Merry Christmas one and all - especially at Wartburg Watch

Perhaps Michael W. Smith's best hymn.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KH9cSGPUjSU

All is well

R.C. Sproul Sr - R.I.P.

"For me, the story begins as a teenager stuck in a desperate struggle with huge theological questions in the 1970s. Of course, R.C. Sproul, with firm conviction and a friendly smile, would rightly insist that the story begins in the gracious will of our sovereign, eternal, and omnipotent God. Actually, those were some of the big theological questions that had me by the throat.

I had been confronted by teachers in high school who had declared their own atheism and ridiculed theism. I was surrounded by a culture of increasing moral relativism and the first wave of what would later be called post-modernism. I knew Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord and I wanted to be faithful to him. But how?

My struggle was spiritual and moral, but it was also irreducibly intellectual. How could I know and defend the Christian faith? I did not even know where to begin. At home and at church, I was surrounded by sweet Christians who loved me and invested their lives in me. But I had big questions they could not answer. Questions that gnawed at me and kept me awake at night. Questions that I feared could not be answered. Questions that I had no idea Christians had grappled with for centuries.

Thankfully, I found help. I found other Christians who were struggling with the same questions, and some of them passed to me cassette tapes. At that time, the cassette was a recent invention. For me, these tapes were a lifeline – bringing me expository preaching from Dr. John MacArthur and lectures from this strangely infectious and compelling teacher at an oddly named center in Western Pennsylvania. The teacher was R.C. Sproul.

Those tapes from R.C. Sproul were not my own. They had been passed to me after several others had listed to them. They squeaked. Nevertheless, I pounced on them like a hungry tiger. I received the tapes out of sequence. No matter – I just gained confidence and understanding with every tape.

R.C.’s voice was captivating. Honestly, I probably would have listened to him read the Farmer’s Almanac. But the power of his teaching was the vitality and virility of biblical Christianity, presented logically, forcefully, biblically, and passionately.

My own pilgrimage as a theologian cannot be traced without the indelible influence of R.C. Sproul. Had I never met him in the flesh, I would have been in his debt and gifted with his influence. By God’s grace, I came to know R.C. Sproul as a teacher, colleague, encourager, and friend.

He was, as the British would say, a man in full. He never made a half-argument, presented a half-correction, preached a half-sermon, or laughed a half-laugh. He was all in, all the time. His voice would fill the room, his preaching would shake the timbers, and his passion would spread like a virus. He showed up as everything he was and with everything he believed – every time.

He was one of the great defenders of historic Christianity of our times. It is fair to say that R.C. was the greatest and most influential proponent of the recovery of Reformed theology in the last century. He was a stalwart defender of the Word of God, and one of the primary architects of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy in 1978. His tapes were soon accompanied by his books and the vastly expanding influence of Ligonier Ministries.

When he taught about the holiness of God, a generation of evangelicals was rescued from the emaciated and desiccated theology of cultural Christianity. When he defended Reformed theology, he taught us all how to understand the gospel in terms of God’s eternal purpose to save, consistent with his sovereignty. He was rigorously biblical and ruthlessly logical . . . with a smile.

He loved to introduce Christians to both the splendors and the humbling lessons of church history. He wanted evangelical Christians to stand in a line of faithfulness that began with the apostles and continued to the present. He had the heart and courage of Martin Luther and the theological precision and passion of John Calvin. He was a proud son of the Reformation, and the solasof the Reformation were the architecture of his mind. He urged and taught Christians toward the development of the Christian mind, and ideas were his battleground.

He was a preacher of the Word of God, a faithful steward of God’s mysteries. In the later years of his life, he told friends that his greatest joy in ministry had come as a pastor. That comes as no surprise.

R.C. Sproul was an evangelist. “Evangelism is our duty. God commanded it,” he taught: “But there is more. Evangelism is not only a duty; it is also a privilege. God allows us to participate in the greatest work in human history, the work of redemption.” There will be many saints in heaven who came to hear the gospel through R.C.’s talks, sermons, videos, conferences, books, and personal witnessing.

The work R.C. so courageously and brilliantly and infectiously led for so many decades goes on, in the work of Ligonier Ministries. R.C. planned it so, and set an example for us all in fulfilling this stewardship. His teaching and his influence will continue, channeled into successive generations. He surrounded himself and populated Ligonier Ministries with a leadership team that will continue steadfastly.

To know R.C. was also to know that the man and his ministry could never be explained—and would never have been begun—without the incredible loyalty, love, and devotion of his gracious wife, Vesta. Their hearts beat as one, and few spouses in ministry have been so demonstrably faithful, insightful, affectionate, and absolutely necessary as Vesta Sproul. R.C. would insist that you know that truth.

Our prayers are with the Sproul family, and our hope is in Christ. Listening to one of R.C.’s messages in the last few hours, I realized that R.C. had been preaching – decades ago – as a man ready to die, trusting in Christ.

In a tribute to his own beloved teacher, Professor John Gerstner, written in 1976, R.C. stated: “In an era of church history when theology is in chaos, the church is being shaken at its foundations, and Christian ethics shift and slide with every novel theology, we are grateful for the vivid example of one who stands in the midst of confusion as ‘a bright and burning light.’”

