Deb and Dee of Wartburg Watch .com: Gossip, Not Gospel; Hobby, Not Hope
There is a huge problem with the Christian blogosphere; it is very comfortable with hopelessness. In fact, hopelessness has become a hobby. The real world simply can’t function without solutions, but the Christian e-world seems to be exempt from that reality.
I started this blog when most blogs that address trends in Neo-Calvinism started, circa 2009. The goal was to find answers and an eventual solution to the New Calvinist movement that continues to turn the church upside down. Perhaps my solution-oriented bent comes from my entrepreneurial background; without solutions—you don’t make payroll. I never had to face any of my employees and say, “I can’t pay you this week” because the possibility was too terrifying. Trust me, it was all about solutions for many years.
The problem is simple: the recent and ongoing tsunami of spiritual abuse is due to a false gospel which shouldn’t surprise us. That was my first goal; to find the “why.” Then I found the solution.
What is more obvious than the fact that the institutional church which some call, “the evangelical industrial complex of celebrity pastors” makes the ongoing abuse possible? What is more obvious than the fact that institutions cannot function without money? Take ABWE of the missionary kids infamy. GARB churches could have brought ABWE to its knees inside of a week; yet, even in light of unspeakable atrocities against children, not one congregation pulled support. Hence, the situation dragged on and on for roughly twenty years with little or no justice brought to bear. Why? Where are the missionary kids today? Does anybody even remember them? Oh, I forgot, their situation isn’t trending right now; that would be the latest drama everyone is feeding on: Jordan Root and Matt Chandler’s Village Church.
The discernment blogosphere could stop spiritual abuse dead in its tracks. We are talking about huge numbers and people who have immense influence. Why would you continue to give any credence whatsoever to an institution that makes abuse possible? Churches are either directly involved in abuse, or turn a blind eye to it. Pastors who dwell in the institutional church could indeed put a stop to it as well. For example, a handful of IFB pastors could have stopped the Jack Hyles cartel from wreaking havoc on innocent lives, but they didn’t. Why?
Obviously, it’s a preservation issue of some sort at the expense of innocents who are attending church and trying to do what’s right. Instead, they fall prey to tyranny and pedophiles. There is a reason why the Protestant church now bears the same fruit of the Catholic Church while both continue to thrive. How can this be?
Let’s pause for clarification of points:
- The Protestant/Catholic/evangelical industrial complex of celebrity pastors is predicated on a false gospel, specifically, the false gospel of progressive justification. Protestants and Catholics merely disagree on man’s role in the progression. False gospels bear bad fruit—this should be evident.
- Catholic/Protestant hierarchies both claim God’s authority on earth to oversee the progression of salvation. The Catholics are more upfront about the idea, Protestants less so; nevertheless, this ministry has a cache of quotations from leading evangelicals that make the same claim. And they get that directly from Calvin and Luther.
- Participants of the evangelical industrial complex of celebrity pastors knowingly profess progressive justification, or unwittingly function by it.
- Progressive justification calls for an institution vested with God’s authority to oversee salvation. We hear all of the time that formal church membership is synonymous with being in the “body of Christ.”
- Progressive justification, theologically, allows for any and every kind of sin under the auspices of authority. We simply must not question God’s anointed who “stand in the gap” and “stand in our stead” before God. Our role is “humble submission” before God. If those who stand in the stead have wronged us—they will answer to God, not us. Our role is to “forgive the way we have been forgiven.”
Break point: most discernment blogs are pundits of this system. Their only hope is in the system itself. This is why they refuse to associate ideology with behavior. Regardless of what’s going on in the “church,” the goal is to somehow fix the church. Since 2009, they continue to whine, cry, and beg the institutional church to behave itself. They gather together, moaning and licking each other’s wounds, crying out to the institutional church as god rather than the Prince of Peace. Really, it’s pathetic.
