The Antioch Declaration Brouhaha

Faith & Science Conversation
21
  • To replace my previous assumption that collaborators and signers of the Declaration are YECs by association with documentation that they are. But if my undocumented assumption is accepted, then there’s no need to continue documentation.
22

Admittedly, I was reading very fast but I did a double take on the Holocaust part. My brain said, “Wait, what, did they deny the Holocaust?” so I quickly reread it and I’m pretty sure they said the opposite and emphasized the reality of the Holocaust so I moved on.

I don’t see this as particularly alarming at all. This is run of the mill evangelical Christianity to me. I’m from the states and a lot of this probably reflects the views of most serious (take that word how you want) Christians here.

There is nothing wrong with having a statement of belief either. I’d like to know the basic beliefs of a Church I am going to call home. It helps me narrow down the selection process.

Vinnie

1 Like
23

Yeah, I agree the Holocaust thing is probably fine. But the refusal to accept a pluralistic society is (to me) an ‘unforgivable’ sin as far as public polity goes. It tells me that some particular group has been unable to even reach to that lowest moral bar of coexisting peacefully with a wider culture without needing to dominate it by force. That may well be the allowed providence set aside for pagan governments (Romans 13) but it has never been the modus operandi for any group remotely biblical (much less Christian). [With all due respect to the Catholic Church in its early days. But, as today’s theocratic power mongers have yet to learn, it didn’t turn out so well for the Catholic Church, but they imagine that somehow, this go round would be different. Delusions of worldly power are persistent, if nothing else.]

5 Likes
24

I really appreciate the emphasis on men being jaded. That’s essential to me to know that men might be jaded about what’s going on. Women - what have we got to be jaded over?
< /sarcasm >

Glancing back over it, there’s a lot here that could be taken point by point and hashed over. Blaming the Enlightenment and the French Revolution for the Holocaust is worth discussing. The mention of the so-called “myth of religious neutrality” as well. I’m sure there’s more.

The writing is so terrible and pompous, it’s hard to stomach. As well as the pseudo-intellectualism and sexism. I don’t think I’ll bother with it.

@Terry_Sampson if you have time, could you provide a synopsis from ChatGPT or one of its friends?

3 Likes
25

There is much to lay at the feet of both of those events, I’m sure - and I agree with you about exploring that. Of course some people are using those as stepping stones then toward … ___! We may all agree that there are problems with ‘candidate x’, but then are horrified to discover that our conversation partner uses that to conclude “therefore candidate Y”?!

In the same way, I think the Antioch folks are tapping into a well-worn and examined historical critique when they call religious neutrality a myth. But then they use that as a springboard to give themselves a free pass and conclude … “therefore … this”! It’s like walking into a store and rationalizing that “everybody steals” … therefore “I better indulge in theft better than others so that I get it to work to my benefit!”

Just because there is no such thing as ideological / religious neutrality in some sort of “pure” form does not constitute a free pass to conclude: therefore, “my religion must either rule over everybody else, or else be at war with them!” The current crop of theocrats is printing up all manner of free-passes for themselves, trying to make it so.

4 Likes
26
  • Turns out that there is “a back story” behind the declaration. Personally, I find the backstory (a) funny and (b) revealing [i.e. informative] regarding Christian Nationalism and personalities in it. The first would, I think, now justify removing this thread completely; but the second, IMO, warrants more than one pair of eyes on CN and the personalities, which might, I repeat: might be better served by making it a private thread, at the risk of losing others’ interest.
2 Likes
27
  • Terry asked Gemini AI: "What is “The Antioch Declaration all about?”
  • Gemini AI responded:
    "The Antioch Declaration is a document that was released in September 2024 by a group of Christian leaders. It addresses what they perceive as a rise in reactionary thinking within certain Christian circles, particularly among younger men. The declaration aims to identify and resist this trend, which they believe is harmful to the Christian faith.
    • Key points of the declaration include:
      • Denying and Affirming: The declaration is structured around 12 pairs of “we deny” and “we affirm” statements. For example, they deny that all people are fundamentally equal and affirm that there are real and important differences between people.
      • Focus on Younger Men: The declaration specifically targets younger men, expressing concern that they are particularly susceptible to these reactionary ideas.
      • Criticism of Post-War Consensus: The declaration criticizes the post-war consensus on social and political issues, arguing that it has led to a decline in Christian values.
      • Emphasis on Race and Nation: The declaration emphasizes the importance of race and nation, arguing that these are essential aspects of identity.
    • The Antioch Declaration has been met with both praise and criticism. Supporters argue that it is a necessary response to a dangerous trend within Christianity. Critics argue that it is divisive, harmful, and based on a flawed understanding of Christian theology."
3 Likes
28

The claim I have heard but not heard defended is that all world views are religious in nature;therefore religious neutrality is a myth. It has been expressed by one here. I question the validity of the claim. I suspect that the claim can only be defended through the particular way one builds ones definitions - to support one’s claim.

