The Depressing Christian Bar Fight

Audio version available here

Welcome to the Reformed X Bar and Grill

You may have been attracted by the sound of shattering glass. If you're on The Platform Formerly Known As Twitter, you might have even dodged a beer bottle or two. For those who are wondering why a bunch of brothers in Christ are currently lobbing hot wings across the room, allow me to explain.

Quick, let's hide behind that table in the corner, and after I get the baked potato skins outta my hair I'll tell you what I know.

I was sitting at my table in the corner, minding my own business, enjoying a nice burger and doing a deep dive on Catholicism (stay tuned), when suddenly that table over there got flipped over by a guy with a really big beard (so many big beards in this pub, it's really hard to tell people apart). I don't know all the details, but from my vantage point under the table, I think I might have pieced together some idea of what is going on.

Therefore I, the prisoner of the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling with which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, being diligent to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. - Eph. 4:1-3, NAS

Whenever we see Christians going after each other like this, I believe we are Scripturally enjoined to assume the best about both parties until proven otherwise. So I suggest that we should approach this issue with a specific goal in mind: to construct, if possible, a framework that explains the conflict without naming a villain and a hero. Of course, we shouldn't excuse bad conduct... but love bears all things and believes all things (1 Cor. 13), so we should assume the best until proven otherwise.

This is the framework that I am seeking to build in this post.

There are two issues that seem to be the flashpoints of this brawl. The first is a conversation about antisemitism; the second is a conflagration over the bounds of a wife's duty to submit to her husband.

First, let's meet the brethren in the bar, and then we will look at the issues that led to the Guinness on the window.

The Patrons

Allow me to introduce you to the main players in this taproom tangle. The situation can be roughly boiled down to two groups, which groups I shall call the Antioch Contingent and the Christian Nationalists.

The Antioch Contingent (AC) is headlined by Doug Wilson and his Moscow cohort, Jeff Durbin and James White of Apologia, and a pastor from Germany named Tobias, whose last name I shall not attempt to spell.

The Christian Nationalists (CN) are represented by Joel Webbon, Eric Conn and the Bois from Ogden, and, of course, Stephen Wolfe.

A very brief summary of events is as follows: Tobias Reimenschneider (copy/paste is a delightful thing) is the pastor of a church in Germany. A young man from Pastor Tobias' church moved to America and began attending Joel Webbon's church. This young man shared a meme about the holocaust which went something like this: "Those Jews are doing manual labor for the first time. They talk like it's killing them." (This is a paraphrase based on James White's account of events; I did not successfully find the actual meme in question.)

Pastor Webbon describes the subsequent events as Tobias, and others, pressuring him to put this young man and his family under church discipline due to the simple sharing of the meme. Pastor Tobias says that he was firstly not trying to pressure Joel into excommunicating the young man, and secondly that it was about much more than a meme- it was about a trajectory toward antisemitism. There was a Zoom call between Webbon and Reimenschneider (as well as the young man in question and a few other men from Tobias' church). Webbon recorded the call, unbeknownst to the party on the other side of the screen.

Beyond these basic facts, we dive into the controversy, and for that I refer you to firsthand accounts from Tobias and Joel.

Little by little the issue festered, and it wasn't long before sides were drawn and chairs were flying across the room.

Now let's look at the issues in question.

DEM JOOOOOOOOOOS

Let's talk about "the post war consensus." This is a phrase that must be understood if we are to handle this conversation thoroughly. The CN Bois have some problems with the post war consensus, and the AC has some problems with the CN Bois having problems. This is the root discussion that has led to the charges of antisemitism. So what is this consensus? This, from Protestia:

Why the war [WWII] began, how the war grew from a regional conflict to a global war, who the bad guys and good guys were, and the inscripturated canon of facts and figures as agreed upon by the winners of that conflict, are all a part of post-war consensus.

So, we have defined the term. Now what's the problem? Protestia continues:

Most attention on the post-war consensus involves data coming out of the Holocaust. For example, the figure of “six million Jews” killed in German concentration camps, is a figure first posited in 1961 by Dr. Wilhelm Hoettl in a testimony against war criminal, Adolf Eichmann. Although the spread given, at the time, was “between 5.1 and 6 million,” you’re not permitted to say it’s 5.1 million. That would be challenging the post-war consensus because that six million has, somewhere along the way, been the accepted – and only accepted – figure fit to be uttered.

