Wilson, we have a problem

The Public Square
21

Here is how I read these denials, given my background in and around these circles and ideas:

The Revolution denial is a rejection of the idea that the enemies and friends of Christ’s Kingdom are synonymous with those who accept or reject certain doctrines about the State and civil magistrate that arose from the French Revolution. Many nationalists associate (and rightly so) the French Revolution’s idea of popular sovereignty with a rejection of divinely ordained and legitimate government. Insofar as these ideas created a rupture between church and state, the French Revolution has contributed to the de-Christianization of Western societies. Nationalists argue, from this, that anyone who opposes some form of theocratic government is an enemy of Christ and the Christian political ideal. They claim to be on the side of Scripture, while those who disagree with them are on the side of apostate political revolutionaries.

The denial says, no, the enemies and friends of Christ cannot always be easily mapped onto this ideological and political conflict. Sometimes nationalists and theocrats are the enemies of Christ, and sometimes Christians hold to more democratic and republican forms of political philosophy. It pushes back against schismatic men who insist that Scripture prescribes only one visible form for the State. Many godly men have held a variety of beliefs about structuring government in accordance with Scripture. The denial works to maintain Christian liberty in interpretation.

As for the Aristotle denial, I don’t think it is about presuppositionalism. Some prominent nationalists, like Wolfe, rely on Aristotle’s categorization of people within society to justify hierarchical ideas of theocratic social governance. Aristotle suggested and openly stated at times that slaves were slaves by nature — an inherent condition rather than one derived from society. According to Aristotle, some men (slaves and barbarians) and all women (regardless of status or race) are inherently inferior and lack full humanness (a status reserved for Greek male citizens).

Some nationalists use this categorization to argue that nature itself teaches that not all men are created equal, or that some people embody the image of God more fully than others. Therefore, some men and all women must be subject to those who are naturally superior. White nationalists, for example, use this “nature” argument to claim that blacks were always meant to be subjugated to whites because they are inferior by nature. Similarly, they argue that their specific form of patriarchy is correct because it rightly places women in subjection to men in a way that aligns with nature (such as taking away women’s suffrage).

The denial asserts that Aristotle’s anthropology is not the hermeneutical key needed to understand Scripture’s anthropology.

4 Likes
22

I think it’s a lot simpler than that. Our contemporary political categories of “left” and “right” come from the literal seating position of members of the Revolutionary French National Assembly sorted into supporters of the Revolution on the left and supporters of the Ancien Régime on the right.

The Antioch Declaration in context discusses “left and right” explicitly in that initial denial, so I think all it’s saying is that the Kingdom doesn’t map cleanly onto left/right distinctions.

2 Likes
23

Yes, I think that’s true.

24

It is just a veiled jab at the “No Enemies to the Right,” or “No Enemies on the Right” doctrines that are common on the dissident right. They are trying to position themselves as the true conservatives and are trying to defuse claims that they are “punching right.”

That is part of a general problem with this statement. It is attacking niche problems. The part about Aristotle is a jab at Stephen Wolfe and the natural law bros. The science of history part is a jab at Joel Webbon and his “it would take me 10s of thousands of hours to determine if the holocaust was real” schtick. The part about “ape[ing] such methods for the sake of clicks” is an attack on the Ogden boys again and their appeals to the anon armies.

Declarations should be clear and should stand alone. This one is bloated, convoluted, and high context.

3 Likes
25

Now why didn’t they just say that? Oy vey

Thank you

2 Likes
26

Doug was warned before publishing the book that Wolfe was in deep with the kinist and ethnonationalist movements. He responded by shooting the messenger. Much of the “Post War Consensus” challenging that he is fighting is a redux of his own writings about the confederacy and American slavery. People who are brought up on the idea that the confederacy are actually the good guys, southern slavery was uniquely benevolent, and the US has been the bad guy in every conflict will naturally think “maybe the Nazi’s were the good guys?”… apparently.

Doug is playing whack-a-mole - Nazi edition. But the moles he is trying to keep underground are people he has been encouraging and provisioning throughout his ministry. I hope he succeeds, but this is bad fruit from a poisoned tree.

3 Likes
27

I just went and read the whole thing, and yeah, high context is right. I thought I was at least peripherally aware of some of this stuff, but I have no idea what at least half of the doc is reacting to.

Will anyone in 20 years have any idea what they were for or against?

They explicitly reference “enemies on the right” in scare quotes in the intro.

1 Like
28

That’s my concern…because at least White (and others within his particular branch of presuppositionalism) have idiosyncratic - to say the least - views regarding natural law and the place for Aristotle within Reformed Theology. In other words, hastily written and poorly thought through documents usually create more problems in the long run than they solve in the short term.