The paramount example of this sad scene is Deb and Dee’s Wartburg Watch .com. In their attempt to save the institutional church, they have become a celebrity subculture that mediates between the hierarchy and Churchianity’s sheeple herd. They are also a model for most of the other discernment blogs.
Listen, when the focus of salvation is a system, people will cling to that system at all cost. It is NEVER the ideological foundations of the system; it is ALWAYS a few bad apples that are to blame. If you suggest that it is the system itself that is the problem, you better go to that conversation in full riot gear.
And yesterday was a good example. It’s an amazing scene. In the same way that celebrity pastors get a pass from their followers, Deb and Dee not only get a pass for their illogical ways and steroidal hypocrisy, but also, as I found out yesterday, a vibrant defense from their faithful followers. Dee, and probably Deb as well, stood by while I apparently got what was coming to me. And cursory observations of their comment streams reveal that they are selective in regard to who receives this verbal abuse.
There is no room here by any means to document the full brunt of their ideological disconnects and hypocrisy, but I will touch on the basics. Let me start with explaining their intolerance of me regardless of the following: the price I paid for asking New Calvinists too many questions rates near the top of the abuse scale, so why did Deb and Dee stand by while I received my verbal beating which included blatant false accusations and baseless name calling? Because like black conservatives who are not black because they are conservatives, I am not a fellow victim because I offer an articulation of the problem and a solution.
Besides the fact that Deb and Dee are not victims of the institutional church, an articulation of the abuse problem and a solution threatens their hobby; ie., gossip mongering. For years, they have held an endless recycling of trending drama in the institutional church with spotlighted victims coming and going. They have their own Top 40 hits of the trending victims that eventually drop down to number 200 or lower. The discussion held on their blog is the musical hit of the week until people get tired of it and wait at the doors of their Wartburg castle with bated breath for whatever is trending next.
But here is the bottom line: Karen Hinkley will not find justice any more than the missionary kids, and that’s NOT ok with me. Karen Hinkley is at the top of the chart right now, and the missionary kids are not even on the chart. Deb and Dee are comfortable with that because trending victims come and go feeding their hobby and celebrity status as hopeless gossip peddlers. Their gargantuan pooling of opinions has not solved anything and has actually enabled the institutional church to continue in tyranny and abuse. They are facilitators—not advocates. They only have talk and have no solutions. In other words, they offer no hope.
Let’s put feet on this a little more. Deb and Dee see no real power in the truth or a connection between ideology and behavior. The latter has been my primary problem with them for several months. In a venture to keep people connected with the institutional church in some way, shape, or form, they offer an e-church hosted by none other than Wade Burleson who is a consummate Neo-Calvinist.
Let that sink in a little. While supposedly taking up the cause of those abused by the New Calvinists, they endorse a New Calvinist, and make it a point to expose others to his teachings.
Really? Do I really have to expound on this further? Look, I could cite the lame excuse they present for doing this on their blog, but I can’t really muster up a mental incentive to do so. This comfort with metaphysical contradictions is post-modernesque in the extreme.
Now, regardless of the fact that I rarely, actually, VERY rarely visit other blogs, and the subsequent accusation by Dee’s minions yesterday that I am a “low grade troll,” I was beckoned to Wartburg yesterday in regard to a statement that she made which leads me to the next point. Since the obvious must be discussed in our day, it stands to reason that the obvious must also have need of being articulated. This speaks to the other problem I have with Wartburg: they do not see truth as efficacious to healing.
Let me be clear and make a statement that I fully intend to stand by: Deb and Dee believe a false gospel. How do I know this? Dee said so. The statement that was brought to my attention follows:
Remember, we are all positionally holy but we are all functional sinners.
This is clearly a false gospel that denies the new birth. In fact, it is a return to the same authentic Protestant gospel that New Calvinism is predicated on. Deb and Dee cannot help people victimized by New Calvinism because they are functioning New Calvinists and that’s exactly why they are hooked up with Wade Burleson which should be more than obvious, but anyway, it is what it is.