Indeed, we are grateful to God for the bright and burning light named R. C. Sproul. Soli Deo Gloria"

---

Famous Scifi Author, Marion Zimmer Bradley, personified evil

Poem by her daughter, Moira Greyland

I lost my mother late last year
Her epitaph I’m writing here
Of all the things I should hold dear
Remember Mother’s hands

Hands to strangle, hands to crush
Hands to make her children blush
Hands to batter, hands to choke
Make me scared of other folk

But ashes for me, and dust to dust
If I can’t even trust
Mother’s hands.

They sent me sprawling across a room
The bathtub nearly spelled my doom
Explaining my persistent gloom
Remember Mother’s hands.

And hands that touched me way down there
I still pretend that I don’t care
Hands that ripped my soul apart
My healing goes in stop and start

Never a mark did she leave on me
No concrete proof of cruelty
But a cross-shaped scar I can barely see
The knife in Mother’s hands.

So Mother’s day it comes and goes
No Hallmark pretense, deep red rose
Except blood-red with her actions goes
It drips off Mother’s hands.

The worst of all my mother did
Was evil to a little kid
The mother cat she stoned to death
She told to me with even breath

And no remorse was ever seen
Reality was in between
Her books, her world, that was her life
The rest of us a source of strife.

She told me that I was not real
So how could she think I would feel
But how could she look in my eyes
And not feel anguish at my cries?

And so I give you Mother’s hands
Two evil, base, corrupted hands
And lest her memory forget
I’m still afraid of getting wet.

The bathtub scene makes me see red
With water closing over my head
No little girl should fear to die
Her mother’s fury in her eye!

But both her hands were choking me
And underwater again I’d be
I think she liked her little game
But I will never be the same

I’m still the girl who quakes within
And tries to rip off all her skin
I’m scared of water, scared of the dark
My mother’s vicious, brutal mark.

In self-admiring tones she told
Of self restraint in a story old.
For twice near death she’d beaten me,
And now she wants my sympathy.

I’ve gone along for quite awhile,
Never meant to make you smile
But here and now I make my stand
I really hate my mother’s hands.

Suicide and the church

http://blog.lifeway.com/newsroom/2017/09/29/lifeway-research-suicide-remains-a-taboo-topic-at-churches/

LifeWay’s study found three-quarters (76 percent) of churchgoers say suicide is a problem that needs to be addressed in their community. About a third (32 percent) say a close acquaintance or family member has died by suicide.

Those churchgoers personally affected by suicide were asked questions about the most recent person they know who has died by suicide. Forty-two percent said they lost a family member, and 37 percent lost a friend. Others lost a co-worker (6 percent), social acquaintance (5 percent), fellow church member (2 percent) or other loved one (8 percent).

About a third of these suicide victims (35 percent) attended church at least monthly during the months prior to death, according to their friends and family. Yet few of those friends and family say church members (4 percent) or church leaders (4 percent) knew of their loved one’s struggles.

____________

TWW is both for and against SIN as an element of counseling

Interesting Juxtaposition of the last two posts.

In the first post, TWW bemoan the sins of  Perry Noble and Tullian Tchividjian and TWWs belief that their particular sins should permanently revoke their ability to pastor a congregation.  TWW believes [ rightly - IMHO ] that these two gentlemen have a serious sin problem and it needs to be dealt with.

BUT In the most recent post;  The Deebs bemoan ACBC's focus and concern about the impact of people's sins upon their problems and their life.
__________

So Deebs, is sin a problem ONLY in pastor's lives and not a problem in the "hoi polloi?"  Will ongoing sin act as a depressant? 

And of course; you read the comments and so many comments appear to have a "touching and naïve faith" in the integrity and competence [ if you will ] of the secular counseling profession.  The commenters appear to believe that acquisition of letters behind your name and on your letterhead proves that you are wise and wonderful.  They naively believe that a license guarantees competence.
Have mercy my friends.  How foolish is that thought.  Don't you read the papers or Google?

___________
THE UNDERLYING ISSUE -

It's the narrative; a consistent reading of Scripture paying attention to the very words IS A PROBLEM  for the DEEBS and the majority of the commenters at TWW.  It pretty much puts to naught any fantasies we might have that we're good guys and not all that in need of a blood sacrifice for you sins.  It also speaks quite clearly to male and female roles;  totally unacceptable in today's feminized culture.  It says there are two kinds of people only; the Saved and the unsaved - who hate God.  That's unacceptable to TWW

They seem to like their salvation - "lite" with sin a minor factor.  Today's Cultural Christianity agrees with them. 

TWW seeks more Zacharias blood

Dee - "Some of us have been discussing this behind the scenes. Alas- My guess is that another post on Zacharias will be forthcoming…"
____________

Oh I'm sure it will.

"behind the scenes"   of course

RAVI - Christianity Today article

http://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2017/december/ravi-zacharias-sexting-extortion-lawsuit-doctorate-bio-rzim.html.

Ravi will survive this attack - but the enemy knows our weaknesses indeed.

Wartburgwatch attacks Ravi Zacharias; commenter attacks 72 year old Dorothy Patterson

RAVI has TEN honorary doctorates.   TEN!
____________-

Dweebs like to emphasize their MBA -  [ look at me ]

But they are more than willing to attack an conservative Evangelical who has TEN honorary doctorates.

Frankly, I'd be blest with one.

I'm more than happy to refer to Ravi as "Dr. Zacharias."
______________

FYI - interpreting the degrees:

B.S. "Bull shovelings"
M.S. "More of the same"
Ph.D. "Piled Higher and Deeper"

Wartburgwatch attacks Biblical counseling exhibiting their own particular biases.

