Why We Can't Sign the Antioch Declaration

The Bible Bashed Podcast

Subscribe

Download

Share

00

00:00

While I'm doing that, I mean, it's probably not even been five minutes. She calls me on the phone and she was telling me, hey, we're not going to make it to the hospital.

00:09

Call 9 -1 -1. So I called 9 -1 -1 and the firefighters arrived.

00:31

People are tired of hearing nothing but doom and despair on the radio. The message of Christianity is that salvation is found in Christ alone and any who reject

00:48

Christ therefore forfeit any hope of salvation, any hope of heaven.

00:55

The issue is that humanity is in sin and the wrath of almighty

01:00

God is hanging over our heads. They will hear his words, they will not act upon them and when the floods of divine judgment, when the fires of wrath come, they will be consumed and they will perish.

01:16

God wrapped himself in flesh, condescended and became a man, died on the cross for sin, was resurrected on the third day, has ascended to the right hand of the father where he sits now to make intercession for us.

01:32

Jesus is saying there is a group of people who will hear his words, they will act upon them and when the floods of divine judgment come in that final day, their house will stand.

01:46

All right, let's get started. I thought that considering that Harrison will not be here today to read our intro, that I would fly solo and this

01:56

Antioch Declaration came out today and I thought that I was in a pretty unique position to comment on some of these things as a neutral third -party observer.

02:08

So I thought maybe I would throw some comments into the mix and give some perspective as someone who really is not emotionally involved in this controversy at all.

02:20

But at the same time, I do have some unique connections to this controversy that I think very few people have.

02:30

Meaning I have friends that were on both sides of that infamous Zoom call that I've known for years.

02:38

So this puts me in somewhat of a unique position to speak to some of these issues related to the controversy between Joel Webben and Tobias, this recent kind of controversy.

02:52

And I don't plan on sharing any insider knowledge or insider perspective. I would just say that I have interacted with individuals on both sides of that discussion and at the same time,

03:07

I'm aware of the broader discussions related to race and Christian nationalism.

03:14

When I read Stephen Wolf's book, The Case for Christian Nationalism, I've actually listened to the

03:20

Stone Choir episodes on race. So I have some understanding of what they are talking about when they're talking about the topics of race too.

03:29

Some individuals had sent those to me and asked me for a perspective on those. So I'm aware of a lot of the major players in this controversy and I'm aware of the

03:39

Antioch Declaration itself. I just read it as somewhat of a neutral third -party observer who is just looking at it and asking myself the question, can

03:49

I sign it? So today I would like to spend some time talking about why I would find it almost impossible to sign this statement, even though I want to be able to sign it.

03:59

So I have no bias against signing this statement. I really feel like I'm a fairly neutral observer.

04:06

I would say that of internet personalities, I've listened to almost everything that Dr.

04:13

White has said for the past 10 years and I plan on keeping on doing that.

04:19

I've read most of Doug Wilson's blogs over the past 10 years, benefited from his books, enjoy a lot of the things that are coming out of Moscow these days.

04:30

So I would say in terms of my interaction with the people involved, I've listened to Dr.

04:38

White and Doug Wilson as a regular part of just my diet of Christian pastors who

04:48

I listen to. I would say that I listen to them more than probably most people. So I'm very sympathetic to where they're coming from.

04:55

At the same time, and as it relates to individuals on the other side, Joel Webben, Eric Kahn, Brian Silvey, I would say that I have almost no interaction, no exposure to what they've said other than Twitter.

05:14

I mean, I don't even think I follow them on Twitter, but I see their stuff coming up and not frequent enough. And I would say that I'm in large measure agreement with them on the topics of gender, marriage, biblical patriarchy.

05:26

I find myself resonating with the things that they are saying and I find myself saying a lot of the same things that they're saying, coming to those convictions somewhat independently.

05:36

So I really haven't listened to anything that they've done. I've listened to a lot of the Haunted Cosmos episodes and I find myself largely skeptical of that project.

05:48

I think that maybe there's some good that comes from it, but you know the joke that people have when they listen to that podcast where with the guy from the

05:59

History Channel who basically says it's aliens and in relationship to them, the joke would be, it's all demons.

06:09

That joke kind of obtains in this scenario. But yeah, I would say that I haven't listened to any of their stuff really at all.

06:17

I find myself in large measure agreement with the things I see on Twitter for the most part. So I'm not hostile to what they're doing.

06:26

I wouldn't consider myself in any of these individuals' camp, so to speak.

06:32

So I've benefited a lot from Doug Wilson. I've benefited from James White.

06:38

I think in the circles that I generally find myself in on the internet, there are individuals who are expressing a level of dishonor towards Doug Wilson and James White that I find somewhat troubling.

06:56

So I do consider them to be fathers in the faith and I think that they should be shown a certain kind of respect.

07:04

At the same time, I found myself as it relates the topic of race,

07:10

I find it difficult at times to affirm everything that I hear

07:19

Dr. White and Doug Wilson to be saying, even though I'm largely sympathetic to them. I wouldn't consider myself a race realist and I wouldn't consider myself as an individual who has, you know, certainly

07:34

I haven't adopted the positions of the guys on Stone Choir. I wouldn't say

07:40

I'm there at all. I'm somewhat sympathetic to a lot of the things that Stephen Wolfe is saying in the case of Christian Nationalists.

07:47

I don't know that anyone would, you know, accuse me of being a Christian Nationalist. I don't know that I'm fully on board with that label, whatever that means, but then

07:59

I don't find myself hostile to that project. I certainly think that secularism is bankrupt.

08:05

I think that if you were to answer the hypothetical question, you know, what would you do if you were in a plane and your plane crashed on a deserted island and you had, you know, 20 people and you had to form a government because there's no hope of rescue, you know, what kind of government would you form?

08:26

I would think in that hypothetical situation that you would need to form a government that's founded and based on biblical principles.

08:37

So I would think that I would be making some appeal to the law as the standard for justice.

08:43

And as I read the law, it's frequently said that, you know, what nation is there that has statutes and rules that are so righteous and just as these and the

08:53

God so near to them as these rules. And the law is meant to be the people of Israel's wisdom in the sight of the nations, and the nations itself would look at the law and say that it was a just thing.

09:06

So I have some sympathy towards the Christian Nationalist Project. I don't have a rejection towards it.

09:12

I have some concerns about it in certain ways as well. But yeah, you know, so I feel like I've put in a lot of work related to this topic in order to listen to both sides.

09:25

As to what they're saying, I have some familiarity with the things that are happening. And I think it may be helpful to share just a perspective of someone who hasn't,

09:35

I haven't been actively, me or Harrison, we have not been actively involved in these particular contexts.

