Dear Chris R., Chris P. and anyone else who thinks I have to prove emergent is right. I want to share something with you. I don’t have to prove anything. I’m not emergent, although I know people who I fully believe will be in heaven who claim to be emergent. Truth will always defend itself. I don’t have to prove it. If I’m wrong in my assessment of Mr. Silva that will prove itself. If I am wrong in my defense of Rob Bell that too will prove itself.
I’ve never met Mr. Silva, I can only assess him based on what I read and what I read lacks credibility of any nature. Chris Rosebrough, I respect you. I do. I have found your personal blog to be something that is well done. I don’t agree with all of your posts, nor your stances but you listen. I don’t find that with many who are in the camp you associate with. I disagree with your interpretation of Luke 18 if you’re saying that it only has to do with justification. As the last verse says, ” everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted.”

But I want to be very clear on this. I am done sitting back and watching Mr. Silva use non sequiturs to attack men like Rob Bell. Mr. Silva is correct, his fruit will speak for itself. We need to use more than links to our own articles to prove our point. It is my belief that Mr. Silva is a dangerous poison that is being used by the Enemy to wound the body of Christ. When it comes to what he posts I will stop at nothing to show the ludicrous jumps in logic he makes. My fellow contributors may have a greater sense of compassion for him than I do and that is fine, but I have met Rob. I know men who know him. Men, who I greatly respect. Men who love God.
I understand that you may know Mr. Silva, and as such you may have a greater scope to evaluate him on. I imagine you might say many of the same things that I just said about him. You may even care deeply for him and believe with all your heart that he is right in what he is doing. This is where we will degenerate into something of a circular argument because the perspective that we are coming from is so far apart.
I simply do not see anything Christ like in what Mr. Silva puts into print. Please understand this, as long as he attacks men he’s never met, uses poor logic to “prove” his points and generally spreads deceit and lies I will stand against that. You are welcome to come, read and tell me I’m wrong. You can always post a different view in the comments but don’t ask me to prove anything is right. That’s not what I’m trying to do when I’m talking about Mr. Silva. I’m simply attempting to point out the errors he’s using, and before you ask me to prove his errors spend some time here and read the posts. There are plenty that already do that for me. I’m not out to prove the emergent movement is right. I’m not out to do anything other than warn people that Mr. Silva is dangerous.

I’m done sitting on the sidelines and allowing him to hurt people in the name of religion.

There is an interesting story found in Luke 18. Jesus is teaching about prayer. He tells us we need to be like a persistent widow, who stands no chance of getting justice from a judge but finally gets it because she “annoys” the judge into doing it. But that’s not the story I’m referencing. I want to talk about the story about the pharisee and the tax collector. I am about to forage into some potentially dangerous territory and I realize it but I can no longer sit back and watch certain people attack Godly men who are actually doing something for God and just say, “well some of what he’s saying may have validity.” In the past I’ve gone on record and called one such man a heretic. Today I am about to compare him to a pharisee and the accusation will be out in plain sight so…do with that what you will.
First the story:
” 9He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and treated others with contempt: 10″Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed^[a] thus: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. 12I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.’ 13But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’ 14I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted.”
–Jesus as quoted by Luke in chapter 18

I first started mulling this passage over in contemplation for a post on my own journal discussing what it truly means to be a Christ follower. Some day I will no doubt get to that post but then I ran over to another webpage where I found this article. I’m going to quote just a little of it for you.

“O God, please save us from men who have such poor discernment and are leading so many people into the Emergent Church the new cult of liberal theology. But know this: Current leaders within the SBC sleep on at their peril because our Lord will not be mocked by these Emergent vipers and their rebellion against the Word of God.” Ken Silva (Online Source) (Emphasis Mine)

Notice the “save us from them.” If Jesus came today in human form and was teaching on prayer might he have changed the prayer to say, “Dear God, thank you that I am not like the ‘Emergent Strawmen’ who have fallen so far away from You, unlike me, your faithful servant who has served faithfully and hard pointing out their errors.”