At the end of Dee's hit piece she writes this:

" I would be interested in hearing from any folks who have undergone counseling at Timberlake. I would also love to see any confidentiality agreements, counseling descriptors, etc. from counseling centers which are part of the BCM.  Such correspondence will be held in strict confidentiality. Only my co-editor and the Guy Behind the Curtain know about such correspondence and we have tight lips."

DEAR COMMENTER - 

1)You would be naive to think she wouldn't report you to the proper authorities [ "strict confidentiality" ]  if you were so unwise as to inform Dee, Deb and her husband of your sins that might indeed violate the laws of God and mankind.  DEE actually needs to re-write the paragraph.  For instance, do NOT mention that you have been accused of abuse of another.  She'll be on the phone to the authorities faster than you can say C.J. Mahaney.

2)  She would be pleased if you ratted out your church or its leadership - particularly if it is a conservative Evangelical institution.  Are you absolutely sure you want to rat-out your pastor or leadership?  Perhaps you do; many TWW commenters appear to feel that way.  At the very least, though they wouldn't rat out their church; they'd be glad to have you rat out yours.

3)  Academic snobbery is in place at T.W.W.  If your education is not from a TWW approved institution, you will be sneered at.  That's the way it is at TWW.

4)  TWW has it in for Mark Hager - whom they do not know.  As noted, they have already denigrated his education.  

But you know what?  I think having a background in law-enforcement is worth more than a Master's degree from Duke Univ.  Let me gently remind my fellow commenters - having alpha-bet soup behind your name in no way guarantees that you are actually wise.

5)  It has always amazed me that so many commenters at TWW seems to have put a halo on secular counselors.  Hats off to Okrapod - who is a retired physician - who has noted more than a few times that the secular mental health profession is full of people with issues.  

Hats off also to commenter "Daisy" who has also expressed reservation about treatment and meds from the helping profession be they secular or Biblical based upon her own experiences.

____________

My 2 cents:  Great counselors are born - not made but a good secular counselor cannot really offer eternal hope and a Biblical counselor can.  

Choose wisely my friends.  A competent secular mental health professional will never denigrate Christianity.  If they do, run, don't walk, to the nearest office exit.  On the other hand: There are Biblical counselors who need to pursue other areas of interest.  God did not gift them to be competent and compassionate counselors.

And about the psych meds: like all other meds, there are none that are perfect and they all always trade-offs, as in all meds.  I am NOT OPPOSEDLast year I made the decision to seek counseling. I read the various profiles of counselors who were licensed professionals (usually MSW) and narrowed it down to only those who had positive reviews from former patients. After reading all the reviews, I went with a counselor that had 30 years experience in the field. She made it known up front that she was a trained professional AND a Christian. That was important to me so I decided she was the one I would opt for.
The first session went quite well. Actually very well. I had filled out a very thorough form asking detailed questions about my mental and emotional state of mind. She diagnosed me with PTSD and spoke of a care plan that would be implemented. I left her office with high hopes that day.
Fast forward to the second session. In the first half I spoke about the issues with which I had been struggling as a continuation from the first session. She sat quietly behind her desk and listened without saying much at all. When I was finished talking, she stood up, walked over to a small chalkboard next to the couch. She began scribbling a verse from the Bible in a most emphatic and determined way, almost as if she was irritated. After she finished writing the verse, she read it out loud and began preaching AT me. I emphasize the word AT. I was stunned. She had changed from a patient, understanding counselor into a full-blown preacher. I was frozen in my thoughts and body, not sure what to do. When I got up from sitting, she grabbed me and told me she was going to pray over me. It was a very Pentecostal styled prayer. After she finished praying the session was over. I never went back to her for counseling again.
Turned out she was nothing like the impression I had from reading all of her credentials and reviews on line. Anyone can have a negative counseling experience, even when the counselor has degrees from accredited universities and is licensed. to psych meds; I'm just cautious as to their effectiveness over time.

It will be interesting to see who TWW attacks in the upcoming posts.

____________

Bridget [ naively ] said:

Standards do apply in the “secular” counseling world. I’m sure that Biblical Counselors would argue that they have standards as well, however BC standards are not widely accepted by anyone in the  Standards do apply in the “secular” counseling world. I’m sure that Biblical Counselors would argue that they have standards as well, however BC standards are not widely accepted by anyone in the academic world where there has been years of study and cooperation across varying fields to produce procedures and licensing qualifications to “protect the the patient." 

Come on Bridget - get a grip.  It's not like that at all.  It's a crap-shoot in the secular counseling world.

Sad comment by "Darlene"

Last year I made the decision to seek counseling. I read the various profiles of counselors who were licensed professionals (usually MSW) and narrowed it down to only those who had positive reviews from former patients. After reading all the reviews, I went with a counselor that had 30 years experience in the field. She made it known up front that she was a trained professional AND a Christian. That was important to me so I decided she was the one I would opt for.

The first session went quite well. Actually very well. I had filled out a very thorough form asking detailed questions about my mental and emotional state of mind. She diagnosed me with PTSD and spoke of a care plan that would be implemented. I left her office with high hopes that day.

