WARTBURGWATCH ATTACKS CAROLYN MCCULLEY

You might think, rightly so, that Wartburg Watch staunchly rejects all things that might reek of the Fighting Fundies.  But you would be wrong.

T.W.W. is actually an advocate of the most divisive issue of the "Fighting Fundies", SECONDARY SEPARATION.

For those of you not familiar with the "Fighting Fundies" secondary separation has been one of the more defining issues of the cause.

Ernest Pickering

A secondary separatist would be one who will not cooperate with (1) apostates; or (2) evangelical believers who aid and abet the apostates by their continued organizational or cooperative alignment with them; or, as employed by some (3) fundamentalists who fellowship with those in the previous category. (217)

Ernest Pickering says you must separate from your brethren if they do not sufficiently separate from those who will even cooperate with [ liberal or others who disagree with fundamentalism as he sees it ] Christians.

That brings us back to T.W.W.

"Given the fact that Carolyn McCulley was heavily influenced by Mahaney and other pastors in SGM, we are greatly concerned ......"

SIMPLE TRANSLATION:  You must separate from Carolyn McCulley because she was, at one time, a member of a Sovereign Grace church and thereby poisoned by the most evil man in Christendom [ editorial interpretation], C.J. Mahaney.

T.W.W. doesn't attack her theology - they are not good on the doctrine/theological spectrum - but they attack her because she was, at one time, a member of a Sovereign Grace Church where unspeakable things took place [ editorial interpretation ].

She is/was apparently speaking at a conference for women sponsored by the baptists.

So T.W.W., like fundamentalism through the last century, has demanded that she be rejected on the basis of SECONDARY SEPARATION.

Fundamentalism at its finest.


UPDATE:  One of the comments made by "Velour,"

Carolyn McCulley isn’t just sick but sickening.


I would be afraid to share a pew with some of the commenters at Wartburg Watch.

WARTBURGWATCH ATTACKS PETE WILSON

"Understanding that all pastors are a sinner is vital to understanding the Gospel."

The Queens of Wartburg are, of course, correct.  Sin has stained us all.



I'd say:

"Understanding that all Discernment Bloggers are sinners is vital to understanding Internet Shaming."

Now I don't know a thing about Pete Wilson other than he suddenly resigned, indicated he was burned out and not sure of what he believed.  If there are marital issues involved, he wouldn't be the first pastor [ nor the last ] to carry that stain.  May he and his wife work their marriage out for the Glory of God.  Is he a sinner?  Of course, we're all stained.

But I saw this sentence one day and thought it was appropriate.


 In John 8 Jesus seems to indicate that the prerequisite for judgement is perfection, and I’m nowhere near that standard.

It is Godly wisdom to be careful of judging others - 

++++++++++++

UPDATE:   "Lisa" has attempted to defend the church.  Not suprisingly, the commentors, including, Dee and Deb, have jumped all over her.  Sadly, it was brutal to read.  If you were expecting compassion, you'd be disappointed.

The commentors just mimiced the blog authors;  they put Lisa in their scribal gunsights and let fly.  Lisa will never have to seek out psycho-analysis, the commentors were all to eager to analyze her for free.  The analysis wasn't kind.

Tim Bayly nails it

http://baylyblog.com/blog/2016/09/feminists-and-libertarians-my-fathers-world

WARTBURG WOMEN? DOES THIS FIT?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3789957/Why-modern-women-aggressive-s-called-dark-equality-surge-respectable-women-flying-violent-rages-trivial-reasons.html

WARTBURG WOMEN; I don't feel good about this. MEN, what does Scripture actually teach

One of the feminist themes running thru Wartburg is concerns that Patriarchy or Complementarism will lead to abuse.  Typical of the female of the species, "How does this affect me" is the lens thru which they view Scripture.  So Wartburg women reject male leadership not based upon Scripture but based upon feelings and fears.

For Evangelical men, it's not "How will this affect me" it is,  what does Scripture actually say?

Bottom line;  what does Scripture actually teach?

There will always be a cognitive/feeling differences between men and women; God made it that way.

Scripture so clearly teaches God intended men to lead in the church and lead in the home.

Wartburg women view Christianity thru a different lens.

