The Antioch Declaration is a landmark moment in the Woke Wars II, a division building up between Evangelicals who held the line against Critical Race Theory only to for many of the same issues to repeat themselves again. Instead of racism, it’s antisemitism. Moreover, since Covid, many Evangelicals have looked to Protestant forefathers and broader Christian history for insight on government because liberalism has failed the west. This too is a contentious debate. The Antioch Declaration is a stand by Doug Wilson, James White, and Joe Boot, three camps within Reformed Evangelicalism of the theonomic variety. However, this statement is as embarrassing as it is unnecessary.
The statement is poorly written, consisting of tonal clashes between inside baseball jargon and sophisticated prose, sloppy formatting, and unChristian beliefs, some due to intellectual deficiencies. It would be quite long to exposit this statement but let’s recap its top reproaches.
Slander and Hypocrisy
In the background of this declaration is the scandal of Tobias Riemenschneider, who is one of the six “collaborators” on the document. Riemenschneider slandered Joel Webbon in a failed attempt to discredit his entire ministry. Riemenschneider did not act alone in this, as he had big names backing him who coincidentally appeared to be the other collaborators: Doug Wilson, James White, Joe Boot, Jeff Durbin, and Andrew Sandlin.
Despite Riemenscnheider getting exposed for slander in an attempt to denigrate a pastor’s ministry, these men kept him on the declaration while including the following in it:
We deny that it is possible to be a faithful Christian shepherd without identifying, naming and fighting the wolves which prey on the flock. As such, pastors have a duty to confront and rebuke wickedness in all its forms within their congregations.
Clearly, some wickedness is being overlooked. Joe Boot’s Ezra Institute released a statement on Friday to that end.
Larping Antioch
Usually, these types of statements are signed in the titular location. However, the Antioch Declaration is larping as the city of Antioch from antiquity, and they could not even find one of presumably several towns named Antioch in the United States to sign it in. Rather they call it the Antioch Declaration to appeal to Scripture with what amounts to poor exegesis.
Just as the apostle Paul at Antioch “opposed him [Peter] to his face because he stood condemned” (Gal. 2:11, CSB) for compromising the gospel of Jesus Christ by subjecting it to racial barriers, so this brief statement opposes the ideas of some contemporary leaders and influencers seeking to introduce anti-gospel racial categories into the church. This Antioch Declaration was not conceived or developed in haste but after much prayer, thought, counsel, and soul-searching. Our task is an unpleasant one, but like the apostle Paul’s, it is necessary, even when other Christians are involved. When the gospel once for all delivered to the saints is itself at stake, we dare not remain silent.
The Judiazers in the New Testament were not introducing anti-gospel racial categories, they were introducing law on top of the gospel. The Hellenistic Jews were uncircumcised and, therefore, also subject to the wrath of the Judiazers. This is rather woke language, as Jesus often spoke in racial categories about his mission or to make a point about unbelief, but Christ could hardly be called anti-gospel.
Opening Salvo
Further embarrassment is found in the first sentence of the statement.
We deny that the Kingdom purposes of Christ and requirements of His Word can be equated with the seating positions of political actors during the French Revolution, or that the modern antithesis between right and left is equivalent to the antithesis that God established in the Garden of Eden between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent, the kingdom of darkness and kingdom of light.
Instead of appealing to historic Christian creeds, reiterating the gospel, or establishing the need for the declaration which is unclear to the normie, the statement begins with Wilson-style prose and a Tim Keller-level Third-Wayism. The reference to the French Revolution is unclear to those who are not history buffs and unbefitting of the synodical declaration that they are attempting. Essentially, the Antioch Declaration is arguing is that neither the left nor the right has the gospel which has only been the message of many liberals for several years now. However, the Antioch Statement is about denouncing Christians who are more right-wing than its authors who have properly carved out the third way.
Denying Then Affirming The Post-War Consensus
The statement makes bold historical claims, aimed at denying the Post-War Consensus, a liberal secularism that became dominant as a result of the Second World War (admittedly an oversimplification.) The Antioch Declaration denies the Post-War Consensus by attributing it to an earlier event.
