I don’t have much time, but I my initial reaction to the ‘new’ Slice:
- Thankfully, there are no comments allowed. That eliminates 50% of the problems right there. I’ll wait for the E-What guys to add the new feed to their site, which allows open commenting.
- From first blush, it appears to be the same old Slice, just with a less visually appealing format, no archives (yet), and no article attribution (looking for anonymity? – just kidding)
- Any argument that it had been ‘in the works’ for some time is belied by its domain registration of January 6 – the day after Slice came down.
- Ken Silva is still on staff (though I wonder if he’s still got a title of some sort to stick on his resume).
As I learned in school, fifty percent is better than zero, so it’s not all bad. That said, though, I think I will keep this site up for now, and start cataloguing articles again soon. If you have articles on the old or new ‘Slice’, let me know. Kinda busy this week, but I’ll get them in…
Meanwhile, here’s a good one from John at Verum Serum, and if you can think of any ideas for a cool new domain name, send them to slicedlaodicea @t earthlink dot net.
UPDATE: Karen has argued that my use of ‘belied’ is too strong (suggesting lying on the part of Ingrid). I cannot prove that she is lying, and so I would choose ’suspicious’ or something less difinitive, instead.
This entry was posted
on Wednesday, January 10th, 2007 at 8:10 am and is filed under ODM Policies, Original Articles, Site Revamp.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
![Image of The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31Jl6fhDLxL._SL75_.jpg "The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith")
36 Comments(+Add)
I just briefly perused the new site. A few thoughts – my bloglines DOES list the contributers. Both Ingrid and Ken are still involved with the site. I’m somewhat nonplussed by that, though I wish they were no longer a part of it at all.
It appears as though the new site is a lot less inflammatory; albeit judgemental.
emma,
Thank you – I went back and checked, just to make sure I wasn’t looking in the wrong place. What I meant to convey was that the individual posts arent automatically attributed (though I’m sure they’ll figure out how to add it in to the template), so unless the author signs the bottom of the post (which some have now done, but hadn’t done a few hours ago), it doesn’t attribute the article.
Like I say, I’m sure this is probably on the ‘to do’ list, which was why I included ‘just kidding’ on my post.
Grace and peace,
Chris
I’ve been following the Lane/Ingrid events (probably too closely) for the last couple of weeks.
I’m not entirely sure why you would want to go to the trouble of relocating/rebuilding your website, only to make it exactly the same (from a substance point of view)?
The lack of comments in the new blog probably doesn’t affect very many of us…I know I hardly ever made it past the filters.
I’ve heard of Dwayna before — one of the new “Slice” contributors — through something from a Worldview Weekend conference. I am interested to hear what she has to say and how she’ll fit in with the tone set by Ingrid and Ken. I don’t have a problem with Steve or Chris R. so much.
I guess I’ll wait and see. I’m a little tired of if all as of late.
Verum Serum’s suggested title, though, is flawless.
…so I just checked and have seen Dwayna’s first post and I like what I see.
I can’t get past the sense that Ken is sticking out more and more like a sore thumb as the line-up changes at Slice/CRN from what it used to be.
A name such as Verum Serum’s suggested title could communicate that the CRN site is totally about false accusations. I don’t believe that, Chris doesn’t believe that, and I don’t think that you do either Julie. Personally I’m not sure that I would write on a site with a name like that.
What I am interested in is a place to freely discuss some of the issues that come up on Slice. I would prefer that a new title for this site reflected that this is a discussion site, not an “I’ve already made up my mind that everything over at SLICE is trash” site.”
Perhaps a good point, Amy. Also, there is another ministry (is it the Christian Research Institute or something) with such a similar name… I would think there might be confusion between the two.
A person could go for a name as unclever-but-to-the point as something like “Christian Research Network: Response” or “Reaction” or “Reader Feedback.” Bland, maybe, but fairly clear.
Dwayna posted today about something that would be interesting to talk about on such a site. Perhaps a new domain name could be bought and pointed to this site with just a change in the header graphic…
Just thoughts.
I like something like “reader feedback” or “discussion.” Bland, uncreative, unoffensive.
Good discussion… John’s VS suggestion made me chuckle (I’d be lying to say otherwise), but it would totally miss the point and be counterproductive.
It definitely had a ring to it.
I admit to a chuckle as well.
Sigh.
Any thoughts about the AM update over at Apprising by Ken Silva?
Nathan,
Interesting. I would not wish Ken or his family any ill at all, and I will reiterate this to anyone who asks.
