Well, the disturbing trend continues over at that once shining virtual city on a hill, The Wartburg Watch.  Ever since the gnosticism of Wade Burleson became focus prime over there, this once great site where ideas and doctrines were vetted for clarity and held up to the scope of rational ideas with an end towards (at least in part) eliminating abuse in the modern American Christian church has now become a haven for hypocrites…for those who declare that the new moral standard which most exemplifies the “truth” of Christ is the tolerance of ideas…those doctrines, interpretations, opinions etc. which regard the wherefores and whys of biblical commands and theologies.

Except, as is common in these types of communes, the one idea they will absolutely not tolerate is the one which says that since ideas inevitably lead to action, only the idea which actually affirms and protects human individual life is worth staking your moral claim to and eternal peace upon as a blog site or as any entity, really.  Rejecting the evil ideas as those which destroy life is the real benchmark of Christian truth.  But not over there are Wartburg.  No…getting along, even at the expense of reason, is the new morality.

Oh…why yes, of course they still presume that once ideas, though wholly acceptable as ideas in man’s brain frame, manifest into destructive behavior then the behavior should be condemned.  And though this is all fine, and evil behavior should be condemned, the real question is what is the ACTUAL problem…the problem of all problems.  Is it that people act in service to ideas, or is it the ideas?  Put more simply, is it the behavior or the ideas that cause the behavior?  Which one is the head that most pressingly needs cutting off?

Now…I don’t want to be misunderstood.  Wartburg Watch does not tolerate ALL ideas…as I’ve already said, they won’t tolerate mine, for a start.  So right there is the exception that proves the rule.  I am the trouble maker because I DENY that Wade Burelson, for example, can hold to the doctrine he does and still be a good, life-affirming pastor.  There is no way I can accept that because my acceptance can only be engaged if I assume that Wade, though staunch and robust and relentless in support of his own ideas, will somehow refrain at all the right times from acting in service to their destructive logical conclusions.  Take, for example, his doctrine of “election”, which is utterly deterministic according to his own explanation of it (once you get past the contradictions and double speak, that is).  Wade concedes that men and women are “dazzled” and “spellbound” into acceptance of Christ, as a function of God’s election.  The implication being that God decides who He wants around in the New Heaven and then proceeds to bewitch them into some kind of gospel trance.  Which, by definition makes man’s free will utterly moot and thus not free at all, because you cannot describe that which cannot be shown to exist anywhere in the existence equation as being “free”.  And yet, Wade still proclaims, as if we are all idiots and the kind of third rate thinkers the neo-reformed seminaries are churning out these days, that we still have “the power” to resist Christ.

Here is  Wade’s direct quote:

“God makes His love for us so captivating, so alluring, so charming, so dazzling, so enthralling, so mesmerizing, so spellbinding (gospel comes from “good spell”), so magnetizing, so enrapturing, so gripping, so compelling, so hypnotizing, and so absolutely “sweep me off my feet” enamoring that I cannot, I must not, and I will not refuse, though I have the power to do so.”

You can access the entire comments thread here:  http://thewartburgwatch.com/2013/08/16/a-tale-of-two-abusers/#comment-110775

I could go into a long description of the gruesome murder of logic which Wade perpetrates in this declaration, but it wouldn’t be anything you, my wise and handsome readers, can’t already see clearly for yourselves.  And…let’s be honest.  A blind road lizard can see the monumental contradiction in declaring a person who has been put under a “spell” and “dazzled” and who “cannot” resist as one who still retains the power to freely choose.

And besides that, Paul Dohse did a wonderful article on the egregious assumptions and twisted semantics of Wade’s idea already over on his site, paulspassingthoughts.com.  I invite you to check it out.  It’s very good.

But let’s get back to the new moral plumb line we are seeing over at the Wartburg Watch.  And really, truth be told, it is nothing more than a very old, very familiar, very Marxist moral plumb line known as: keeping the “collective” cohesive.  It is the presumption that the greatest moral good is found in maintaining the integrity, not of individual human life, but of the group (because in Platonism and Katianims, there is no such thing as an individual…the collective is absolute, and thus, you are only YOU if you are “part” of the collective).

Now, the group in this case is Dee and Deb’s very idea-xenophobic blog site.  They are the mama bears and they will protect to the death their subjects and their philosopher King(Wade), even though they have openly said that “God can shut down the site anytime He likes”…but God isn’t in the business of shutting down sites, Dee and Deb.  God is in the business of loving human beings and affirming and pursuing ideas that lead to loving actions and outcomes.  Whether you choose to run a blog site towards those ends is YOUR CHOICE, not God’s.  Don’t assume that the “success” of your site equals God’s affirmation of its assumptions.  That is extremely presumptuous on its face.

The sad thing is that Dee and Deb actually think that the “collective” at Wartburg Watch which they work so hard to maintain (yes THEY, not God) is real Christianity in general.  Why?  Because they think that this is the practical result of declaring that the greatest moral benchmark is found in accepting ALL ideas as “good” in service to maintaining the “peace” and “love” of “Christian” groups…the primary one in question being of course that which they have created at Wartburg Watch.  And as such, as a collective, they believe that they have the monopoly on Christian charity.