2 Likes
29

It is probably sufficient that all the collaborators and at least most of the signers are YEC. It is worth noting that Andrew Sandlin was the editor of an anthology

Creation According to Scriptures: A Presuppositional Defense of Literal Six-Day Creation

The significance of the YEC ethos is that there has always been at the fringe of literalism an authoritorian streak, from Bill Gothard’s Basic Life Principles in my youth, to today’s Christian Nationalism. Once anachonistic practices from the ANE are accepted as normative and desirable for today’s society, oppression, theocracy, ethnic cleansing, and compelled sexism become justifiable. While the declaration may seem commendable in opposing antisemitism in their ranks, it is their own bastard child. The dissonance of Wilson’s acceptance of slavery and rejection of antisemitism is rooted in his particular interpretive dogma and eschatology, and not in any inherent moral principle.

6 Likes
30

I was uneasy after reading it, andd after reading your collective comments, realize why, even though not a lot was stated that can be said to be wrong or bad. And that uneasiness is due to the intermixing of Christian thought and the Gospel with secular government actions and policies. In other words, nationalism, diluting the twisting the gospel into something perverse. I think this would best be moved to a private message, but will leave open for the time being in case any one else wants to join before removed from public view. Feel free to invite anyone you wish once that is done as well
I gotta go carve the turkey. Happy Thanksgiving!

2 Likes
31

This is very true…thanks. it can be similar to saying no one follows the scientific method perfectly, so let’s make up what we want.

2 Likes
32
33

I’ve heard it defended well enough to be persuaded of the basis of it myself … a bit of a gift of post-modernism, if you will - forcing us to recognize that there simply is no such thing as some disembodied platform from which somebody gets a ‘neutral’ view of everything. We all have only our own vantage from which to perceive (much less understand), and even when taking the vantage of others on board, we still filter that through our own lens too. It applies to everything - not just religion. And it’s not the same as saying that absolute (or objective) truth doesn’t exist (as some have accused post-modernists of claiming) - it’s just to say that we won’t ever have 100% objective access to it. And nor does that become then a free pass to think that I can just make up or accept only my own set of facts. Just because there isn’t 100% objectivity doesn’t mean the only other option then is 0% objectivity. As always, there is a wide spectrum of numbers between 0 and 100 that fundamentalists tend to forget about. It’s in between 0 and 100 that we all live and function.

I know that’s all speaking more broadly than ‘religious neutrality’, which could have a lot more said about it. For one thing, while I would say there may be no such thing as “pure” religious neutrality (whatever that could possibly be), I would still insist that there yet remains practical religious neutrality, and that professional and government people strive for and achieve that kind of functional neutrality routinely. We rightly expect it of them. So I think I’m with you that the Antioch Declaration fails to recognize that and foolishly tries to subvert it.

2 Likes
34

My thoughts may be a little odd on this. Democracy means they can vote for leaders who will support any type of policy they want as long as it is constitutional. I don’t fault those Christians for not succumbing to relativism. I think they at least have the courage and conviction to stick to their worldview and want it lived out in their schools and communities which are highly Christian in many places.

Evangelical Christians believe their religion is the truth and Jesus is the way truth and life. They don’t separate their life and community into different areas… places where Jesus is allowed and isn’t. They want Christ integrated everywhere and as crazy as I might think they are, I can respect this. Why should Christians not want Christ in schools? Isn’t Jesus the answer to a broken world? How can a school ever teach the whole student if it ignores the most important part of life? There is no middle ground. Either there is Jesus or there isn’t. An absence of Christian thought is an absence of Jesus. Full stop.

I am a libertarian though and support less government in almost every case imaginable. That is the only reason I support the separation Church and State. Anything that limits government power and control gets my vote.