Fast forward to the second session. In the first half I spoke about the issues with which I had been struggling as a continuation from the first session. She sat quietly behind her desk and listened without saying much at all. When I was finished talking, she stood up, walked over to a small chalkboard next to the couch. She began scribbling a verse from the Bible in a most emphatic and determined way, almost as if she was irritated. After she finished writing the verse, she read it out loud and began preaching AT me. I emphasize the word AT. I was stunned. She had changed from a patient, understanding counselor into a full-blown preacher. I was frozen in my thoughts and body, not sure what to do. When I got up from sitting, she grabbed me and told me she was going to pray over me. It was a very Pentecostal styled prayer. After she finished praying the session was over. I never went back to her for counseling again.

Turned out she was nothing like the impression I had from reading all of her credentials and reviews on line. Anyone can have a negative counseling experience, even when the counselor has degrees from accredited universities and is licensed.

___________

That's painful.  I hope Darlene finds someone more coepesthetic.

The DEEBS attack Tim Keller

Dr. Tim Keller had the temerity to suggest that pastors of large churches  are going to function, in one of their roles, as an administrator.  Dee recounts attending a couple of the  many, many churches she has attended and left, where she believed the pastor didn't actually know all his congregants, her included.  [ Ah the humanity - dryly ]
__________

Is there a precedent?

Number of disciples of Jesus:  TWELVE
Number of followers:  Thousands.

Jesus had a history, in his ministry, of removing himself, and the disciples from the crowds after a time being.  Did he shepherd these thousands individually?  Only in a few specific cases.

But what about the disciples themselves after Jesus had been resurrected.

The First Seven Deacons Appointed

6 Now in these days, as the disciples were increasing in number, a complaint arose by the Greek-speaking Jews against the Hebraic Jews because their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food.

 2 So the twelve summoned the community of disciples and said, “It is not desirable that we neglect the word of God to serve tables. 3 So, brothers, select from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Spirit and wisdom, whom we will put in charge of this need. 4 But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.” 5 And the statement pleased the whole group, and they chose Stephen (a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit), and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolaus (a convert from Antioch), 6 whom they stood before the apostles. And they prayed and placed their hands on them.

7 And the word of God kept spreading, and the number of disciples in Jerusalem was increasing greatly, and a large number of priests began obeying the faith.

HERE the disciples did not see their responsibility as being the shepherds to individuals and their needs, not to serve the tables.  They administered, by appointing deacons, and then focused upon writing and teaching the Word.

__________

Final note: there are excellent small churches and excellent mega-churches.  Choose one but don't complain about the other.

TWW followers: Are you a borderline personality?

https://thoughtcatalog.com/carrie-lynne-davis/2013/08/10-things-you-discover-about-yourself-when-youre-diagnosed-with-borderline-personality-disorder/

T.W.W. insists upon conformity to the secular culture.

FBC Jefferson City Calls a Female Pastor and is Ousted from the Tennessee Baptist Convention.

How should Jefferson City respond?

[Answer: join the vast but dying crew of Mainline Churches where many churches now have ONLY female staff.  There is YET no law requiring you to be SBC.  However, if Dee and Deb had their way, there WOULD be a law requiring you to have the role of senior pastor/shepherd open to women.  Dee and Deb have more than a few times indicated their belief that the church shouldn't hesitate to face the wrath of the courts for wrong think. ]

-------

Note to the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church - T.W.W. believes you shouldn't limit your priests to being men.   HOWEVER, since you're not Evangelical, they're not going to say anything.

3 Orthodox views on why women cannot be priests; TWW continues their attack on John Piper

http://www.pravmir.com/article_503.html

Christ is the Incarnate Logos, the Second Person of the Trinity. Christ was incarnate as a man. Why? The Holy Trinity is inherently neither male nor female. The Trinity is spirit. However, God the Father has revealed Himself as male. Why? The Father creates all things visible and invisible. The male is the source of creation. The female must be impregnated by the male. As the male is the natural source of creation, the supernatural source is revealed as Father. Christ, the Son, is eternally begotten of the Father. He is the image of the Father. When He is begotten in time, He reveals himself as a male.

TWW and Roy Moore

T.W.W. is concerned, as they should be.  But because of their dislike of conservative Evangelical males they refused to reference two of them - Denny Burk and Al Mohler.  I'll reference them for you.
_______

As Christians, our first response to such allegations should not be a political calculus. Our first response should be horrified compassion for those traumatized by sexual misconduct. And that response should also include moral clarity and consistency. The balance of the United States Senate is not our chief concern. Our witness is. More than anything, we must be concerned to bear witness to the gospel of Jesus Christ and to its transforming power. That witness is undermined when God’s truth is set aside for any reason, much more for worldly political ends.

Yesterday before these most recent allegations came forth, Albert Mohler made the following remarks on The Briefing:

We also understand a particular responsibility to defend the defenseless and to speak up for those who need that defense, and we must make very clear that predatory sexual behavior, especially predatory sexual behavior addressed to a child, to a minor, is absolutely heinous, reprehensible, and cannot be accepted by any morally sane society. Even in our sexually confused age, we should be thankful for the fact that there is at least enough residual moral sense in the American people that they understand that any contact by an adult male with a minor female, or for that matter you could even change the genders, it’s absolutely wrong, immoral, and unacceptable. So we should at least state that about the charges right up front: If indeed the allegations are true, they are genuinely, morally devastating and they should be politically devastating as well.

I couldn’t agree more. Every person who names Jesus as Lord should agree as well.

_________

A comment about politicians:

Jonathan Adler makes a persuasive case that Moore is a constitutional illiterate, but it’s not like that would set Moore apart much in the World’s Greatest Deliberative Body.