Plenty more examples abound, and are mentioned in the article. And here's the rub: when it comes to the post-war consensus...

Anything short of these answers has been forbidden in the West since the war ended. After all, most of us have grandfathers or great-grandfathers who fought valiantly in this conflict, and as the Antioch Declaration points out, to question the narrative is to “dishonor their legacy.”

We'll get to the Antioch Declaration in a minute. Thus far, we are seeking to establish an understanding of what the CN Bois mean when they discuss this topic- and why they believe the AC guys are very badly misrepresenting them. The CN want to be able to question the approved historical narrative without receiving the identity politics shame-game treatment patented by the American liberal media. Just because someone has a different take on WWII doesn't mean that they hate Jews.

And this discussion extends beyond history. We see application in the here-and-now. You will hear that the Jews have intentionally assumed a prominent role in the pornography industry in order to erode Christian civilization. You will hear Judaism described as a dangerous and cancerous religion. The list goes on.

Again, here, the CN want to be able to have this discussion without receiving the royal name-calling treatment from their Christian brothers (and, indeed, forefathers). This is the driving force behind their contentions, and they feel that the AC is effectively character-smearing them instead of discussing the issues with them in good faith.

Some of my readers are likely already prepared to write off the CN Bois as tin-foil-hat crazy people. Hang in there, and let's make sure we have a balanced understanding here. (Pr. 20:25, Pr. 18:17)

Now everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak, and slow to anger... - Jas. 1:19, NAS

Is it possible to have a discussion about loving one's own people without being a racist? Is it possible for me to prefer hot dogs and apple pie over sake and sushi without hating Japanese people? Is it possible that there really is a concerted anti-Christian effort by some Jewish communities, and that we can discuss this without hating all of the Jews? Is it possible that the history of WWII is messier than we at first thought?

The answer to all of these questions is clearly "yes." Re-read the list. The answer is "yes," but we have to take a deep breath and not jump to the instant polarization so characteristic of internet discussions. If you've never encountered a conspiracy theory that had any merit- if you really believe that none of the established history delivered to us once for all by the same apostles who told us that our ancestors were pond scum, and that Covid would kill us all, and who aren't sure what it means to be a boy or a girl- if you think that these same people are flawless in their historical record-keeping, I would caution that the wise observer would suspect otherwise.

Furthermore, it is possible to ask these questions without having a heart of hatred toward any person or group of persons.

In the Statement on Christian Nationalism, with which Joel Webbon was directly involved- and with which, I might add, I heartily agree- the following is stated:

We further deny that sovereign nations must only be composed of mono-ethnic populations to be united under God. Therefore, as Christian Nationalists, we utterly repudiate sinful ethnic partiality in all its various forms. 

For another example of Joel Webbon providing helpful clarification of his own views, including stating that Hitler was a bad guy, go here.

(For a similar example on the topic of patriarchy, scroll down to the section entitled "The Tongue of the Wise" in this post.)

Statements like these are consistently made by the CN Bois, and I do not believe that Webbon or the Ogden guys are antisemitic, hate non-whites, forbid "interracial" marriage, or any other such thing. There are others in the same circles about whom I am not so sure, but I'm withholding judgment until I have footnotes.

My point is that whenever I dig in to investigate something seemingly wacky that Webbon or Conn says, I've consistently found that their view, when fully understood, is Biblically sound.

Problem is, most people aren't going to dig in like that. If I have to listen an hour into your podcast to know that you actually aren't saying what your Tweet really made it sound like you are saying, then that is a huge problem. But I'm getting ahead of myself.

A Real Problem

The AC, after engaging with this conversation for a while on the interwebs, released a statement called the Antioch Declaration. This declaration was intended to be a line in the sand against antisemitism and white supremacy within the church. We have spent time understanding the CN Bois; now we need to see things from the AC perspective.