Sigh. Ok, let’s start with the fact that the biblical definition of a “sinner” is someone who is unregenerate. Really? Do I have to explain this? Do I have to point out that Dee called “believers” functioning unregenerates? Are evangelicals that far gone? This is the exact same gospel that John Piper et al hold to. He states it plainly all of the time: Christians still need ongoing salvation that can only be found in the institutional church. Furthermore, that also comes directly from Calvin and Luther both in no uncertain terms. Deb and Dee, as well as many of their minions, are well aware of this ministry’s numerous citations that establish this as fact, but…
…they simply don’t care about the truth nor do they see it as relevant, except for the fact that it threatens their hobby and celebrity status. Clearly, their problem with John Piper is primarily his tweets, not his gospel, and they have as much said so in the past. Why? Because they believe the same false gospel.
Christians, if they are really Christians, are not merely “positionally” righteous, they are in fact righteous beings because they have been literally born again of God. In the gospel according to Deb and Dee, there is no understanding of sin in regard to justification and sin under grace. UNDER LAW (the biblical definition of a lost person) and UNDER GRACE (the biblical definition of a saved person) are not separate—“Christians” remain under law and under grace is merely a covering supplied by a perpetual imputation of Christ’s righteousness. This is the New Calvinist false gospel that Deb and Dee buy into while claiming to be champions for those abused by the “Calvinistas.” It’s otherworldly ironic.
So in the final analysis, the Wartburg Watch offers no one hope—victims are only fodder for their hobby, regardless of their motives, and they offer no true good news, but rather replace the gospel with gossip.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
Well stated Argo. They are in fact throwing gasoline on the fire and enabling tyranny.
LikeLike
LOL! They are calling us friends over there in an apparent attempt to disparage me. I proudly wear it my friend. And apparently, I am also friends with someone who denies the Trinity. Would that be you or John, or both of you?
LikeLike
I think this is a classic example of that old adage: If you aren’t part of the solution you are part of the problem. Clearly Deb and Dee are not part of the solution. They don’t even have one of their own to offer. And all they can do is disparage someone who does.
LikeLike
It’s getting totally brutal over there while Deb and Dee stand by and let it fly. Dee is free to come here and defend herself, but she has basically banned me from commenting over there and then declared open season on my name. At least say, “OK, I banned him from the blog, now let’s move on.” Nope, all of a sudden my questions that were “off topic” are now very much the topic. Obviously, Deb and Dee feel that they need reinforcement from the faithful. They can now stand back and let it rip over there without taking any responsibility for the accusations. I am being called a “cult leader,” “twit,” “strange,” and the good old Calvinist stand by: “He’s an angry man” which speaks to someone who disagrees with them.
LikeLike
Yea … I think this is what I find so fascinating about the New Calvinist movement. They will work overtime creating causalities between actions and ideas (e.g. postmodernism is the intellectual boogie man seducing America into hell) but they will never look at Calvinist doctrine as having causal power. The doctrine is always exempt because bad outcomes are explained away as affirmation of the “hard” truth of their doctrine. Good outcomes are held up as the virtues of their doctrine.
Why is this kind of intellectual inconsistency so endemic to the Calvinist/Catholic world view?
This is of course why Christianity and Christians have no broader social credibility. They can’t diagnose the obvious, why in the world would anyone listen to a thing they have to say?
LikeLike
Paul, I would beg to differ. If you knew Dee’ story at Providence Baptist and what she and her husband went through you would take much of this back. Dee went to bat for a sexually abused child and along with several others confronted church leadership. The church went after them and even went after them when they tried to attend another church. Her husband Bill Parsons threatened to obtain a lawyer if the church did not back off. That shook them up deeply.
I have to tell you that if you read my story you would know how I was pressured to attend Sovereign Grace. In my story I faced a false accusation that threatened my name, reputation, employment and future employment. It was Dee Parsons who helped me navigate a mine field. I would say that had it not been for her I don’t think I would believe in God today. Her love and grace helped me exit a faith crisis and stay out of Sovereign Grace.
