Source: Verum Serum
Comments: Scott Ragan posts an excellent article in response to Ken’s declaration of war “Mission Rob Bell” (hearing echoes of Ahab crying ‘thar she blows!’). For the uninitiated, Scott posts some background of the many sad habits of Mr. Silva, who often puffs himself up as some sort of expert much higher than his rank or record would ever justify (reminiscent of Frank Burns in M*A*S*H). He then methodically dissects Ken’s inability to admit fault, even when he is most obviously – to anyone with a two eyes and a brain – wrong.
Just when I thought â€œReverendâ€ Ken over at SLICE/Apprising Ministries had reached the pinnacle of making a foolish/spiritual spectacle of himself, he went â€œone louderâ€ today and turned his â€œspiritual pride and ego ampâ€ up to Eleven (if you havenâ€™t seen This is Spinal Tap, donâ€™t try making sense of that last analogy).
I know that Ken believes that his words are wisdom on par with Scripture, but that isnâ€™t how this thing works. Sorry, Ken, but when it says â€œMy mouth speaks what is trueâ€¦All the words of my mouth are justâ€¦To the discerning all of them are rightâ€¦they are faultless to those who have knowledgeâ€¦â€ it ISNâ€™T talking about you or your ideas. This is WISDOM talking, as in GODâ€™S Wisdom. Not Kenâ€™s. Godâ€™s. Do you see and/or understand the difference?
A regular criticism that is made about/against Ken is that during exchanges he frequently attempts to assert himself as someone of spiritual authority who has been appointed by God and whoâ€™s opinion should be listened to and/or given more weight than others because of the position he believes he holds. He has been caught red handed on several occasions on this blog and others trying to use the words of Christ when He is speaking about himself and then trying to apply the same quote to himself. The â€œReverendâ€ Ken holds a HEAVILY authoritarian view of the Christian faith which places he and a few other that he agrees with or that agree with him at the top of the power structure just below the Trinity, John Macarthur, Walter Martin, and A.W. Tozer. In short, failure to agree with and/or comply with â€œReverendâ€ Ken and his approved list of authorities relegates dissenters to the outer darkness.
Another common criticism/observation made about Ken is that, though he says that he welcomes people to be Berean in their faith and test his words and teachings, when it comes down to it and he is presented with substantial arguments and very serious/grave charges against him that impeach his credibility and veracity as a pastor/teacher, he refuses to engage. Instead he simply begins a predictable pattern of name calling and claiming that those who disagree with him are interpreting Scripture incorrectly while he has the correct interpretation.
So much for the whole Berean thing.
In an almost laughable twist, Ken says that he wouldnâ€™t dream of saying the things to John Macarthur that people say to him on a daily basisâ€¦and yet he also says VERY offensive things to and about fellow believers and pastors on a daily basis and thinks nothing of it. Why is it that he can do that without a second thought, but he wouldnâ€™t consider voicing a strong dissent against something that Dr. Macarthur might be teaching -and- why is it that he is so tremendously offended when others turn the tables and do the same thing to him that he does regularly to others?
I know that it offends you to have someone say it, Ken, but you are wrong. You are a brother in Christ and someday weâ€™ll stand together in Heaven. But nowâ€¦on earthâ€¦in 2006â€¦youâ€™re wrong.
[Brendt commenting] Since I donâ€™t have the â€œgiftâ€ of looking into othersâ€™ souls and determining their true motives (like Ingrid, Ken, Steve, et al), I wonâ€™t say this as being fact, but merely my own personal observation and wondering. One has to wonder if what the commenters say is what the Slicers really are thinking, but they dial it back, knowing that the commenters will do the dirty work for them.
[Brendt commenting] P.S. Scott, thereâ€™s obviously something wrong with your blog. You accused Ken (rightly) of putting himself on an equal plane with God by preceeding his thoughts with Scripture referring to an attribute of God. Yet Kenâ€™s clarification (and or disputing) of this point somehow didnâ€™t make it through. Surely, he didnâ€™t choose to ignore (IMHO) the heaviest charge of them all? After all, we know how well equating oneself with God worked out for Lucifer.
[Scott commenting] I am offended by the good â€œReverendâ€ and his compadre Ingrid because I believe that at times they do far more damage TO the kingdom of God than they do good FOR the kingdom. They are rude, abrasive, judgmental, pharisaical, narrow-minded and spiritually arrogant. It isnâ€™t just that they think they are right. In that respect, I am in agreement with them in the belief that Truth is an absolute that can be known. I donâ€™t think that things are relative, thus I donâ€™t think that Truth or the arguments that can be made related to Truth are relative.
