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 
Pondering,
Right, um, I have commented on the Wartburg blog how many times in like 3 years? Twice maybe? When I saw that comment I truly didn’t know whether to laugh or cry. But the money comment was from, I think “Sam.” Did you guys catch that one? Our present and ongoing sins are “covered by the blood of Jesus.” Whoa!
LikeLike
Dee reassured him that I had been blocked from the blog. Ok, Argo, this has to be some kind of T-shirt. We make people feel “unsafe.” LOL! Am I here right now?
LikeLike
Any bloggers who think it is more important to proudly promote the liar, Wade Burleson, and his soul-crushing false teaching, provides an unsafe place for me and for other particularly vulnerable people like me/like I was. I hope they banned me long ago. I would pay them to ban me.
LikeLiked by 1 person
John, I’m terribly sorry if you actually have a history degree. It wasn’t very apparent back when I first followed this blog. Still, I’d like to see what you’ve published in perhaps academic journals that would make you a leading expert who is recognized and peer reviewed by other historians. I no longer trust people who say they’re this and that. It’s the internet, and anyone can pose as anything. Yes, you do seem well studied overall. I admit to that. But that doesn’t necessarily make you recognized in the academic community and a secondary source I would rely upon for studying history. How can I know whether you are in the same league as Philip Schaff, JND Kelly, B. Netanyahu, John F. Haldon, Gibbon, etc., unless I can see some books/articles/etc. that have been peer reviewed, or at least general public recognition of the excellence of your work. This is very important to me, especially when I’m seeing theories come out of you that don’t quite mesh with what I’ve read from famous, recognized historians. Providing credentials that the average person can verify is very helpful. Also, John, I wasn’t referring to you as being a shady character. I was referring primarily to David Brainerd, the Socinian. I don’t consider you shady, I just don’t know what your full credentials are.
Furthermore, I haven’t seen you stop Paul from citing bad sources, such as Jesse Morrell’s YouTube video on free will. Yes, he has some good citations in that video, but he also has some terrible ones that you, as someone with a history degree, should be able to spot immediately. Jesse Morrell is also very into Pelagius. I’ve read Pelagius’ surviving works (at least what’s been translated into English thus far). His beliefs are not something I think Paul wants to be associated with, as that opposes his beliefs (and mine). You’re letting Paul discredit himself by associating with this YouTube video. You would do well to help Paul choose his sources more carefully.
Argon, I wasn’t referring to you. I was referring to David Brainerd as being the Socinian/Arian. Maybe he’s not around anymore, and that’s why you don’t know to whom I am referring? But his views were tolerated a long time. If you all really care about the true gospel, then this man really needs help to understand what it is. Because last I checked, the full deity of Jesus was pretty much essential. It’s the one thing every cult and false religion denies.
Paul, I’m not persecuting you. I’m asking you to show mercy to others. Telling others they’re going to hell because they don’t agree with you 100% over minor semantics is unkind. (Which, ironically, is defining what orthodoxy is. When you call others heretics, then you’ve essentially said that your way is the “orthodox” way.) You know, my abusive father got into Calvinism for a long while. When I was a teenager, whenever he got mad at me, he’d tell me I was unelect and going to hell. After a while I started to believe him. And why not? His life worked out just fine, no matter how badly he sinned. Other Christians were always around to save him from the consequences of his actions. Nobody came to save me. My father eventually abandoned me, and I nearly went homeless because I wouldn’t affirm his sin. THAT is persecution. That is not to say you haven’t undergone persecution yourself with your experiences with Calvinists. I’m not saying that or marginalizing the horror you’ve been through. I’m saying that it isn’t ME persecuting you. Sadly, you do the exact same thing that my father did to me. You accuse others of not being elect, even when they are sincerely trying to follow Christ and His teachings. That is very harmful to people’s faith, especially when they may already be struggling with whether they are accepted by Christ when so many other Christians have hurt them.