The truth is, the Senate is just awful — and the House is no better — because it’s full of politicians. The real travesty here isn’t that we might send another clown to join the clown show. It’s that the clown show has so much power, and so little accountability, when it’s doing things that are a lot more serious than groping.

And no, this isn’t good, it’s terrible. It’s more evidence of our decline. And I feel bad for having to point it out, again.

inShare

Kudos Dee and Deb

Most recent post reviews a book, The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse - which they like.

But what is truly amazing, they do not take the opportunity of the book review post to take a gratuitous swipe at a conservative Evangelical.  That's the first time in my memory.

KUDOS Dee and Deb!

Wartburgwatch attacks Al Mohler

This who the Deebs are, this is what they do.    The best of feminine Christianity - dryly.
____________

The Evangelical conservatives, such as Mohler, Piper, MacArthur, Dever are bombarded by criticisms on Wartburgwatch as being unfeeling, narcissistic, egotistical etc.

It makes me wonder, what percentage of Wartburgians would be pleased to see them undergo trauma and even death?

T.W.W. presents themselves as a blog of compassion.

"Lydia -
Joe Carter doesn’t have a clue. ERLC. Russ Moors. All frauds. All they want is camera time and money to promote themselves as “thought leaders”.

Flannery O'Connor quote:
" In the absence of faith, we govern by tenderness [compassion ] and tenderness leads to the gas chamber."

I think, in Wartburgians heart of hearts, many, such as Lydia,  would be pleased, due to "compassion:, * to see the conservative Evangelicals sent to the gas chamber.  They are convinced, in their own minds,  that these men are the ruination of the church and society.

*Social Justice Warriors

Those wonderful atheists; if only Christians would learn from them

A frequent commenter on T.W.W. started a blog and has more than a few times suggested the church would benefit if it learned from the atheists.  Frankly, I always thought that was very, very naïve. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2017/11/07/im-an-atheist-but-i-had-to-walk-away-from-the-toxic-side-of-online-atheism/?utm_term=.85f30b83f795

Yeah, I don't think the church has anything to learn from atheists.

And you despise Biblical Counseling? Think secular counseling superior?

http://nypost.com/2017/11/03/social-worker-accused-of-keeping-mental-patient-as-sex-slave/

The Tragedy in Texas

"How could an all-powerful and all-loving God, allow such evil to take place? There are those who have suggested perhaps it’s an indication that God really isn’t in control of the universe. For instance, Rabbi Harold Kushner famously argued in his book When Bad Things Happen to Good People that God is simply doing the best he can with the circumstances—and some circumstances are just too big for God to handle. This assertion, however, is a subversion of the biblical teaching concerning God. It is a repudiation of the God of the Bible. The Bible is clear: God is in control of the entire universe, there isn’t one atom or a molecule outside of his control. If there is, then we are doomed."  Al Mohler

Helicopter parents vs John Piper

Piper makes you think.  If you like your Pablum lukewarm and tasteless, don't read John Piper.  If you wish to be mentally stretched, DO read John Piper.

Dee and Deb define theological Pablum and helicopter parenting.

NO, you DON'T have a chemical imbalance of the brain

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mental-illness-metaphor/201709/the-myth-the-chemical-imbalance

"I don't believe I have ever heard a knowledgeable, well-trained psychiatrist make such a preposterous claim [that patients have a chemical imbalance], except perhaps to mock it...In truth, the 'chemical imbalance' notion was always a kind of urban legend—never a theory seriously propounded by well-informed psychiatrists." –Ronald W. Pies, M.D., Professor of Psychiatry, the State University of New York and Tufts University School of Medicine

Men can't control crazy women

2 and 1/2 minutes - Jordan Peterson [ a name you should become familiar with ]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dL3Hrwg3A3w

T.W.W. believes in church discipline; their's not yours. They expel and shun voices against the narrative

Commenters have always been free to say terrible things about conservative evangelicals.

LawProf;  [ teaches poli-sci at junior college ]

"Mark Dever oozes sadistic traits."

______

What kind of lawyer would ever write that about an individual he doesn't know?

You want to reduce the sexual harrassment/abuse of women? Bring back the Patriarchy

If you've been following the Hollywood/Weinstein story - here's some updates

http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2017/10/13/live-updates-weinstein-challenges-firing-defiant-kathleen-kennedy-calls-for-commission/

What you should understand, "strong and independent women" simply get steam-rolled by evil men.
Feminism denies this; gender egalitarians deny this but look at the facts so clearly seen in the Weinstein debacle.

How can vulnerable young women be protected?  By strong men who have a vested interest in defending and protecting these women - Grandfathers, fathers, brothers, uncles.

Sadly and mistakenly, even the "Christian" culture of our time wants to take the power away from the fathers, husbands and brothers who are most likely to go to war to defend the women in their lives.

If you're are a patriarch and your  17 year old daughter announces she's headed for L.A. or Nashville or N.Y.C. to make it in the entertainment industry you're gonna look her in the eye and say, "Hell no - over my dead body."

But if you're an egalitarian and your wife supports your daughter's desire to be a star then you'll let her go and she will get steamrolled by men who see her simply as a sexual object.  She will be scarred.

FINAL THOUGHT: I don't forsee the affirmation of patriarchy happening in the near future.  What I do see is; new laws will be passed, tweets will be tweeted, Harvey Weinstein will be punished and the men who are criminals will ignore the new laws and continue to abuse/harass and assault vulnerable women despite the tweets.

