The Protestant Culture of Death and the Folly of Discernment Blogging
“So, anti-spiritual abuse blogs are confronting a religion that they remain a part of while that religion looks to suffering as a means of properly understand reality itself. Good luck with that.”
“This should also be instructive for discernment bloggers; even if you succeed in making the Calvinist abusers feel guilty what is going to be the result? A return to the foot of the cross and nothing else.”
When Protestants started rediscovering their real roots in 1970, many “gospel recovery movements” started a “quiet revolution” to take the church back from modern-day “legalistic Pharisees.” Few knew anything was going on until 2006, and even then it was the realization that something was going on, but nobody knew exactly what it was. In 2009 discernment blogs exploded in response to the spiritual abuse tsunami sweeping across the evangelical church.
2014 has ushered in the realization that discernment blogs are pointless because they confront Protestantism and Calvinism in particular about its bad behavior while remaining in the institutional church, and in many cases, Calvinism itself.
The cat is out of the bag. The rabbit is out of the hat. The elephant is out of the barn. However you want to state it, spiritual abuse is happening in the church; and if not abuse, rampant sin, and if not sin; boredom, because Protestantism is the same old ancient doctrine of death ideology as Islam or anything else. There is only one historical difference between Protestantism and Islam in regard to degree of abuse: American rule of law, and the separation of force and faith. Calvinists in our day state plainly that they would “go Old Testament” on dissenters if they were allowed. What is our first clue that something isn’t right? Presently, they are limited to character assignation and having your name removed from the book of life. Openly, they bemoan the loss of days gone by when burning stakes were as common as road signs while the average pew sitter makes no correlation between history and ideology whatsoever. Calvinists like Wade Burleson can actually brag about being a modern-day Puritan while at the same time claiming to be an advocate for the spiritually abused. The disconnect in logic is stunning.
It is extremely important to make a distinction between doctrine and ideology. The same ideology can take on many different expressions of doctrine; biblical or secular. Doctrine is the stated ethic of the ideology which usually comes from what we believe about the state of being. A lot of the debate noise on the internet, if not most of it, is from people with the same ideology either aware or unaware, debating doctrine. They think they have relevant differences because they disagree on doctrine. No, doctrine is the tentacles of the ideological octopus.
Epistemology is the “how” we know the state of being (what is), and perhaps why it is. For original Protestantism, reality is perceived through suffering. Christ came to die on the cross so man could obtain life. That’s true in respect to salvation, but Luther (following the lead of Augustine) made that an ongoing need for understanding reality and experiencing the wellbeing of the invisible. This led to the false doctrine of progressive justification and made understanding reality part and parcel with salvation. This drives a lot of the mentality behind the evangelical homeschool movement. The public schools are evil because unbelieving teachers do not have a proper grasp of reality.
So, anti-spiritual abuse blogs are confronting a religion that they remain part of while that religion looks to suffering as a means of properly understand reality itself. Good luck with that. They have been blogging their guts out for five years now, and where are the results? You are dealing with people who will never be appalled at suffering because it is key to understanding reality.
Let’s look at an example:
The ugly reality of crucifixion looms over the lives of Christ’s followers today, as it did Peter’s life. In the gospel, we are confronted with the unvarnished horror of ourselves—damned and cursed and exiled. We find ourselves ensnared in the curse itself—in Jesus, writhing in torture on a stake (John 3:14).
Gathering each week, we reenact the horror of Jesus’ sacrificial death. In baptism, we see the flood of God’s judgment against sin (1 Pet. 3:20-21). At the Lord’s Table, we swallow and digest the sign of our Lord’s torn skin and spattered blood (Justin Taylor: The Gospel Coalition .org blog; The Gospel at Ground Zero | Sept. 9, 2011).
So, when you go to church every week, for all practical purposes, it is really a celebration of death. And what to do when your conscience bothers you?
And whenever our consciences accuse, the gospel takes us away from denial or preoccupation and right back to Ground Zero—to the Cross (Ibid).
This should also be instructive for discernment bloggers; even if you succeed in making the Calvinist abusers feel guilty what is going to be the result? A return to the foot of the cross and nothing else. One does not keep a clear conscience before God through obedience, that would be, “trying to be the gospel rather than preaching the gospel.” Hence, the often espoused, “I have no problem with Christ, it’s His followers I disdain” has unfortunate merit. Classic Protestantism is unabashed in promoting a talk instead of a walk—a walk is works salvation—we must let Jesus do the walking for us. “It’s not about what we do—it’s about what Jesus has done.” This mindset is unsalvageable—come out from among them. Unfortunately, once someone experiences a way of life that answers every question with the fatalistic easy-button while vanquishing real responsibly for the sum and substance of their own life, repentance is extremely unlikely unless God intervenes.
What’s the solution? Abandon the institutional church and return to church as it was meant to be. Believers at large are the priesthood, not Protestant academia. There needs to be an exodus to explore the real truth marred by 500 years of the traditions of men.
Why are we begging the institutional church to do what’s right? Why have we been begging since 2009, and to no avail? Why are toothless tigers like Boz Tchividjian heroes for merely crying foul on behalf of victims? Have you noticed how discernment bloggers are constantly clamoring at the doors of the institutional church with bated breath for some notable evangelical to throw them a verbal breadcrumb? It goes viral because some stuffed shirt orthodox lackey states something along the lines of God’s displeasure with pedophilia. It’s pathetic.
Victims need to understand that their suffering is a Protestant epistemology that is deemed not only a necessary evil, but the only gateway to spiritual wellbeing. Hold out your begging cup named justice till the second coming if you must, but you have been doing so since 2009, and you will continue to do so with the same results. Stop suing them and being sued by them, stop begging them, and for crying out loud, stop giving them your money!