The rising tide of white supremacy and racism within the red-pill community- including many who claim the name of Christ- is simply a fact. This is real, and it is completely appropriate for the AC guys to feel a pastoral need to address it. The CN feel misrepresented by the words that the AC puts in their mouth, and to some extent I believe that is fair. On the other hand, the AC is recognizing a real problem, and it is a problem to which it seems the CN folks are largely blind. So to the CN guy who says "nobody is actually a racist! Who is saying that stuff?!?" I present some receipts:

Here's a lovely tweet in response to the new Netflix series about Mary:

Here's somebody who saw a video of a beautiful chocolate-and-vanilla-swirl family singing and dancing together and concluded...

In case you are wondering, "miscegenation" is a way of saying "interracial marriage" that makes the speaker feel much smarter than everyone else. I addressed the above tweet directly in this talk.

Here's another one, on the topic of Samuel Sey, a black Christian influencer, after Samuel said that he didn't like most Christmas songs because of their theological vapidity:

While I think Samuel is listening to the wrong Christmas music, that kind of response is disgusting. But let's go back to Netflix's Mary show again:

Now look, the Netflix show is garbage because it's completely unfaithful to the Biblical account, but to object to a movie about Jewish people because they cast Jewish people to play Jewish people is- um, if that's not antisemitic, I don't know what is.

How about this comment in support of Joel Webbon?

In addition to the violent undertones against Zionism, I must say that I'm definitely feeling the fruits of the Spirit and the honor of father and mother just dripping off that tweet.

The point is that this problem is real, and it is much more common than one might think (or hope). It simply will not do for the CN crowd to say "that's just random people on the internet." OK, fine. A LOT of random people on the internet. A rising tide of people on the internet whose rhetoric may be stronger than that of the CNs, but it doesn't take a genius to see how the former is fed by the latter. A conflagration of people on the internet whom the CN folks, who have very significant online influence, spend very little time rebuking.

Random people on the internet who are perverting and misrepresenting the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Nor will it do to say "look, fascism isn't the problem right now. It's the globo-homo-marxism that we need to fight. No enemies to the right." That's not how this works, and any pastor who doesn't recognize that, with all due respect, probably shouldn't be a pastor.

Yes. Amen. Rebuke the feminism and the marxism and the wokeism. But if we can't do that without swinging the door wide open for Nazism and patriarchal tyranny then we should probably go back into our prayer closets and not emerge until we can teach our people to "not turn to the right nor to the left; turn your foot from evil." (Pr. 4:27)

Saying "most people are going to the left, so let's just not go left and we will be fine" does not pass muster.

So to my CN brethren- if nobody in your pews believes this stuff, then that's great (although I'd be a bit surprised). But it's one thing to not believe something, and it's another thing to be good at communicating your views in a way that precludes that false belief. Y'all really need to pray through how you are saying what you are saying, because this is a real problem, and the AC guys, who are your forefathers in the faith, aren't just making their concerns up out of thin air.

And this exact same thing is happening with the discussion on patriarchy.

That Red Dress

It must be noted that the above question was asked in the form of a poll, and the options in response were "yes" and "no." It must also be noted that the Scriptural answer should be an easy "yes," but also that any man who is micromanaging his wife to this degree has very possibly arrived at a point where she should be getting help.

In other words, a yes-or-no Twitter poll is not the right theater for getting an accurate answer to this question, although it did lead to a spectacular fireworks display.

This all ties together, as Doug Wilson and the Canon folks connected the two topics in one of their NQN podcasts- and blew it all up with the subsequent email:

Now, anybody who knows Canon knows that their patriarchal bona-fides are pretty solid. Yet the wording in this e-mail is so sloppy that it (rightly enough) drew the following criticism from another one of the Ogden guys, Brian Sauvé (click to read the whole tweet):

From later in Brian's tweet:

“If your husband disagrees with Canon Press about some aspect of the Jews, disobey him. You must obey God rather than men and affirm Moscow’s opinions on all questions of history and politics.” The obvious problem is that what Canon Press is promoting here is quite obviously sinful rebellion, not womanly courage. No wife should disobey her husband or report him to the authorities on any of these issues… because they’re so obviously issues where freedom of conscience reigns. I would love to see Canon retract this nonsense. Whose gaze are they living under with stuff like this in the marketing emails?