I would really hope that’s all the comment is about, but given some of the signers, I suspect there’s more. And even the statement ‘Aristotle’s anthropology’ is complicated. Most of the Reformed from mid 16th through early 18th centuries would have seen significant portions of Aristotle’s anthropology as borrowing heavily from scriptural ideas (but both Owen and Baxter, just to name two, would reject overly rigid social hierarchies, i.e. certain peoples predisposed to slavery and that predisposition as determinative, especially within the church; there may be other Puritans who addressed this more fully).

1 Like
29

Wilson seems quite capable of writing very clearly when he wants to. When he isn’t clear, it’s usually not by a little bit, but borders on gobbledygook. I don’t believe it’s accidental

1 Like
30

I don’t suspect that there’s more to it, I know it. But that’s a different subject for a different thread.

2 Likes
31

Years ago, I realized Doug’s rhetoric is untrustworthy. Later I realized the same abt Leithart. Remove their feints and what’s left are scarecrows. We should not be reading these men. We should not be up on their particular brand of decadence. The fact that it gets some important and largely lost truths right is not sufficient justification, as some of you have pointed out.

Often it’s more helpful to study the medium than the message, especially when the message is intended only for the cognoscenti and inscrutable to others. Feints are deplorable, usually. They degrade communication by salting it with dishonesty. Love,

6 Likes
32

BTW, while we’re talking about how Doug’s not handling racism well, I proposed a better way in the last of my series on Wheaton’s Buswell Affair. Note, for instance, my effort to help President Ryken care for the BIPOC students’ souls by rebuking and teaching them. It’s pretty simple and straightforward. Love,

5 Likes
33

I wrote the following two posts about this matter:

Recently, I was asked to sign the Antioch Declaration, a statement purportedly aimed at addressing the sins of racial hatred, the idolization of Hitler, and anti-Jewish sentiment. As a pastor, a Christian, and a man committed to standing for the truth, I wholeheartedly agree that racial hatred is a sin against God, that Hitler’s ideology is abominable, and that ethnic Jews are no less in need of the gospel than any other people group, nor are they unable to be saved. However, after reading the declaration carefully, I have decided not to affix my name to it. Allow me to explain.

  1. The Declaration Is Convoluted and Simplistic
    While the document claims not to have been hastily put together, it reads more like a polemic blog post from Doug Wilson than a clear, concise, and direct statement on critical theological and moral issues. Its language is overly convoluted, attempting to address multiple complex issues in a way that lacks precision and biblical clarity. At the same time, its broad-brush statements oversimplify matters that require deeper and more nuanced discussion. For instance, certain theological assertions, like the role of Aristotle in Christian thought, are straw men that obscure the real issues. Who is truly claiming that Aristotle is the highest authority over Christ? To conflate respecting Aristotle’s insights with replacing Christ is both unnecessary and unhelpful.

This lack of clarity and focus reflects a missed opportunity. The framers would have benefited from engaging more thinkers—especially those who might have offered disagreement or critique. Iron sharpens iron, but it appears this document was not forged in such a way.

  1. Some Statements Are Theologically Misleading or Unnecessary
    The declaration claims to stand against racial hatred and anti-Jewish sentiment, but in doing so, it oversimplifies certain truths. For example, while I reject anti-Jewish hatred entirely, I must also recognize that Judaism’s denial of Christ makes it a particularly grievous blasphemy. Judaism, unlike some other false religions, explicitly teaches that Jesus is in hell, burning in excrement. This level of blasphemy cannot be overlooked or equated with religions that simply misunderstand Christ. To gloss over these distinctions is to do a disservice to biblical discernment.

Furthermore, it is true that some Jews have conspired to do damage to the West. Jesus Christ still reigns, and all of evil man’s plots are ultimately in vain, but we have no need to deny their existence. Nor does acknowledging the plotting of some men necessitate the claim that all Jews are complicit or deserving of disparagement or attack.

Additionally, the document seems to set up straw men. As already stated, it suggests that those who appreciate Aristotle’s philosophical insights have elevated him above Christ. Such hyperbolic language muddies the waters and risks alienating those who might otherwise align with the declaration’s aims.

  1. The Context of Division Among Pastors
    In the background of this declaration is a division among reformed pastors over how to disciple a young man caught in sinful racial hatred and Holocaust denial. While I strongly condemn the Stone Choir group and all Nazi ideology, the issues at hand go beyond their obvious sinfulness. Instead, there is a real division that involves disagreements about pastoral care and reconciliation.