This could not be further from the truth.  When you declare that the greatest moral benchmark is the active acceptance of ideas which are utterly destructive to humanity, you share the guilt in the violent consequences.  It is that simple.  To attempt to disassociate the evil behavior from the evil ideas you DEMAND people accept as PROOF of their Christian charity is a murder of reason which does not go unnoticed by God nor those who are curious as to whether or not Christians really have something good and true to offer, or are merely just another bunch of irrational fanatics who worship books and make up their definitions as they go along.

So, again, only the acceptance of ideas is allowed (well, those ideas Dee and Deb have arbitrarily decided are “disputable” enough to maintain the peace and integrity of the Wartburg collective); and no deviation from their subjective assumption of moral purity will be tolerated.  Certainly, they rightly reject any obviously destructive ideas…but keep in mind, in keeping with full-on Marxist politics, it is the GROUP there that has the monopoly on truth.  And Dee and Deb and Wade, as the “authority” of the group…well, THEY will decide which people meet or exceed the benchmark of tolerance or not.  The ideas they reject do not have to be blatantly and frankly vile, they merely have to deny the right of the Marxist authority to declare what is “good” and what is “evil” absent a RATIONAL argument.  Which is why I am moderated into oblivion without the slightest sense of shame.

The hypocrisy is staggering. Once again, to declare that you care about the victims of abuse while ceding that the greatest moral good is found in the abject tolerance of the kind of fatalistic determinism Wade Burleson believes and TEACHES there…a doctrine which declares that human beings have NO right to EVER claim victim status because at the root of the doctrine is an utter denial of human existential integrity (i.e. YOU are not YOU at all) goes to the very core of why Christianity is dying and will soon be dead in this country (and, honestly, a good part of me believes that we have already passed the point of no return…I don’t think honest Christianity frankly exists in America in a pure form).  Wartburg Watch is a once great shining blog of hope now turned ugly hypocrite.

I don’t relish this, I weep over it.  I weep over the continuing slide of Wartburg Watch into moral relativism, all in service to the idea that morality is not a function of reason, but of blind tolerance.  But even worse than that is the altruistic and charitable charade which plays out like some macabre carnival where all the children are turned into meat patties on the way out.  It is a logic defying act of straddling the fence between ideas and behavior, as if there is some kind of stark delineation between them.  ALL ideas which do not upset the “peace” and “love” of the collective are acceptable, and yet the destructive behavior of these very same ideas is NOT tolerated .

The greatest moral action is cognitive moral relativism within the framework of “Christian charity” (as they define it)…to accept that everyone has a right to the ideas which they hold; and that the greatest moral affront is to deny that this is right.  But, again, they all want to draw the line at actions.

Okay, I get it that Ideas which fit your collectivist paradigm are fine, but when they manifest themselves into action that you somehow will denounce with a straight face and a firm, punitive resolution–without the slightest hint of irony–well, what kind of “reason”, pray tell, are you planning to have on hand to bulwark your accusations?  The kind that SGM churches who have left the corporation use?  The kind Brent Detwiler uses?  Deciding that the ideas are fine until someone gets hurt (and the someone is usually themselves, personally…which is oh so telling).  You are going to stand there with a straight face and an aura of arrogant moral superiority and decry the abuse despite your inexorable culpability?  Despite the rabid fact that though you are on the hook for never challenging the implicit (or even explicit) physical abuse which flies from every doctrinal proclamation of “election”, “depravity”, the “dazzling” and “spellbinding” gospel, “limited atonement”–ideas which deny the very SELF of human beings–because your moral plumb line is the tolerance of ideas YOU declare are acceptable so that your greatest moral action is found and maintained in defending the subjective integrity of the Wartburg Watch collective at all costs?

So again, what will be the counter argument when people like me call you a hypocrite for decrying the abuse but affirming the idea?

Here is the answer:  there can be none.  Your belief in the supremacy of tolerance will wash nothing at all in any whiteness of Christ’s righteousness when the innocent victims of the very doctrines you never challenge are piling up in ditches.  And it will certainly wash noting when you throw people off your site for challenging these doctrines because they always result in burning people alive, excommunicating God’s saints, and covering up the sexual abuse of children, and worse.

And this is precisely why a Calvinism resurgence in the world is seen again and again and again, and the abuse is seen again and again and again.  It is the Platonist and Marxist idea that somehow the ideas of the collective can protect and fit the paradigm of the individual human being.  Christianity is no longer about individuals being saved, loved, cared for.  Christianity is a collective.  And this collective is materialized in churches, communities, and now, blog sites.  And when moral truth becomes that which is utterly in service to protecting the peace and safety of the collective, people get hurt.  People get thrown out to the dogs.  People get murdered in the streets like Stephen.