Much of what you have to say is true regarding what the gospel is. But sometimes you lose people. It’s like you’re splicing semantic hairs, and if others don’t “get” which hairs are what, you claim they’re into a false gospel. Try to communicate better. The average person cannot follow what your concept of the gospel is. Spell it out more succinctly. I think I mostly follow it, but a lot of people are having a hard time.
I totally get your concern about the licentiousness Calvinism can lead to. My father pretty much was into fatalism regarding any sanctification. So, sin sin sin, no repercussions, because Jesus is my covering/perfect obedience. I get first hand what you’re talking about. The thing is, Augustine, Luther, and Calvin, despite their fatalism, discouraged sinning that grace may abound. Their reasons on why we shouldn’t keep sinning pretty much fall flat, but they were trying. Likewise, I’ve never heard a Calvinist like Paul Washer encouraging licentiousness. Quite the opposite. As for myself, I don’t personally ascribe to any Reformation confessions. You could probably at best box me in as a Classical Arminian.
Still, my concern is that you are inadvertently teaching the same sort of licentiousness as being an option for the born again Christian, only from a different angle than the neo-Calvinist would. The more you try to clarify your stance, the more you sound just like Charles Stanley, Zane Hodges, etc. It’s “free grace” theology, repackaged. You should check it out, and see if their core beliefs mesh with yours. Free grace is pretty popular. Free gracers frequently post things against John MacArthur’s Lordship Salvation. You would probably feel right at home in that regard. I don’t ascribe to it anymore, because in its most vanilla form it still doesn’t give anyone a reason to live righteously. They, too, recognize that natural consequences for sin can haunt you in this life and can deprive you of a more joyous spiritual life in Christ. The thing is, the same thing happens to unbelievers anyway. There’s really no difference as far as this present life goes. To remove the temptation to be licentious, some more extreme free gracers (such as Zane Hodges, Charles Stanley, Joseph Dillow, and more recently Chuck Missler) try to make the Bema Seat harsher in its deprivation of rewards. You haven’t arrived there yet. I get that. But it’s a possibility you will.
There has to be a point at which we say that a person living in unrepentant sin just isn’t really a believer. Yes, an unbeliever is a slave to sin. Yes, a believer is no longer a slave to sin. We agree on that. I do not agree with a believer being free to sin. A real believer has the fear of God placed on their hearts. It keeps them from jumping the fence. If they stray or stumble, the Good Shepherd brings them back and gets them on their feet. The righteous may fall down, but they always get back up. Sinning is not a casual option where someone can stay because now they’re eternally secure.
If you agree with what I said in the above paragraph, then both you and me, and many of the others at TWW have had a serious communication error and are disputing over nothing. Shucks, I’ve heard the above more from Paul Washer than anyone else. If you don’t agree, then I’d like to know what it is you do believe a bit better, and how it is different from the more moderate free grace theology. Hey, maybe this is all just some horrible misunderstanding. Perhaps you would do well to make a blog entry that illustrates examples of people. Answer the hard questions, such as whether a person professing to be Christian who lives licentiously was ever saved to begin with, or whether he’s justified but his sanctification in this life is optional. Use realistic examples, with a wide variety of extremes. It really does help people to understand when you use realistic illustrations.
Please remember that I’m not trying to persecute you. I just don’t like to stand by and do nothing when people are being accused of not being one of the elect. I wish someone had stood up for me when my Calvinist father nearly shipwrecked my childlike faith in God all those years ago. I don’t wish that on anyone else. I know it’s happened to you as well, and I feel for you first hand. You are dearly loved of God, and what those neo-Calvinists did to you was Satanic, amounting to bringing a false charge against a saint, just like Satan did to Job. We’re one fold, with one Shepherd. Let’s not shoot at each other, okay? It’s not worth it. We’ve got enough denominations going as it is without causing yet another schism. I will lay down my side arm now and bid you fair well. Please do forgive my misfires. One I’ve made already is not realizing John does actually have a history degree. I had a hard time finding any information on him via search engine, and spoke much too soon. I once again apologize. I’m sure I’ve fired in the wrong direction and hurt someone in some other way, even if I don’t realize it yet, and I hope you’ll forgive me.
