Brother Wars and the Antioch Declaration

Introduction
So there have been some doings of late. There was a particular pastoral situation that spun into the spotlight like a helicopter crash, and the pieces are still falling out of the sky. There was a Declaration published, an Antioch Declaration, in fact. And there have been a bajillion comments on it all. And it’s been, shall we say, a bit heated. 

Some of these bumps and bruises are the ordinary knocks of brothers. I grew up with four brothers, and the occasional elbows and shoves and sharp words were exchanged, but almost always like dogs barking and rough housing, hardly ever with real wrath. Most of the time, we were all playing together five minutes later like nothing happened. No grudges, no bad attitudes, and short accounts. 

But some of these collisions are revelatory of alien spirits. This is not me saying these people are not Christians. Jesus rebuked His own disciples, the Apostles of the Christian Church, for wanting to call fire down on Samaritans. The disciples did not know what spirit they were of, and yet, God in His mercy still gave them His Holy Spirit and made them great warriors in His Kingdom. Peter rebuked Jesus for insisting that He must go to Jerusalem and be crucified, and Jesus said that was a satanic temptation in the mouth of Peter, and then Peter went on to be one of the greatest leaders in the early church. So here we have examples of necessary rebuke, but it is the rebuke of a brother, not Joab smiting Abner under the fifth rib.

And mixed into the melee are real ghouls, apostates, orcs, Feds, and belligerents, who are simply verbal terrorists and cyber lynch mobs. They snipe and stab and falsely accuse and spread lies and rumors, and they are of their father the devil. 

Distinguishing Some Things
At this point, it would be helpful to distinguish some things. It is necessary to be able to separate the pastoral situation that arose in Joel Webbon’s church from the Antioch Declaration. The fact that some of the same players are involved does not mean that it warrants conflating the two things. There are of course overlapping themes and topics, but it simply doesn’t follow that the Declaration is attacking fellow Reformed brothers. 

I signed the statement simply because I’ve seen enough antisemitism and wacky racial stuff in my threads in the last year or so to make it clear it was needed. And no, I’m not talking about judicious commentary on Churchill’s war tactics, etc. I’m talking about memes and statements full of hatred, rage, and spite, along with cuddle sessions with Hitler. I read the Declaration, signed it, and I didn’t hesitate to send it to my friends Brian Suave and Joel Webbon asking them to consider signing it. I’ve since been told by some that such a thing seems disingenuous since it should be obvious they wouldn’t agree with significant elements of the Declaration. But it wasn’t at all obvious to me. The only thing I could imagine being a quibble for some is the futurist reading of Romans 11, and that was the kind of thing I had in mind when I posted “If you’re wondering what this Declaration is aiming at or why it was necessary, just peruse the replies to its principal authors on X. If you agree that lots of the replies are vile but you have quibbles with some parts of the Declaration, please sign it and join the conversation.”

Of course that sent howls up that I was pulling a Nancy Pelosi – just sign the bill to find out what’s in it or somehow downplaying significant differences. On the one hand, I would say, c’mon man, it’s just a public consensus statement. It isn’t the Nicene Creed. It isn’t the Westminster Confession of Faith. And on the other hand, there were some men who thought it wasn’t clear enough and offered their own versions that were very good and worth considering, my friend Joseph Spurgeon being one prominent example. He did not assume the worst, calmly articulated a few reasons he didn’t think he could sign the statement and then proceeded to publish his own statement that was quite good and thoughtful. I differ with his decision not to sign, but I really appreciate the spirit of his contribution. 

But the rivalry and emotional responses have been sufficient to demonstrate the need for the Declaration. I don’t care if you think it was unclear or sloppy. Why all the heavy breathing into paper bags? And here I’m primarily referring to the hundreds of replies on several of my posts related to the Declaration. Some have insisted that all the concern about antisemitism and racism is overblown and some kind of virtue signaling witch hunt, but the unhinged mob-think of the last few days suggests otherwise. You can’t have those levels of panic-rage and magically be thinking clearly about Jews, Nazis, and the races.