We deny that neo-pagan secularism with its utopian religious motive arose as a consensus after World War II. Rather, it manifests itself as the political outworking of the so-called Enlightenment during the French Revolution and gradually won the hearts and minds of Western nations, being well expressed in the political philosophies dominating Europe prior to the outbreak of the two great global conflagrations.
This is a bad argument because the world wars eliminated alternative views that were pervasive in Europe for several centuries in favor of either Marxism or liberalism. Ideologies such as monarchism, fascism, national socialism, republicanism, and autocracy were rejected in favor of democracy. Whereas the Great War largely eliminated many European ideals, the Second World War would be when the ideals of the Enlightenment and French Revolution became the consensus. This is a distinction with a massive difference that the Antioch Declaration is too sloppy to understand.
We affirm that the aftermath of World War II served as a cultural tipping point for the secular narrative and its myth of religious neutrality which has functioned as a centerpiece for these lies. It has promoted this deception with triumphal hubris throughout all Western institutions, insisting on both an idolatrous religious pluralism and a mandatory globalist cosmopolitanism.
The Antioch Declaration subsequently affirms the presence of a Post-War Consensus, rendering this entire section extraneous.
We affirm that a contradictory and pervasive thread of self-doubt and self-loathing has also formed an essential part of this secular narrative following the horrors of World War II. Thus, when the reactionary right challenges the “post-war narrative” they are not necessarily breaking free of it—this is a reflex that the post-war narrative itself has nurtured. The narrative thrives on an unstable mix of white imperiousness and white guilt.
As an add-on, they even go full James Lindsay by arguing that reflective opposition to the Post-War Consensus is a trap.
Noticing Condemned
For some reason, the Antioch Statement is obsessed with relitigating World War II, thus highlighting the vanity of going through the effort to make this statement. In a stunning and brave moment, the statement denounces Adolf Hitler.
More importantly, the Antioch Declaration goes after Christians for noticing, condemning many spiritual fathers in the church.
We affirm that in deeply unsettled times there is a carnal desire in fallen man to seek out a scapegoat for sin and social corruption. This sadistic urge seeks to expiate guilt by laying the blame and punishment for all cultural ills on an identifiable group(s). The victimized group(s) is offered up to the masses as providing ostensible ‘explanatory power’ for cultural decay, which all conspiracy theories must provide if they are to gain any traction. The Jews have often been the easiest target for this kind of sinful and decrepit thinking.
This is largely a straw man argument. But it’s also a historical fallacy. A deep dive into the history of the Jews in various nations, ie Rome, Russia, Spain, and England does showcase a pattern of behavior that is not tantamount to an innocent victim narrative. Winston Churchill’s observations about the Jews in the 1920s were not all that dissimilar from Adolf Hitler’s. Nevertheless, the Antioch Statement embeds this woke victimhood narrative.
We deny that Jews are in any way uniquely malevolent or sinful, that Judaism in its multifarious expressions is objectively more dangerous than other false religions, or that it represents an exceptional threat to Christianity and Christian peoples. By nature, the Jews are objects of wrath just like the rest of us, which is condemnation enough (Ps. 14:2-3), and are equally recipients of God’s grace (Rom.11:11-32).
First note that the statement switches from viewing Jews as a religious group to an ethnic one which is sloppy. Moreover, this statement is either equating all false religions or stating that Judaism is more innocuous than other false religions. Dealing with the former, all religions that have not Christ result in damnation. However, not all false religions are equal in their threat to Christians. This is a nonsensical proposition.
Islam is likely the number one threat to Christianity, a difficult claim to argue against. What this statement is saying is that in a power rankings of false religions threat to Christians, Judaism cannot be ranked higher than any other religion. This statement condemns ranking Judaism second behind Islam, which is a historically fair placement. But let’s do a sinful partiality test.
We deny that [Muslims] are in any way uniquely malevolent or sinful, that [Islam] in its multifarious expressions is objectively more dangerous than other false religions, or that it represents an exceptional threat to Christianity and Christian peoples. By nature, the [Muslims] are objects of wrath just like the rest of us, which is condemnation enough (Ps. 14:2-3), and are equally recipients of God’s grace (Rom.11:11-32).
Christians would rightly ridicule that statement. Undergirding this discrepancy is the fact that many Christians incidentally believe the heresy that Jews worship the same god as we do. But this is untrue because they don’t have Christ. This errant belief has led to a misplaced partiality and sense of alignment.