Then people wake up for a brief moment, see the horror, and say they need to change.  And they do, for a while…but they never quite cross the rational line which demands that ideas and actions go together.  That what drives horror is the DOCTRINE.  No, somehow, the doctrine is NEVER wrong.  They change a few people, some churches separate, there is love, love, love and acceptance all around.  Tolerance becomes the moral standard of the day…and that is when the hoards of reformation despotism come marching right back in, and we like idiots hold the door open for them.  You see, they understand fully well that tolerance as the moral plumb line means that they can continue to preach “sound doctrine” until the cows come home, and they will never be challenged because that?  Would just not be loving. It wouldn’t be kind.  Why, after all, it’s that kind of rigid demagoguery we have fled from in the first place, no?

So back in come the Calvinist shills, proclaiming their “confessions”, and their “orthodoxy”, and their “inerrancy”, and if it weren’t for these dastardly human beings fucking everything up then we’d all be just fine.  We just need to get back to sound doctrine.  Oh…of course authoritarianism is wrong.  We shouldn’t have to COMPEL you to the “obvious” right-ness of our traditions, should we?  No, of course not.  If you are a REAL Christian, you will be dazzled and spellbound in to right understanding.  And, really, you should understand that my divine authority is not authoritarianism.  It is only that if you show yourself un-dazzled.  Then my mandate is to “protect” the church (read:  collective).

So, Calvinism comes in once again, perhaps a “soft” version, like Wade Burelson’s.  The ideas are accepted (they sound good…they aren’t overtly “evil” or “abusive”, there is a lot of grace talk, and after all, no one would actually TREAT another human being as if who they were and what they do don’t actually matter to a “sovereign” God)…and sooner or later, uh oh…someone decides that they must be “on fire” for God, and this inevitably means they must put their money where their mouth is.  They MUST stop just talking and ACT in service to the doctrine by openly engaging in–as a matter of pure got-me-love-for-Jesus faith; to prove their election–the logical destructive behavior. 

So then what happens is people like Dee and Deb and Wade and Brent Detwiler rush in to decry the abuse.  They proclaim love for fellow man.  This leads to the formation of new collectives around which this love is defined as “tolerance”.  This tolerance becomes the new moral benchmark, the “authorities” of the collective rush in at every turn to now protect the group in service to the the new and improved moral plumb line of tolerance.  Human beings then by necessity become secondary to the collective, which means they are secondary to the new abstract moral plumb line of “tolerance”.  Intolerance, then, towards persons deemed subversive is meted out in a tribal manner, meaning, reason is now no longer and nevermore the guide, but anything considered an affront to the “moral purity” of the collective is run out of town on a rail.  Eventually (which I submit is the stage we are at on Wartburg Watch) people who rule the new collectives finally realize that individuals are really the problem, and that if people just sacrificed themselves to the good of the group, all would be well.  Then these rulers finally realize that this fits the Calvinist/neo-reformed theological construct perfectly, and eventually the destruction and merciless abuse is doled out  liberally and enthusiastically in defense of the reformed doctrinal ideas…

…and so it goes again and again and again and again.

All because people like Dee and Deb, in the presumption of their own moral perfection of “tolerance” decide that ideas cannot possibly drive action.

And in this sense, the pagan Platonism shows its face once more as the Wizard behind the curtain.  Men do not exist, but only the “forms”…the source of the ideas, of the “truth”, which is the Primary Consciousness that only the gnostic overlords are privy to.  Therefore, there are no real “actions” of men; for men are nothing more than an extension of the absolute consciousness which controls and owns them, through the gnostic proxies.  The Pastors and Priests.

And humanity is once again nothing more than the universal pawn and scapegoat in a cosmic war of attrition between morally relative primary consciousnesses.

I ask, how is there anything of Christ in any of this?

This is now where Wartburg Watch stands.

Now, finally, to what I consider to be the soft tyranny of Wade Burelson, which is the exact same kind of tyranny found in the idea that morality can exist exclusive of and outside the individual human being.  That is, morality does not actually have to be premised on what physically IS, objectively, like individual people, but on what is wholly abstract, like tolerance, or collective, or in this example, whatever Wade decides it is going to be at the moment.  It is the idea that somehow, you, as the established “authority” (and in Wade’s case, I can only assume it is his role as resident Pastor over at the Wartburg Watch collective) get to declare just what is the benchmark for moral truth at any given moment, and thus force your opponent into submission by virtue of nothing other than your gnostic mandate to interpret reality anywhere and at any time for any reason.

And Wade swears he isn’t a Calvinist.  That is just rich.  This is precisely Calvin’s point.  The laity cannot be in a position to know anything, so it falls to the divinely chosen ecclesiastical “authority” to TELL them what to think.

The exchange took place on the same thread where Wade committed his rational larceny by declaring that God “dazzles” you into accepting Jesus Christ.  The topic of the debate is immaterial to my point, but you can access it at the link to the Wartburg Watch comments thread I provided above.