Demanding Apologies
One of the more common responses to the Declaration has been that it would only be considered after apologies were offered to Joel Webbon for trying to sabotage his ministry. And the demands came pouring in. Apologize! Apologize! And suddenly it felt like I was in one of those White Girl struggle sessions you could probably find in a Matt Walsh documentary. Which was kind of funny because it was led by (presumably) dudes with crusader avatars. First off, it was just unseemly, like dudes constantly taking pictures of themselves in the gym – it’s been a gush fest of Longhouse sentimentalism. One fellow suggested that the authors of the Declaration ought to read Joe Rigney’s book on Leadership and Emotional Sabotage (and I do highly recommend it to everyone), but when I suggested that the people clamoring for apologies read it, the crowd went berserk, which makes me think they really should.

Now please don’t misunderstand. I am in no position to adjudicate the situation that erupted in Joel’s church. But the fact that people have said bad things about Joel is no grounds for going all mother-bear defensive, like Joel isn’t a big boy who can handle himself. This is sort of like somebody throwing down their gun in the middle of Afghanistan because bad guys shot at your frens. Pastoral ministry is for men with backbone, grit, patience, and piles of indestructible joy. Jesus basically said that His ministers would be hated for a living. Look, I know someone will say, but this is different: Wilson and White shared the German pastor’s video. They’re supposed to be brothers in arms. Yes, but that’s all they did, and Wilson did it with an explicit reference to Proverbs 18:17. When a well-platformed pastor like Joel shares his side of an issue, it is not “taking sides” to share the other side, especially when it’s someone no one has ever heard of from a foreign country. 

“But it was full of lies!” goes up the howls of the mob. But wait, how do we know this? “From the secret leaked zoom call!” comes back the breathless answer. Heh. Ok. But don’t you see how that doesn’t answer all the questions? Why was there a “secret recording?” “Because that German pastor could not be trusted!” You insist. Why? And the questions continue. This is not me “siding” with anyone except for Lady Justice. Due Process means innocence until proven guilty, both sides having the right to defend themselves and cross-examine the other, etc. I have not heard the leaked zoom call, but the primary inconsistency (I’m told) is over whether “discipline” was called for. So yes, there are serious, reasonable questions to be asked, and apologies and justice wherever due, but an army of X-anons with cyber pitchforks doth not accomplish the justice of God. As I noted on X, the cries for apologies-now! have been wavering between BLM and pink hat levels of justice.  

As a sidenote, I’m actually pretty sympathetic to the just cause of several of the crusades, but frankly all of this gives me significant pause on our chances of doing something half as brave or just. This is all approaching the wisdom of the Children’s Crusade, but I digress.

The Antioch Declaration
Let me try to bring this in for a landing with a few comments on the Declaration itself. First, some took umbrage at the reference to “wolves.” This is odd since that is one of the central tasks of shepherds – to guard the flock from wolves. But the shrieks went up that the Declaration was calling Joel Webbon a wolf, but it wasn’t and it didn’t. Your ability to do the reading carefully is diminishing by the minute. Then some folks jumped into my timeline saying, “but James White did! James White called for Joel Webbon to step down!” So I asked around, and nobody has yet been able to show me any proof for this unsubstantiated claim. Yes, I’ve seen the video clip where James says that people who “laugh” at Hitler memes should be disciplined and pastors who “laugh” should step down. Yes, I saw that, and I saw that he also said not to make him “name names.” But that really is not the same thing as James calling Joel a wolf or demanding that he step down. “But that’s what he clearly meant!” sounds a lot like, “How do you know she’s a witch? She looks like a witch!”

Anyway, if you wanted to do some long and hard thinking about who the “wolves” might be, I would suggest that you look no further than Corey Mahler, a man who has actually been excommunicated by his church. Excommunication is the formal declaration that someone is outside the Christian Church, and when that someone carries on as a teacher, it would be fair to call that man a false teacher trying to lead God’s flock astray, i.e. a wolf. 