Come out from among them and be separate. Only truth sanctifies. Be honest; what is your real goal in life? Retool and start blogging about the solution; that’s the new spiritual frontier. Stop being enslaved to a spiritual caste system, Christ came to set you free.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
You are so right! I am curious as to what Calvinist’s have stated they would go “Old Testament” on dissenters if they could.
LikeLike
“During a 2007 sermon, (Mark) Driscoll famously wished he could “go Old Testament” on a couple of elders. He also told the story about the fight trainer who kept his fighters in line by busting their noses. He did not disguise his anger at elders who disagreed with his direction during those messages. Those sermons are now gone.” – See more at: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton/2014/03/24/mark-driscolls-sermons-keep-disappearing/#sthash.9ksZGKF5.dpuf
LikeLike
Paul, about a month ago I purposely bought a necklace of “the tree of life” instead of the cross necklace.
It is just a reminder to me of my LIFE NOW and my future inheritance! I will proudly state that I have been given the living water that does not run dry! No “foot of the cross” for me- I have heard that phrase a lot in the past church I attended.
LikeLike
I think I will do a poll accordingly.
LikeLike
The last enemy is death. So, death is the enemy of Christianity.
LikeLike
Excellent points, Paul! Yes, it is not enough for us to explain why the Cross is not the end point. We have to present the truth. The cross has been so ingrained as the last stop that people think any “doing good” is works and insults God. It is uncanny how much this is ingrained. The resurrection is where we go.
I remember NT Wright saying that hundreds of young Jewish men had been crucified before and after Christ. But only ONE resurrected. That is where we focus. We focus on what that means for us.
The Cross does keep folks in bondage, though. It is perfect for those who want to control others.
Tree of Life. I like it.
LikeLike
Perhaps I’m sidestepping the point of the article, but doesn’t the Bible teach us to die to self? Didn’t Jesus say to take up your cross daily and follow Him? We are dead to sin and are to reckon it dead, though we are alive unto God. Doesn’t that sin nature still attempt to draw us unto dead works, and therefore, we need to reckon it dead. As Paul said, he dies daily to that old nature, but we live now unto God. Yes alive, but still tempted with sin.
LikeLike
Gail,
It’s both. The problem with Protestantism is that death is an epistemology, not a tenet of the Christian life that calls for loving sacrifice. Loving life, an attribute created in every person by God (“no man yet ever hated himself”), is deemed to be part of man’s totally depraved psyche. A culture of death is known by its fruits.
LikeLike
Gail,
Can you tell me how your comment is different than what Andrea Yates believed or still believes? Did she not die to self in order to save her children from hell so they would enter heaven? Those children were full of sin by nature is what she believed. Do you believe that?
I do not believe children are full of sin at birth. I believe God designed them to cry when they are hungry, wet or tired or sick. I believe that’s how we know what they need. They are not selfish. As they get older, with guidance, they learn more mature ways to communicate. That’s what parents are for. It is wrong to teach kids they are full of sin for wanting their needs or wants met. When they are young they don’t know the difference. Again, parents help them understand the difference between needs & wants. This is by God’s design. God’s creation is good. Reformed churches have it upside down. Beware. Read as much as you can about Andrea Yates, what she believed & was taught about sinful at birth. See if you think it’s right.
LikeLike
Anybody know a good link on Yates that gets right to the point?
LikeLike
Just like in Catholicism- children were baptized early in fear they could go to hell. Many women back then who were prostitutes or birthed illegitimate children had awful times getting their children baptized, so of course there you have it- the caste system. Children had a hard time living in these days so baptism was considered high priority; Only the elites were the ones lucky enough to get their children at least covered at an early age.
LikeLike
The best salvation that money can buy.
LikeLike
“Perhaps I’m sidestepping the point of the article, but doesn’t the Bible teach us to die to self? Didn’t Jesus say to take up your cross daily and follow Him? We are dead to sin and are to reckon it dead, though we are alive unto God. Doesn’t that sin nature still attempt to draw us unto dead works, and therefore, we need to reckon it dead. As Paul said, he dies daily to that old nature, but we live now unto God. Yes alive, but still tempted with sin.”
Gail,
It is ingrained in us to take metaphors way too far when it comes to scripture. The problem with that thinking is that it takes us out of the equation. We are “to do” and “to be” because of the Cross (justification). The cross means nothing without the resurrection. But most of Christendom stayed at the cross. I mean that is the biggest reason Christendom was a “state church” up until a few hundred years ago. The Cross is to be remembered. The resurrection is to be LIVED OUT.
Our sin nature also comes from the fact we are born into corrupted bodies into a corrupted world. At the same time our bodies are good and the world has much good.
If you have not already, go and listen tto Andy’s presentation from this years TANC. He lays this out the best I have ever seen. Andy did not say this but it is one of my take aways because people focus on sin to the exclusion of holiness. Our focus should be to live as redeemed people now. The “kingdom of God” and the “kingdom of heaven are references in the NT to HERE AND NOW.
We have been taught to believe that God’s own creation is bad and so are we. Andrea Yates just took that belief to its logical conclusion. If we are “bad” it is because we choose to be.
LikeLike
Simply Google “Andrea Yates religion”. There is plenty of info about it from multiple sources.
I don’t think very highly of her ex-husband, and I’m putting that mildly. I think his name is Rusty. He divorced her. How he treated her & how he defined their “roles” while married, how he expected them to live is sick. It reminds me of Vision Forum, etc. He disgusts me. He taught her, “led” her in faith.
Everyone, women included, needs to think for themselves. Each one is responsible for their action here and beyond.
LikeLike
We have one master–Jesus Christ.
LikeLike