On the other hand, Ken, Ingrid and the gang operate according to their own world perspective which appears to be: weâ€™re right and youâ€™re all ignorant and/or uninformed and/or misled and/or in league with the devil and/or going to Hell (or all of the above). Based on their track record, their rules of engagement appear to include:
1) make outlandish claims first and then try to prove them later and if they canâ€™t be proved, start calling people names and accuse them of stupidity or spiritual blindness or being in partnership with evil in order to deflect the attention off of the weak initial argument;
2) find quotes that appear to support the outlandish claims mentioned in #1 above, even if the quotes are misquotes, quotes out of context, or pseudo/none-existent quotes;
3) ignore common/basic principles of logic and Biblical interpretation and accuse others of heresy and/or incorrect interpretations that donâ€™t match up with what they are claiming to be true in #1 above;
4) quote well-established and respected authorities such as theologians and philosophers to give your argument in #1 above more credibility, but only quote those whose words appear to agree with the weak claims/arguments mentioned in #1 and never provide these quotes in their full context;
5) never allow anyone else to quote other respected authorities unless they are doing so to support the positions from #1 above and if anyone brings up those same authorities in the context of disagreement, accuse those others of a lack of spiritual insight and wisdom to understand what is being discussed and a lack of respect for learned men of God;
6) never allow anyone else to quote other respected authorities whose words and/or positions disagree with the claims in #1 above and when people do, point out the horrible shame and worldly/fleshly tendency of wanting to rely on the intellect of man rather than the wisdom of God (Godâ€™s wisdom being rightly divided by comparing it to whether it agrees with the claims in #1 above).
7) be sure to keep things in #1 above relative to personal preference (that preference being placed on the same level as Godâ€™s directives in His Word) and make every effort to appeal to peopleâ€™s desire to look backwards to â€œthe good old days,â€ forgetting that that perspective is rarely accurate but is always easy to support with â€œI remember whenâ€ and â€œnow days people just donâ€™t do it the right way, the way we used to do it back whenâ€¦;â€
whenever someone disagrees with #1 above, find a conspiracy;
9) filter out most disagreement on websites and blogs including not letting through the majority of proof/evidence/logic that would disprove #1 above, while at the same time be sure to build an appearance of near-universal support for #1 above by primarily allowing only the voices of agreement and support to be seen/heard;
10) be sure to appeal to the basest need in others to be right at all costs (thus making others wrong) and gather a collection of insecure believers together to make the desire to be right collectively louder and thus (apparently) more credible.
Ingrid uses the news organization that her radio station is affiliated with as the primary source to back up many of her â€œnews flashesâ€ and â€œhot off the pressâ€ breathless revelations about Rick Warren and others. Talk about a conflict of interest. She even uses her own press releases as primary sources for her blog posts! She condemns churches and denominations left and right for practices that offend her â€œIngrid sensibilities,â€ ignoring the fact that her sensibilities arenâ€™t the guiding principles of anything or for anyone except her and her family. She operates under the assumption that her â€œsenseâ€ of something is tantamount to Godâ€™s judgment for or against that thing. Music, dance, drama, PowerPoint, videos, worship songs, overheads, sermon notes, etc, etc, etc,â€¦Ingrid has opinions on them all and in her mind her opinions are Godâ€™s opinions.
â€œReverendâ€ Ken has been guilty of so much proof-texting, Scripture twisting, pharisaical pronouncements and shady-slight-of-hand misdirection and blatant misquotes and half-quotes of people that I donâ€™t know how he faces himself in the mirror (though maybe he has removed all mirrors in his house so he doesnâ€™t have to). As Ingrid does with her ridiculous use of her own organizationâ€™s press releases and news stories, Ken does with his â€œmissivesâ€¦â€ using them as sources of information when someone challenges him about the weakness of his arguments or the incorrect or twisted partial quotes that he pulls out of thin air when he needs to exaggerate some minor point of concern or trump up some conspiracy that only he and a few precious others can see and/or understand. I couldnâ€™t even begin to count the times that I have seen Ken (both here at VS, or at Slice, or at various other sites) refuse to engage his critics directly when they challenge his weak thinking, poor use of Biblical interpretation principles, etc. Instead, he will tell them that he has already discussed this or that point over on his website and then include a link to some other â€œmissive.â€ Either he is too dense to see that many/most of his â€œmissivesâ€ contain the same kinds of glaring errors, or he knows that they are all flawed but doesnâ€™t care because he isnâ€™t capable of thoroughly and carefully defending his ridiculous and, at times, asinine pronouncements.