The Anti-Och Statement

The name means, "Against Control." It seems appropriate.

Theonomy 2.0 and its merger with Christian Nationalism has been fun to watch for the last two years, if no other reason, it gave me something to keep up on while working my day job in finance. Watching, quite voyeuristically, on the proceedings of this union, also reminded me of why I don’t miss being in the middle of it.

I pray my commentary doesn’t drag me back in.

I’m going to block-quote the next few paragraphs, so if your eyes glaze over from lack of interest, you can skip to the more interesting parts and just ignore the background.

The basic background is this; my thesis in Embers of a Dying Fire was quite correct. Theonomy 1.0, or classic Theonomy, which is the Theonomy of Rushdoony and Bahnsen, died a whimpering death in Phoenix in 2014. Nobody, so far as I know, is still advocating for an upending of the 19th Chapter of the Westminster Confession of Faith on the grounds that it is, as Rushdoony argued, “nonsense.” Certainly Joel McDurmon no longer argues that.

Theonomy 2.0 is precisely the opposite of Theonomy 1.0, and instead seeks fidelity with the Westminster Confession rather than its abrogation. Hence the term, “General Equity Theonomy,” which is taken from Clause 4 of Chapter 19 of the confession. It simply means, as the divines intended it, that certain universal and moral principles are contained within the Mosaic judicial code that are profitable for our reproof, correction, and training in godliness.

No one should disagree with that position, because it’s biblical.

The goal of Christian Nationalism is - in its most simple form - the desire to create a uniformly Christian nation, and also deviates from the current Westminster Confession (in chapter 23), but not the pre-1788 Westminster Confession that was amended to tolerate religious pluralism. In this sense, both Theonomy 1.0 and Theocracy contradict the current norms of confessional Reformed theology (albeit, Theonomy 2.0 does not).

Theonomy deals with enforcement of the Civil Code, and not necessarily the Moral Law. Theocracy deals with enforcement of the Moral Law, and not necessarily the Civil Code.

Few understand that simple difference between Theonomy and Theocracy, but it might be helpful for our discussion.

How these two similar but different theological propositions have weaved together and grown apart over the last few years have been exciting for those of us who enoy an autistic-level attention to doctrinal novelties.

That said, in an age ruled by God-hating pagans, as America has been for quite some time, anything poised to drag the nation further back to godliness is embraced like cool water on a hot day. Christian Nationalism enjoyed this welcome reprieve for the first few years of its resurgence. But now, some who embraced the concept are giving it a second look, and having second thoughts.

After all, if we can own the Libs with this, and perhaps put Trump back in the White House (both are good and godly things, by the way), then how bad can it be?

If you appreciate my work, please know this is part of what I do to support my family, and I’d be honored if you would get a paid subscription, and also to get exclusive content.

But now that Christian Nationalism has been used successfully for the political end for which some used it, I suppose it is now time for the infighting and tribalistic disputes. I would like to add an observation, which I have made for nearly a decade, that anything remotely touching the topic of Theonomy always leads to fractures and splinters and divides, but then again, it always ends up this way no matter the doctrinal dispute.

Much could be said about the Antioch Statement because, after all, it said a lot of things. I’ll leave that to those with dogs in the fight, and also I want to save some powder for tonight’s Protestia+ Round Table (which, as a paid subscriber, you’ll be able to join for free; the link will be behind the paywall at this end of this article).

For now, I’ll just summarize what should be the most obvious insight regarding the Antioch Statement, which is probably not obvious to most. But as soon as I spell it out, you’ll see it’s insightful and recognize the truthfulness of it.

There are two types of Christian Nationalists, basically. The first type (1) is committed doctrinally to its tenets. Whether or not it conforms to a confession, to them, is largely irrelevant because, after all, even our confessions acknowledge that Scripture alone is the only infallible rule of faith and practice. They believe that nations are to be brought into conformity to Christ by - among other things - the implementation of Biblical principles or God’s law. It is not, for them, primarily political.

The other type (2) can nod generally in agreement with the first, but are largely committed to the status quo of conventional Christian Conservatism, and view Christian Nationalism merely as a vehicle to obtain political power and accomplish political goals.

This second type is probably in the majority of those who claim Christian Nationalism. They are like so many who have used the Pro Life Movement as a means to a political end, largely divorced from the actual ambition of abolishing abortion.