In truth, I have no problem if men like Ken Silva want to pray this prayer. Who am I to question what someone says in a conversation between them and God? The problem is Mr. Silva brought all of us into the conversation with his incessant linking to his articles. He put his prayer into the public arena and as such it needs to be addressed.

One does have not have to do much reading to see the pride with which Mr. Silva claims to be proclaiming his ministry, and to an extent I can understand that. I wonder what it would look like if Ken and Ingrid and the crew were to simply stop attacking other men and simply beat their chest and say “God have mercy on us.” Where would that take us?

Perhaps, a man that Rob Bell likes to quote would be a good source for us to consider. He says this,

“6But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.” —Jesus as quoted by a simple Tax Collector called Matthew

Issue: Watchblogging and Watchbloggers

CRN’s Take: (All taken from an article on CRN on 1/26/07. The article was later removed, but it is reposted here. I have removed the names/organizations/websites of individuals involved and the ministry specifics to make it generic.)

There is a campaign of destruction underway in the church. There are lies being passed off as truth; there is slander and gossip and the carnage that is being caused is causing long-term harm to the cause of the Gospel of Christ. [...] I’m talking about the seamy underbelly of what goes on in the name of “discernment ministry.” I have been in ministry since 1988 and I can say with confidence that the enemy of Jesus Christ has to do very little. The church is really, really good at destroying itself.

[...]

This post is prompted by an ongoing attack against [a Christian organization I support] by several in the “discernment” community. These attacks have also been against me and [a website run by a colleague of mine in the Christian blogosphere]. The squalor of the dealings that have taken place would rival that of anything you would find in a secular workplace and it saddens me to say that.

[...]

Another example: [A watchblogger] of the [name of watchblog] website informed [a supporter/contributor of mine] that if he didn’t stop [associating with my website/ministry], (because we were compromised), he would [take some sort of action against me].

[...]

Because [watchbloggers A, B and C] don’t agree with [an associate] because, as [watchblogger A] sneeringly puts it in his latest column, he is a “dear friend” of [a member] at [the Christian organization I support], I am tainted goods to be avoided at all costs.

[...]

What is most disturbing in this case is the gossip and false information that has been carried by these “discernment” folks. One researcher who sought to reconcile with me and who apologized for helping to spread false information was warned ahead of time to “be careful” if he talked to me. [My colleague] was labeled a dangerous “change agent”, and I was accused of being an adherent to [a heretical theological interpretation], despite [evidence to the contrary]. This gossip and slander continues unabated at this hour. Worse still, these individuals are publishing columns and links to columns, like the one on [a watchblog site], blasting [a member of the Christian organization I support] for “promoting” [a doctrine neither I, nor he supports]. These people have been harassing [this man] for months, demanding that he [fall into line with their way of thinking]. They have deliberately sought to find what evil they can on the [website and writings of the Christian organization I support]. The only people finding [hiding heresies] on [this man's] site are the ones spending their time looking for them: [Watchbloggers A, B and C].

This is the closest thing to a nasty personal vendetta, couched in pious language, I have seen recently. [Watchblogger A's] language isn’t all that pious, actually, as he calls [my Christian brother] a hypocrite and derisively refers to his friendship with [my colleague] in his latest column. [Watchbloggers A and B] are not in a position of authority to demand that [my Christian brother] carry out his organization’s work according to [A and B's] own standards. We answer to the Lord for our own ministries, not [A and B]. Further, the outrageous and threatening behavior of [Watchblogger B] toward [another colleague] in trying to force him to [comply with his 'discernment' wishes] is evidence that something is clearly out of control in these [watchblogger's] minds and hearts.[...] That is mafioso behavior, not the behavior of a brother in Christ.

[...]

I felt that the truth on false teaching and error was most important to get out. Things have reached a point, however, where it is plain that the false teaching entering the church isn’t the most important thing that needs addressing. This situation has been simmering underground for months. With [watchblogger A, B and C's] latest attack on [my Christian brother] today, it has erupted into the face of the Christian public.