09:45

I would say that behind the scenes, I found myself talking with individuals on both sides of the recent

09:52

Joel Webb and Dustup, just simply because I have long term relationships with these individuals.

09:57

So there's that. And so I put some thought into these things. And I feel like I'm somewhat of a third party person who can just share observations that you can do whatever you want with.

10:09

But this is, it may be helpful just to tell you how I'm thinking about some of these things. And we'll go back to regular scheduled programming when, next week, as far as those things are concerned.

10:22

But yeah, I read the Antioch Declaration. And I would say that I found it somewhat bizarre, bizarre as a declaration.

10:32

Because, as I said, I mean, I feel like I'm an individual who is predisposed to want to sign something like this.

10:40

I thought that the statement would be more doctrinal in nature. And what

10:46

I found is in reading this statement, it really is asking me to make, like if I'm going to sign it, make particular judgments about history that I would be uncomfortable making.

10:58

And the reason why I'm uncomfortable making them is simply because I, you know, for the last two decades of my life have devoted myself to learning the

11:07

Bible. And I wouldn't say that I've devoted myself to learning, learning about World War II, and the post -war consensus and everything else.

11:17

So I mean, there's a lot of things in here that I, that involve specific particular readings of God's provenance, particular readings of history, particular judgments about motives with people at times that I'm really just uncomfortable making.

11:35

But then I don't know why I would be asked to be making these specific stands when trying to assign a statement like this.

11:45

I mean, I would imagine that the statement should be a bit more doctrinal in nature and less requiring me to make certain specific judgments.

11:56

So when you think about the introduction, the introduction starts out with a, basically a criticism of the idea about no enemies to the right.

12:07

So many people on the right have basically, as an attempt to move the

12:13

Overton window, declared war on the left, but then basically are advocating a stance that says no more brother wars and no criticizing enemies on the right.

12:28

And the point there is, I mean, that's a political philosophy that they've come up with, where they are basically taking the opposite approach of what your standard gospel coalition,

12:39

Winsome, TM, you know, Christian types are doing. So for many years in the church, you have individuals in the church who basically, they have an impulse to say that because Jesus's harshest words were directed towards the

12:57

Pharisees, to those in their own group, then in order to be like Jesus and to be faithful, you basically punch real hard to those in your circles, and then you give the pagan culture a wide berth.

13:11

And I mean, I think this is essentially what Winsome means. Like in order to be Winsome, you have to basically be really nice to people on the left.

13:18

And then what you do is you really distance yourself really far from, you know, the extremist on your right.

13:25

And the tactic is because you want the left to know that you're really a nice guy and you're not as bad as all, you know, these

13:33

David Duke types and all that. So, you know, please let me be the last one who you throw to the lions, so to speak.

13:42

And I understand that that's a bit of a bankrupt political philosophy.

13:49

But that's certainly, yeah, what Tim Keller was putting forward, certainly what it means to be for the city and everything else.

13:55

You see that the left has all the cultural influence centers on. And, you know, the Christians are being told to reach the world, and what it means to reach the world in the minds of this kind of person is that you are basically nice to the left, and then you really like punch the right really hard.

14:11

So you coddle left, you punch right. And the idea of no enemies to the right is kind of a reversal of that to where basically you're saying instead of taking that approach, what we should be doing is punching to the left really hard and, you know, basically coddling the right.

14:28

And I mean, I see some value in that. I see that those that are enemies to the right are expanding the

14:36

Overton window, so to speak, the range of acceptable discourse. I understand what they're saying. I understand what they're advocating, what they're putting forward.

14:45

And maybe there's some political utility in that. At the same time, I do share the concerns of the

14:51

Antioch Declaration at this point, where they say this. They say, thus, as confessionally reformed believers from a broad range of churches, we have come together to identify and resist a rising tide of reactionary thinking emerging on the fringes of our own circles.

15:07

Those especially at risk of being lepstrayed by wolves closed as shepherds are among the younger generation of Christian men whom we love and care about deeply.

15:17

As believers, we must always build and act upon the foundation of Scripture. This must include all of our engagement in socioculture and political life to react to cultural developments in a manner that denies the functional and final authority of the

15:30

Word of God over us is to move against the rule of Christ and His kingdom. Since God does not show favoritism, the

15:36

Word of God must be faithfully applied everywhere and to all. This clearly implies that while we must never criticize the political right simply because the progressive left demands it, to declare that we will never have enemies on the right simply indicates to Satan and his hordes what form his next attack on the people of God should take and which direction it should come.

15:58

So I don't think the idea of no enemies to the right is to declare a permanent ceasefire on attacking members to the right.

16:05

It's a temporary political strategy designed to move the Overton window, but then I am sympathetic to what they're saying in large measure, which is just to say that I don't think that you declare a ceasefire on any sense.

16:19

So there's that. Now, I mean, I think I also agree that whenever the left demands a struggle session, you don't give in to a struggle session.

16:28

In other words, one of the common tactics of the left is to constantly ask Christians to disavow people to their far right, and if they don't do that, then the necessary implication in their minds is that you are tainted.

16:46

And so you think about how this relates to individuals like Donald Trump. You see over and over and over again,

16:52

Donald Trump is being asked to engage in these struggle sessions where he declares that he's not racist, and there's no amount of doing that that's ever going to appease the left, and the signers of the

17:01

Antioch Declaration understand this as well. So yeah, I would say that my quibble with it would be it seems like they're communicating in their statement that the point of no enemies to the right was to never criticize the political right when

17:21

I understand this to be a temporary strategy which is designed to move the Overton window of acceptable discourse.

17:28

But at the same time, yeah, I don't know that this is a biblical strategy, and I don't know that I really want to defend this strategy to great lengths other than just to say that, yeah,

17:39

I think that Christians should want to evangelize people on the right just as much as they should evangelize people on the left, and in the

17:47

Gospel Coalition and Winsome Christianity world, it seems like the mission field is only to the left, and you must utterly repudiate and assign to the band, devote to the band, anathematize people on the right.

18:00

There's no witnessing to them, and I think that that's troubling. So yeah, no, I am sympathetic to the idea of no enemies to the right, and maybe there's some political utility in that, but certainly

18:10

I agree that it's, certainly I would not be able to confidently say that this is a biblical pattern to follow.

18:22

At the same time, yeah, I think there's been a lot of partiality the opposite way, and I can see that, and I can see why a reaction would form to say, like, maybe we're a bit imbalanced in our impulses here.