Your claims about her being a Calvinist are outright false. If she were a Calvinist would she have done the following?
1. Used her blog to prevent individual members from facing church discipline in differing 9 Marks churches.
2. Used to her blog to give those hurt by SGM a voice, especially since Kris at SGM Survivors has largely quit and become apathetic and unpredictable. Susan Burke has released a past statement on her blog giving people hope.
3. Been given credit along with Warren Throckmorton in helping to bring down Mark Driscoll in Seattle.
4. Exposed the situation at The Village Church along with Amy Smith, who I also deeply respect.
5. Her family has been threatened in the past, yet she preserves out of love.
If she were a Calvinist than many of the Neo-Cals wouldn’t have her in their sights. There is a reason why Tim Challies and others have gone after Dee and Deb. They have provided a logical, sane voice for many people like me. Furthermore she has done so much for other people including:
1. Linked up Warren Throckmorton with Dr. James Duncan
2. Helped the author of The Elephant’s Debt get started in discussing problems in Harvest Bible Chapel.
3. Given the people of Mars Hill a place to tell there story long before their blogs got started. Paul Petry, Rob Smith and Bent Meyer are thankful for her help.
Now from one man to another…I want you to write her an email and take back some of what you said. Its the respectful, decent thing to do. Can you do that?
Very Respectfully,
Eagle
LikeLike
Eagle, I am posting your comment, but in light of you and others having a free-for-all with my name over at WW, I can hardly take your comment seriously. In fact, Dee just got done calling me mentally ill over there. Seriously, Randy Seiver is looking pretty good to me right now.
LikeLike
“Here is what I posted on Pauls’ blog. I’m expecting this to be deleted.” Well, I guess you got that wrong about me. You see, I am not afraid to be challenged. What you should go back and tell everyone over there is that I am banned from the blog; so, get over it and move on. What’s up with banning me from the blog and then declaring open season on me while I am unable to defend myself? Someone insecure much?
LikeLike
By the way, in all of this, has anybody addressed any of my theological points on, you know, that little thing we call, “justification”? Anyone?
LikeLike
Dear Paul,
I posted this at TWW, but I’m not sure if you ever got to read it. Feel free to delete this post if you’ve read it and feel it’s redundant.
I used to follow your blog with interest, and I believe I’ve given your ideas a fair hearing. I understand the Neo-Calvinists hurt you big time. You’re not the only one who has been hurt and shunned by Calvinists who equate TULIP with the Gospel. (Me, too!)
However, there are a few reasons I stopped following your blog. One is that you say that Christians are no longer under the law (because they have died to it in Christ), and thus do not sin anymore, because there is no law that applies anymore. I do agree that we are not under the law, but under grace, and that we have died that we might live in Christ. However, you seem to think that now sin doesn’t exist anymore. So when a Christian does something that used to be sin before they became a Christian, it isn’t really sin anymore. It’s just a “familial” matter that can be disciplined. The thing is, you are not the only one with a market share on this concept. You’ve heard of free gracers, right? What comes to my mind are the teachings of the Evangelical Free Grace Society. In order to avoid the accusation of cheap grace, they say that a Christian’s sinning is taken account at the Bema Seat judgment for Christians as a loss of reward. You appear to hold to the same view. Please do correct me if I’m wrong. In this viewpoint that EFGS holds, a Christian can do any heinous sin imaginable, and even practice it all their lives without repentance, and the only thing that will happen is that they are dinged at the Bema Seat judgment and lose a trinket, or at worst, forfeit the right to rule and reign with Christ during the millennial reign on earth (and Christ will be ticked off at them a bit while He retrains them to be sanctified for 1000 years). I’m sure you don’t quite believe in millennial exclusion, but the bottom line point is that it’s cheap grace, easy believism. A person like my father would LOVE what you have to say. He can beat my mother and it isn’t even sin anymore, because there’s no longer any law! The worst that will happen is that he doesn’t get rewarded. Boo hoo. As my dad always told me when I confronted him on his actions, “As long as I get in.” He doesn’t care if he loses out on rewards. He thinks sanctification is optional, much as you do.