Evil is not constrained by tweets nor blog essays.

Evil is constrained by Godly patriarchy.

____________

Great article by Mary Katherine Ham -

http://thefederalist.com/2017/10/19/want-everyone-especially-daughters-know-metoo-experiences/

Wartburg commenters; What is it about women?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/o-simpson-slides-back-vegas-nightlife-mingles-women-article-1.3562955

Are indeed, women more gullible?

Ah the sorority queens are going to shame the thin kids with glasses. Look out John Piper

Hey, I know.  Let's smear John Piper tonight.

Oh my, the pot [ Deebs ] call the kettle black.

The "Mean Girls" of the discernment blogs, call bullying on Phil Johnson?

"It is about the disturbing tendency of some people to defend their point of view by attempting to destroy another person."

Give me a freaking break.

Look in the Mirror ladies.  Go back and review all the nasty posts you have written about John Piper.   

You have acted like the sorority queens making fun of the thin guys who wear glasses.

And you want to suggest Phil Johnson is guilty of bullying and you are not?

[ Facepalm ]
_________

Update:
  Some comments:

  " but Twitter has not done so with Phil and these other dirt bags (yes, I said dirt bags.....]"

"Why would we expect any different from Phil Johnson and co? Vile abusers and slanderers, savage beasts they showed themselves to be long ago. "

Wartburgwatch smears the Evangelicals because of Karl Barth

Sigh

Deb - Google is your friend.

http://www.ukapologetics.net/karlbarth.html

Has Karl Barth Been Wrongly Condemned by Evangelicals?


COMMENTER KEN had it right.

"I think it is a little unfair to say of Karl Barth “No doubt the primary reason for the recent focus on Barth is because he fits squarely in the “Reformed” camp.”
I have heard and read lots of the modern day reformed Piper, MacArthur, Sproul, etc., etc. The only one of the modern day reformed I have heard quote him more than occasionally was Sproul. I don’t think you will find Sproul embracing him as reformed though. He was a respected scholar. But the reformed of today don’t claim him other than to quote him for his scholarship. That is my understanding anyway."

T.W.W. has its narrative - Conservative Evangelicals are evil.  Deb tried, unsuccessfully,  to tie Karl Barth's probable affair to the conservative Evangelicals; but it just doesn't cut the mustard.  She was in over her head - she really doesn't know or understand conservative Evangelicals like she thinks she does.

I fully expect "Ken" to be banned in the near future.  He doesn't seem to buy into the narrative.

Dee's Denomination?

Interesting article:

http://steadfastlutherans.org/2012/07/whats-wrong-with-lcms-congregations/

From a different article:  Differences among the Lutheran Denominations:

The Liberal Protestant (like the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America) can be described as following:
1. Questioning or denying the inerrancy of the Bible
2. Questioning or denying the divinity of Jesus Christ or the members of the Trinity.
3. Acceptance of popular moral or social teachings
4. Movement away from teaching of the Lutheran Confessions (Book of Concord)
5. Ordination of Women and openly homosexual in the priesthood.
6. Heavy emphasis on Ecumenicism
7. Departure from the teach of Justification through Faith. It is either taught that man can save himself or that man is really not that bad and doesn't need to be saved.
8. Departure from moral absolute truths.
9. Movement toward Universalism.

Confessional Lutherans (Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, Evangelical Lutheran Synod and Church of Lutheran Confession) can be described as:
1. Believe that Scriptures are the sole authority on faith and Christian living. With out error and unified. Therefore, they do not ordain Women or openly homosexuals into the priesthood.
2. The Scriptures are God's revelation, which is Christ, centered with two main messages, the Law and the Gospel.
3. Believe that the three ecumenical creeds (the Apostles’, the Nicene, and the Athanasian) as well as the Lutheran Confessions as contained in the Book of Concord of 1580 express the true doctrine of Scripture. Since the doctrines they confess are drawn from Scripture alone, we are bound to them in our faith and life. Therefore all preaching and teaching in our churches and schools must be in harmony with these confessions, and we reject all the errors that they reject.
4. Affirm the doctrine of Original Sin and that man is not basically good not only corrupted by the world and cannot save himself.
5. Affirm Justification by Grace through Faith.
6. Believe that unity in Christian Doctrine is necessary for establishing Christian Fellowship with other Synods or Denominations

Only the "righteous" can blog

Mark Driscoll, one of TWW's favorite whipping boys, has started a blog on Patheos.  The women are aghast that such a lout as he, be allowed to blog.  After all, he has been royally condemned by many who are far more righteous than he.  Dryly

You can twitter if you choose, your dismay

#hastag; onlytherighteous

Anon versus Wartburgwatch's attack on John MacArthur

Yes, finally I have found someone who has called some "bull shovel-lings" on this matter- to use the parlance as you have (at the risk of being impolite). 

Now look, as a lawyer, former journalist and ex-military police investigator, I have quite an in-built lie or embellishment detecting instinct, but I can be fooled when its on paper and I can't read other cues (e.g. body language, demeanour, tone of speech, etc). But in this case, the write up done up by one Ms Marci is quite obviously an amalgamation of some kind of input by other writers and contributors (possibly editors) in the way the material is laid out and constructed- both in its arbitrariness and inconsistencies of factual narrative, so much so that I kept sensing that this was one of those messy, recollects that was then slap bang and put together to be deployed for effect and, more clandestinely, to achieve a certain desired "effect". 