[...]

Is Christianity just a matter of holding right positions, or should it impact how we relate to each other as believers? Are the commands of Scripture telling us to be tender-hearted and forgiving of one another less important than the verses about heresy and false teaching? Is gossip and slander okay if it is conducted by those knee deep in research on [a doctrine we disagree with]? If [non-Christians] have more personal peace and treat people more kindly than born-again Christians, doesn’t it say something about the content of our hearts? We can rant and rave about [doctrines we disagree with] until we’re blue in the face, but if we can’t reconcile with fellow believers who believe the same things and would prefer to publicly find fault and attack them because they don’t do everything the way we do, we have nothing to share with the world. We become frauds.

[...]

When soldiers begin to turn and shoot their own, combat fatigue has set in. No general would long keep soldiers like this in the field. Speaking from my own experience, combat fatigue is a huge menace in this job. I have had to cut back because of my own dangerous level of fatigue recently. How long the Lord will keep any of us in the field if these issues are not resolved, is questionable. Like the church at Ephesus in the book of Revelation, we can become very good at discerning error from truth, but when we’ve lost our first love for the Lord Jesus, it starts showing in our relationships. The Lord’s words warn us that he will put our lampstands out completely if we don’t repent. It’s a wake up call for all of us involved in putting out this information.

My Take: Were I to fill in different names and ministries, I would be hard pressed to write something in more agreement with my own beliefs. The problem is, Ingrid and Ken’s names would be in the place of Watchbloggers A and B, and Slice/CRN would be the watchblog in question. Ken’s shrill (and, fortunately, ignored) brow-beating of Ed Young, Jr.; his lie-filled spewing against Rob Bell; Ingrid’s attacks of anything which smacks of relevancy or “Purpose Driven”. These and more are perfect examples of what she has written about above, but she cannot (or will not) see it. The sheer hypocrisy it took to write that piece is mind-blowing, and I am guessing she realized this and it is why the article got pulled.

Jesus summed up this particular situation best when he noted

The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.

CRN/Slice does come up with good items from time to time.  Having good discernment ministries are important, but Slice/CRN, Lighthouse Trails and Paul Proctor are not examples of good discernment ministries.  They have forgotten the second greatest commandment, and in doing so, they have voilated the first, as well.

While Jesus was a boy, the Rabbi Hillel taught, “don’t do to your enemy that which you hate.”  When Jesus grew up and was in ministry, he took Hillel’s teaching a huge step further and said to “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” – and that this was how we were to fulfil the second greatest commandment – to love our neighbor as ourself.

Ingrid – can you not even fulfil the smallest part of loving your neighbor – to not do to your enemy that which you hate (GBA attacks, straw men, vicious mean-spirited attacks on Christians you disagree with)?  Perhaps you could start there.

I truly do feel your pain.  I have felt it for a number of Christian brothers over this past year as I have watched you and “Pastor” Silva do the same to them.  I do not wish you any ill, and I would hope that maybe in this experience you will treat those with whom you disagree in a manner in which you would like those who disagree with you to treat you.