I encourage you to really think about what you’re saying. Try applying your teaching to the same people who hurt you and broke up your marriage. Let’s say those same people ascribed to your ideas and renounced all Reformation doctrine, but did the same things to hurt you and remained unrepentant, continuing in the same sort of behavior all their lives. Since they technically didn’t “sin”, and the only thing coming to them is a loss of rewards, they have very little incentive to repent. Most people don’t care about rewards later when they can have their cake and eat it too right now. The bottom line is, the same people who hurt you would still not change even if they ascribed to your teaching. There’s no reason for them to. Sanctification is now optional, and can be put off in a sort of Bema Seat purgatory later. And trust me, as someone who got sucked into millennial exclusion for a while, I am well aware how this view of the Bema Seat can devolve into a purgatory-like state. Shucks, the modern Catholic view of purgatory (it’s been watered down and white-washed in the past 100 years) is more humane and kind than what the Evangelical Free Grace Society proposes. You, sir, if you continue on your path, will eventually have to resolve how Christians who live wicked lives are to be dealt with in your theological system. You will either end up with something akin to the severity of millennial exclusion, or you will end up with cheap grace that rewards evil people, and makes hell meaningless, since all you have to do is believe in Christ one time in your life to be eternally secure. If you choose the former, you will also end up shoving sincere Christians who don’t want to practice evil into a blender with wicked people, and they will walk around terrified of being dinged at the Bema Seat, as I did for two years of my life.
Another issue that stopped me from following your blog is your cherry picking of historical sources. I used to believe writers when they cited something from a secondary source, and trusted that they picked good sources (like, you know, scholars and historians). I no longer do that, ever since finding out that the Albigensians/Cathars that Dave Hunt insisted were evangelical Christians were actually a Gnostic, neo-Manichaean cult. Now, I verify via actual historians. The way you cherry pick reminds me too much of Dave Hunt’s tactics. (He went so far as to cite an ex-priest turned novelist as if the guy was an actual historian.) Please cite from actual historians when you talk about church history. Citing a YouTube video by Jesse Morrell is sloppy. His own sources are mixed (much like Dave Hunt’s) to prove his ideas, rather than to take in a wider scope. You also would not like Pelagius if you got into more of his surviving writings and those of his followers. Let’s just say they will remind you of Catholic teachings on mortal sins far too much. But so long as it demonizes Augustine, I guess it’s OK to side with Pelagius, right? (And for the record, I’m not Calvinist and recognize that Augustine wasn’t right with a lot of things. That still doesn’t mean we should demonize him.) Please consider reading from actual historians. Perhaps you could start with Philip Schaff. His church history series is now public domain and freely available at ccel.org. I’ve found him pretty trustworthy too. He even admits that the Anabaptists were persecuted by the Reformers, and he does not give Calvin a pass in the Servetus affair, even though he himself was Presbyterian. Please, I beg of you to educate yourself. I hate seeing so many Christians from history being broad-brushed as heretics. Yes, they often packed in Plato, but that same Platonistic philosophy also helped them believe in a monotheistic God and see their need for a Savior. Please don’t demonize these people. There are many amazing gems in church history that you are impoverishing yourself of. Yes, they have flaws, as any gem does. Yes, they need some cutting. So do I. We all have blind spots and bring our own presumptions in when we read the Bible. Learn to be merciful, and learn from the mistakes these men made and ask God to show you yours. If there’s anything I’ve learned from reading church history and early Christian writings, it’s to be merciful, and to ask God to help me learn both from the triumphs and mistakes.