I also wonder if he might be missing something. I wrote a short parable on the subject after one of his last AM Updates.
Chris
Ingrid wrote to her readers, “A new website is under development ….” in her explination as to where Slice went after it was removed. For you to make a statement ” Any argument that it had been ‘in the works’ for some time is “BELIED” by its domain registration of January 6 – the day after Slice came down” seems to again cast a negative light on Ingrid, as if she were lying. The word “belie” in Webster’s is defined as to ” prove false.” Why does that last quote seem so petty to me? Why is proving her a liar so important to this site? “In the works” can mean in the planning stages, thinking about, praying about, etc. To imply she is lying is really a low blow for such honest and loving people, as you guys are. I suppose this is” a dead horse” to some, and I suppose I will be told the reference was not directed to Ingrid. It is what poped in most people’s minds though, I am sure. Ingrid had been dissatisfied with the comment section for a good while now and I am sure had been tossing other ideas around for a good while also. I am amazed at the scrutiney down to even the name of her site. Why does that matter to you? Aren’t there weighter and more essential things to talk about here than the name of her site? This reminds me of my 4th grade class, when our mean ole teacher “quit”- we thought. We were all jumping up and down in excitement, thinking she was gone forever, only to find out she went on a short leave and would return for sure. Bummer! Why did she leave? Did she get pregnant? Could she still handle us. Did we give her a heat attack or a nervous breakdown. Is she sick? Man, we could hardly talk about anything else or even keep our minds on track to listen to the substitute. Her absence consummed us when we should have been “paying attention ” to the more important stuff, like grammar, math, etc. I am glad you are finally going to get back to at least commenting on the content of one of the articles on the new site. I counted there are 25 articles that you could be dissecting instead.
Karen,
I updated this artice, referencing the use of ‘belied’, as you are correct that this language was too strong.
Yes, I do find it suspicious (she could have just turned off commenting again), because it wasn’t just starting a new site and mothballing the old one. It was her removing all traces of the old one before even creating or naming (but not opening) the new one. The events that transpired do not suggest anything being ‘in the works’ – organized or intentional.
I really do want to move on to commentary on Slice content (both good and bad)…
Chris,
(repressing inappropriate gloating and speaking in serious, soft, and concerned tones), umm, Chris, it seems that the new CRN is gone along with the old Slice Of. Do you know anything about this?
I suppose you’ll have to do expose’ s of me now and I’ll have to mock you. -ha!
Let me know if you find out anything.
Chris,
For what it’s worth, if your site is going to be viewed as a neutral place for people to comment about the content of articles on CRN, there might be quite a lot of revamping you have to do.
For starters, a lot of people are going to link you with Patrick Lane. First of all, because of the timing of your sites. Secondly, because even though you have shown that you don’t support Patrick Lane’s writing, you have given much more attention to dissecting Ingrid about her hypocricy, etc, in the situation, than you have to expressing any kind of shock over Patrick’s writing.
Patrick, intentionally or not, mocks the Word of God and God Himself. I hope that God will bless Patrick – and I really mean “bless” – in the sense of that he will supernaturally cut through his blindness so that he will see that he has indeed reinvented Jesus, and that he blasphemes the Word of God. I hope that Patrick will understand who God really is, especially for the sake of his children.
I think that it would be biblical for Ingrid to extend an apology to the Emergents for accusing Patrick and you of being an emergent. I believe that she should put that up on her site. I simply don’t understand how a Christian can publically make untrue accusations, and not apologize, correct the facts, when the facts are made known. It doesn’t matter if Ingrid may have received comments from people who identify themselves as “emergents” that are disgusting and vile. That would be no excuse for not correcting a wrong assumption and a false accusation.
By the way, since we were discussing “The Ragamuffin Gospel” before, I’ll just mention that the way Patrick Lane interpreted the book is the way I interpreted it. I think that the “theology” behind it provides an excuse for people to “continue in sin that grace may abound” which is simply anti-Scripture. Jim Bublitz’ last comment below “A Man of No Reputation” on Patrick Lane’s site, where he pointed out Jesus’ instruction to “Go and sin no more,” and Jim’’s comment that he thinks that Patrick has “reinvented Jesus” were some of the very thoughts I was having as I read the post.
Patrick,
Just want you to know that I wrote my comment above before reading yours, so it’s unrelated to anything you said to Chris.
I was interested in a comment you made, perhaps in a statement to Jim B. You were talking about how nice Jim is and said that you wouldn’t have mocked Slice if they were nice. (Not your exact words perhaps, but the same idea.)