18:34

Now, I mean, certainly, yeah, certainly you do deal with sins in your own camp first, and the

18:40

Bible tells us that we should be judging those who are on the inside and not on the outside. I would deny that the political right is the

18:48

Christian's inside, and the political left is the Christian's outside, meaning, like,

18:53

I think that those are categories related to church prioritization. It's not really political categories at that point, but yeah, so there's a lot of thoughts related to that.

19:05

But I would just say, yeah, I find myself in some agreement with the skepticism towards no enemies to the right being a biblical priority or biblical example.

19:18

I wouldn't be able to affirm that as a necessary part of Christian faithfulness, and I don't think that many people who are advocating that are.

19:28

I think they're more putting it forward as a temporary political tool, and I would just say, well,

19:34

I'm not persuaded that that is really the best way to approach this situation, but I'm not necessarily hostile to those who think it is, so there's that.

19:46

With the Declaration itself, as I said, I find myself having a very difficult time affirming much of what is in here.

19:57

I mean, there's some things that I think are obvious, but then there's a lot of things that require judgments of motives and specific historical stances, which

20:07

I'm uncomfortable making, and so maybe it'd be helpful just to read through the statement itself and then provide running commentary, but I don't imagine

20:15

I'm going to say anything very significant here at this point other than to point out some basic observations about the statement itself.

20:24

So the statement starts out like this. It says, We deny that the kingdom purposes of Christ and requirements of his word can be equated with the seating positions of the political actors during the

20:34

French Revolution, or that the modern antithesis between right and left is equivalent to the antithesis that God established in the

20:42

Garden of Eden, because the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent, the kingdom of darkness and the kingdom of light.

20:49

Yeah, I agree with that, as it's stated. Certainly, the modern political right is not synonymous with the kingdom of God, nor is the modern political left synonymous with the kingdom of Satan.

21:03

Now, I mean, certainly, and the writers of the statement would agree with this as well. It is very true that the modern political left is much more synonymous with the kingdom of Satan than the modern political right.

21:20

So I wouldn't want to do some kind of moral equivalence kind of argument here to say that there are equal errors on both sides.

21:29

So I wouldn't want to say that. But at the same time, I would affirm that part of the statement as it stands while making the clarification that I just made, which,

21:41

I mean, I've followed the writers of the statement long enough to know that they would make similar qualifications there at that point, too.

21:49

It says, we affirm that the modern neo -pagan secular project is bankrupt and desperately trying to hold the social order together by means of a fraudulent narrative and anti -Christian worldview.

22:03

As a result, the lies of the secular elites in all spheres have necessarily grown increasingly evident and outrageous.

22:11

This would be just an example of something that I, yeah, I think it's true. I'm not sure why this is being included in this statement.

22:21

This seems like something that should be put in the introduction to provide context. I don't know that this should be a doctrinal kind of formulation here.

22:30

Yeah, I would think that what would need to happen in this statement and the declaration section, that these would be more doctrinal in nature that everyone could agree upon, that could be unifying.

22:42

But yeah, I would say my read on the world would agree with this.

22:48

I think secularism is bankrupt. I think it's, sure, it's desperately trying to hold the social order together by means of a fraudulent narrative and anti -Christian worldview.

23:00

Sure, I think that's all true. I would wonder why we're putting that here though.

23:06

It says, we affirm that 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 everything.

23:18

The great danger is now that instead of acting on the basis of revealed truth in Christ, they are in the unhappy position of reacting by choosing between opposing sets of lies.

23:29

So this again is, this is requiring me to make certain judgments about the nature and character of big, large groups of people.

23:41

And I would say that, yeah, I think those are some tendencies there.

23:48

I don't know who the writers of the statement have in mind with who the statement is designed to include, but certainly,

23:59

I mean, yeah, some young men in the West have become jaded and cynical, sure.

24:05

Now they're saying that this is a consequence of the modern neo -pagan secular project, desperately trying to hold each other together.

24:13

Yeah, I mean, I think that there are many lies. Many people have become jaded to the fact that anything really can be believed.

24:24

I mean, we're faced with a deluge of information at this point and overwhelmed by many different competing narratives.

24:32

So I certainly think that there are some young men who are jaded and cynical. Now this, the great danger is now that instead of acting on the basis of revealed truth in Christ, they're in the unhappy position of reacting by choosing between an opposing set of lies.

24:47

Yeah, that involves judgment motives about the signers of the statement's adversaries.

24:54

And so I don't know who this is meaning to characterize here.

25:03

And so I don't know who they're talking about specifically. So are they talking about the guys, the

25:11

Stone Choir guys? Are they talking about the Eric Kahn, Brian Sovey, Stephen Wolfe, Joel Webben?

25:22

Yeah, I don't know. I don't know that I would read any of those people's motives in this kind of way if that's what

25:29

I'm being asked to do. So yeah, I don't know. I don't even know what to make of that. I don't know who they have in mind with this great danger that they see.

25:40

And so yeah, I normally when I'm trying to interact with people online, I normally just assume the best motives.

25:47

And so as I listened to the Zoom call, that infamous Zoom call, I assumed the best motives on both sides and was trying to listen objectively because some individuals who were involved in that Zoom call asked me for input about it on both sides.

26:03

So I tried to give an objective response and my objective response put everyone on both sides in the best possible light because I was trying to extend the judgment of charity.

26:11

So yeah, I don't know who this applies to. I don't know that I'm willing to say that that's the great danger now.

26:17

I don't know that I'm willing to say that that's the most significant danger. I don't know that I read.

26:23

I typically just try to stay away from these judgments of motives. So I don't know how to respond to that.

26:33

Next one. We deny that the disillusionment and resentment of the lies one has been told is adequate preparation for standing in truth and resisting a new set of lies.

26:43

Yeah, I agree. That's true. There's no value in being reactionary.

26:49

If all we're saying at this point is there are some people who are reactionary, there's a temptation to be reactionary, then yeah,

26:57

I think that's a danger that people may face. I don't think being reactionary is good or helpful towards anything.

27:06

So yeah, sure. But again, this is all kind of weird to be putting into doctrinal statements.

27:14

So let's see, next one. We deny that neo -pagan secularism with its utopian religious motive arose as a consensus after World War II.

27:26

Rather, it manifests itself as a political outworking of the so -called Enlightenment during the

27:31

French Revolution and gradually won the hearts and minds of Western nations, being well expressed in the political philosophies dominating

27:38

Europe prior to the outbreak of the two great global conflagrations.

27:45

And so, yeah, man, I don't know what to do with that. I don't know that I really have strong opinions on this topic, and I don't really know how to form them in any quick way, and I don't know how to quickly do the requisite reading in order to come to these conclusions.