Is there such a thing as a “half-Christian?” There is according to some of people commenting on Steve Camp’s Blog. There has been a furious discussion going on over there about Francis Chan’s video called “Stop and Think.”
The heart of the debate is whether or not what Mr. Chan has to say should be considered “the Gospel.”
Now, here’s what I find interesting about this whole debate. If you listen to the thoughts and arguments being presented, the general gist is that “words matter.”
That is words matter until you start to question some of the people on Mr. Camps side of the issue over the Chan video. I imagine some of them might be upset by my phrasing here, but as the saying goes about what is good for the proverbial Goose…
One of the first terms that you will find in the post itself is that a half Gospel is capable of producing only a half Christian. Really? Now, I’d like to give a pass here and say hyperbole was being used to prove a point, but the statement is re-affirmed time and time again throughout the thread. So, I’m curious. What is a “half Christian?” Is that the same as being half pregnant? As a father of three under four I hope that never happens. This doesn’t apply to salvation either. A man or woman is either saved or they are not. He is either on his way to heaven or not. She is either redeemed/regenerated or she is an enemy of God. I can hear some in the other camp (pardon the pun) saying, “Hold on, you’re taking what we said, too literally. Of course you can’t be half saved.” But as they have pointed out time and time again, what we say or don’t say matters. I’m just looking for the same standard to be applied to this webpage that is applied by that webpage to others.
In essence this phrase seems to me to border on being heretical. If we are to deny the permanent saving work of the cross and say how we present the Gospel can somehow effect the totality of someone’s salvation we are rendering the Gospel useless. If it is indeed hyperbole to make a point, then there is some level of inconsistency going on here. The entire string of posts seems dedicated to pointing out the flaws in what Mr. Chan had to say. It would seem only sporting that we apply the same vigorous standards to what is posted by those doing the examining.
It seems to me that this phrase contradicts their belief system. Most of the commenters claim to be reformed in their worldview. How can a truly reformed person believe in a situation where someone is only half saved? Besides seeming unbiblical to me it seems to not follow the belief system the profess to believe.
The second term that comes up that gives me reason to pause and consider is the term “Win.” It is God that does the work, and not me. Now, when I brought this up in the thread’s discussion. I was told to not worry too much about the term win. But doesn’t that fly in the face of the standard that they applied to Mr. Chan and his video? Shouldn’t anyone who is commenting on a teacher of God be careful because in a real sense aren’t they by questioning a teacher in essence becoming teachers themselves? Surely, this is how a Jewish person in the time of James would have understood his warning that not many should assume to be teachers.
So, applying the same rules to them one quickly finds a problem with this phrase, “win them with.”

Some more of my favorite quotes:

1. “The people who hear this don’t have discernment, and those who are converted by the film are starting out in their faith with a serious misunderstanding of our natural relationship to God.”
2. “…this is a pastor of a church who purposely is NOT including these things…”
3. “-I made a qualifying remark that my critique of this film is by no means an indictment against this brothers local church ministry.”

For #1. Don’t we all have to grow in our understanding of our relationship with God?

#3 seems to blatantly contradict #2.
My point here is not to pick on these people, in fact I have found that I enjoy interacting with them. They are passionate about what they believe and I respect that. I disagree with some of their conclusions but I respect the passion that they approach it with. My point is to expose the slippery slope that is critiquing someone else’s Gospel ministry. Often, when we approach evaluating someone else’s ministry we hold them to a much higher standard than we do ourselves as evidenced by the comments found on Camp’s post.
We can “camp on this”: “By whatever measure we judge others, we will be judged.” Not only is this truth human nature, it is Biblical.

“For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.” —Jesus

Well, it seems that Ingrid’s article decrying the tactics of watchbloggers which Joe wrote about here, and Scott covered over at Verum Serum was pulled. Fortunately, some of us have come to expect such attempts to say and un-say things over at Slice/CRN (like, um, pulling down the entire site and deleting it…)

Here, via internet not-so-wayback technology is the text of Ingrid’s article. Look for more commentary to come later…

[Update: Ingrid has threatened us with a lawsuit because she doesn't want this article seen. As such, and to be safe withing copyright law, I am only quoting key parts of the article below. Should anyone want a full copy of what was here, check out the internet way-back machine.]

Here are selected quotes of interest from the article:

There is a campaign of destruction underway in the church. There are lies being passed off as truth; there is slander and gossip and the carnage that is being caused is causing long-term harm to the cause of the Gospel of Christ. No, I’m not talking about attacks from emergent church followers or outraged Purpose Driven disciples. I’m talking about the seamy underbelly of what goes on in the name of “discernment ministry.” I have been in ministry since 1988 and I can say with confidence that the enemy of Jesus Christ has to do very little. The church is really, really good at destroying itself.

[...]