Vinnie

1 Like
35

Yes to all that. And you’re right - there should be no place, government included, where we should try to “keep Christ out”. But this is just it. It isn’t Christ that these people want to ‘bring into government’. It’s the devil. Christ doesn’t force himself on others unwanted. But there is one who does - and Jesus even identifies him when Peter gives voice to this very temptation and suggests that the way of the cross should not be God’s path.

So … God only exists where people are piously thinking Christian thoughts? I don’t think I buy that. Biblical support? Christ seems to be quite a bit more universal than you want to allow for. Wherever we see need and suffering, there is Christ - in the eyes of the needy. No mention that this only applies to a few pious needy, or only those thinking right thoughts. If I were to try to think of a place where Christ is not, it would be in halls of power (though I know that really, he’s there too. And likely not in a very good mood - ready to start flipping tables as like as not.) And this would apply in an especially strong way to power purporting to be theocratic power! It was in the temple, after all, not Rome, where we find Christ ‘losing it’ and giving full vent to God’s wrath.

3 Likes
36

Yup. But in the theobrosphere, men are more important than women (though they won’t express it in those words). They are supposed to do the thinking, and women are supposed to simply follow after them.

4 Likes
37

We should not reject or accept any declaration just because of who has signed it. The declaration stands or falls based on what is written in it.

There seemed to be a healthy worry about teachings in some extreme groups that call themselves Christian. Antisemitism, merging of ‘Hitler-type’ ideologies with Christian teaching, demands to support some political group ‘if you are a Christian’ etc. are truly harmful. The wording of the declaration was sometimes obscure but otherwise, expressions of this worry are not bad.

At the same time, there seemed to be attempts to save some teachings that might otherwise be lumped with the condemned teachings. Especially, national pride and patriotism were points that the declaration tried to save and support.

Although the wording was partly obscure, all types of modern ‘liberal’/‘secular’ thinking were clearly classified as bad. The same could be said for attempts to apply such thinking to what churches do or are forced to do.

The declaration included positive points but also, IMHO, reflected a questionable worldview. It remained somewhat obscure how much the ‘anti-secular’ worldview was also ‘anti-scientific’ - there seemed to be at least some amount of such an attitude behind the declaration. This type of ‘national pride’ and ‘anti-secular’ worldviews are not what I would like to support.

Another question is that are these type of declarations useful or not?
I would not sign this declaration and probably not anything similar, even if the questionable parts were removed.

3 Likes
38

@Terry_Sampson thank you for doing this and providing the answer publically. You saved me a lot of time with a poorly-written text.

2 Likes
39

My bolding of your text.

My encounters with it – the idea the “Myth of Religious Neutrality” – have been in the context I had mentioned above. It is an attempt to make a particular claim in order to lead through an idea to a desired conclusion: "because all world views are religious (even “secular” humanism) in nature

  • all world views should be treated equally as religious ideas and handled the same way on the basis of the non-establisment clause (in the U.S.)
  • Christianity should have as much legal sway as “secular” humanism.

[Note: I’ve never heard Christians who believe of this myth talk about all religions having as much legal sway as “secular” humanism or Christianity.]

This is an attempt to rationalize christian hegemony. Francis Schaeffer promoted one of the more recent, loudest, popular versions of it. I have followed up a little on it based on some references in Chrystal Downing’s good and bad “How Postmodernism Serves My Faith,” although hers references are to the ideas of Dooyeweerd. And relatedly, not surprisingly, I’ve run across references to Clouser’s book known here. I even see evidence of it in N.T. Wright’s work back at least 10 years before “Jesus and the Powers.” \

The theo-bros of this newest city-named “declaration” (Well! I de-clare!) are promoting the view I’ve described. They are relying on a popular understanding of the outcomes related to religion based on a self-serving telling of the “tales” of the Enlightenment, the French Revolution and World War II. This is likely in conjunction with the popoular mythology of the U.S. as a City on a Hill and the country being founded at Plymouth Rock by the Pilgrims. (Happy Thanksgiving everyone!)

The concern expressed in this declaration is that in a pluralistic society Christianity maintains its imbalanced cultural power through legal and political means. This is a form of Christian nationalism. Nationalism is a power play. Christian nationalism is as well, and it requires the maintenance of cultural and political dominance. Those are not the tools that were giving by our Lord to the church.

The same mistakes over and over again.

5 Likes
40

A complete lack of definitions is important. All based on assumptions of “common knowledge”.

2 Likes