One of the authors of this declaration has slandered a fellow pastor in this context and has yet to repent of that sin. It is troubling to see a document aimed at promoting unity and godliness emerge from a situation where repentance and reconciliation have not yet been pursued in good faith. Signing such a declaration could imply agreement with these unresolved relational issues. I would rather see those men work together for reconciliation first.

  1. It Lacks Binding Power and Clarity of Purpose
    Another reason I cannot sign is that the declaration lacks true binding power or practical utility. Its statements are too broad and prone to misinterpretation. It is unclear what lasting good it will accomplish. Will it actually lead to greater unity or understanding among reformed Christians? Or will it simply be used as a tool to label dissenters as complicit in sins they do not commit?

Furthermore, its lack of precision could allow it to be weaponized for purposes beyond its intent, creating more division than unity. Without clear parameters and accountability, this document risks being more of a public relations statement than a meaningful theological stand.

  1. A Spirit of Love and Appreciation
    I want to emphasize that my decision not to sign this declaration is not born of animosity or a desire to attack its authors. I love and appreciate these men and have personally benefited from their ministry. It pains me to stand apart from them on this issue, but my allegiance must always be to Christ and the truth, not to personalities or factions.

Conclusion
I believe the fight against racial hatred, anti-Jewish sentiment, and ideological idolatry is crucial. These sins grieve the Lord and must be confronted with biblical truth and pastoral wisdom. However, the Antioch Declaration fails to address these issues in a manner that is clear, biblically robust, and effective in fostering unity among the brethren.

My refusal to sign is not an act of rebellion but an act of conviction. I call on my fellow pastors and Christians to engage these issues thoughtfully, biblically, and humbly, seeking to glorify Christ above all. Let us address sin and division in a way that honors both truth and love, not through convoluted declarations but through clear, gospel-centered teaching and faithful pastoral action.

If there is reconciliation between the brothers and a desire to go through the statement to fix the issues and make it stronger and more useful, I will be glad to revisit my signing it.

Let us confess Christ as King, proclaim His gospel reign, and construct our ministries according to His commands. In all things, may He increase, and may we decrease.

6 Likes
34

I affirm that God created man, male and female, in His image, and that all peoples share in this divine imprint.

I affirm that the gospel is the power of salvation for all who believe—Jew and Gentile alike.

I affirm that my highest loyalty and ultimate duty are to the Triune God—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—who is the Creator, Sustainer, and Redeemer of all things (Matthew 22:37-38).

I affirm that God has ordained natural relationships, such as family and nation, and that I have God-given duties and loyalties to these relationships (Exodus 20:12; Romans 13:1-7).

I affirm that God has also established spiritual relationships in His Church, and I have duties and loyalties to the body of Christ, which includes fellow brothers and sisters in the faith (Ephesians 2:19-22).

I affirm that the Church relationship does not destroy or negate the duties and loyalties I owe to my natural relationships but transforms and orders them rightly under God’s law (Ephesians 5:22-33; 1 Timothy 5:8).

I affirm that there are times when competing loyalties and duties arise, and it takes wisdom, guided by God’s Word, to discern which relationship or duty must take precedence in a given circumstance (Matthew 10:34-37; 1 Corinthians 7:32-35).

I affirm that there are times when my duties and loyalties to the Church and to fellow Christians override those to my natural family or nation, as obedience to God must always take precedence (Acts 5:29; Matthew 12:50).

I affirm that there are also times when my duties and loyalties to my natural family or nation must take precedence over duties to the visible Church, as God commands me to honor these relationships and fulfill my responsibilities within them (1 Timothy 5:4).

I affirm that I can love and have genuine concern for believers in other nations while maintaining a greater concern, care, loyalty, and duty to my immediate neighbors, even those who are unbelieving (Luke 10:27-37; Galatians 6:10).

I affirm that natural affection for one’s own people—one’s family, tribe, or nation—is a God-given virtue, rooted in the command to love one’s neighbor, starting with those nearest to you (1 Timothy 5:8).

I affirm that nations, like families, are ordained by God, and it is natural and right for a man to love his people as he loves his own household. The instinct to protect one’s own is not a sin but a reflection of God’s providential order (Acts 17:26-27).

I affirm that the Biblical and natural order presents nations as people groups with ties to shared lands, language, ancestry, and culture. (Gen 10-12)

I affirm that assimilation into a nation is possible. (Ruth 1:16-17)

I affirm that every nation is unique in its culture, history, and place under God, and it is right to celebrate the distinctiveness of one’s own nation, so long as those distinctions are not in contradiction to the Scripture, without disparaging others (Revelation 7:9).

I affirm that a true Christian seeks the good of one’s nation through justice, mercy, and humble submission to God, not through racial pride, imperial ambition, or hatred of others (Micah 6:8).

I affirm that Nazism was, and is, an anti-Christian ideology that exalts the state as savior and god, and the will to power as its law.