The recipient of Wade’s presumptuous moral superiority was a commenter who calls himself “Gene”.  This was Wade’s comment to him.  Please note that I have edited the comment so that only the relevant portions (to my point) are reproduced:

“I appreciate your comments and the spirit of interaction with those who have responded to your statements. I have been on the Internet for over eight years, writing blog posts, answering questions, and trying, in general, to help people…”

This is Wade setting the stage for his upcoming, but subtle, declaration that morality has nothing really to do with facts and reason, outcomes and observable issues, but with HIMSELF…that is, he starts by defining himself as the moral plumb line in the debate. The ideas being debated are besides the point.  Wade is setting the stage for his “truth” fiat by letting Gene know that HE is the “good” one here.  HE has eight years blogging, answering questions, blah, blah, blah. And, best of all, his motives have been to “help people”.  Well, this is all fine and good, but since when does any of this have to do with the discussion at hand?  The answer is, if you read the thread, it doesn’t.  It is a manipulation tactic.  It is Wade seizing the high moral ground simply because he is Wade.  And you must understand that in the neo-reformed construct, morality has absolutely nothing to do with reason.  Moral “good” is never a function of rational beliefs or logical cause and effect observations.  No, morality is purely a function of AUTHORITY, of FORCE, of GOVERNMENT.  This is why God, in reformation protestantism, can consign people to hell for nothing but arbitrary reasons, and can remain culpable for sin via the fatalistic determination which under girds the theology and yet still remain morally GOOD and categorically just and innocent.  His “authority” is proof of his goodness, period.  God is “good” simply because of who He is–as the supreme GOVERNOR–and not because He actually affirms life and ordains justice in accordance with objective reason which man can grasp via his own human context and observation.  And in this way, you cannot separate then moral truth from “truth” period.  They are one in the same.  He who gets to be GOOD is he who gets to be RIGHT.  And who is it that gets to be good and right, based on his divine authority in this debate, over at the Wartburg Watch?

Right.  Wade does.

The equation is simple.  Wade = authority = good = truth.

Wade starts off giving an ostensibly irrelevant and innocuous personal history of his life on the internet.  But it is relevant in this sense…that what Wade is doing is saying:  the plumb line for GOOD is ME, and since GOOD equals TRUTH in my “Christian” world view, then I, as the divinely chosen “authority” here on Wartburg Watch, get to be right, even before we start the discussion.

Yes, this is precisely how they always win these arguments.  They subtly proclaim their right to declare TRUTH for everyone else, and no one ever…and I mean EVER challenges them on this.  It is one of the primary reasons the Calvinist leadership is so damn resilient.

But the most offensive part of Wade’s e-mail is much, much worse.  Take a gander at what follows.  It is nothing short of a flagrant appeal to a categorically and ridiculously irrelevant idea as the sum and source of the moral truth in the whole thread and discussion.  But this is why these neo-reformed pastors are so terrifying.  The actually think that they speak divine TRUTH.  They actually believe that they just sort of get to declare that anything that catches their fancy in the moment absolutely forms the crux of divine moral and epistemological inerrancy.  Please note that I have put the most relevant parts in bold print:

“(a). You let us know that Dr. Patterson’s degree is from New Orleans, and then later you write, “I don’t care about the SBC or the politics of it.” In my experience, only those who truly care about the SBC and the politics of it would know where Dr. Patterson received his doctorate. Identifying yourself would help me know I am mistaken about you. And second,

(b). You write ” I don’t often read Wade because I don’t care about the SBC or the politics of it, but it seems that every time I see Burleson’s name come up, it is about his comment about politics in the SBC.” Shakespeare nailed it when he said, “Thou dost protest too much.” If you identified yourself, it would help us know that your statement about “not caring about politics” is truthful and will give us confidence to trust other statements you make.

I think asking you to identify yourself is fair. You know my background. My life is on display. However, you are anonymous. In my experience on the Internet, anonymous people on the Internet who make general assessments of someone else’s motives, are usually full of motive themselves. I could be wrong about you, but identifying yourself would help me clear up my misperceptions.”

Now, the utterly egregiousness of this comment should cause anyone who reads Wade, or listens to Wade, or has Wade on their blog site as the resident e-Pastor for the e-church, to feel a sour pang of uneasiness at the very least in the pit of their stomach.  Regardless of what Wade might think or say, I believe this to be nothing more than a rank tactic of despots.

What Wade essentially does is declare Gene to be a liar merely because Gene is uncomfortable revealing his true identity, as if knowing who Gene really is somehow relevant to a discussion that doesn’t actually involve Gene personally at all.  And, as an aside, with people like Wade Burelson in positions of authority, I’m not sure how anyone can possibly be comfortable giving out their real name. I mean, do you hold out your hand to a hissing snake just because you think it makes you morally pure?  It makes you somehow good, perhaps brave, to do something kind of stupid?

Wade equates anonymity with moral depravity, pure and simple.  Wade does not believe the best, as is commanded by scripture.  On the contrary!  He clearly lets it be known that he CANNOT assume Gene is being truthful unless Gene stops being anonymous!  As far as Wade is concerned, everything Gene says must be considered a lie because Gene has violated Wade’s arbitrary moral plumb line:  Thou shalt not post comments on the internet anonymously.

Read what Wade wrote one more time:

“If you identified yourself, it would help us know that your statement about “not caring about politics” is truthful and will give us confidence to trust other statements you make.”