WARTBURG WATCH AND DIVORCE

Nowadays, 70% of all divorces are initiated by the wives.  There are certainly many reasons for that but it is an interesting statistic in our time.

You can't be a student of the Scripture and think God doesn't hate divorce.  He clearly does.

I don't have any Evangelical friends who thinks a spouse has to continue to live with a physically abusive partner.  But moving to safety is different than divorce.  I personally think there are New Testament Scriptures that allow for divorce but not necessarily for re-marriage.  But the Scriptures that would appear to allow for divorce are few in number - very few.

In my experience the big problem is POST DIVORCE; having gotten divorced are you not now free to remarry?  And therein lies the rub.

A few things to keep in mind:

The divorce rate for second marriages is higher than first marriages.  The divorce rate for third marriages is higher than for second marriages.

Whoever you marry next, you'll be dragging your baggage and weaknesses into the new relationship.  If you have a weakness for abusive men, the odds are good you hook up with another abusive male - though it may appear different on the surface.

If you have a weakness for addictive men, you'll likely trade your first addict in for a second addict, just addiction of a different kind.

If you have young children, the odds of your next spouse sexually abusing them is signifcantly higher than the children's biological father abusing them.

The pool of semi-healthy, marriageable men or women who are divorced themselves is very, very tiny.  If you're a woman post 40 years of age, you'd better be extremely attractive/bright or earning a good income, otherwise the odds are actually against you re-marrying.  If you're making good money [ or even just decent money], there's plenty of divorced,  winsome males who'll be glad to marry you.  They're looking for a sugar Momma.  You'll earn, they'll spend. They'll break your heart; again.

And then there's the "newly divorced promiscuous phase" where one is trying to re-capture a sense of self esteem by falling into bed with any guy/gal who'll treat you decently for a moment. Did you know you can be 43, newly divorced and get pregnant on the first date regardless of how sexually pure your life has been up til then?  It's a little awkward to explain that to your ladies Sunday School class. 

BOTTOM LINE: the post divorce options [ staying single and alone or entering into a second or third troubled marriage after the ugly dating phase] are not pleasant to contemplate.

Readers, you may need to physically leave a dangerous situation, but you do NOT have to get a divorce.  If your spouse is the sociopath you think they are, they'll quickly latch onto another partner, live with them and in the process give you Biblical grounds for divorce.  But even then, maintaining a legal marriage though seperated, can provide a degree of psychological and emotional protection from jumping into another deeply troubled relationship [ and that's the betting odds.].

NOTE: I've known a lot of divorcing women who swore they'd never re-marry - but they did, most of them painfully in the long run.  Men, on the other hand, generally intend to remarry but they'll also find it challenging at the very least, if not impossible. 

 It's not good to marry a man or a women who hates their "ex."  You'll pay for that mistake.

FINALLY: Beware the advice you find in the posts and comments of Wartburg Watch.  Much of it will not be well thought out.  From the feminist perspective, men are the root of the problem, women's sinfulness is negligible in comparison.  If that's your perspective, all future relationships with the opposite sex will be painful and bitter.

IN THE INTERNET AGE; DON'T YOUR COMMENTS REFLECT YOUR HEART?

Anonymous poster - "The comments section at Wartburg, it seems to me, are going in a downward spiral to the point where they are positively sick. Ignorant and viscious. And endlessly repetitive! on WARTBURG CHANNELS SAUL ALINKSI IN THEIR ATTACK ON MARY KASSIAN"

I probably wouldn't go with "sick, ignorant and viscious" but "endlessly repetitive," yeah, that is so true.   I do think the comments reflect the heart of the people who write them and there appears to be tremendous amounts of bitterness and anger from the hosts and many [ but not all ] of the  commenters at Wartburg Watch.

Actually, I remain somewhat puzzled that Wade Burleson continues to lend his name and reputation to Wartburg.  He is, by his own account, a Calvinist unlike Page Patterson who is absolutely not a "neocal" but is despised never-the-less by the Wartburg crew.  Also, Wade's messages are fairly positive and up-lifting, not angry and bitter like so many of the comments seen on Wartburg as many continue to spew their venom at people like John Piper and Al Mohler - men who's primary failing appears to be their support of Scripture as it is written, not as feminists wish it was written.  So, why does Wade remain?

Finally; Scripture paraphrase in this age; "By their comments ye shall know them."