What is most disturbing in this case is the gossip and false information that has been carried by these “discernment” folks. One researcher who sought to reconcile with me and who apologized for helping to spread false information was warned ahead of time to “be careful” if he talked to me. [...] Worse still, these individuals are publishing columns and links to columns, like the one on [Another blog], blasting [a friend] for “promoting” contemplative. These people have been harassing [this man] for months, demanding that he conduct his decency organization like their own “discernment” ministries. They have deliberately sought to find what evil they can on the American Family Association secular online bookstore link that they use for the sale of their own books. The only people finding New Age and contemplative books on [his] site are the ones spending their time looking for them: [Watchbloggers A, B and C]].

This is the closest thing to a nasty personal vendetta, couched in pious language, I have seen recently. [Watchblogger A's] language isn’t all that pious, actually, as he calls [my friend] a hypocrite and derisively refers to his friendship with [another friend] in his latest column. [Watchblogger A] and [Watchblogger B] are not in a position of authority to demand that [my friend] carry out his organization’s work according to [Watchblogger A's] and [Watchblogger B's] own standards. We answer to the Lord for our own ministries, not [Watchblogger A] and [Watchblogger B].
[...]

Is Christianity just a matter of holding right positions, or should it impact how we relate to each other as believers? Are the commands of Scripture telling us to be tender-hearted and forgiving of one another less important than the verses about heresy and false teaching? Is gossip and slander okay if it is conducted by those knee deep in research on contemplative spirituality? If some New Agers have more personal peace and treat people more kindly than born-again Christians, doesn’t it say something about the content of our hearts? We can rant and rave about contemplative spirituality, meditation, breath prayers and yoga until we’re blue in the face, but if we can’t reconcile with fellow believers who believe the same things and would prefer to publicly find fault and attack them because they don’t do everything the way we do, we have nothing to share with the world. We become frauds.

[...]

When soldiers begin to turn and shoot their own, combat fatigue has set in. No general would long keep soldiers like this in the field. Speaking from my own experience, combat fatigue is a huge menace in this job. I have had to cut back because of my own dangerous level of fatigue recently. How long the Lord will keep any of us in the field if these issues are not resolved, is questionable. Like the church at Ephesus in the book of Revelation, we can become very good at discerning error from truth, but when we’ve lost our first love for the Lord Jesus, it starts showing in our relationships. The Lord’s words warn us that he will put our lampstands out completely if we don’t repent. It’s a wake up call for all of us involved in putting out this information.

There you go!

_____

Addendum:

Ingrid’s reason for taking down the post from her site was because it had hurt some relationships and she did not want those wounds reopened.  In this spirit, while keeping with our own policy to not delete articles, I have excerpted the article above while redacting the names from it.  My reason for posting this article was because of the commentary on the attitude and behavior of watchbloggers and the irony of its authorship, with no interest of the names of those specifically involved.  Per Ingrid’s wishes, I do not wish to open old wounds, so the names of the individuals do not appear here…

–Chris L 12/28/07

Oh where is Alanis now? At some point in the past few days, a post was put up over at CRN that disparages “discernment” ministries for taking pot shots at Ingrid and the crew.  Perhaps, my favorite quote is this one

Another example: Bud Press of the Christian Research Service website informed Rev. Ken Silva that if he didn’t stop writing for Slice of Laodicea, (because we were compromised), he would remove his links from his site. Ken refused to be bullied and strong-armed into seeing things Bud’s way and Bud removed his links.

Come on! All one needs to do is read Ken’s gazillion posts about the “heretical SBC” to see that he’s no stranger to his own strong arm tactics. [side note here: Ken, LET IT GO!! The SBC does not tell local churches what to do! end side note] I cannot be the only person who felt this was like Roger Clemons complaining because the other pitcher was throwing too far inside.

Issue: Music that is suitable for worship.