And so we see that the "revoice for Nazis" and the "White Boy Summer" and the red dress have all swirled into the great and cacophonous bar fight which we now get to enjoy. Before I try to make sense of all of this, I would like to do the same thing here as I did with the Jewish discussion, and respond to the CN Bois consistent contention that tyrannical husbands really are not a problem:

Owen Strachan, one of the favorite targets of the ire of the CN tribe, said this:

Brian Sauvé, legendary advocate of sourdough, replied as follows:

Now look, I'm super glad for Brian and the Ogden guys. Maybe things really are that great in their churches. I hope so. But as with the antisemitism question, dismissal is not a sufficient response. Owen- and Canon, with their Abigail email, as sloppy as it was and as much as they might dislike being associated with Owen- are responding with genuine pastoral concern to a real problem. I'm not gonna bother posting tweets for this one- I'll give my personal testimony.

I was one of those men who micro-managed my wife like an autocrat. That was the actual state of my home. And it was not because I wanted to be a wicked tyrant. I did not go to bed at night stroking my moustache and cackling maniacally about the tortures I would inflict upon my wife on the morrow. I genuinely wanted to be a good husband. I genuinely wanted to be Biblical. But because my understanding of patriarchy had involved too much sourdough and not enough Abigail, I did not exercise my authority in a loving and wise and patient and balanced way. My wife, my marriage, and I myself suffered for it.

And if that is true of a well-intentioned husband, how much more of a husband who is quite happy to just be repeatedly crowned the king of his home, and to remind his wife that she is supposed to do what he says? How much more of a husband who is quite content to get Biblical ammunition with which to hold his wife hostage?

Now, because we are well trained in the ways of internet polarization, a bunch of my patriarchy bro friends just wrote me off as a compromised functional egalitarian. What I just said was- how shall we put it- totally not based.

To such brethren I would offer the following invitation: read this, this, watch this, and listen to this. Wives should obey their husbands, and I'm not ashamed to say it.

But- and I know I'm gonna blow some minds- could it be- follow me closely here- maybe, just maybe, we can actually rebuke two errors at once. It won't make us based, but it will make us Biblical.

And which of those two matters more to us is a question of life or death.

The Antioch Declaration

The AC produced the Antioch Declaration, I believe, as an attempt to draw a line in the sand to prevent the further spread of the antisemitism and ethnic partiality that, as acknowledged above, is indeed a real problem. I very much applaud the pastoral heart evidenced in the declaration, but I think it failed to land, and for the following reasons:

• The declaration read like a blog post. This is a great way to make these points on a blog- fun to read, interesting, engaging- but a terrible way to make a list of affirmations and denials, as at points it is difficult to even understand what is being affirmed or denied.

• The declaration did not stick to covering broad-strokes Christian doctrines, but got to meddlin' in practical applications like whether Judaism is a particularly dangerous threat to Christianity, or one's views on the holocaust, or theorizing about the state of young men in our culture. Again, that's fine for a blog post, but for something designed as a kind of confession of faith that is asking for signatories, it's not helpful.

• The most glaring problem is that the declaration, by the nature of how it was framed, did not just clarify issues (in fact, in some cases, it obfuscated them), nor did it simply seek to divide between fundamental truth and error; it divided between brothers in Christ in a way that seemed calculated to slam the door on- and cut the mic of- the CN guys. "We aren't talking about this any more. You guys are anathema."

I do not believe that this door-slamming was the intention, but it came off almost impossible to see it otherwise due to the context in which it was released; this is not helped by the fact that the temperature of the dialogue has gotten to the point where it's hard to know which of these men even consider the people on the other side of the aisle friends- or faithful pastors.

And coming from the perspective of the AC, I understand this impulse. I really, really do. The CN guys are exhausting. If Eric Conn tweets "wives should obey their husbands IN EVERYTHING" one more time, I'm gonna tell my wife to burn all of her red dresses. And why in the world we need hours and hours of content arguing about WWII or discussing mermaids and the Nephilim is beyond me. However, exhausting and heretical are actually not the same thing, and we should be very careful how readily we disfellowship people with whom we disagree primarily on emphasis and not in content.

Because now the Bride of Christ on X has major egg on her face, and it's sad.

And this exhortation goes both ways, by the way.

To The Based Brethren

My Christian Nationalist brothers, I am committed to giving you the benefit of the doubt (I actually have up until this point worn the "Christian Nationalist" label myself; at this point, I'm watching with interest to see if that will remain the case). Having thoroughly-researched opinions on controversial topics is a passion for me. But it is not going to be for most people – they are scrolling through their social feeds and do not have time to chase a rabbit for 45 minutes trying to discover whether or not Joel believes that a husband should give his wife an approved reading list.