I think this blog is the first one to call the content the BS for what it is, and it seems these are all trumped up (no pun intended) as part of a rising/growing leftist attack on conservative Evangelicals both across the land and whilst that is not new, has taken on more insidious forms in the past couple of months ever since Antifa and the Marxist Socialist Left have been engaged in dialectical back and forthing and in the end Christians who stick to Biblical inerrancy and hold to doctrines of Biblical authority and truth become the new "hate groups" to be castigated and censured. 

 I have no doubts that is what this whole thing is about. Lest someone say I have taken away from the ostensible and alleged nub of the alleged matter/case, and say I have turned a woman's right to speak up (cue her emotive title: "Do you hear me?") into yet another spin attempt to make this a political issue, between right and left, I assure you, I am not. 

Christians like me, and I am proud to say I am a Bible-believing one (albeit a sinner no better than anyone else but saved simply by the Lord's sovereign electing grace to reach out and grab me), we have no agenda in being either leftist or right. Our agenda is to be in allegiance to Christ and preach Christ and Him crucified, and His glorious gospel of salvation offered through faith alone, by grace alone, in Christ alone, to each one who acknowledges their sin and are willing to repent and seek redemption. 

As Christians we are not about oppressing women, but serving and loving them as fellow image bearers of God. Now, it's one thing for us to be for women and women's rights to equality, freedom and speaking up, and another to completely go down the path of drawing a straw man fallacy and misrepresenting Dr John MacArthur and the Masters' Seminary and College (now University) by broad-brushing them as rabid opponents of all of the above and then take aim at the misrepresented position; using this alleged "Jane" case as a convenient example for ammunition. 

1. Dr John MacArthur and team are complementarians who believe in loving, honouring and respecting women as equal yet different (by gender roles and biological differences) by God's design and standards. This means that to misrepresent Dr John MacArthur and co, is part of a fallacious attempt to discredit them, and more sinisterly, part of a possible bigger level attempt to tarnish their image. Likewise, Dr John MacArthur and team have never sought to be anything other than believers who teach the Bible and lovingly reach the world for Christ. Their message is viewed in the current climate as "hate speech" only because they preach what the Bible says on homosexuality as sin etc, and take the Biblical stand that the world and current zeitgeist refuses to accept (without basis). With that as a background, this point is critical because you need to know that there are many groups out there with an agenda against Dr John MacArthur and his team. They could be from anywhere: people who felt unloved in the church he pastors, people who felt hurt/scorned, people who do not accept his certain and authoritative stand on the Word of God, people who seek to discredit him publicly, etc as he is a very prominent proponent of truth. Demons want to get him, and as the society gets more reprobate and unable to see truth, the more these kinds of accusations will be raised. 


2. Which brings us to the accusations in the very "Jane" case in question- now, as this blog rightly raises, there are many red flags raised in the narrative of this matter. One, the whole account is rife with many anomalies and case findings from both Ms Marci's blogpost as well as the way the narrative was done up, which show us the story was and is loosely assembled - as this blog rightly highlights- over 10 years, and suddenly brought to the fore just at the time where the Master's Seminary is facing State level sanctions in the past few years since Gay Marriage was legalized on a national level, tax bills and a challenge on its 401k status. 
Not only is the timing of this story something that ought to raise eyebrows, the narrative itself raises some glaring omissions; namely the entire missing details- police report and charges; the other sides' story; the name of the alleged rapist in question (if the claims are true, then truth being a defense would mean that defamation would be of no issue); the police's official statement; the details of the past 10 years since the crime occurred and all the victim would logically have done to seek criminal justice; the proofs such as a scan or image file of the Masters College doctoring the results/transcripts (which as highlighted elsewhere would be a breach of Article 9 - including motivations behind why a college ranked by the WSJ for top results would dare to or want to risk that with a concerted cover up); proofs of the alleged behaviour by Dr John MacArthur and Mr Rick Holland (all we have now are emotive accusations and unsubstantiated statements)...and much much more. 
I haven't even gotten to the logical inconsistencies in the alleged account.  

What's more, the manner of the text was typed as if it were penned by several scribes who seem to emotively paint the picture of a victim trapped and issuing this first person (sometimes third person singular) shorthand that is crying inside. There would be no problem with that, except that the way in which it is written is so "tight" and "choreographed" or "designed to hit emotive notes" it borders on manipulative- there are several key factors that make me believe the entire "Jane" post is distorted and designed to manipulate the emotive senses of readers from a journalistic point of view: 

a. The use of Luis Palau and Billy Graham as so called "friends" of the alleged victim sends my antennae up- it is very convenient to name two supposed world class big name evangelicals to assert that this person is strongly evangelical and from a strong Christian background. Except: anyone who is on the side of true Christianity and has been trained under Dr MacArthur or at the Master's Seminary knows that Luis Palau is a false teacher, a charlatan who preaches a different gospel. And Billy Graham, has been accused from time to time of being part of the Ecumenical Evangelicals and Catholics movement (rightly or wrongly). No matter what you believe about Graham or Palau, the point I am making is this: no one wanting to assert they had credibility in Christian circles (certainly in Dr MacArthur's circles) would have cited those two men as examples of people "to be connected to" as if they were influential names to drop. If the author genuinely was "Jane" and "Jane" indeed had made it to senior year at the Master's College and had indeed written that, she would not have written that in that way to further discredit her own point. Instead, this reeks of being written by someone with a superficial and scant understanding of true Christianity, who could make such a mistake, and reeks of being written by some anti-Christian liberal who just randomly thought of some "powerful" Christian men to name and ironically came up with two that are not held in high esteem by the true Church. 