We deny that world affairs are governed by conspiring Jews or that there is a global Jewish conspiracy to corrupt and destroy Western society.
Consider how untrue this statement is when applied to Islam.
We deny that world affairs are governed by conspiring [Muslims] or that there is a global [Islamic] conspiracy to corrupt and destroy Western society.
This assumes a simplified and secular view of conspiracies. Muslims are conspiring to undermine the West. The invasion of Europe is a testament to this end. Are their Muslims sitting in a room smoking cigars, plotting this? No. Ultimately groups act in self-interest. Pagan religions are guided by Satan, who doth conspires against God and His Elect.
Now, this can easily be said of Jews also. The Democrat Party is a functionally Jewish party. The cabinet of the Biden Administration is disproportionately Jewish: Merrick Garland (DOJ), Janet Yellin (Treasury), Antony Blinken (SOS), and most surprisingly Alejandro Mayorkas (DHS). More leadership would include Kamala Harris’s husband, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, and Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan. And then there is the donor class of the Democrat Party which follows the same pattern. Clearly, these individuals are undermining America and threatening Christians. Merrick Garland is persecuting believers.
Recognizing that pagans govern wickedly is what people who have eyes to see notice. The church would be edified by a declaration that denounced the Democrat Party, but instead, we are treated with denunciations of the Third Reich which boldly go where many have gone before.
This was the portion that the statement most wanted to establish, and this portion is only the second most illogical.
Denouncing Aristotle
If you were unaware of a group of Christians being led astray by worshipping Aristotle as the model man, the Antioch Declaration is here to inform you on the issue.
We affirm that in all things, including the treatment of our fellow human beings, the model man and example is not the life and teaching of Aristotle, nor any other merely historical personage, but the Lord Jesus Christ himself, Son of Man and eternal Son of God.
The statement ends with an attack on Aristotle, which seemingly came from James White. This affirmation responds to a nonissue with a truism fallacy. This section is embarrassing to have included.
Conclusions
This statement will get astroturfed but the internet has soundly rejected its merits. Again, I could have talked about the literary reference to Rusty Reno which does not have a footnote (though something less obscure does.) I could have talked about their nonsensical claim about a broad range of believers who crafted the statement when its a rather small variation, the most notable difference being Reformed Baptist and Presbyterian, but this is the most significant of distinctions between the collaborators. They later edited it to broaden the scope, in response to criticism.
The collaborators of this statement should be embarrassed by the work they put out, as their own heroes of the faith would not sign such garbage.
Powered by RedCircle
9 Responses
Thank You for breaking this down. Most of us don’t have the time to get into every weekly “scandalous controversy” that comes from these respectable yet seemingly vain YouTube theologians. The Christian West at large, has no idea on how to answer Islam or the fast approaching “New Islam”, or “Marxist Islam” – which is sad.
Keep up the good work.
Cristus Rex ✝️
– I. Schmidt.
He who responds with a word before he hears, It is folly and shame to him. (Proverbs 18:13)
You should seriously consider this Proverb, as it’s directly relevant to someone who would not read the statement itself, but read an article about Christian elders “embarrassing” themselves (think there might be some bias there?) and rendering the judgement that it’s “good work”.
When I first heard of the Post-War Consensus it was not defined as “a liberal secularism became dominant as a result of the Second World War” but rather as “a Societal Consensus to never criticize the Jews, because muh holocaust, and thus allow them to spread homosexuality, transgenderism, and abortion, unchecked, by decrying anyone who criticizes these things as an antisemite and holocaust denier.” So literally the Antioch Declaration IS the Post-War Consensus in written form.
And while the Declaration says the Jewish religion as such is not “an exceptional threat to Christianity and Christian peoples” it ignores that Jewish political movements (homosexuality, transgenderism, abortion) ARE not only an “exceptional” threat but an existential threat to Christianity and Christian peoples. Or rather the document was written literally to support that threat, because Doug Wilson took a 123AndMe DNA test which convinced him he is Jewish (back in 2020, and he announced this on his blog back then which is how I know that, having been bored locked in due to covid and reading it) and Doug has taken a very anti-White and anti-Christian turn ever since.