Again, what is TRUTH, according to Wade?  Wade is TRUTH, and Wade has made it a fact that by using his real name, He meets and exceeds the standard of moral perfection in this debate.  How convenient!  You see, Gene’s anonymity is proof of Gene’s depravity…his ethical wanting in comparison to the blinding righteousness of Wade.  It doesn’t matter WHAT Gene says, Wade gets to be right because Wade is NOT anonymous. Anonymity is EVIL, and evil cannot ever be right, because what is right or wrong is a function not of facts and reason, but of who gets to be the morally good side of the dualistic, relativistic gnostic coin.  Wade, as the authority-in-the-stead, gets to decide this.

And what about: “You know my background. My life is on display. However, you are anonymous.”

Once again, what is Wade doing here?  Declaring the plumb line for moral perfection, which is commensurate with TRUTH, and then declares that His dart lands squarely (by God’s divine anointing, of course) in the middle of the moral bulls eye.

And Gene responded…kindly.

Sigh.

I was aghast.  Here was a perfect opportunity to demand Wade answer for his moral relativism, his rape of logic, his authoritarianism, and his hypocrisy, and Gene merely gave a milquetoast, tepid response, answering Wade’s egregious and logically insane accusations without batting an eye.

This is the problem, people.  You have got to stop conceding what Wade thinks:  that HE is the divine authority who gets to demand that you defend your ideas against his moving-target of capricious morality and vapid, nebulous “wisdom”.

Instead, Gene played nicey-nice, and Dee (or Deb) predictably gave Wade a big old virtual smooch on the cheek for being oh so graaaaacious to actually come on the blog and hold a discussion with the depraved idiots who are tripping over themselves not to offend the sensibilities of the supreme PASTOR or the peace and security of the Marxist blog collective.

Here is my response to Gene, which saw the light of day over on the Wartburg Watch sometime after eight o’clock this morning, hours and hours and hours after I originally posted it last night:

 “Gene,

Wade’s questions were egregious. You were under no obligation to answer them.

 Notice the implicit equation in Wade’s comment: anonymity=deception and false witness. Basically, he called you a liar just because you don’t use your real name. How convenient. His assumption is that your hiding your identity can only mean that you must be morally corrupt.

 You should have ignored his questions and demanded he defend his irrational accusations.

 I believe that his entire message to you was a not-so-subtle way of declaring that since you are anonymous and he is not then he gets to assume the moral high ground. And since moral authority equals “truth”-as opposed to actually having a rational argument-in Wade’s construct it seems, he gets to declare your ideas false without ever actually having to defend his own according to logical premises and the facts at hand.”

Today, Randy posted a comment under the thread of the last post.  You can read his entire comment there.  This was my response.  I add it as a new post for instructive purposes.  It is an abject lesson on destroying despotic neo-Calvinist in a single stroke of HUMAN reason:

Randy,

“After all, reason, so-called, trumps revelation every time.”

Reading the sarcasm in there, I must say I had a guffawing laugh over that one.  Oh yes…as if revelation cannot POSSIBLY be vetted by human reason.  Reason and revelation are ultimately exclusive…and this is why you and your ilk terrify me.  At the end of the day, you NEVER have to prove WHY your ideas are better.  They are just better because you say they are.  Because, by some mystic divine enlightenment, you somehow, hypocritically beyond your own self-confessed sin-nature, get to define truth for the rest of humanity without ever having to defend it.

I appeal to reason because reason is the only way man can ever know TRUTH.  If revelation falls outside of reason, then revelation has nothing to do with man.  In which case, it is impossible for you to accede it or not.

But here is where you entire argument with me comes crashing to the floor in the face of my “mind numbing” arrogance…which, arrogance is irrelevant. My idea crushes yours because you cannot even RESPOND to it without conceding that I am right.

You ready to lose?  Here you go:

The wickedly ironic thing is that REASON is the ONLY way you yourself can claim to believe anything.  Why do you believe revelation, even if it isn’t reasonable (logically reconcilable)?  Because you REASONABLY assume that God has truth and you don’t.  But your acceptance of that fact is wholly rooted in this:  it makes SENSE to you to believe that. Meaning, you still use YOU OWN version of reason to decide whether this thing (be it “revelation” or whatever thing you accept or reject) is true or not.  You can never appeal to some greater “understanding”; reason is the very way you vet ALL you believe. If you appeal to some kind of “divine enlightenment”, it is still axiomatic that you must DECIDE to agree.  And if it is YOU deciding, then YOU must have a plumb line for measuring it veracity.  So you are not really arguing that “revelation” supersedes reason.  No, you are saying that YOUR reason is better than mine.  Nothing more.  And you are demanding that I accept that YOUR reason is better than mine.

That won’t happen, Randy.  Because your reason is rooted in insane ideas.  What you accept as reasonable is the ANTITHESIS of human life.  Your reason despises humanity and will go to destructive ends to compel it to your insanity.  And I as a Christian will never yoke myself to such darkness.

But even worse for you, is that to answer my argument you must, again concede I AM RIGHT.  Because by responding, you must FIRST concede that YOU get to decide on what basis…by what REASON you will agree or disagree.