b. "Jane" would be in her late 20s now (if as stated this took place 10 years ago- which it does say- 2008), and yet the "article" chooses to write the whole piece from an emotive angle (by choice) - deliberately stating she is fifteen, even though she is clearly writing this in retrospect now. The fact that it is not written in typical narrative recount prose again sends my antennae sky high. When you or I relay a story or some event about something that happened to us 10 years ago, we tend to do so earnestly- avoiding all subterfuge and camouflaging our text with any literary devices- commensurate with the level of seriousness we wish to convey the seriousness of the predicament we are relating we were in; in short, you want to be taken seriously by whoever you are sharing this with as you want the listener to hear you earnestly. Here, by adopting an emotive victimological piece in literary prose that lends itself to manipulation, it goes against the grain of straight talking and straight shooting that is usually found on the lips of truly distraught and hurting victims. It reeks here of someone else writing a narrative about this person at best, and trying to making it emotive.

C. Anachronistic evidence. The idea that Masters' students could not go ballroom dancing is either a fact or it isn't. Ballroom dancing only made a comeback in the 2010s because of a throwback to the swinging 20s through 50s revival that came with the new hipster movement- in 2007, when young people went dancing it was usually to nightclubs or bars. Then, to make matters worse for the continuity error, the account then says she went to a bar. There are not many bars in the Santa Clara or Sun valley area or even in Pasadena or L.A. that adopted ballroom dancing- perhaps none even at all, let alone in 2007/08. 


D. In the narrative, Rick Holland, the alleged campus pastor in TMC (now TMU) interviews the victim one on one - flouting rules of counselling, and then every once in a while, walks out his room to go to consult Dr John MacArthur. Anyone familiar with Dr John MacArthur will know that Dr John MacArthur's office is not located at the College campus. Mr Holland could not have possibly got up and walked over to knock on Dr MacArthur's door just like that. He would have had to obtain an appointment for Dr MacArthur to be there in the college office that particular day- and this matter would by definition have needed to have been big enough at the time for Dr MacArthur to personally come down (usually he does not even travel due to his age- if anything Dr Phil Johnson or someone else from his office would have taken the trip). Yet the critical piece of evidence that is odd here is this: the "Jane" story claims that she is alone with Mr Holland. If Dr John MacArthur had indeed gone all the way to be there, why would he not be in the room, and refuse to see her? If the case was that big that indeed warranted his going down personally to TMC to see this one particular student (if we even grant all that), why would Dr MacArthur secretly wait in the other room and have Dr Holland have to repeat the facts back and forth from the victim to him and go back to the room to get more and then go back to Dr MacArthur? What's even more troubling is that Dr MacArthur is alleged to have said "the girl needs to be kicked out for dancing inter alia" As if Dr John would sit in the next room, while a young lady the age of his granddaughters facing such a serious crime and allegation would wait there next door and then tell Rick to go back to tell her she'd been kicked out- for dancing at that. 
It makes no sense. It smacks of defamatory accusatory smear language designed to attack Dr John MacArthur. 
 

Now, you want to know why people write this drivel? It is because this is a fictionalized piece of account writing by whoever wrote this up. Now I am not doubting that this indeed was a case/matter, and that there might have been a case where a girl got raped. As TMS' official response was that they had no such male student, they are accepting that "Jane" indeed was a student of theirs. Yet, "Jane" refused to give consent for TMS and TMC/TMU to make a statement or comment on her case/matter, forcing TMS and TMC to keep mum about their end and only state what they have stated in their public statements. Furthermore, the rapist really never attended TMS, for if he did, the mainstream media would pull out his file, and be sure to shame him and TMS in the process. They couldn't, because he never was their student. If "Jane" really wanted justice, she would bring the whole matter, hook, line and sinker out into the open- if you're going to go public, might as well go all the way, wouldn't you? If you really are about women's rights and protecting other women from this alleged institutional cover up? Surely you would produce all the evidence you could muster, wouldn't you? The report finally states that the aggressor confessed and suggests that there was an institutional cover up. If the aggressor confessed, and the victim was free to lodge a police report (they never restrained her from doing so) and she says she didn't drop the charges, and yet the police never charged or arrested the man in question? 

This is altogether bizarre on two levels: 
1. If you had been raped by someone, highlighting what just punishment your attacker got in terms of a sentence would have been your focus, or at the very least, you would write all about how your attacker is still out there and has never been charged. Instead, notice the way the article is written- it makes it seem like it is about the institution that the victim is really after. Upset at the attacker getting away, no? No. Upset at the authorities for finding insufficient evidence? No. Upset at the church and college? Yes! It's almost too convenient- so much so that it dovetails perfectly with what we are saying earlier- this is probably written and designed with one goal in mind: to attack and discredit Dr John MacArthur and his affiliates and institutions. The article gives it away. 

3. The Wartburg Watch has had its anti-Christian agenda for a long while now, so it is trying to fuel fire for any one of the big pastors in Evangelicalism- men like Dr John Piper, Dr Al Mohler, etc have also come under unwarranted and unsubstantiated attacks by the Wartburg crew. We must be able to see their presuppositional bias when they report.

I think the same should be done with the alleged victim and this account.