And no, your “historian” friend who helps you out isn’t a real historian just because he read a few books. Real historians are peer reviewed for flaws in citations etc, and typically have these things called university degrees. Until your friend has his book peer reviewed by respectable individuals in academia, he doesn’t count as a historian. Stop calling him that.
The final thing that made me quit reading your blog is that your writing is attracting shady characters. Thus far, your two biggest followers are a Socinian/Arian heretic who denies Christ’s deity, and a woman who thinks fornication is A-OK. That’s disturbing. Yet, you continue to accept these people and keep company with them, while telling people at TWW that they’re believing in a false gospel. Hello, pot; meet kettle. Will you ever tell the heretic and the immoral person the same? Or is having an audience of two more important to you? I smell a hypocrite. Sorry, but it’s true. (By the way, you yourself are defining what “orthodoxy” means, and are shoving it down everyone else’s throat. Again, pot, meet kettle.)
I know you won’t take this well. I don’t expect you to. Sorry if it all sounds harsh, but it’s the truth. I can only hope that someday you’ll really think about what I said, and reevaluate before you start running around determining people’s salvation for them.
And by the way, I actually like Paul Washer. I don’t like his courtship stuff and marriage teachings that fail to deal with domestic violence, and I don’t care for his Calvinism. But I love him to death, because he once delivered a sermon on the Bema Seat that completely unsnapped the chains that the Evangelical Free Grace Society had bound me in. Because of him, I can actually know that God loves me and that he’s not taking meticulous notes to ding me at the Bema Seat and throw me into “outer darkness” for 1000 years if I fail to be sanctified enough upon my death. As an abuse victim of my psychotic father, I really needed to know the Father’s love for me, and that I didn’t have to face a Protestant purgatory–one that’s even worse than the current Catholic teaching of purgatory. At least my family can pray me out of the latter long before 1000 years is up! You’ll have to forgive me for taking affront at people demonizing others, even if I don’t always agree with the people who are demonized. God used that man in my life, despite his being Calvinist and a so-called “gnostic”. I hope one day God uses a Calvinist to heal your wounds. Hopefully then you’ll learn to show mercy when someone doesn’t get everything right. In the meantime, I’ll be praying for you. I know you’ve been through a lot of hurt, and I know you want to turn the evil that happened in your life into doing good for others. May God direct your steps.
LikeLike
CA,
“However, there are a few reasons I stopped following your blog. One is that you say that Christians are no longer under the law (because they have died to it in Christ), and thus do not sin anymore, because there is no law that applies anymore. I do agree that we are not under the law, but under grace, and that we have died that we might live in Christ. However, you seem to think that now sin doesn’t exist anymore. So when a Christian does something that used to be sin before they became a Christian, it isn’t really sin anymore. It’s just a “familial” matter that can be disciplined. The thing is, you are not the only one with a market share on this concept. You’ve heard of free gracers, right? What comes to my mind are the teachings of the Evangelical Free Grace Society. In order to avoid the accusation of cheap grace, they say that a Christian’s sinning is taken account at the Bema Seat judgment for Christians as a loss of reward. You appear to hold to the same view. Please do correct me if I’m wrong. In this viewpoint that EFGS holds, a Christian can do any heinous sin imaginable, and even practice it all their lives without repentance, and the only thing that will happen is that they are dinged at the Bema Seat judgment and lose a trinket, or at worst, forfeit the right to rule and reign with Christ during the millennial reign on earth (and Christ will be ticked off at them a bit while He retrains them to be sanctified for 1000 years). I’m sure you don’t quite believe in millennial exclusion, but the bottom line point is that it’s cheap grace, easy believism. A person like my father would LOVE what you have to say. He can beat my mother and it isn’t even sin anymore, because there’s no longer any law! The worst that will happen is that he doesn’t get rewarded. Boo hoo. As my dad always told me when I confronted him on his actions, “As long as I get in.” He doesn’t care if he loses out on rewards. He thinks sanctification is optional, much as you do.”