God bless.
LikeLike
CA,
Look, I am sure you are a nice person, and you have read my stuff, and don’t agree. Ok. So what’s your point? You’re going to come parachuting in here and prove me wrong after I am the one who has been researching this issue for 8 years? I know what I know solely from independent research and independent study–you only know what other people have told you. We call that “orthodoxy.” You are orthodox and I am heterodox and God bless America because we are free to do so. My focus is the truth, how many people I persuade has never been my gig. You are confident that you know what’s up and I am all wet; so what? Every person will be personally culpable to God in the end, I am nobody’s savior–it is only my job to tell.
LikeLike
CA,
While you are here, I would like you to defend your position on the clergy approving what is printing for public consumption, the death penalty for heterodoxy, and the 3 classes of elect, particularly the elect class that is only temporarily elected/illumined and will suffer a greater damnation.
LikeLike
…and the bottom line: Deb and Dee stood by and watched. Why? Because I called them out. What makes them any different than those who they claim to contend against?
LikeLike
Paul
Well stated evaluation. It’s amusing to read Eagle, whose histrionics are of The View, kind. He’s forever chasing all things fundamentalist as his grand boogeyman. His inability to move beyond himself and instead, remain preoccupied with injuries that are common to all men (but in his case special and unique because, no doubt he must be), is a great sample of what TWW fosters. As you said, it isn’t about solutions.
Of course I documented my own experience with the hypocrisy of TWW but that pales in comparison to the mob violence Deb and Dee permitted against you. Yes, the very kind of verbal abuse from which they seek to guard God’s children (so they claim, lol). But then it really isn’t about the truth, either, it is about being on the right T-ball team and supporting their propietary narrative. You, apparently don’t wear their special colors so the hell with their alleged value system of respect and decorum.
Argo – great summation. TWW is a blanket.
I suppose if they offered solutions then they would be forced to conclude injuries, real or perceived and clearly they trade in the perpetual injured, offended and unresolved conflict industry which is damnable and certainly not Biblical.
Worst, they are abusers, themselves, pretending to be savior-aids. The wolf, of course, likes wearing wool.
You do offer solutions, Paul. Continue the faithful effort. You address problems, strip them and re-clothe them with resolution. Thank you.
AG
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is it in a nutshell: they are orthodox and helping people who are abused by orthodoxy: “It is important to understand, however, that we approach this undertaking as those who adhere to orthodox Christianity and our theology will fit within the “pale of orthodoxy.” Do you want to know how ignorant these people are? The Westminster Confession has official principles of persecution for those who speak out against it. Besides its tenets for controlling the public press by clergy, it recommended the death penalty for heterodoxy. These people are utterly clueless.
LikeLike
T-shirt ideas abound. I think mine will say, “I am an Argoianite”
LikeLike
Clockwork Orange uh . . . er . . . Angel
I’m not the shady character?
Dangit . . . I was looking forward to that honorific. Paul could have put my picture up beside Andy’s (Co-editor) picture. Mine could have said John Immel Resident Shady Character.
>snicker<
So, uh . . . yea I actually do have a history degree. I think the actual degree is called Systematic and Historical Theology . . . not that such things have a bearing on the truth. And this is the central problem with your rational standard. It is apparent you have participated in and are perpetrating the Ludovico's Technique.
The peer review criterion is a totally specious standard. It presumes that group authority is the criteria of truth . . . that because a bunch of men with an honorific happen to agree then their conclusions must be historically accurate and the measure of expertise is academic approval. This is an observably false method of intellectual validation.