CRN’s Take: Basically, “if there’s anyone currently living who was alive when it was written, it is too new to be used in worship services.” [It should be noted, though, that Chris P. has avoided wading into this topic area when Ingrid (or now, Dwayna) and past contributors have taken this hard of a stance.] Some contributors, like Ingrid, have gone out of their way to suggest that certain instrumentation is improper for worship (drums, bass guitar), while others have taken a slightly softer stance. Most recently, Dwayna wrote,

“Our message is not like the world’s, and our music should not be like the world’s. The hymns packed with theology are a delight to sing indebted to such a Savior, and our God is exciting to know! He does not need “updating” and neither does the message or music.

***UPDATE: My quoted statment above was strictly hyperbole and misrepresented Slice/CRN’s view on the subject.  Ingrid has posted a correction below – please read it!!!*** 

My Take: Musical style is a neutral cultural element which can be used to glorify God and used in worship of Him, whether it is an ancient hymn, like “Be Thou My Vision”, a later hymn by Isaac Watts, a mid-20th century song like “How Great Thou Art” or a modern worship hymn, like “Indescribable” or “In Christ Alone”. Because the musical and style is not ‘the point’ of worship, it should not detract from bringing the body to a deep and honest worship of its Creator. As such, it should best fit the congregation singing it – which can be a tricky balancing act. It also, most importantly, needs theologically sound lyrics which bring our thoughts in worship of God and not just our emotions and our bodies.

I am fortunate to go to a larger church that has found a way to balance this in our worship services. We have a 8:00 “Classic” worship service with hymns led with piano and organ instrumentation; a 9:30 “Contemporary” worship service with a mix of hymns and contemporary worship music with orchestra and/or choir instrumentation; and a 11:00 “Modern” worship service with predominantly modern worship music (Tomlin, Crowder, Charlie Hall, Lincoln Brewster, etc.).

In the latter two services, the hymns that are used generally are those which do not use (or over-use) King James English, because we believe that for those who come to these services, the use of flowery, archaic language feels inauthentic and detracts from worship, rather than showing reverence.

To claim that one type/style of music as superior is to completely miss the point. Unfortunately, both CRN and some of its idols, like Johnnie Mac, tend to actively pursue missing the point…

Issue: Use (or, should we say, overuse) of terms like cult, heretic, and apostate, in particular, along with over-the-top usage of neo-(fill-in-the-blank), vipers, and other incindiary dialog. Additionally, the overuse of esoteric, cooked-up, derogatory labelling (i.e. Ecumenical Church of Deceit, Apostate Church of Rome, Spell of Bell, blah, blah, blah) seems to be rampant.

CRN’s Take: Go for it! Today’s Christians won’t wake up unless you slap them in the face to wake them up! Case in point, today’s article on The Emergent Cult of Rob Bell (Even Though He Isn’t Emergent).

My Take: Stop it, already. Just because you disagree with someone on a particular topic doesn’t make them a heretic. Just because you generally disagree with them doesn’t make them apostate. Just because other people agree with them doesn’t make it a cult. Using these words in such a unwarranted manner makes criticism of actual heretical teaching (like replacement theology), apostate religions and cults (like Mormonism, JW’s, Scientology, etc.) less effective.

The overuse of your own “cute” inflammatory labels only detracts from whatever message you are trying to send, and demonizing your opponents (typically by making straw men of their position(s), as is typically the case with this particular writer) does nothing to bolster whatever arguments you may have to make.

Let’s look at today’s example:

Most of the articles, like the one above, offer little to nothing in the way of content. Basically, it is about someone who wrote to Ken Silva about his criticism of Rob Bell.

The writer isn’t a member of Rob’s church (he’s 2,000 miles away from Grand Rapids), nor an associate of Rob’s – just someone who wrote to defend him. The letter to Mr. Silva is pretty bland, but is characterized by Mr. Silva as “enraged” and then mocked for the concern shown. (NOTE: As of late Mr. Silva seems to be exhibiting a not-so-subtle streak of anti-semetism which is also troubling in its usage in Ken’s rant…)

Within the article, we have 12 uses of the word ‘cult’, but no evidence given to support such a charge. It then goes on to give Ken’s supposed “credentials” for his rants (which always seem to run suspiciously long, comprising a significant percentage of most articles, but most of which originate with himself or other watchbloggers.)