And this is why you are a hypocrite and you will have much to answer to God for.  You are a hypocrite who capriciously and viciously condemns others for doing that which YOU yourself do.  And even in the face of my utterly logical argument you will reject the idea that human reason is the ONLY source of truth for ANYONE, Christian or not, which is precisely why all revelation must be REASONABLE revelation.

You will reject it because that is your heart…the heart of a Pharisee.

Last night on Wartburg Watch I received a very nice comment from self-admitted Calvinist, JeffS.  JeffS and I have gone a few rounds over there, and our dialogue is part of the reason for the new and improved  “moderated Argo” over there.  Apparently, I have a problem with “tone”.  And while I do not want to concede that my tone is “wrong”–for I maintain complete adherence to my last post on the matter–I did want to acknowledge that sometimes, in the interest of love, we make attempts to differentiate between the ideas we hate and the people–the human beings–we love.  And that might mean that you swallow your pride and you work with the system.  If the system has corners you do not agree to…well, you either modify your ways so that you can continue existing in it as best your can; or you jump off.  If you don’t own the system (like I don’t own Wartburg Watch), then you don’t make the rules.  It is as simple as that.

At any rate, my reply is still sitting in the corner with a dunce cap on, so it hasn’t appeared yet.  I’m sure it will in time, but just in case I never find my way out of blog jail I wanted to post it here so that JeffS doesn’t think I’m ignoring him.  I am not, and I appreciate his heart and his words.  I want him to know this as soon as possible.

JeffS said:

@ Argo:
I hope we are cool. I am glad you are still posting. And I know an earlier comment I made may have come off as judging your motives, which was not my intent. I reacted a little strongly to reading your statement that you didn’t care about TWW. I hope you can forgive any insult I might have given there.

I do believe you have good motives, even if we are completely opposed in what we think is good and right in terms of theology and philosophy. I do think you and I agree on what is good and right in action, though, and that is something (even the most important thing, in my view).

Argo said:

JeffS,

Totally cool. Thank you so much for your time and the dialogue.

And…yeah. I’m not really proud of that comment.

I’m walking a weird line here. It’s a bit surreal. A good learning experience. I mean…I’m not quite acknowledging that I was “wrong” in my “tone” per se; but I DO NOT ever want to get in a place where HUMAN BEINGS are sensing some kind of…hmmm, attack or assault or something. And I think that that means, though I might have my opinions as to the “wrongness” or “rightness” of my communication style, as A Mom put it, sometimes you just have to…well, deny yourself and keep trying.

I hope that doesn’t sound arrogant. I just mean I don’t ever want…uh…hmmm…technical “correctness”, or MY assumptions as to whether or not I did anything “wrong” to be the plumb line for loving others. Or empathizing with them. I want the affirmation of THEIR human worth to be the plumb line for empathy. In other words, the plumb line for love should be love.

But again, that doesn’t mean I will ever let up on the doctrine, LOL. (And I suspect you won’t either!! ) Because I really feel that the plumb line for love in many doctrines is the doctrine. And what is wrong with that to me is self-evident. But that’s just me.

But the fact that someONE disagrees with me will not affect my love for THEM.

And that is where this whole communication thing takes us…what is the best way to communicate love for PEOPLE, while trying to communicate my disdain for their doctrinal assumptions which I strongly believe ultimately drives the abuse we see in so many churches, and which I have witness firsthand in SGM (and to communicate that this does not mean I assume that THEY are an abuser by default or something creepy like that…because that’s a TERRIBLE thing to suggest…and I think people think I’m suggesting this, and I can see why).

I understand that sometimes, I am not successful in making that distinction. And I feel terrible about that, because that? Is not my message.

And A Mom is right: it is at THAT place where you must make a conscious effort to defer to their needs. And that means, yep…toning it down so that you don’t subvert your own message by risking hurting someone on some emotional level.

It’s a tough line, but we’ll get there I think.

I hope that makes sense.

Still, the Double Standard, and the Disturbing New Trend:

Now, like I said, I’m still working out the whole “communication” thing.  I am NOT…repeat NOT conceding Dee’s point, that you can separate delivery and message.  I’m not conceding that I was wrong to point out the double standard, because I think it is clear by even a cursory reading of the comments thread.  My ideas are called “silly”, I am “haranguing”, I am “forcing”, I am “equating trinitarians with suicide bombers”, I am “becoming unhinged”, I am accused of “telling others what to think”; accused of calling people “stupid”, and that my statements are “somewhat nonsensical”.  Still…no peep from the moderators.  Oh…sorry, there was some action taken.  The action was to dump all MY comments immediately into moderation.

Which is fine, as I said.  If I want to comment, I have to be a big boy about not making the rules.  And I have to work on my tone.  I’m okay with that because HUMAN BEINGS are worth the work.

But…

And here is a huge BUT here.  Recently (like, yesterday), Dee posted THIS very telling comment.  To say the least, it will certainly make it much harder, if not downright impossible (for not only reasons of logic but for reasons of conscience) for me to continue commenting there.  Dee wrote this:

“Last night I did not approve two comments which accused Calvinist theology of causing the sexual abuse we have been reading about.”