28:07

I really don't understand why in a statement like this I'm being asked to decide matters like this in order to put my signature forward as someone who agrees with these things.

28:18

So yeah, I simply don't know. Yeah, I don't know. I don't know if these errors like the neo -pagan secularism with this utopian religious motive,

28:32

I don't know if that arose after the post -war consensus or before. So I simply don't know.

28:38

So I don't have any way of knowing how to sign this at this point. And I don't know that I'm required to know.

28:43

Why would I be required to know? I'm busy as a pastor. I've been busy as a pastor for the past 20 years. I don't know that I have a particular stake in this historical detail, whether it's before or after.

28:54

So I don't know. So I don't know how to affirm that. I don't know how to sign on the shot line because I just,

29:00

I don't know the answer to this question, and I don't even know if I have the appropriate reading list in order to determine the answer to this.

29:09

I don't have the time to figure it out. So, unfortunately, it's just not really a pressing priority to answer that question for me.

29:16

And so I don't know how to interact with this. They further say, we affirm that a contradictory and pervasive thread of self -doubt and self -loathing has also formed an essential part of the secular narrative following the horrors of World War II.

29:32

Thus, when the reactionary right challenges the post -war narrative, they are not necessarily breaking free of it.

29:38

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.

29:47

So yeah, sure. I don't know. I don't know how to tell you. I don't know how to respond to that. Yeah. It seems like the purpose of this statement is designed to take everyone who is drawing conclusions on the basis of the post -war consensus, and then reading their motives as being reactionary.

30:15

So it seems like the purpose of the statement is basically to say that the adversaries of White and Tobias and Joe Boot and Wilson and Jeff Durbin, their adversaries, it basically just seems like it's designed to paint them as reactionary.

30:39

I mean, I could read it in a more charitable light and just say, hey, there's a tendency among those out there without naming specific names.

30:48

But yeah, I'm not really trying to read motives in this way.

30:54

I'd rather deal with facts. I wouldn't necessarily be trying to psychoanalyze the nature of individuals who are making certain claims.

31:07

So I mean, I would certainly distance myself from many of the things that the Stonechoir podcast is saying, for instance, as it relates to this discussion.

31:16

But I am not willing to judge their motives and describe them as reactionary.

31:23

And I imagine there's some reactionary people out there, but I don't particularly know who they are.

31:30

And I don't know to what extent it is the pervasive problem that they're making it.

31:36

So basically, they're putting forward a very particular read of Providence. They're putting forward a very particular read of history.

31:43

And I don't really know how to sign that. I mean, if you could just make the statement, making some specific claims about race and ethnicity, then

31:52

I would be more helpfully able to interact with that. But I don't know how to interact with something like this that requires me to come to very firm commitments about historical details.

32:05

I just don't know what to do with that. So I'm sorry. I like what you guys are saying.

32:11

I don't know what to do with this. I'm sorry. And that's not me asking for forgiveness. That's me just simply expressing my sorrow over my inability to fully embrace what you're asking me to embrace here.

32:25

The statement says, we deny that any particular view of the Allied leaders, their strategies or tactics during World War II should be a test of Christian orthodoxy.

32:34

Well, that's wonderful. But it seems like what we're doing just now, what we've been doing is we're creating a statement that is demanding a particular read of history.

32:48

Aren't we? So I don't know how to sign that statement. Because I don't know.

32:53

I don't know the history well enough. I wish I did. But I don't. I don't know whether or not the aftermath of World War II, the neo -pagan secularism with this utopian religious motive,

33:07

I don't deny that that arose after World War II.

33:13

It could have been before. I don't know. I don't know. So I mean, yes, I get it. You're saying we deny that any particular view of the

33:21

Allied leaders, their strategies or tactics during World War II should be a test of Christian orthodoxy.

33:26

I understand you're saying that, yes, none of this should be considered a test of orthodoxy.

33:31

I just wonder why in this statement we're making it an essential part of whether or not we're able to sign it here.

33:40

So that seems somewhat confusing. So we further deny that this civic adiaphora may be expanded to cover malice, vainglory, race -baiting, anti -Semitism, treachery, bitterness, or hatred.

33:55

These issues are entirely distinct. So I mean, yeah, I could agree with that statement as it stands.

34:06

I certainly deny that any particular view of the Allied leaders, their strategies or tactics during World War II, I deny that that should be a test of Christian orthodoxy.

34:14

I further deny that this civic adiaphora may be expanded to cover malice, vainglory, race -baiting, anti -Semitism, treachery, bitterness, or hatred.

34:27

Yeah. So I do think that those other things are issues that are distinct issues that should be addressed in their own terms.

34:33

That's what's being communicated there. The statement says, we deny that it's possible to harmonize the racial and anti -Semitic theories of Adolf Hitler and neo -pagan doctrines of the

34:47

Nazi cult with the gospel of Christ and the teaching of scripture. Now, I really don't know what they're saying here, unfortunately.

34:55

So I don't know how to affirm that or deny that, which is not some remarkable concession on my part.

35:04

I have read Mein Kampf as a way of trying to interact with what is being said at that point.

35:09

And certainly it was filled with a lot of things which I disagree with, but not everything that Hitler said was bad, obviously.

35:17

So as an example, certainly, I can give examples on both sides here.

35:25

So certainly one of the things that Hitler was arguing was for, he was arguing for a purpose of government.

35:33

The purpose of government is to prioritize the interest of the race, essentially.

35:40

And then he combined that with the principle of economic scarcity, which I think is a dubious economic proposition involving perspective of economics as zero -sum kind of view of economics, where if one person has more than another person necessarily has less.

35:58

So what Hitler argued was for a form of nationalism that was based on race. So he viewed the

36:05

Aryan race as the highest on the evolutionary ladder. So he had scientific racism that he was appealing to at that point.

36:11

So he's using scientific racism to argue for the superiority of the Aryan race. And then he was saying that the nation exists to advance the interest of the race.

36:20

And then he said further that because there is this principle of scarcity of resources, which is not true in the way that he's arguing for it, based on zero -sum economics, then inevitably nations are going to come into conflict over these scarce resources.

36:40

And so his whole point was to argue for aggressive warfare, to just skip to the inevitable conclusion.

36:47

And I would say that, yeah, if you adopt his premises, then, I mean, that is logical. It makes sense.

36:52

I understand where he's coming from, but I disagree. I don't think that Christians should be arguing for aggressive warfare on the basis of scarce resources and everything else.