A hot-take summary of the Antioch Statement, produced by Doug Wilson, James White, and some others, appears to be a reaction (if not over-reaction) to the allegation of anti-Semitism or White Nationalism within the ranks of Christian Nationalism.

While partiality is, in fact, what makes racism inherently sinful - and indeed, all forms of bigotry - those who hold to Christian Nationalism out of conviction are not afraid to identify as bigots. After all, the entire supposition undergirding Christian Nationalism is that Christianity is indeed superior to all other faiths. And, cultures or civilizations that can loosely be characterized as Christian are superior to all other cultures.

I’d co-sign that.

However, for those who use Christian Nationalism as just a tool in the political toolbox to accomplish political goals, the prospect of being stained with the accusation of bigotry is a terrible inconvenience.

In fact, it appears that the authors of the Antioch Statement realize how close they really are to having some kind of Rasputin-like influence in the function of spiritual counsel to the new regime. After all, a Wilsonite has been nominated to run the Department of Defense (which is pretty awesome, honestly). They are this close to being able to sit within proximity to the seats of power, and they can taste it. And frankly, I hope they make it there. Maybe they can be put on a faith advisory counsel or something.

However, if a credible accusation of anti-semitism sticks to them, there goes any hope of having a seat at that table. We all know that’s a political death wish. Any ground that they have gained in bending the ear of political leaders will be gone, the moment AIPAC or the Southern Poverty Law Center brands them a bigot.

So then, the Antioch Statement, written in a convoluted, confusing, and disjointed way - while using way too many words to express their point - shames young Christian men for questioning the post-war consensus on the grounds that it might lead to “malice, vain glory, race-baiting, antisemitism, treachery, bitterness, or hatred.”

Aside from tacitly implying that providing historical context to WWII is tantamount to, "harmonizing the racial and antisemitic theories of Adolf Hitler and neo-pagan doctrines of the Nazi cult with the gospel of Christ and the teachings of scripture,” it goes so far as to allege that doing so is dishonoring “to our fathers and their momentous sacrifices.”

For example, I don’t doubt what the Antioch Statement describes as, “diaries, documented records, firsthand testimonies of eyewitnesses, extensive photography and videography all provided within living memory – for the deliberate mass destruction of millions of Jews by the Nazis.”

Am I dishonoring my two-time Prisoner of War grandfather by acknowledging that despite the above-mentioned indisputable atrocities committed by Hitler, that the Allied Forces still murdered considerably more civilians than Hitler?

In case Wilson and crew haven’t noticed, Christian Nationalists who view the movement as more than a political end, are quite repulsed at the notion that we can’t say things, think things, or believe unpopular, inconvenient things.

Those are all political considerations, and not theological ones. And at its heart, if Christian Nationalism is of God at all, it will be a theological conviction, and not a political tool.

But the most bewildering line in the Antioch Statement, to me, is “as a consequence, some young men in the West have become jaded and cynical, with an element among them now rejecting or doubting the received account of virtually anything.”

That’s correct, and as it should be. Please tell me, what is the moral requirement to accept the received account of virtually anything, unless it is received in the written Word of God?

It blows my mind this made it to the final version of the Antioch Statement. I had a visceral reaction while reading that. In a world of profound lies, please explain why we should not doubt or reexamine anything not given us in the Holy Scriptures?

Perhaps this is the reason questioning Churchill’s status in history as a hero of peace and liberty has been met as though we’ve desecrated the tomb of a canonized saint.

Ultimately, the term ‘Antioch Statement’ is appropriate. Antioch, of course, was the launch pad of the church into the Gentile world, bridging the church of converted Jews with the church of the pork-eating pagans. But the name, Antioch, is from two words, anti, meaning “against,” and ékhō, meaning “control.”

This statement is an attempt by theological gatekeepers to declare that some - chiefly Webbon, Wolfe, et al - are not in control of the movement. I guess we’ll have to wait and see if that’s true or not.

If you’re a paid-subscriber, you’ll get a one-time link to tonight’s Protestia+ Polemics Round Table to take part in a discussion on this topic.

PS: This better not wind me up on the Dividing Line. Bless everybody involved. Bless them all until they can’t be blessed any more.