And then, she explains her follow up to those comments, which resulted in her ultimately deciding to “give up”:

“When I asked one of those people if they believed that Arminian theology can also causes abuse, I was told that classic Arminianism is Calvinism so that theology leads to child sexual abuse as well. I gave up.”

Now, this, to me, is nothing more than acknowledging that it cannot–not at all–be the IDEAS which drive abuse, because if two or more ideas lead to abuse, somehow the ideas cancel each other out and we are left with what…behavior?  Just bad people not doing the bad ideas “nicely”?  That good people, like Wade Burleson, doing the bad ideas right somehow proves that the ideas are not bad.  That two or more bad ideas means that bad ideas cannot exist, because if that were true then there would only be one bad idea and the rest would be good?  As if pointing to one bad doctrine as providing the mandate for abuse can be disproved by pointing to another bad doctrine?  That two wrongs make a right?

That’s like saying:

“The Nazis had some bad ideas”

“But what about Marxism…didn’t that lead to millions of deaths under Stalin?”

“Yes…because they share the same presuppositions about the state owning man.”

“What?  How can this be?  How can two different governments share the same destructive assumptions?  That’s impossible.  I can’t argue with you.  I give up.”

Honestly, I must say I’m struggling to understand just what Dee is saying here.

But what I do understand is that when you decide that criticism of ideas is off the table, it is a short walk to the end of the plank, or the firing squad, or the burning stake, or the gas chamber. 

This is nothing more than conceding the Primacy of Consciousness premise.  The belief that at their root, ideas are only “good”; and that destructive human behavior is NEVER and can NEVER BE the result of the ideas they filter all of their reality through.  The “logic” goes:  ALL ideas are good, ergo, if abuse occurs in the name of them, it is merely because humanity does not possess the capacity to employ them effectively, because humans are unable by default to ever do GOOD.  They are too “depraved” (or selfish, or evil, or lost, or stupid, or capitalist, or racist, or unenlightened, or bad at math…whatever the primary consciousness happens to be).  And this of course is a tacit acceptance of the “authority” of the “gnostics”.  Those special people divinely gifted to rule over the rest of us slobs. 

And this is why I submit that regardless of what they say, that people who will NOT confront ideas are really still utterly committed to the belief that man, fundamentally, IS the problem.  And thus the implicit notion is that it is therefore okay for “special” people to compel (force) them into right actions and thinking. 

If Calvinism cannot be called out for the destructive and abusive conclusions it INEXORABLY leads to (and I will debate anyone, anywhere, anytime on this), then what is being said is HUMAN BEINGS are the problem.  The VICTIM has no real recourse and the perpetrator can never be held accountable and the “authority” cannot be culpable for pushing the doctrinal assumptions which drove the abuse in the first place because the doctrine cannot be blamed, because the paradigm is: doctrine wholly GOOD, and human beings wholly EVIL.  And a wholly evil human can NEVER be expected to actually employ or behave in accordance with that which is completely beyond him. 

So, the VICTIM was merely the unfortunate target of a poor, depraved sinner, being taught his ideas by another poor depraved sinner.  And who then can really blame the poor sinner? For but for the grace of God go all of us, right?  So, let’s just get better gnostic in there who do a better job of getting these idiots to DO the doctrine right.

And maybe we do.  Maybe we get lucky and get a Wade Burleson in there. And maybe things are fine for a while because he isn’t “on fire” for the “truth” like SGM is.  He, because he may have some sense of human decency and love, refuses to take the doctrinal assumptions to their logical conclusions.

But sooner or later, Wade retires.  And maybe the next guy is okay. And the next.  But then…we get a guy who thinks, wait a minute.  I’M in charge here, and MY responsibility isn’t for the depraved masses, it is to GOD.  And God SAYS x, y, z…and “sound doctrine” is everything.  And “who are YOU o man, to argue with God, and His divinely called Authority in the Stead?  Who are YOU to judge your COVERING?!! And to the rapped three year old I say, FIRST take the log out of your OWN eye and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your rapist’s eye!!”

And all this from a little telling comment:

“I have removed two comments that blame Calvinism for abuse.”

Oh yes. For who are we to argue with God’s “infallible Word”.  Who are we to argue with ideas whose corpulence we are too busying crawling in the dirt like worms to grasp?

Once the facade is dropped, the double-standard is as clear filtered water.  You’ve heard it before…you’ve seen it before.  Shoot, even by a cursory glance at the Stockdale comments thread over at Wartburg Watch it is difficult to miss.  What is it?

The idea that if you have a perspective that is both logically unassailable and difficult for people to grasp, then you have some kind of obligation to-somehow, someway-make not your POINT the focus of your argument, but your “tone”.  In other words, not offending the delicate sensibilities of the masses subverts the entire discussion by crying “it’s not what you say, it’s how you say it”.

But if it is NOT what I say, then what difference does it make how I say it?  If it is untrue, state your reason…appeal to the logical fallacy.  Oh…they will say, we do that, but you are just so mean.