“No Quarter November” suddenly became “No Noticing November”.
By the way, the line where the Declaration says that Jews “are equally recipients of God’s grace” seems to me to deny Calvinism, because it makes no distinction between elect and non-elect, so that in itself would be sufficient grounds for a Calvinist to not sign the document. Even as an Arminian, the phrase “equally recipients of God’s grace” sounds heretical to me, since the Declaration is not talking about Jews who already became Christians here but about unbelieving Leftist Jews. It could be said perhaps that they are “equally potential recipients of God’s grace” if this were a semi-Pelagian document. But even in Arminianism they aren’t “equally potential recipients” because the elect were already determined by foreknowledge before time (based on “foreseen faith” in Arminianism, but still already determined).
This is a non-sensical comment. That would be like arguing Peter is being heretical/anti-calvinistic since he says a Christian man’s wife is a “co-heir” without specifically qualifying he only means the elect ones. *Clearly* the statement is speaking of Jews who believe in Christ.
“The statement is poorly written, consisting of tonal clashes between inside baseball jargon and sophisticated prose, sloppy formatting, and unChristian beliefs, some due to intellectual deficiencies. It would be quite long to exposit this statement but let’s recap its top reproaches.”
You hit that on the head. The preamble is the only part that even seems potentially Good, and sites scripture. what remains are dogma, whistels and something between feigned scholasticism and syncretism roled into one. They use so many technical terms about religion, or philosophy that unless you know their code language, you may not even know what they mean. And it isn’t just big words, but small words like father. I read this declaration more than twice, and each time, I took a different, non specific, vague meaning from many of its points. Many of them contradictory, all of them having the appearance of ‘christianity’ but not walking the faithful road of Christ laid out in scripture, and worse, no citations, no history or additional discovery to understand the summaries that are put there, so what you have is an authoratarian ejaculation, intending to bind all CHristendom to a new tradition, without giving or pointing at biblical support, and without having a real forum on what these concepts and ideas mean. I heard 6 men helped write this, and none of them, even come close to Say a Thomas Jefferson or John Locke, nor do they come close to ERasmus, Augustine, or Paul and the other apostles. What you have is a word salad that adds no clarity, blows smoke into the areas that may already be confusing for regular beleivers, and shows how the egos of a select few ‘intellectuals’ (note I didn’t say theologians’, should be sated by us all agreeing to agree with them, or else, they will ‘name names’, or some such. It is reprehnsible, a violation of Matthew 5 where Christ warns about to readily, making oaths, and making them against things that are not God, or for things that are ungodly.
You rightly point thius out, as they ignore the wickedness in Tobias. Before this season I didn’t even know who many of these men are, but I see many of them are only in this to be lofty, to be entitled to tell us what to do, not because they love scripture, or the people that scripture was written to help instruct and save. It ignores the Gospel too, presumes a view of the future in a time when there is controversy around what the bible says about the end times, and frankly, is a collossal waste of time for most of us.
I thought the section on the French revolution is odd, in part, because many do not understand the French Revolution because our history DOES NOT TEACH IT. The most many Westerners could do is look at the current/right left in their own countries. The way this feels like self loathing, and lacking biblical foundation means this resolution and all who preach it may soon be finding the sand running out from beneath their feet. I hope some of these folks see the error and repent, quickly, while they still can.
A
You point out they edited it, what good is a creed/declaration they immediately had to edit. The whole thing feels like a HS Student cramming to get a paper out, and hoping the teacher gives them time to fix its mistakes before final grading. I’ve already given it an F, because it fails to unite Believers with real principals and rightly looks like a secular philosophy seeking dominion over the Church.
Also note that the Republican party is Jewish party as well. Nearly all, If not all, of Trump’s cabinet picks are Jews, or Jews first. So, completely agree that Jews are a threat to Christianity and Western civilization as a whole. Today’s Jews are not the Jews of Scripture. They have stolen the identity of true Judeans and are actually Edomites, thus, not God’s chosen people in the least, and in fact, of their father the devil.
The Republican party is even more pro-Israel than the Democrat party. Thomas Massie said he was to only Republican in the House who didn’t have someone from AIPAC assigned to him to tell him how to vote.