Nope, you have me totally wrong on all of that. Christ died to end the law…FOR JUSTIFICATION. Though we still sin because the spirit is now willing and the flesh is weak, love is the focus, not the Protestant unhealthy infatuation with sin and death. UNDER GRACE does not mean, I repeat, does NOT mean that we are not under a law, but it is now our standard for love. However, the law can no longer condemn us. AND, there are present consequences for sin in this life. Those who see themselves as free from using the law to love God and others should reexamine their hearts because the new birth reverses slavery and freedom (Romans 6:20). The unregenerate person is free to do good, but enslaved to sin. The saved person is enslaved to righteousness, but unfortunately free to sin. The life principle of blessings and cursing through obedience also figures in here as well. For the unsaved person, it is less death, for the saved person it is more and more life.
Actually, there is so much confusion about this that the blog ought to have an online round table discussion about our stance on the gospel.
LikeLike
CA
“I used to follow your blog with interest, and I believe I’ve given your ideas a fair hearing…Another issue that stopped me from following your blog…The final thing that made me quit reading your blog is that your writing is attracting shady characters.”
With all due respect, I don’t care that you stopped coming here. It is my job to tell the truth, not appease people with itching ears. Go to Wartburg for that.
“And no, your “historian” friend who helps you out isn’t a real historian just because he read a few books.”
Excuse me, he has forgotten more about church history than you will ever know. John Immel’s knowledge is based on the reading of a few books? Excuse me? That statement, along with the “shady character” statement tells me that you know little if anything about this ministry. How could anybody be aware of John’s university level lectures at past TANC conferences and make such a statement?
Look CA, I am showing great restraint here because I am used to being persecuted, but it took me a long time before I had friends once again. Say of me what you like, I may confront you about it, but trust me, I will get over it. But in regard to my friends–HANDS OFF or you will quickly see my ugly side.
LikeLike
Hey Eagle…
I’ve read some of your comments over the last few years, and having personally lived through the horror story that is Sovereign Grace Ministries, I think I understand where you are coming from. I understand why you want to defend Dee. We all want to weigh in on behalf of those with which we have solidarity.
But I want to point this out . . . your comments are illustrative of the very thing that Paul is trying to point out.
Eagle Said: “Your claims about her being a Calvinist are outright false. If she were a Calvinist would she have done the following?”
And the answer to your question is yes. She would have because she does not see the ideological connection between Calvinism and her specific belief structure.
This is the relationship that the discernment blogosphere somehow misses over and over and over. They give themselves enormous intellectual latitude to describe the personal faith in the best possible terms all the while making a claim to the authority Protestant doctrine. Meaning they want the license to pick and choose their doctrinal feng shui as if they are grazing at the Golden Coral buffet. But when pressed for doctrinal pedigree they insist that they are preaching the tried and true Gospel of God. They apply many labels: Reformed, Orthodox, aligned with the Westminster Confessions etc, etc but somehow magically overlook the roots of all of these words—Luther and Calvin.
And here is the dirty little secret that everyone desperately hopes never becomes public: It is IMPOSSIBLE to make a claim to any part of Reformed Theology and then claim intellectual independence from John Calvin. No matter what brand, flavor or denominational persuasion, the theological pedigree of every current evangelical group gets its philosophical and theological roots from the bad actors Martin Luther and John Calvin.
People can quibble all they want, parsing out as many deviations from Calvin’s doctrine as their little hearts’ desire, BUT in as much as they claim Reformed theology is the only valid Christian doctrinal statement, they are articulating Calvin’s ideas.
Paul has said this in many places but it bears repeating over and over and over. Luther’s Heidelberg Disputation is the first full theological presentation of Reformed Theology. This was the foundation for his overt departure from Catholic doctrine when he debated John Eck. This foundation was then taken up by John Calvin, who fully integrated Augustinian Platonism with the Heidelberg Disputation and gave a full and total formulation in his Institutes of the Christian Religion. IRC was the foundation for the Synod of Dort and subsequently the Westminster Confessions.