That comment interested me because, even though you and I are coming from different viewpoints, a common theme of my concern about SLICE has been that unbelievers and believers with a different opinion on whatever issue was being discussed could be turned away from listening to even valid concerns about the church because of an attitude/tone that shouldn’t be there in the first place.
But to be honest I wondered if that comment represented reality. Is everyone whom you choose to mock really mean and spiteful or are there just ways of thinking about Scripture/God that antagonize you? If Slice weren’t there, would you go find someone else who had similar beliefs, but what you perceived as a kind attitude, to mock? I intend for these to be real questions, by the way, not rhetorical ones.
Just read Nathan’s comment, and checked out Ken’s latest at AM; I have mixed feelings.
I’m concerned. I don’t like to see any person/people have to deal with so much financialy and personal stress and pain like that. I have mixed feelings, however, because I have read previous fundraising letters at AM and I don’t know what I think about this in regards to mixing a list of struggles with a request for funding. I don’t like it when other ministries do it, either, because I end up giving out of guilt.
Either way, Ken and his family seem to be in need of prayer.
Sometimes it’s easy to forget that every single person has hurts and problems. The Internet just strips it all away and leaves a name and some words in arguments.
Julie,
Regarding your last paragraph, I’ve had similar thoughts. I don’t know what happened with you in regards to Slice, but I can see that you are a gracious person.
Chris and / or John:
Thank you for the open forum to discuss the inflammatory postings of CRN. There will always be people to criticize (ex. use of the word “belied”… which really, that was a silly criticism – simple semantics).
My prayer for you is that you will stay straight on the path of the divine, keeping your eyes upward instead of outward.
-e.
To all of you: If the shoe fits wear it, please, since to go back and dissect who said what is too much. Chris is gracious at times but the comment of “ simple semantics,” referring to my take on Chris’ use of the word “belied,” totally minimizes how I perceived Chris as coming off. “Silly,” you say! Chris made the statement earlier about Slice that he was “still suspicious’ of them. “Belied” means to “prove false.” On this site people have implied that Ingrid has lied. Semantics? No, I think it is called weaseling out of the truth. And why is it that a man’s illness and financial needs is suspect? Why is it that they could “sort of stike a cord in any of you?” I just think most of you like to listen to the heart of things when it suits you and at other times you just rip things apart with all your reasonings. That is a real problem here. One which you accuse others of, but cannot see that you are guilty of the same thing.
And to Chris, I wonder why you would waste time being “suspicious” of anything on Slice? What is odd to me is that Slice has not singled out any one Ministry in an effort to criticize and dissect it. Also, Goatees and Funky Glasses was not dedicated to make fun of any one Ministry. However you choose to dedicate your site to exposing one ministry. Isn’t that very narrow of you? There are lots more ministries and webs that are very much in agreement with Slice and who also write opposing the same things they do. So you don’t like her/their/ some of their attitudes! I think it is a shame that you would focus your efforts to “expose” One Ministry (considering her entire web as a ministry.) rather than taking that time to teach clearly what you do believe.
The other thing is that Emergent has no real definition, as defined by them in a statement of belief; therefore, we are left to define it ourselves. Many of us see a trend, a movement of thoughts and attitudes that fit into our interpretation of what Emergent is, and even though someone may not define himself or herself that way, others do. And as you told me in regards to another topic, people have different interpretations of what something actually is. (We were talking about the biblical definition of Love.) Well, me included, we have defined Emergent for ourselves, since they won’t. Unfortunately, fortunately, however you view it, others have put you in that category.
To many of us, Emergent is a trend, a compilation of thoughts and attitudes and religious techniques that do not line up with Scripture. Instead it is quickly lining itself up with the New Age Movement and a One World Religion. Call it a far stretch. But that is what we see. The New Age is very broad and includes a networking of people and various forms of spirituality (I would term false) all over the world and in all walks of life and in many religious arenas. It is opposed to Christianity. We see Emergent the same way. It is not one denomination, but rather it is making its’ way into all denominations. It is like an octopus with tentacles that reach into all the things I have mentioned above. It is opposed to Biblical Christianity, although it denies that. Forgive us for not agreeing on its definition, but that’s the way many of us see it. And in some people’s eyes, “You are it!”
One last thing, when the day comes that One Ministry singles you out to solely critique and dissect yours, tell me, Chris, won’t you believe you have arrived? What a bitter-sweet cross to bare
No joke here…
Could someone please give me a good solid interpretation of Emergent.