The rest of the article is spent condescendingly ripping apart the writer of the letter and continuing to tie him back to Rob Bell (who, maybe I didn’t point out before, is not his pastor nor a personal friend), combining an attempt at guilt-by-association, straw man argument, ad hominem argument and other general misuses of logic along the way.

In the end, what is Ken’s basic message?

“I hate Rob Bell, and he’s leading people to hell.” What’s new, Ken?

However, I would think that mocking “Rabbi Jesus” (which, I might add, is what Jesus’ followers called him), as Ken closes, is far more disrespectful of God and His Son, and Ken’s wanton attacks bring about far more hell on earth than Bell’s teaching has any chance of leading folks to an eternal hell.

Personally, I’d follow my Rabbi Yeshuah any day before I followed Ken’s teaching, and I’d only follow Bell’s teaching so long as it was in line with that of my Rabbi.

Source: Verum Serum

Comments: Scott picks up from Part I of his series examining ‘watch doggies’ (or ‘watch bloggies’), this time examining the psyche, methods and dubious sourcing often used.  He uses “Reverend” Ken Silva as an example, though he not the only one employing such methods, and does an incerdibly thorough job analyzing the inbred sourcing of ‘watch bloggies’.

Memorable Quotes:

SUMMARY: Using just one article as a primary source/starting point, I tracked back the embedded links three levels deep. As one moves from the primary to the secondary and the tertiary, the results are clear. Within the three levels of interwoven confusion, the “Reverend” Ken used a grand total of 394 embedded links to support his contentions. Of these 394 links, 264 of them were references to articles written by his own hand.

CONCLUSION: By a 2 to 1 margin, “Reverend Ken” is his own best proof and support! Why bother to try and prove or support anything using scripture and logic and reason when you can just write another article that can become the proof of the first one, while the first article can be the proof for the second.

—

I remember the first time I ever heard Duane Gish speak. I was a young, eager college student. I was excited to hear this man “prove” creation and disprove “evolution.” I even bought some of the most boring books I have ever read on the subject. I was so excited to share this “completely logical, has to be believed argument” to my pre-Christian friends. I was sure the superior arguments that Dr. Gish and his contemporaries provided me would sway my friends view of origins. But….then…..it ….didn’t. He just looked at me and said, “I’ve heard of Gish and his nutjob place. You believe that crap? No wonder you and I can’t talk.” Now, I know that this guy was way out of line in what he said. I also know that he showed he really didn’t want to talk about the issues. He simply felt he was right, and didn’t want to be bothered by the facts. I was still crushed. I discovered that cool arguments very rarely work, in fact I found that a lot of Christianity on its face seems to be illogical–I’ll be writing more about this over the next few days. Then a few years later I found this verse:

Hebrews 11:3 “By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.”

Did you catch it? We believe God spoke everything into existence, by “FAITH.” Now, we can spend all of our time attempting to prove the Genesis account. In fact, I’m thankful for people who can intelligently debate the topic of origins. But, if someone believes in evolution, that is not the biggest issue in thier life. There comes a point where we simply have to point people back to Jesus. With dogged determination, force them to answer the question of what do they do with Jesus? We need to live out being Jesus to the people. It is so easy to get wrapped up in issues. Whatever the issue. People do not need us to convince them of the reality of creation. What they need is Jesus. My relationship with Him is the only thing that really changed my life. There was a time in my life where I lived purely for myself. There was two people, my wife (she was just an annoying girl then) and Ted Boykin who God used to make real lasting change in my life. They simply lived God to me. They never tried to prove to me the futility of my arguments, they simply loved me. They prayed for me. They didn’t give me free passes but they let God’s love show through them. It was life changing. I believe in creation, I believe that God spoke everything into existence but, If I am honest, I have to admit the I believe in Creation because of faith. I think, I’m in good company, seeing the author of Hebrews agrees with me.

Up next, does it make sense to build an ark when you’ve never seen rain?