And honestly… I still would not be surprised if some of you guys do approve your wives' choices in books, and I think that’s over the top.

My point here is that if you’re going to have an online presence, you have to bear in mind the fact that what your congregation hears in the context of years of your teaching, accompanied by personal interaction with you, your wife, and your family is not going to be the same thing as what the great interwebs hear in a 30-second clip of you saying "if a husband tells his wife to buy organic food and to only read books written before the 1800s and to wear a head covering and only red dresses all the time, she should obey her husband."

You guys have got to find a way to have the conversations you are having and take the courageous stands you are taking without feeding a steady stream of ammunition to people who think that you are crazy wingnuts (and to crazy wingnuts who think you are on their team). This may mean providing caveats, which I know you guys don’t like to do; you've learned too well from No Quarter November.

I share the concern of the AC folks – and even of flaming liberals like Owen Strachan (sarcasm) – that you guys are overemphasizing topics to a harmful extent, majoring on things that should indeed be an important part of Christian theology, but should not be the only thing that we ever talk about – patriarchy, the study of history, angelology, etc. Maybe that is just because that is what you talk about online, and your actual ministry is more balanced. If so, great… Might be worth spilling that over onto the Internet.

Speaking of Owen Strachan, it’s not surprising to me to see the Christian Nationalism movement splinter and fall apart when it has already been in the practice of splintering away from everyone from Allie Beth Stuckey to Owen Strachan to any other number of Christians who are basically biblically solid but disagree on about 5% of the theology/application.

It’s no surprise that when we have already drawn our camp this small, we find reasons to shrink it even further. I am by no means suggesting that Russell Moore or David French or Beth Moore have a place in the tent – they have compromised in deep and far-reaching ways. But if John Piper and Owen Strachan aren’t welcome here either- my goodness, if Doug Wilson is now a woke-compromised feminist-longhouse boomer, we’re really going to have a problem building this whole New Christendom thing.

Speaking of boomers... In Matthew 7, Jesus gives us a very helpful litmus test- fruit. So I would conclude this section with some questions about the fruit of the CN movement, as judged by its presence on X.

Does dismissal of Christian pastors, including long-standing faithful culture warriors who were effectively the patriarchs of the Christian Nationalist movement, as "boomers," reflect humility and honor of our fathers?

How about that dismissal happening, not after years of compromise, but after a single failure to align with the views of the CN tribe?

This is Twitter tribalism at very troubling levels. And this tribalism is another consistent fruit of CN on X. I do not see much love. Humility. Patience. Wisdom and care in speech. Ephesians 4 Christianity.

I do see a lot of super-based laser-eye giga-chad kings who seem to think that "OK Boomer" is sufficient response to the pastoral concerns of an entire fleet of faithful Christians from a variety of locations and generations.

Does the fact that an entire list of Christian pastors and thinkers who supported and defended you for years are now saying "you guys are crossing a line"- and I've heard nothing but doubling-down from the CN group- does this concern you at all? Does that fruit reflect humility and willingness to accept rebuke?

I'm just saying that if Jeff Durbin backed out of speaking at my conference and Doug Wilson was accusing me of being too far right, I'd be doing some serious soul searching. Never did I expect to say "I'm a moderate like Doug Wilson," but it looks like that moment has arrived.

Next, please, please be more clear and succinct about what you believe. The Antioch Declaration may not have been perfect, but it sure beats wading through hours of podcasts trying to figure out how to properly interpret a tweet.

And if you guys feel like this shouldn't be necessary, or like you've done it enough already- give some weight to the vast array of Christian brothers who are saying that it is, and you haven't.

See my declaration near the end of this post. Two minutes of clarity like that would go a long way towards lowering the temperature in the room.

Lastly, the road that your followers seem to be heading down ends in an enormous pile of tin-foil hats. Look, I'm not afraid to check out a conspiracy theory or two. I think it's patently obvious that the twin towers didn't collapse in a perfect vertical demolition due to a couple of airplanes. I also think it would be a complete waste of my time to spend 10,000 hours of my life studying something that affects my daily soldiering for Jesus not at all. I understand the impulse to question the wisdom received from compromised institutions, but it begins to smack of simple rebellion and the rejection of norms for the sake of rejecting norms. This may not be what you guys are doing- but it is what your followers are doing, and that should concern you. When the flatness of the earth is a more important conversation than, say, sacrificial atonement, we have a problem.