37:01

So yeah, I think that that is wrong. I think he had some interesting observations in his book as well.

37:11

So one of the reasons why Hitler advocated for public exercise in the public education system was because he understood that hard physical labor had a way of restraining the male libido, essentially.

37:31

Meaning, when guys have nothing to do, they often think about sex and they often think about promiscuity.

37:39

And so he thought of rampant promiscuity as a problem, and he was trying to address through the introduction of hard physical labor.

37:47

So that'd be an example of something that I think is a fairly neutral observation that's neither here nor there.

37:53

I don't think that Christians really need to be having an impulse to quote Hitler in order to get to that observation.

37:59

But then yeah, this is saying, we deny that it's possible to harmonize the racial and anti -Semitic theories of Adolf Hitler and the neo -pagan doctrines of the

38:10

Nazi cult with the gospel of Christ in the teaching of scriptures. I don't necessarily know what all is being included in these statements.

38:22

So there's certainly scientific racism found in the Nazi, in Mein Kampf, in the

38:27

Nazi propaganda. What do these neo -pagan doctrines of the Nazi cult entail?

38:34

I don't particularly know. So if what I'm being asked to sign here and affirm is that Hitler should never be, like, there's nothing he said that's right.

38:46

Well, I think after reading Mein Kampf, there's plenty of things he said that were okay. Yeah, I don't, fine.

38:52

Yeah, good. I don't know. He was not just some kind of unstable lunatic.

39:00

He actually had some things that were interesting. He was a skilled observer of the world who was kind of an evil genius in certain ways.

39:10

So yeah, I don't know. I don't know what all that entails. So I don't know what I'm being asked to sign up for. But I mean, if I'm basically supposed to say

39:16

Nazi bad, everything that Hitler says is bad, then I could say that. But I don't think that's what I'm being asked to say.

39:22

And I'm not trying to straw man what the statement is designed to do. But I really don't know what all they have in mind for these things.

39:30

So it's really hard to know what to say about it. But yeah, I certainly think that Hitler's views on the

39:37

Jews, I don't share his views on the Jews. I don't really think that most

39:44

Christians should probably read Mein Kampf. I think it probably wouldn't be helpful for them.

39:51

I mean, I think it should be taught in a classroom setting with a wise and knowledgeable teacher who's able to sift out the truth from the error and everything else.

39:59

So yeah, but I don't know. I don't know all what I'm being asked to sign there. So it's kind of like, yeah,

40:06

I don't know what to do with that. Sorry. Certainly racism is bad, if that's what

40:12

I'm being asked. Hatred of Jews is bad. Desire to exterminate Jews is bad. What am I being asked to?

40:18

If I'm being asked to repudiate the scientific racism of Hitler, then I can do that.

40:24

What are we saying? So it would have been helpful for this to be much more specific than all of this. I'm not quite sure what we're being asked to say there.

40:34

It says, We affirm that if the superabundant, diverse forms and veritable glut of evidence, that sounds like something

40:46

Wilson wrote, detailed entireties, documented records, firsthand testimonies of eyewitnesses, extensive photography and videography, all provided within living memory, for the deliberate mass destruction of millions of Nazis, does not amount to historical certitude for what the specialists call the

41:07

Holocaust, then the science of history itself is called into question. See, I really have no idea what to do with this kind of statement, because I'm not a

41:16

Holocaust denier. I don't think that there was not an intentional plan to exterminate the

41:27

Jews. I don't think that. But how many

41:32

Jews were killed? I don't know. I don't know. I wish I knew, but I don't.

41:41

Some of this may be a generational thing where I don't know if all the claims to six million are right.

41:51

I've listened to individuals who are calling into question some of the numbers there, and I just don't know what to think.

41:57

And I don't know that I know what to think. I don't know.

42:03

I don't know. Was it millions? I don't know. I mean, I've seen some people arguing that the population of Jews in Europe rose, it rose after the

42:14

Holocaust from before. I don't know how to verify that. I don't know if it's true or not. I haven't looked into it that much.

42:19

I simply don't know. The idea of extermination on this scale, six million,

42:27

I've heard a lot of people arguing that that would be impossible mathematically, that it wasn't that much.

42:35

I don't know what to make of all those things. I don't even care.

42:43

I have no vested interest. I'm an individual who has no vested interest in overturning this narrative.

42:49

I could care less one way or another. I simply don't know enough about history to make confident judgments on the numbers there.

42:56

Was it a million? I don't know. I don't know. So I don't know how to affirm this as something.

43:04

Now, I get that they're saying this shouldn't be a test of orthodoxy, but I don't know how to sign the statement.

43:11

I would like to sign the statement. I don't know how to sign the statement because I think I am an individual who has been lied to so much by the media that it is difficult to know the difference between truth and error.

43:27

And I am faced with the deluge of information at this point to where it's hard to know fact from fiction at times.

43:34

And so, yeah, I don't know. I don't know what's right in this scenario. I think me saying that should be a neutral statement of ignorance, just confessing

43:43

I'm ignorant about it. And maybe I'm a part of a generation that's a little bit further removed from the generation of white.

43:53

And Wilson, so I'm their kid's generation, and I don't know what to make of the specific historical claims there.

44:04

I do think that there was enough evidence that I've been aware of to conclude that there was a deliberate plan to exterminate the

44:16

Jews. But if someone were to come along and question that and say, hey, yeah, I don't think there was, I'm not okay, right?

44:24

I'm not willing to kick you out of my church and do church discipline. I don't feel like that. So, I wouldn't be willing to do that because this isn't an object of my faith.

44:35

I'm not as invested in that. I just don't know how to affirm a statement. I'm sorry.

44:41

Yeah, I don't know. I wish I could. I just don't know. So, ignorant. I'm appealing to my ignorance there.

44:48

Is it a culpable ignorance? Should I be church discipline because I don't know how many Jews were exterminated or I'm not willing to throw people under the bus for not agreeing that there is a plan to exterminate them?

45:02

I don't know. So, yeah, I don't know how to make this statement. And I'm not suggesting that the signers are saying that anyone who disagrees that there was a concerted effort should be church discipline necessarily.

45:13

I can't really tell what they're saying. So, I don't know, but I would just say, I don't know how to answer it. Next, it says, we affirm there is a vital biblical difference between the self -loathing of men in the grip of the disillusionment over a failed idol and the true repentance of the

45:31

Christian man. See, like so much of this is just related to a judgment of motives against a certain kind of person.

45:36

I don't really know who's being included in this, these kind of things. I may not be even be asked to be doing that, but this is a statement that they think is relevant to the current situations that has explanatory power that shows the difference between where they're at and where their adversaries are at.