I deny that the spiritual relationships established in the Church destroy or nullify my duties and loyalties to my natural relationships, as God has ordained both for His glory and my good (1 Corinthians 7:12-14).

I deny that my natural relationships, such as family and nation, are always of higher loyalty and duty than my spiritual relationships in Christ, as loyalty to God must come first (Matthew 10:37-39).

I deny that my love for the Church, including its members in other nations, diminishes my responsibility to love and care for my local community, including my unbelieving neighbors (Romans 13:8-10).

I deny that competing loyalties and duties can be resolved without wisdom, prayer, and reliance on Scripture, as the prioritization of these duties depends on the specific circumstances under God’s providence (Proverbs 3:5-6).

I deny ideologies such as liberalism that reduce nations to abstract propositions like equality, or Darwinian determinism that reduces nations to biological features alone.

I deny that Hitler was a Christian prince or that Nazism was a Christian nationalist project.

I deny that the crimes of modern globalism or cultural Marxism excuse or justify adherence to Nazism or its ideals. To fight one devil by bowing to another is the act of a fool.

I deny that the Jewish people are beyond the reach of God’s mercy. We proclaim Christ crucified as the Savior of all who repent and believe, Jew and Gentile alike.

I deny that one must choose between a love for his own people and a refusal to oppose racial hatred. One does not need to harbor vain pride or commit injustice to rightly practice ordo amoris.

I deny that the Christian’s call is to place earthly nations above the kingdom of God. The church universal is the bride of Christ, and no nation can claim supremacy over His reign (Philippians 3:20).

I deny that natural affection for one’s own people is equivalent to hatred or indifference toward others. A man who loves his family does not despise his neighbor’s but loves them more truly because his love is rightly ordered (Romans 13:8-10).

I deny that natural affection is synonymous with any form of racial supremacy, imperialism, or unbiblical hatred. Christ commands us to disciple all nations (Matthew 28:19).

I deny that the affection for one’s nation excuses tyranny, corruption, or injustice. To love a thing rightly is to seek its reformation under God’s law, not its uncritical exaltation (Proverbs 14:34).

I affirm that marriage can lawfully occur between people of different ethnicities and races, as there is no biblical prohibition against such unions, and all people are made in the image of God (Acts 17:26; See the marriages of Joseph, Moses, and Boaz).

I affirm that wisdom should always be pursued when deciding whom to marry, including a careful consideration of spiritual maturity, shared values, and potential cultural differences that could affect the unity of the marriage (Proverbs 4:7; Amos 3:3).

I affirm that it is the duty of Christians to marry only in the Lord.
I affirm that children of mixed race are fearfully and wonderfully made in the image of God, possessing equal dignity, value, and worth as any other human.

I deny that it is sinful to marry someone of a different ethnicity or race, as such unions are not forbidden by Scripture and are consistent with God’s design for marriage (Numbers 12:1-8).

I deny that it is always unwise to marry someone of a different ethnicity or race, as wisdom is situational and depends on the maturity, love, and commitment of the individuals involved (James 1:5).

I deny that those who profess Christ should marry unbelievers or that the godly should marry such that are notoriously wicked or maintain damnable heresies.

6 Likes
35

I’d read your posts two above, Joseph, and appreciated it. Thanks now for both of them. Love,

3 Likes
36

These affirmations and denials are, for the most part, unarguably true. Thanks for putting it together. I have questions about some of them, particularly those dealing with natural affections. Like other things we disagree on, I see the danger from a distance and work to warn others to keep their distance. You are willing to get close to it and deal with the 2nd-degree burns when/if they come. Different approaches; both are valid…but it certainly means we’ll have to work on our communication with one another.

What sort of reaction have you received from posting this to social media?

6 Likes
37

Found this interview helpful because Wilson was unusually straightforward. And, I had a hunch the Antioch Declaration had something to do with Trump’s SoD nominee and this confirms it:

38

We have no intention of revealing how this interview came to be in our possession. To do so would give too much away about our sources and methods. At the same time, we can fully vouch for the soundness of all of the content

Doug and Keller have in common the habit of making everything lighter than air.

3 Likes
39

Helpful? It confirmed my concerns rather than lessened them. He still doesn’t understand that he’s losing control of his movement.

I don’t care how good 80% of Wolfe is if 20% includes white supremacy. Does someone really need to explain this to Doug???

This issue is not that anyone thinks the neo-Nazis are actually going to take over the US, it’s that their very presence among our number threatens to undo all the work done in the last generation.

Straightforward wasn’t the word that came to mind. Glib was more like it.

6 Likes
40

That’s the spirit. God bless both you brothers.