I'm trying- really hard- to give you guys the benefit of the doubt. I want to build this new Christendom with you. I understand that you are making a lot of good points that are being dismissed far too readily by the broader American Christian community. I am fighting for you to get a hearing.

But if y'all are collecting a following of Nazis on X, and you aren't even recognizing, let alone addressing it- if you cannot see that Twitter anons who are fed a constant stream of "wives should submit to their husbands IN EVERYTHING!!!" are gonna end up doing some bad stuff- if you can't see that, if you aren't able to course-correct, if you refuse to address these issues, I do not think that this movement is ready for action- in fact, I think it's going to end up doing a lot of damage- and I am not prepared to cast my lot in with you.

An occasional "by the way, husbands should love their wives too" or "not all Jews are bad" simply doesn't cut it.

To the Boomer Brigade

(By the way, I'm using the term "boomer" because of the context of the discussion. I do not consider it appropriate to be calling these men boomers, nor do I think it is an effective response to their concerns. I am using the term colloquially and not dismissively.)

First of all, a word specifically directed toward Moscow. I appreciate Moscow's many courageous stands over the years. I appreciate Moscow's courageous stand now. However, I believe that there are a few flies in the Moscovian ointment that need to be addressed, and that are not unrelated to the issue at hand.

The CN crowd seems to have grown up on Canon. The universal consensus is that they all saw Doug Wilson as one of their founding fathers. I would humbly encourage the Canon community to ask themselves if it is completely accidental that this Twitter kerfuffle is the flotsam in the wake of the Moscow ship.

The Canon community has made a lifestyle out of hoisting the Jolly Roger. From No-Quarter November to The Serrated Edge to the occasional four-letter-word, flouting the rules is the name of the game in Moscow.

Now, Moscow's approach has done much good. The courage- the unwillingness to compromise before the woke and the wicked- the prophetic proclamations while the rest of the American church sat silent- these have been very good things, mightily used by God.

But I would ask my Idaho brothers to prayerfully consider that, perhaps, there is a lesson in this for them as well. The Based Bros are simply taking their transgressiveness- and courage- and, if I may humbly suggest, pride- to the next level. Moscow doesn't apologize for stuff- neither do the CN. Moscow doesn't give many caveats- neither do the CN. Moscow is comfortable with the scorn of the broader American church- so are the CN.

I would ask Moscow if they are not seeing in the CN group the same unwillingness to budge in the face of rebuke that they demonstrated in the recent middle-finger debacle. A whole fleet of faithful friends of the Moscow ministry said "hey, you guys have crossed a line," and Moscow's response was to give 20% of a wave. The similarity is uncanny.

A student will be like their master. I hope that Moscow will take a moment to look in the mirror.

Beyond that, I would strongly encourage everyone on the AC side of the fence to not stoop to the tribalism and immaturity of the X world. Don't write these guys off. Take the time to hear what they have to say. It's gonna take patience and it's gonna take long-suffering, but you cannot condemn their tribalism and immaturity in a tribalistic and immature way.

Further, these men really do have courage and zeal and many good things to say. If you simply dismiss them as laser-eye weirdos, you are going to make it all the harder for them to hear what you have to say.

Communication is a two-way street... and stuff like this is not paving that road:

I really respect pastor Gabe. I love a lot of what he has to say. But this is completely unfair and unhelpful. No (noteworthy) Christian Nationalist objects to preaching the Gospel, but rather to a hamstrung application of the Gospel. This post just starts a completely unnecessary brawl.

Lastly, on this note, behold this, from the Ogden guys:

Yes. Yes yes. More of this, please.

How the conversation goes/went remains to be seen, and I am very curious to see the result.

The Hudelson Declaration

So what is the positive construct then? What should we believe about these things? Can we identify a foundational and essential level of unity upon which to build? Ladies and gentlemen, I present the Hudelson declaration.

I posted the Declaration by itself here, and you want to sign in the comments, more power to you.

