastical arbitration. It was okay for him to take a position on a controversy until it was a bigger controversy.
The request of Joe Boot is impossible as independent third-party investigations are a myth straight out of the Me Too movement. But while the Me Too movement often knows they cannot go to the police, this is an international ecclesiastical issue between Baptists. The church on social media adjudicated the issue over the evidence at no cost without problem. Riemenschneider has yet refused to repent, with his latest excuses of working on the Antioch Declaration and refusing to get social media.
4 Responses
There are a lot of signers or the “Antioch” Declaration, but none of the speakers at the upcoming Christ Is King” conference have signed it. There’s a clear split between the collaborators on one side and another camp made up of people like Webbon and Robles on the other.
And even though I have a lot of differences with Webbon, he’s 100% in the right on this one.
Wilson and White are bad actors who would crush Webbon like a bug if they could, but he already rivals their influence so they can’t. They are going to keep making indirect and underhanded attacks again him until they either succeed in taking him out, or Webbon finally gets fed up with it and stops saying he still loves and respects these people who are trying to ruin him and instead calls them out for being the wolves they are.
This is round two on these issues. A year and a half ago Joel McDurmon was denouncing Kenneth Talbot as the “modern apostle of Confederate slavery and racism”. It was Talbot and his Whitefield Seminary that gave the degree to “Dr.” Joe Boot, as well as to prominent Antioch declaration signer Kenneth Gentry. Round one quickly ended with McDurmon going even more woke, and then dropping out to become a criminal lawyer. When last heard from McDurmon was denouncing his former associations.
I haven’t seen anyone in CREC tear this document apart properly, so allow me. I’m not in CREC, and am an Arminian (don’t hate me), but I wanted to point out some of my disagreements with this Antioch Declaration. Of course being Arminian, nobody will ask me to sign it. But if they did, I wouldn’t, and I wish they had numbered the premises so I could more easily point to the offending ones. But here are some of my reasons, and my attempt at numbering their paragraphs:
(1) The first point, claiming “Left and Right” are not Biblical terms is false, per Ecclesiastes 10:2, and I take it that JW and DW are arguing in this point that you aren’t allowed to say Leftists are bad Christians, which is a ludicrous claim. Also 2 weeks after Trump won, this sounds like salty Leftists mad that their Camel lost. Then at the end of this one they say “the antithesis that God established in the Garden of Eden between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent” I think they’re implying that the seed of the serpent are some group of human beings, whereas I take the seed of the serpent as literal animal snakes, so that alone would be enough for me not to sign it; it sounds like racist “serpent seed” theology.
(2) They use the phrase “neo-pagan” early in the document where normal people would say “woke.” But later they claim the Yatzees held a “neo-pagan” philosophy, which means they sneakily introduced a second definition of “neo-pagan.” In both cases the term “neo-pagan” is the wrong word, and constitutes a libel against actual neo-pagans who want to worship Thor and Odin, as they are not the ones responsible for the woke ideology nor for the Yatzees.
(3) Their third point implies that to question the “received account” the media gives of anything is sin, and imply heavily that the “received account” on all historical events (e.g. 911) is “revealed truth in Christ.”
(4) Their 4th point that resentment against he media is not an “adequate preparation” for accepting the truth is pointlessly divisive because whether it is “adequate” or not is irrelevant to the point that for many it is nonetheless “necessary preparation.”
(5) Their 5th point, “that disillusionment and resentment make a person vulnerable to deception” is absolutely false. That doesn’t have to be the case at all.
(6) Their 6th point that “[they] deny that [wokism] with its utopian religious motive arose as a consensus after World War II” and the claim that in fact wokism arose at the French Revolution is utterly laughable.
(8) Their 8th point seems to confuse WW2 and the American Civil War.
(9) They carve out an exception for anti-Japanese hatred.
(10) Here they switch from using “neo-pagan” to mean “woke” and use it to mean “antisemitic”.
(11) I could imagine them making the same argument against people who interpret the glut of photographic and videograhpic evidence regarding 911 as meaning 911 was an inside job.
(12) They assert that young men are engaging in “self-loathing” when they are actually talking about a loathing of the media.
(13) Seems to be about Churchill maybe, or about men saying “Is this what our grandfathers faught WW2 for, so the government could trans our kids?” and saying that by saying such things you dishonor your ancestors, which is ridiculous.
(14) They say “We affirm that as the secular liberal edifice crumbles, many will refuse to turn to Christ.” Replace “many” with “some”; many seems an overestimate, if we’re speaking of Gentiles who are not Arabs. “Many” only works if they are speaking of the group that they are trying to coddle in the document.
