An Explanation (To Friends And Foes Alike)

This morning Dee Dee Warren published at The Preterist Blog her third article dealing with “Christian unity.” Because this is the third such article she’s written, and because the previous posts have been removed, I thought it good to write an explanation of what is going on, that the Christian community may have the information it needs to know.

Although Dee Dee and I are personal friends, we are theological opponents. How did this all begin? Last month, I was asked to be a contributor to the Preterist Blog, and was given permission to write articles expressing my Pre-Millennial beliefs. After a couple weeks of no trouble, my theology was suddenly ambushed by Dee Dee and her partial preterist friends, and when I tried engaging her in a public debate she refused. Because Dee Dee would not provide people with information on why she refused to be debate me, I started up two blogs, The Anti-Preterist and The Dee Dee Warren Chronicles.

Although I played strictly according to the rules, I was immediately accused of being malicious, mean, unethical, and “obsessed.” I have repeatedly defended myself against these unfair allegations, and have borne witness to the fact that I offered Dee Dee several opportunities to resolve the situation amicably. I even suggested a three-way conference with Roderick Edwards as mediator, which he would have been willing to do. Dee Dee shot back a rude email, refusing to even speak to me.

Despite my constant affirmations that this is a theological controversy alone, Dee Dee Warren has insisted on taking the matter personally. Although I pulled down the Dee Dee Warren blog, the conditions of it remaining down were as follows. Here is what I wrote her:

“As for the removal of the blogs.. I would be willing to remove the content from the Dee Dee Warren blog and to let it lie fallow. You’d have my promise not to activate it again unless there was a clear violation of the terms of agreement between us. But judging from the gracious tone of your last email, I don’t expect that. As for the Anti-Preterist Blog, well, that would be the venue I’d use for replying to attacks on Chiliasm. If I’m no longer part of the PreteristBlog, I feel that’s fair play. If you want to write against Pre-Mil that’s fine. I won’t oppose you, Dee Dee. But I may write some articles against Preterism on my own blog. Is that ok with you? We can do what we want on our own blogs, and agree on the essentials on our new blog. I would find that acceptable.”
“The Anti Preterist blog will just deal with the issue of preterism. Like I said, Dee Dee, I don’t mind you attacking chiliasm, so long as it’s understood between us that I may attack partial preterism on my blog. If we can agree on this, I won’t have any problem with you and your friends writing against orthodox futurism. Anyhow, I really do feel that we can unite once more on the essentials.”

Please note the conditions. We agreed to “do as we wanted on our own blogs.” I told Dee Dee that I would continue to expose the errors of partial preterism. I never promised Dee Dee how I would go about doing this. However, Dee Dee now takes umbrage because I am reprinting articles by preterists Michael Bennett and Duncan McKenzie, which they gave me permission to do.

Six hours before I even wrote to Dee Dee, I asked Duncan McKenzie for his permission. Here is the substance of my communication:

Duncan,

Would you give me permission to quote you on proof that the second advent of Christ is pre-millennial? It would be for use at my new blogs:

http://deedeewarren.wordpress.com

http://preteristblog.wordpress.com

I’m trying to show people that the second coming is pre-millennial. Your testimony could have an enormous effect on other partial preterists.

If you want, I’ll take your name off the Anti Preterist page.

Peace & Health,

Brian

Duncan graciously gave me his permission. Later on I wrote to Mike Bennett, making the same request. Here is what I wrote:

Mike,

Can I have permission to quote from some of your articles that prove partial preterism false? I’d be willing to provide source links to all material.

Peace and Health,

Brian

Once again, Michael acceded to my request. Now, just as peace is restored between Dee Dee and I, she protests vehemently against my use of McKenzie’s and Bennett’s writings “on my own blog.” Get that. Why is Dee Dee up in arms? Although she says that full preterism is not a logical consequence of partial preterism, Dee Dee claims that these articles may push people toward consistent preterism. My response: that is exactly what they are intended to do. I think this is still going over her head.

Let me explain it very simply. Post-Millennial partial preterists (e.g. Ken Gentry, Gary DeMar, Gary North, etc.) have spent the greater portion of their careers fighting against Pre-Millennial eschatology. And yet they publicly teach that the parousia occurred in A.D. 70, and that this issued in the “1000 year” period known as the Millennium. They claim that at the end of this 1000 year period (which is going on today) Christ will return.

Can anyone besides myself see the contradiction? I am trying to show people that these partial prets are not post-Millennial at all, but are functional pre-millennialists. I am also trying to show that true post-millennial preterism is consistent (i.e. “full) preterism, which would teach that Christ’s A.D. 70 parousia followed the A.D. 30-70 Millennium, and that the general judgment and resurrection already occurred at the destruction of Jerusalem.

Bottom line is this: If the parousia was fulfilled in A.D. 70, that’s it. There is no future advent of Christ. He’s already here now. I don’t see how this information can be harmful, especially considering that Dee Dee herself routinely quotes from men such as John Bray, Dave Chilton, and other consistent preterists to promote her own theology.

So what’s the problem? The problem is that the “dirty secret” is out of the bag now. The exposure of this information is now being hushed up, and people are trying to stash it under the rug. What am I doing wrong? I am simply holding a mirror up to a hypocritical movement to show what it is really about. Partial Preterists cannot see this, for they have their noses in the air. They are too intelligent for Futurists, and too holy for Preterists. They are blind Pharisees who have taken away the key of knowledge, and shut up the Kingdom of Heaven against men. I’m simply exposing their hypocrisy to the entire Christian community. By collaborating with consistent preterists, I am using their very own weapons against them.

As you can see from the above communications, I never promised Dee Dee how I would combat her system. At any rate, I find it ironic, that she has repeatedly stated she wants “unity.” And yet she refused to allow me back on her blog! Her actions have demonstrated that unity is impossible. Seeing this, I suggested that we still be personal friends, so long as it’s understood that we remain theological opponents.

Dee Dee acquiesced to this proposal. But now she is making allegations of “unfairness” once more. She also is highly offended that I am republishing posts by consistent Preterists. My answer to her was: then prove me wrong, if you can. But no. Dee Dee would rather hide in the shadows and make allegations, than deal with the logical consequences of her own teachings.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s