One of the other taunts seems to be surrounding some of the Declaration’s pushback on the “Post War Consensus,” largely popularized by Rusty Reno’s book Return of the Strong Gods, which I found to be very helpful and whom we had on CrossPolitic to discuss it one time. And if you actually do the reading of the Declaration (slowly, without hyperventilating), you will find a relatively balanced appraisal. On the one hand, the Post War Consensus was not conceived de novo like some kind of inverse Virgin Birth in 1945. The Declaration points out that the central ideas of the PWC were conceived duing the French Revolution by Enlightenment hippies who were already blaming all societal ills on Christianity and love of family and loyalty to nation as early as 1789. Doesn’t anyone remember the recent Olympic Ceremony Blasphemy? You know that was a call back to the French Revolution when they actually did that same tranny mockery in the cathedral of Notre Dame, right?  

But the Declaration agrees that after the war came a “tipping point,” where our culture gave into that madness leading to the sexual revolution and all kinds of globohomo insanity. 

OK, one more thing. The final denial in the Declaration insists that Jesus is the model man and example we are to follow with regard to our treatment of our fellow man, not Aristotle or any other merely human personage. On the one hand, other merely human personages would include people like Augustine, John Calvin, and R.L. Dabney – heroes all. But the reasonable question comes back, why single out Aristotle? I had no part in writing this Declaration, but I assume the authors singled him out because he has historically stood for the tradition of human philosophy – famously known as “The Philosopher.” While there’s plenty that still needs hashing out between those seeking to recover a thoroughly Christian “natural law” tradition and those a bit nervous about the history of that endeavor, all the Declaration says is that Jesus is still the model man and example. Again, feel free to quibble, but no need to see this as some kind of assault. Luther apparently hated Aristotle, and many other Reformers appreciated him. 

Conclusion
I conclude with several thoughts. For all the cries that the Declaration was unclear or confusing, it seems to me that it was clear enough. And I believe that is why it has been so offensive to a certain quadrant of the Reformed world. Mission accomplished. 

The irony is that for those who think this Declaration represents virtue signaling and Woke 2.0, the real test is who is thinking like an idealogue? Who is acting like a Marxist? The ones classifying groups of people into ideologies or those trying to distinguish between different kinds of actors? For example, while I’m very appreciative of the Post War Consensus analysis, using that as some kind of worldview decoder ring that explains everything you don’t like isn’t going to help. It’s kind of funny to me that many of the same sorts of men who have (rightly) taken back the term “Patriarchy” are now also scoffing at some of the most faithful fathers in our camp, dismissing them as “boomer brains.” I guess “Boomers” are the new Patriarchy. Don’t forget your pink hats. 

I do believe at the center of this is a question of pastoral methodology. And this is not me commenting on the Joel Webbon situation directly at all. But the question is over how young, red-pilled men ought to be pastored. I submit that the Antioch Declaration represents a helpful template. It affirms many of the concerns of young men growing up in this clown world, but it denies many of their fleshly instincts: blaming race, genes, the jooz, and victim hustling of every sort. The invitation is there to grow in wisdom. But it must be truly Christian wisdom, not the carnal childish stuff that says, “I am of Webbon or I am of White.” We are on the side of Christ, on the side of truth and real, biblical justice.   

There must be no coddling of sin. No coddling of leftist sin; no coddling of right wing sin. This is not a third way: it is the righteous way, the just way. Biblical justice means equal weights and measures for all, and true mercy, forgiveness, repentance offered to all. 

Therefore, no performative denunciations or cancellations for the approval of those on the left or those on the right, and certainly no flattery of progressive or conservative influencers. We must be done with all people pleasing, all fear of man, especially the hordes on X. It is a snare, a trap, and a black hole. We must insist on the approval of God and damn the torpedoes.