What they mean is that they do that—they argue their points—but when the other person does not concede on the grounds that their argument is not logically consistent, instead of dropping the discussion, they assault “tone”.

And once again, the Marxism and determinism implicit in so much of the evolution of Western thought breaches the surface like a lazy whale.  You see, it isn’t THEIR fault they aren’t able to effectively defend their ideas…no, no.  It is YOUR fault because you aren’t saying it nicely.  They are blinded by their offended egos…and the fault is yours.  YOUR meanness is such an affront  that it creates an insurmountable hurdle to their reason; to their communication.  YOUR tone has DETERMINED that they cannot possibly be responsible for not conceding what they might otherwise concede if you weren’t such a meanie.

If you were just nicer they would be able to engage their will, and perhaps might have their minds changed, or at least part amicably with an understanding that either they don’t understand, you are not communicating your point clearly, or that they are confident that you have not argued away their own ideas.

But it never ends there because what happens is that the implicit Marxism and its twin brother, determinism, ALWAYS have to have their say.  They ALWAYS need to remain the nucleus of ANY debate or discussion.  You see, if they agree that the communication is either not sufficient or that they are actually wrong…well, in either case, this implies two things:  Human culpability for actions; and that those in positions of “power” (intellectually or otherwise) are NOT actually obligated according to the morals of the Primary Conscience to FIRST consider the subjective well-being of the helpless and ignorant masses BEFORE making their point.

And in light of thousands of years of Platonist thinking culminating in Immanuel Kant and then finding its political footing (and inevitable human destruction) in the Communist Manifesto…these trends are not surprising.

Which…you know, it wouldn’t be so bad (well…okay, it would) if it wasn’t such a double standard.  A reading of the Stockdale comments thread over at Wartburg Watch illustrates this perfecting.  Look at the number of posts complaining that it isn’t so much that I don’t have a right to my opinions…no, this they concede.  But unfortunately this argument is made utterly moot by the explicit proclamation that I DON’T have the right to my way of communicating those ideas. And in this sense, again, the right to my opinions is moot.  For ideas are THINGS.  They have corners.  They have a premise, an argument for that and then an appeal to behavior modification in service to the premise.  They can be defined, dismantled, organized, applied, rejected, and modified with objective outcomes.

But this is impossible with DELIVERY.  Delivery or “tone” is massively subjective, and the power to interpret this is EXCLUSIVELY reserved for the listening party.  The person communicating knows the delivery; the person listening seems to reserve the categorical right to determine if the communicator is delivering it right or not. It’s all how the listener subjectively interprets it.  And if they are “offended”,  the debate is screwed.  It is no longer about ideas, it is about CONTROL.  And he who controls tone, controls content.

And that is exactly what Dee is doing at Wartburg.  She claims that ideas are fine, but if she doesn’t like your tone, you are summarily assaulted.  This is merely the functional equal of content control.  Which she has every right to do.  But don’t pretend ideas and tone are separate functions; are able to be “moderated” separately.  That is a false assumption.

The two (ideas and communication style) are inseparable in this regard.  IF one has the right to ideas but NOT the right to decide how to communicate them, then there is no functional difference between not having the right to communicate and NOT having the right to the IDEAS you communicate.  If they can control HOW you say what you say, they can control WHAT you say.  It is as simple as that…and it is the root of the first amendment, by the way.  This understanding of the impossible separation of the two.  (And here, understand, I am talking about communicating ideas; I am not suggesting that abusive language designed to only inflict psychological violence on the listener applies in this situation.  That is not communications.  Again, that is violence.  That is not what I am excusing.  I am referring to communication styles:  abrasive, perhaps; gentle, perhaps; frank, perhaps; roundabout, perhaps…etc., etc.)

The worst part though, is the double standards.  Look at the vitriol directed at me over there, without a peep from the moderators…and when I respond in kind (sarcasm for sarcasm; tongue in cheek for tongue in cheek), I’m lambasted by Dee and a host of other offended parties.  Why…well, because for some reason, by virtue of my surety of my ideas and the inability of other commenters to dismantle my reason, I am “privileged”.

And therein lay the Marxism.  The idea that the “haves” must sacrifice what they “have” in service to the poor masses…the have-nots.  If you are perceived to have some kind of position which is “superior”, and others are “subordinate”, you are on the hook for catering to their subjective needs first, and EVERYTHING else second.  In other words, say it the right way so that the “people” are happy.  Give the people whatever they want first, because this is the only morality a person of “privilege” can actually do.

Kill themselves, their ideas, their labor, their produce, their time, their profit and their status for the “good” of the masses.  Your death, your pain, YOUR sacrifice is the only good you can do.  The greatest good for you is to NOT be YOU so that what you have can be divided up among the “workers”.   You are nothing more than the collective; and you better get this straight.  Your ideas don’t matter, but only the subjective “good” of the people who, by virtue of your “superior” and “privileged” position claim the moral right to own you, and all you have and all you think.

And we think Calvinism is being confronted on these blogs.

Hardly.