The fact is my work has been review by far, far more people than probably 99% of most tenure track professors. See here is the thing about the world wide web . . . a LOT of people have the ability to read what I write. I haven’t written an article in a while and I still get more readers in a month than a tenured PhD gets in a decade of students. And here is the funny thing . . . maybe you are not aware, but on blogs you can actually post comments and offer a criticism of what is written and (this is the important part) you don’t get docked a grade for disagreeing with the professor. And here is another thing about the World Wide Web: you can actually do your own work and your own thinking and verify that my historical evaluation is accurate and you don’t need a PhD.
So to say that my work has not been reviewed is . . . well, also observably false. But here is a curios factoid: In 8 (?) years I have yet to have anyone challenge the factuality or accuracy of my historical synthesis. You welcome to go try. You are welcome to find the errors in my thinking and offer a substantive rebuttal.
Good luck with that.
And as for this:
“Furthermore, I haven’t seen you stop Paul from citing bad sources, such as Jesse Morrell’s YouTube video on free will. Yes, he has some good citations in that video, but he also has some terrible ones that you, as someone with a history degree, should be able to spot immediately. Jesse Morrell is also very into Pelagius. I’ve read Pelagius’ surviving works (at least what’s been translated into English thus far). His beliefs are not something I think Paul wants to be associated with, as that opposes his beliefs (and mine). You’re letting Paul discredit himself by associating with this YouTube video. You would do well to help Paul choose his sources more carefully.”
And so what? It isn’t my job to play idea cop. Paul is a big boy and can make up his own mind on who he quotes and for what reason he quotes them.
This criticism is merely more of the same fundamental expectation about the nature of truth: that there are a few people who should be (and are) specifically tasked with making sure that people only believe right things. That “authority” determines what is right. This is a disastrous epistemological standard that can only conclude with re-education and thought control as the outcome. But what else could we expect from someone who names themselves after the dystopian police state of Clockwork Orange?
LikeLike
“The peer review criterion is a totally specious standard. It presumes that group authority is the criteria of truth . . . that because a bunch of men with an honorific happen to agree then their conclusions must be historically accurate and the measure of expertise is academic approval. This is an observably false method of intellectual validation.”
Isn’t it ironic, John, this is the exact same criteria that the Jewish religious leaders (read “Pharisees”, ooo they hate that word!) required of Jesus. One can simply read the 4 gospels, and it becomes abundantly clear that the Jews required Jesus to show them by what “authority” He taught. Because He did not hail from their accepted standard of academics, that made Him unqualified to teach doctrine. With the exception of Paul and Apollos and perhaps also Barnabas (not much is recorded of his academic pedigree, although since he was a wealthy man we can assume he was well educated), the same was also true of all the Apostles.
LikeLike
Andy, This is exactly right …
When the Pharisees appealed to Moses they were making a claim to the authority of Mosaic orthodoxy. When they said they were of Abraham they were making a claim to the tribal authority . . . i.e. our ideas are valid because we have inherited it from our forefathers.
In both instances they could not see or hear the truth because their tool of validation was wrong.
When reality must conform to authority before it can be “True” then there is no way for man to verify his perceptions or his conceptions. Man’s only recourse is to resort to violence to prop up authority. Man must compel other men to abandon their independent judgment. You see this dynamic through out church history.
The Copernicus fight is a prime example. Because the earth centric universe had been validated by authority when new evidence was offered for a Heliocentric universe the Church could NOT allow the new evidence to stand because that threatened their authority. They demanded that Copernicus subordinate his observations to their peer reviewed judgment under pain of violence. This is what happened with Galileo. Once authority is the epistemological standard knowledge dies a lightning fast death because all knew knowledge must be condemned because authority can never be found in error. But error is inevitable and the construct collapses.
You want to watch Man miss the obvious and live in squalor? Let us return to the days where the Church ruled the world with an iron fist and demanded obedience to peer reviewed academics.
LikeLike
That is hilarious
I think my t-shirt should say Deleterious Problem Child
LikeLike