45:53

And so, I think it seems perfectly natural to assume at that point that these are statements about their adversaries and it requires me to make certain judgments that I'm really willing to make with that.

46:07

So, yeah, I affirm there's a vital biblical difference between the self -loathing of men in the grip of disillusionment over a failed idol and true repentance.

46:19

So, yeah, sure. That's true. I mean, that's true in the abstract. I don't really know why that's relevant to this situation, who this is meant to apply to, why

46:27

I'm affirming it, what I may be saying in affirming it. But yeah, I could sign on that as a general principle,

46:33

I guess. Sure. We deny that it's possible to recover an ethic that honors our father and mother and their momentous sacrifices while actively and openly dishonoring them.

46:44

See, a lot of these things I agree with. I wish it was just, if we're going to do a statement on race, let's do a statement on race.

46:52

That may be more helpful, but I've certainly seen dishonoring of father and mother in this movement too.

47:00

But then it feels like this statement is used as a way of dismissing the claims on the other side.

47:09

And so, yeah, I think the Stone Choir guys are making some very specific claims.

47:16

Stephen Wolfe is making some very specific claims about the entailments of honoring father and mother.

47:22

They're making different claims from my reading. So, Stephen Wolfe's making different claims than Stone Choir.

47:29

But then if you're just waving this statement over all of them equally saying, because there's some dishonoring of father and mother that happened, then we don't have to deal with the individual truth claims.

47:44

And I would say, well, I don't know that that follows. I wish that White and Wilson would interact more with the truth claims on the other side.

47:54

And I think it's very strange that I haven't seen as much interaction as what

47:59

I wish I would see. And I mean, I would love to see them all sit down and have a conversation about these things. And I know that John Harris recently invited such a thing to happen.

48:09

And I've seen these kinds of things happen over and over and over again, and there's crickets. And it feels a lot like dealing with Big Eva on this topic to where I don't understand why you wouldn't just sit down and try to win these guys over and talk about it publicly.

48:22

I don't get it. Because I've seen the back and forth and I really wish there were some more helpful interactions at this point than what we're seeing.

48:36

So yeah, that's a little bit puzzling to me. But yeah,

48:42

I don't know that I deny this in the way that it's formed.

48:49

So we deny it's possible to recover an ethic that honors our fathers and their momentous sacrifice while actively and openly dishonor them.

48:56

I don't know. I mean, people are inconsistent. People are inconsistent.

49:08

There's plenty of times where you're right in one area and wrong in another area. I mean, there's plenty of times where you're hypocritical.

49:18

So yeah, I mean, I sympathize with where they're coming from because I think a lot of individuals in this movement, they feel like they have learned so much from White and Wilson.

49:31

And they're trying to take what they're saying and apply it to the next step.

49:38

And then they're met with the same kind of resistance that White and Wilson are getting from Big Eva when these guys defended

49:49

White and Wilson against Big Eva. So I think it's puzzling.

49:55

I get it to where there's a natural temptation there to simply, sharply rebuke an older man that I don't want to fall into at all.

50:05

I don't think our podcast has done anything to disrespect our elders at this point. I see that as a really bad thing.

50:13

At the same time, I do know that they're talking about things that need to be talked about.

50:18

And I wish that White and Wilson would engage at times with some of the things they're saying in more of a charitable way than what seems to be happening at the moment.

50:29

So yeah, I don't know what to think about that. But yeah, certainly people are inconsistent at times.

50:38

But I get the premise that's being appealed to is, why are you trying to take the speck out of your brother's eye when there's a speck?

50:51

I get what you're saying in principle, but I don't know that we can just wave a magic wand over all these areas of disagreement and say, well, let me dismiss all of your concerns about what it means to respect father and mothers because you're not showing particular respect for me.

51:13

And it's like, well, that may be convenient. I don't know if it really works out like that, though. But yeah,

51:20

I wish they would tone down some of the dishonoring of father and mother, too, though. So there's that. It says, we affirm that as secular or liberal edifices crumble, many will refuse to turn to Christ.

51:32

As the strong gods inevitably return, godless influential figures will arise the same way that...

51:41

I don't even know how to say that. The temptation for some

51:46

Christian leaders will be to ape such methods for the sake of cliques, followers, and ephemeral notion of influence.

51:53

Yeah, these kind of judgmental motives, yeah, certainly in the abstract, yeah, some people will do that.

51:58

I don't know why we're including this right there. This seems somewhat pointed, and I don't get it.

52:05

And I may be reading them uncharitably at that point, like where you can just agree with this in the abstract way as a general principle.

52:12

I certainly agree that that may be a temptation that some people face. I don't know who we're talking about who is doing this, and I don't know why

52:17

I'm affirming this in this kind of statement, when it might be nice just for the statement to point to areas of actual disagreement instead of a specific historical narrative and judgment of motives and these kind of things.

52:30

I just, I don't know why this is here in this kind of way. I wish it would just, the statement, like all this could be cut out and it could be, you could deal with actual areas of disagreement,

52:40

I suppose, but maybe I just misunderstand the nature of what these kind of statements are designed to do. But I mean, with the

52:46

Nashville statement and other statements along those lines, they weren't taking this route, so I don't understand why this statement is taking this specific route like this, but I don't know.

52:56

So yeah. We deny that it's possible to be a faithful Christian shepherd without identifying, naming, and fighting the wolves which prey on the flock.

53:06

As such, pastors have a duty to confront or rebuke wickedness in all of its forms within their congregation.

53:12

I would think this is a statement designed to poke at no enemies to the right, and I would share the concerns that are mentioned here with that philosophy.

53:24

So yeah, I have the same kind of concerns as much as I'm sympathetic to no enemies to the right.

53:30

I have that concern too, to where I wouldn't want to adopt it as a rule, even as a temporary rule.

53:36

So yeah, I agree. We affirm that in deeply unsettled times, there is a carnal desire in fallen man to seek to scapegoat for sin and social corruption.

53:49

Sure. This sadistic urge seeks to expiate guilt by laying the blame and punishment for all cultural ills on identifiable groups.

53:59

So the victimized group is offered up to the masses as a means of ostensible explanatory power for cultural decay with all conspiracy theories, much to provide if they are to gain any traction.

54:12

The Jews have often been the easiest target for this kind of sinful and decrepit thinking. Well, sure. Okay. Yeah, that's a natural temptation.

54:19

Sure. It's the same kind of thing with all this. Yeah, I agree. That's a natural temptation that happens. It has happened.