(15-16) These two contradict. One the one hand they assert that it is necessary for pastors to name the wolves, and on the other that if you do name the wolves that is “a carnal desire in fallen man to seek out a scapegoat for sin” and “sadistic urge seeks to expiate guilt by laying the blame and punishment for all cultural ills on an identifiable group.” So naming the wolves is good, not wait, its bad.
(17) They say when you blame the woke for the cultural rot that you are trying to expiate your guilt in the cultural rot (of which you have none) by scapegoating them. They confuse the idea of someone bearing our sins with simply laying the blame where it literally belongs.
(18-19) Contrary to the assertions, Judaism is uniquely damning, for instance if a Christian were to officially convert to Buddhism or Hinduism they would not have to deny Christ so completely as to say he is in hell, but to become a Jew they would; and thus a Christian who lapsed to Buddhism or Hinduism in which they could still hold him to be a god or Buddha or Bodhisattva, could leave Buddhism or Hinduism and repent and come back to Christ; but one who officially converted to Judaism would have passed a point of no return by publicly proclaiming Christ to be in hell, which is what Paul is actually talking about in Hebrews 10:16+ about “if we sin willfully there remains no more sacrifice for sins,” as contextually he was trying to disaude Hebrew Christians from returning to Judaism because it would be a point of no return.
(20) At least with regard to wokeness, there is such a conspiracy in the US.
(21) Nobody is saying Jews cannot become Christians.
(22) “We deny that there is more than one message or way of salvation.” The preceding in the document is saying that Jews have salvation apart from Christ as far as I can tell, or is so close to that position that I don’t take this declaration here as sincere on their part at all.
(23) “it is important to reject every form of identity politics, whether of the left or right—or whether the form it takes is malicious or vainglorious.” They are Leftists who are mad that Christian identity politics not only won the Presidency but a landslide in the House and Senate too! Also this bit identifying Leftist identity politics as “malicious” and Right identity politics as “vainglorious” is ludicrous on the second point; first of all the anti-KJV James White using the archaic KJV term “vainglorious” is hilarious, but secondly, there is nothing particularly “boastful” about Christian identity politics, so this is stupid.
(24) Nobody has said that Jews can’t convert and become Christians. Maybe Corey Mahler said they shouldn’t be allowed to pastor Gentile churches. But its reasonable that a pastor of a Gentile church be a Gentile who won’t preach every Sunday about “Blessing Israel.”
(25) “We affirm that the ultimate bond or good for TEMPORAL human life is…the Kingdom of God through the Covenant of Grace…” They clearly are confusing temporal life and eternal life.
(26) The attack on Aristotle is worded so as to seem innocent, but behind it is probably the axe James White loves to grind against Thomas Aquinas, or maybe even against Wolfe for suggesting people should read the Nichomachean Ethics. This is just a petty jab by James White against somebody.
It is very interesting to see an Arminian take on this. In some ways, though, you have misunderstood who these people are.
(1) Regarding pinning left and right on the seating of various degrees of radical in the French Revolutionary assembly (where there were no real conservatives), the reason I think is that they do not want these terms applied to their views, but neither do they want to deal with the meaning of the political terms left and right as understood today. So this is a dodge to evade the issue. But these are not the salty leftists that you imagine. A principle author Doug Wilson has been dragged through the mud on many newspaper editorial pages, because Trump’s proposed nominee for Secretary of State, Pete Hegseth, is a member of a CREC congregation, and the newspapers have been suggesting that Hegseth’s membership in a denomination headed by Wilson in itself indicates Hegseth’s unfitness to hold public office. Then there has been a reversal in the tarring, when Hegseth’s serial adultery and divorces were revealed, along with a charge of rape, which he denies. It is Doug Wilson’s association with Trump in this way that has created a need for him to climb onto a pedestal giving him moral status.
(2) Doug Wilson has a thing about neo-paganism, in that he is trying to define a position against it. Just today he released a podcast with an interview about the Post-War Consensus and the return of the “strong gods”.
(6) Once again this goes back to the issue of the Post-War Consensus, an idea that they see as a threat that has to be brought under their definition or control (or in the case of co-author James White, denied to have any meaning).
(9) They not only carve out an exception for anti-Japanese hatred but for hatred of anybody except the Jews.
(18-19) The Bible has a lot to say about the Jews, not least Jesus in his parables when he speaks of the judgment coming on the Jews. The authors seem to be rejecting the plain meaning of many texts.
(22) The authors do not think that Jews have salvation apart from Christ, but do hold that the Jews have a special moral privilege even apart from Christ.
(26) What you say about White and Thomist is correct, but it goes further, as there is a Thomist movement in Baptist seminaries that is more extreme than this and has White alarmed about the Baptist future. But the authors are being devious here in bringing up the life of Aristotle, as though anyone were placing Aristotle beside Christ as a Christian model.