On Nationalism

I affirm that there is one race – humankind – made male and female in the image of God in the person of our first parents, Adam and Eve, from whom descended all humans of every ethnicity. (Gen. 1:26, 3:20)

I deny that ethnic differences are essential to our humanity

I deny, therefore, that interracial marriage between humans is even a possibility, let alone that “miscegenation” is a sin.

I deny, therefore, that preserving a certain skin color or ethnic purity is a permissible concern for the Christian.

I affirm that God put us in places and with people for a reason, and that it is good and healthy to love our place and our people.

I affirm that all cultural traditions must be measured against the Word of God.

I affirm that God calls us to honor our fathers, and that doing so often includes preserving our cultural heritage.

I affirm that it is good and right for nations to love their traditions and to seek to preserve them.

I affirm that nations should require immigrants to honor the laws, cultures, and traditions of the nation's fathers.

I affirm that the blood of Christ is a deeper and stronger bond than the blood and soil of any particular land or ethnic or cultural heritage. (Gal. 2:11)

I therefore affirm that I have an eternal and essential bond with a Christian on the other side of the world that I do not share with my unregenerate neighbor. (Gal. 3:28)

I deny that this therefore means that I should not care about what I share with my fellow Americans as distinct from what I share with my fellow Christians.

I affirm that these two things are both important and must be valued independently and in the proper order – with Christ first and country second.

I affirm that the most important traditions and culture to propagate- by far- are those which are explicitly tied to Jesus Christ, not those which are features of a certain ethnicity or nation.

I affirm that there is nothing wrong with wanting my grandchildren to have affinity for baseball and apple pie rather than for soccer and taquitos.

I deny that this therefore means that I should or may have animosity towards Mexicans.

I affirm that if my kids all marry brown people and American culture over the next 200 years becomes a taquito and soccer culture that upholds justice and worships and serves Jesus Christ... I couldn't care less about the apple pie.

On Patriarchy

I affirm that wives should obey their husbands. (1 Pet. 3:1, Ephesians 5:22)

I affirm that this obedience must be voluntary on the part of the wife.

I affirm that husbands should love their wives as equals. (1 Pet. 3:7)

I affirm that husbands have plenary authority and responsibility to rule their homes in love for the good of their people. (Eph. 5:25)

I affirm that the authority of a husband is subject to the authority of Jesus Christ, and, where jurisdictionally appropriate, to the authority of pastors and civil magistrates.

I affirm that wives and children should obey God rather than man. (Acts 5:29)

I affirm that obedience to God demands obedience to the written Word of God, but also includes obedience to the demands of conscience; therefore, while a wife's conscience should be strongly bound by Scripture to live in obedience to her husband, I deny that he must specifically command her to do something that God forbids or forbid her to do something that God commands in order for her to have the right to disobey. (1 Sam. 25)

I affirm that a wife has the right to seek recourse and interposition in the case of a tyrannical husband, and I deny that the only definition of a tyrannical husband is one who violates a specific black-and-white command of Scripture.

[For example: it is not sinful for a husband to tell his wife to make a tuna sandwich or to wear a red dress. It is sinful for a man to be unloving to his wife and to not treat her as a fellow heir of the grace of life. Therefore, is it sinful for a husband to dictate his wife's menu and wardrobe? This is not a black-and-white line, and it is a line best drawn by wise and Godly elders, not by the courtroom of X.]

I deny that godly elders and magistrates should "believe all women" in cases of appeal for help, but affirm that they should investigate and apply Biblical standards of conduct to the situation, upholding proper patriarchal authority and rebuking rebellious women, but also holding tyrannical patriarchs in check and protecting women and children from abusive husbands.

On Christendom

I affirm that the advance of the all-encompassing Gospel of Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit resulting in a regenerate people is the only foundation for a true Christendom. (Matt. 28:18-20)

-----------------------------------

None of this is written with a desire to attack or tear down any of the men in the bar. Many of them I personally respect and have learned much from. It is my hope and prayer that God would heal these rifts, and that He would bless every one of these men with abundant and faithful and fruitful ministries.

Also, people really need to shut off the social media and go touch grass.

We've gotta find a way to lay down our weapons, be willing to apologize for a thing or two, and talk like adults.

That, or we should just get off of Twitter.

Now let's help the waitresses clean this place up.