54:27

Yeah, sure. I guess. Yeah. I guess it's happened. Yeah. We deny that scapegoating is a legitimate practice for Christians to participate in because God has already provided the final and perfect scapegoat in Jesus Christ, who alone is true but disembarrassed.

54:40

Sure. We deny that our rejection of antisemitism requires us to ignore or minimize the destructive imp...

54:52

See, again, I don't know why I'm being asked to weigh in on your motivations or this particular controversy.

55:02

I don't know why I have to sign things like this. But we deny that our rejection of antisemitism requires us to ignore or minimize...

55:11

I don't know why I'm being asked to comment on your rejection of antisemitism here and your motives or anyone else's motives.

55:18

I don't want to comment on anyone's motives. I just want to deal with the issues. So we deny that our rejection of antisemitism requires us to ignore or minimize the destructive impact that various God -hating individual

55:29

Jews have had in human history. Just as our rejection and hatred of European and Anglo -Saxons does not require us to ignore the cultural devastation that many

55:37

God -hating individual Gentiles have produced, every ethnic people have members to be ashamed of, every ethnic people have members to be grateful for.

55:45

Sure. Yeah, I agree with that. I don't know why I'm asked to comment on your motives. But yeah, sure. We deny that Jews are in any way uniquely...

56:00

We deny that Jews are in any way uniquely malevolent or sinful.

56:09

What is this asking me to affirm here? Or deny? In Jesus, he says of Nathanael, he says,

56:19

Behold, an Israelite in whom there is no guile. Are we suggesting that individual groups cannot be known to have particular sins that they uniquely excel at?

56:32

Is that what we're being asked? Were Cretans not liars, lazy, gluttons, evil beasts?

56:39

Was that testimony not true or was it true? And if so, could they uniquely excel at particular forms of sin or not?

56:49

But yes. So I don't know what this is asking me to affirm or not.

56:58

It seems like the story of the Israelites is the story of a bunch of swindlers, isn't it?

57:04

So Jesus seems to acknowledge this point. Am I allowed to acknowledge it as well, just like I would acknowledge it for the

57:12

Cretans or not? So I don't think that would be antisemitic to say that maybe perhaps there are some identifiable sins among Jews.

57:25

So we deny that Jews are in any way uniquely malevolent or sinful. I don't know what

57:32

I'm being asked to say there. Am I allowed to say that there may be sins that characterize particular ethnic groups more than others?

57:40

If I'm not allowed to say that, then I can't affirm this, if that's what this is denying. If you're trying to say that they are farther down the total depravity ladder or something, am

57:50

I not allowed to say that cannibals, like pagan cannibalistic societies are further, like total depravity has a greater not extent but effect on them?

58:05

So if this is simply saying that the extent of total depravity is total and in terms of extent not effect on everyone, like total depravity is not just uniquely restricted to certain kinds of people, then sure.

58:18

But yeah, I would think that your tribal cannibalistic society is very much excelling at sins more than your civilized tribe is, but they have their own unique sins.

58:33

They're all totally depraved in terms of extent, but the effect can be more in different types of people for sure.

58:41

But yeah, I don't think that's located to their racial makeup or ethnic makeup.

58:46

However, these terms are being used. I understand that those terms are being used differently by Stephen Wolfe and by Stone Choir folks.

58:54

So yeah, what are we being asked to say here? If all we're being asked to say is, is every group of people totally depraved?

59:03

Yes. Has the sin nature bypassed certain groups over others?

59:09

No. Are there ethnic or racial groups, whatever category you're using at that point, are there ethnic or racial groups that have trained themselves in particular forms of sin that are obvious and identifiable?

59:23

Yes. So are they different from group to group? Sure. Yeah.

59:29

So are we sin leveling here at the level of the ethnic groups? I don't know what's happening at this point.

59:37

So anyways, yeah. We deny that Jews are in any way uniquely malevolent or sinful, that Judaism and its multifarious expressions is objectively more dangerous than other false...

59:50

I don't know why I'm having to... I have no dog in this fight. I have no dog in this fight whatsoever.

59:56

I have listened to all the different sides. I don't understand why I'm being asked to deny that Judaism and its multifarious expressions is objectively more dangerous than other false religions.

01:00:09

Why would I have to deny that or affirm that at all? I mean, every single false religion is false by definition.

01:00:18

It's going to lead you to hell, but there are some religions that are worse than others. They deny more truth than others.

01:00:26

They suppress more truth than unrighteousness. They have greater entailments than others. Why would

01:00:32

I be asked to comment on which is worse as a statement I'm signing?

01:00:37

I don't think that all false religions are equal in every respect. I there's some that could be worse than others.

01:00:46

So there are some that are closer to the truth than others. There are some that suppress more truth claims than others.

01:00:54

There's some that might be more dangerous than others. I mean, you can make an argument that because something is closer to the truth, it's more dangerous than something that's further away from the truth.

01:01:02

I don't know how to make these calculations. I don't know why I'm asked to make these calculations. Now, if all

01:01:08

I'm being asked here is just to conclude that all false religions lead to hell, so they're all equally damnable, then sure.

01:01:16

Yeah, that's fine. Now, are they more objectively dangerous? I don't know. I don't know what to say with that. I don't have a position.

01:01:23

I don't have a dog in this fight. I don't know. I don't know the answer to that. I don't know why I'm being asked to make a statement on what the answer to that question is.

01:01:30

So yeah, I mean, a radical

01:01:36

Muslim terrorist, why would I be asked to affirm that that religion is not more destructive than some other religion?

01:01:49

Unless I'm just being asked to appeal to, in an ultimate sense, they all lead to the same place, yeah, sure.

01:01:56

Okay, if that's all we're saying, that's all we're saying. But that doesn't seem what is being asked to be said here.

01:02:03

Yeah, so we deny that Jews are in any way malevolent or sinful, that Judaism in its multifarious expressions is objectively more dangerous than other false religions, or it represents an exceptional threat to Christianity and Christian peoples.

01:02:20

I don't know. Yeah, I wouldn't do sin leveling as applied to false religions in this way.

01:02:29

Yes, they're all equally damnable. Some may be more dangerous than others. I don't know how to weigh it all out.

01:02:38

Yeah, I would not be arguing that they are, or I wouldn't be arguing that they aren't. I would just say,

01:02:43

I don't know. So yeah, don't ask me to know. I don't know. God knows. But if someone were to come along and think and provide objective reasons why this is more dangerous than others,

01:02:53

I wouldn't think that they've committed heresy or something. And I'm not saying that the statement is suggesting that they'd be committing heresy at that point.