This is what is inarguable and yet . . . people keep wanting to rewrite reality by drawing arbitrary distinctions between Calvinism and what they “believe.”
Which goes to this point . . .
Whatever distinctions Dee specifically makes between herself and the IRC is irrelevant. She accepts the essentials of Augustinian/Lutheran/Calvin doctrine. If she didn’t she could never ever have aligned herself with Wade Burleson. Wade is Calvin lite. He is like so many evangelicals who enjoy pretending they have intellectual independence all the while advocating the doctrines of Johnny C’s IRC. Pretending otherwise is merely self inflicted willful blindness. It takes nothing to read John Calvin’s institutes except the will to actually read it. And yet with profound consistency self-styled Reformed Theology Aficionados are glaringly ignorant of the very doctrine they pound the pulpit to advocate.
And if one dares to read the IRC and then compares that to Wade Burleson . . . I defy that person to see a substantive distinction in the doctrinal essentials. Wade may have a knack for repacking the doctrines in a much more palatable form (a despicable practice endemic to the theological frauds in Evangelical Christianity) but the root ideas are identical.
So the only reasonable conclusion is that Dee does not appreciably disagree with Reformed Theology aka Calvinism. What she disagrees with is what she sees as aberrations on the “truth”. She doesn’t see the doctrine as suspect. Each new scandal is merely one more wholly unprecedented, wholly without cause manifestation of sinful men taking the “truth” too far. If only the right people would do the right thing. And when that doesn’t happen: “Woe is us we are all just sinners. Can’t we give each other cyber hugs?”
And this is the crux of Paul’s issue. At no point does anyone call the entire Reformed theology formulation to account. Never once do they say, “Hey wait, how come people who believe this body of ideas seem to consistently do x, y and z?” (An hours worth of research into the history of Protestant England, and the Puritans is enough to make the case)
This is precisely what I started doing eight years ago and what Paul has been doing now for about the same time and what Argo has been doing for the last few years. Calling to account the doctrine—all the assumptions, all the specifics—and correlating the ideas to the actions. And Paul is specifically challenging the historic doctrines of Justification and Sanctification. I understand why this doesn’t go over too well, but until the Reformed crowd—in all its flavors and derivations-actually answer him, they are the ones failing to in their theological due diligence. Not Paul.
Eagle you give Dee a lot of credit for “exposing” various abuses in Evangelical churches. Why are you content with an Exposé? Why do you think that being the TMZ of the Discernment Blogosphere is an achievement? How many of these scandals can be exposed before you say “Why the hell does this keep happening?” When will you refuse to let people pretend that a cyber hug is a profound symbolic act? When will you say that a trending hashtag is really a symbol of ideological impotence? How many other blogs like Survivors will have to dither down into the futility of their own intellectual vacancy and quit the field before you say we must find the answer?
I figure that will be about the same time you come back here and say “Paul, you were exactly right.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
“And no, your “historian” friend who helps you out isn’t a real historian just because he read a few books. Real historians are peer reviewed for flaws in citations etc, and typically have these things called university degrees. Until your friend has his book peer reviewed by respectable individuals in academia, he doesn’t count as a historian. Stop calling him that.”
Is this me? I’m the shady character? Yee haw . . . this is hilarious. Oh CA bless your heart. I love being vindicated. Paul, if these are your critics you’ve already won!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well one thing’s for sure. We can thank Deb and Dee for the spike in traffic today! 🙂
LikeLike
Sean,
What is astounding is the gospel crises that we are in. Several people commented over there that they had read my blog but couldn’t understand it. I guess it depends on what they read, but what is so complicated about a progression of justification versus justification being finished? Susan and I are talking about putting part 2 of the HD series on hold and focusing on the gospel this Friday. I could do an introduction, and then we could have a discussion on air. Who’s in? I am not sure how many callers can talk at the same time, but I will check–maybe Robin or Andy know.
LikeLike