01:03:00

I just don't know how to put in a statement for them. Let's see. We deny that the world affairs are covered by conspiring

01:03:07

Jews, or that there is a global Jewish conspiracy to corrupt and destroy Western society.

01:03:14

I don't know. I simply don't know why I'm being asked to sign this.

01:03:19

I don't. I don't know the answer to this question. This is another thing. I just, I simply don't know.

01:03:24

I don't know how to confidently assert there is no conspiracy. How do I do that?

01:03:31

How do I confidently assert that? I would not confidently assert that there is one. And I would not confidently assert that there isn't one.

01:03:38

So I would like to sign your statement. I don't know why you're asking me to sign this.

01:03:44

I simply don't know. I assume that there's probably conspiracies out there at the has turned on certain schemes and certain plots by a few powerful people who are turning the world in particular ways.

01:04:03

We are not ignorant of Satan's schemes. It would not be outside the realm of possibility that Satan could be scheming with what the

01:04:15

New Testament describes as the synagogue of Satan, right? That in order to corrupt the world away from Christ, I don't know why

01:04:23

I would be asked to. I simply don't know why

01:04:28

I'm asked to deny this. As a person who is not invested in this particular conspiracy theory,

01:04:36

I have not invested in this at all. I don't believe this at all. I don't affirm this at all, but I don't know how to deny it either.

01:04:43

So why are you asking me to deny it? I simply don't know. It's within the realm of possibility.

01:04:48

Why would I be asked to deny this? It could very well happen. Jews have obviously had a very outsized influence.

01:05:01

Doug Wilson describes this in the language of them being high -performance people. They obviously are pulling the strings.

01:05:11

In Hollywood, they obviously have an outside influence. Now if you say, hey, is there some unified effort, concerted effort?

01:05:19

I don't know. I don't know if there is or not. Just making an observation,

01:05:26

Jews run Hollywood, they run the banks. Yeah, that seems to be true, doesn't it? But then is it a coordinated running of Hollywood and running the banks with a nefarious agenda?

01:05:38

I don't know. I simply don't know. I don't know how to affirm it or deny it.

01:05:44

I'm sorry. I want to sign your statement. I don't know how to sign this because it's just something that is outside my pay grade, and I just have a principled kind of agnosticism at this point.

01:05:54

I don't know. Sorry. Yeah. We affirm that Jews are, as all other men, alienated from God in need of the cleansing blood of Jesus.

01:06:03

Amen. As a people, they have nevertheless remained an object of God's providential care with the puritans of old.

01:06:14

I think my eschatology related to the Jews would agree with this,

01:06:20

I think, but I don't know that I'm totally right on this either. So some people have been trying to talk me off that ledge that there is a future salvation for ethnic

01:06:29

Israel. So the thing that they're about to affirm, they say, they affirm that in God's good time, multitudes of Jews will come to faith in Christ and be added to the true commonwealth of Israel, inheriting the kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven.

01:06:39

The same blessings as Gentile believers, hence the cancerous and counterproductive sin of antisemitism has no place among us people.

01:06:46

I have always believed this. There are people trying to talk me off this ledge.

01:06:53

So yeah, I don't know. I need to look into this issue. I don't know if I can confidently say that.

01:07:02

And I don't really know what's all being included in that last like, hence the cancerous and counterproductive sin of antisemitism has no place.

01:07:12

I think antisemitism is a real thing. It's a bad thing. And at the same time,

01:07:17

I don't know what's being included in that. And I don't know if that's necessarily an entailment of the previous statement, although I'm open to considering whether or not it may be, but yeah,

01:07:29

I just, I don't know. We'll see.

01:07:35

Yep. We deny that there is more than one message or way of salvation. Salvation is through Christ alone, by faith alone, by grace alone, for both

01:07:42

Jew and Gentile, out of whom God has made one new people, removing the dividing line of hostility.

01:07:48

Sure. We affirm that God has ordained the existence of peoples and nations as such. Our cultural heritage is something to be grateful for, so that in view of God's good gifts to our people, national pride, along with a patriotism appropriate.

01:08:01

At the same time, it's important to reject every form of identity politics, whether left or right, whether it takes whatever form it takes, whether malicious or vainglorious.

01:08:09

Sure. We deny that the church of Jesus Christ in its particular locale has any compulsory quotas, assigned ratios for ethnic mix.

01:08:18

So this is getting into stuff I would imagine would be here. They make up any local church community will be dependent upon many social, cultural, lingual, and regional factors.

01:08:28

There's no requirement that any given congregation look like the New Jerusalem. Sure. But we further deny that a

01:08:34

Christian congregation has a right to arbitrarily exclude any person based on prejudice, malice, bigotry towards their ethnic group.

01:08:41

Sure. Amen. We affirm that the ultimate bond or good for temporal human life is not grounded in absolute loyalty to blood, soil, family, or nation, but in the totalizing bond of the kingdom of God to the covenant of grace.

01:08:56

So the ultimate bond there. Yes, sure. Yeah, I agree. We affirm that in all things, including the treatment of our fellow human beings, the model man is an example, not that model man in an example is not the life and teaching of Aristotle.

01:09:12

That was a dig. That was a dig at Eric Conn there. We affirm that in all things, including the treatment of our fellow human beings, the model man in an example is not the life and teaching of Aristotle, nor any other merely historical person.

01:09:30

But the Lord Jesus Christ himself, son of man and eternal son of God. Yeah, sure. I agree with that.

01:09:35

I think everyone would agree with that. I think Conn would agree with that too. I imagine, I imagine you would agree with that.

01:09:42

Let's see. Yeah. So there's this statement. I wish it were more,

01:09:49

I think if they would have made it, long story short, I think if they would have made it more centered on the latter affirmations that about scriptural doctrinal positions and more people could sign it.

01:10:01

I find myself in the bizarre position of, I would say I am more loyal to White and Wilson than I am to Conn, Sauve, Webben, Stephen Wolfe.

01:10:17

I would say I'm more loyal to them. I would show them more respect. I listen to them exponentially more.

01:10:28

I don't even listen to these, to the other guys, although I have no reason not to. I just, I only have so much time.

01:10:34

Um, so yeah, I really don't know what to do with this statement. I'm sorry, but I'd love to sign it.

01:10:41

Um, but yeah, I don't know. So that's it. The end.

01:11:07

Well, that's it for this episode of Bible Bashed. If you'd like to be

01:11:17

Bible Bashed personally, then please know that we also offer free biblical counseling, which you can take advantage of by emailing us.

01:11:25

Now, go boldly and obey the truth in the midst of a biblically illiterate world who will be perpetually offended by your every move.