Please, no bias or wild-eyed hyperbole. It only serves to dilute the impact of your arguement. As Sgt Joe Friday used to say, “Just the facts, m’am”.
I’m asking because I honestly don’t know.
One of the things that began to make Slice a real bore was Ingrid’s obsession with Rick Warren. Aside from seeing him once on Larry King, and this past Christmas, glancing at a Purpose Driven Life calendar at one of the calendar kiosks at the mall, I really don’t get it. I realize this must sound naive, but I’m just so darn puzzled by all the commotion.
How does it deviate from what so many of us were taught in church, confirmation classes, etc.
Just glancing at the calendar, I kept trying to find some red flag…some danger sign. All I saw were some fairly genaric scripture quotes superimposed over photos of nice sunsets. Pretty hard to find any subversive agenda there. There must be something else to it.
My wife wanted a copy of “Purpose” when it first came out a couple of years ago. I think it was her book club’s selection that month. I bought it for her birthday. Again, I think that was well before the Purpose thing exploded. At the time, it was just another “here’s a book that will help life make sense”.
Have yet to read it. Actually forgot we even had it in the house. I’ll have to ask my wife what her take on the whole thing was.
At any rate, I’m just curious if someone out there can explain what there is about it that makes everyone in Ingridland hyperventilate.
Kenn:
There’s actually a few “movements” out there. There is a “Purpose Driven Movement” a “EmergING” Movement and an “EmerGENT” Movement. All three are very different, though often confused in the blogosphere.
Wikipedia actually has done a very good job explaining the movement(s) in several different ways here (seriously, what did we do before the objective wikipedia ;0): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerging_Church#Emerging_vs._Emergent
They explain it without all of the hyperbole, and far better than I ever could.
I don’t associate myself with any of these movements, have my concerns with all of them… as I do with anything that takes the focus away from JESUS. Personally – I’m a Christian, a Jesus-Follower, if you will. A post-modern thirthy something that wants to live a life of righteousness – doing the right thing at the right time with the right kind of love and holiness (Eph 4).
A note to Karen: I was simply trying to encourage Chris & John. There are going to be people that think they are too harsh and people who think they aren’t harsh enough. My note was meant to be an encouragement to them to not be people pleasers, and to keep on the path they feel they are called to. I did not mean to minimize your feelings about the word “belied”, but realize I must have done so in the process.
-e.
Scot McKnight, who is an author in the ECM, spoke at Westminster Theological Seminary last fall on the subject of the ECM and how it can be defined. The text of his speech is available (I have a link to it here), and seems to do a fair job, including some self-criticism, as well.
Karen asked,
“And why is it that a man’s illness and financial needs is suspect?” Generally speaking, simply because some ministry leaders are rip-off artists. Ken Silva would agree with that.
I remember a comment by Ryan, a member of Pastor Ken’s church, in one of the Verum Serum comment sections in which he talked about how Ken Silva barely has anything. I have little doubt that Ken Silva is NOT someone who is trying to use his illness as a means of financial gain, but rather that he is primarily letting people who already support him know that he has a need. A need for basic living expenses, not a need for a fancy new car or a million dollar house or his own personal jet.
Kenn,
Regarding your comments about Purpose Driven, have you seen my comments under “Just the Facts Ingrid . . . About Christmas at Saddleback” in the December archives of this site?
The reality is that Rick Warren has had more influence than elders in many churches, without being in those churches to be held accountable for his teaching. Slice but especially Slice commenters often went overboard on irrelevant criticisms of Rick Warren – that doesn’t change the fact that there are legitimate criticisms.
Rick Warren has two more future “40 Day Programs” for churches to consider. He will continue to affect many churches and some people in those churches will try to work out their grief (because they have felt that they can not stay in their church, or because they have been asked to leave, or because they choose to stay in spite of a situation they don’t like) and try to help others stay away from something that they view as heading in the wrong direction, by discussing it on the internet.
Amy, I was not born (again) yesterday. I realize that there are rip-off artists but my question was why was “Silva’s” illness and finanacial needs suspect? And no one has answered but many would just like to shed a bad light on Silva by implying that they are suspect. In all reality, I have better things to do than wrangle with you guys. Have fun!
Karen,
I fail to see why my comment elicited a sarcastic remark like, “Amy, I was not born (again) yesterday.”
Have you considered that Julie, who asked the question about Silva, seemed to be doing the best to be gracious to him in spite of apparently having some negative experience with Slice? That she may have simply wondered that about him, not because he is ‘Silva’ but because he is a minister asking for money? Have you considered that Julie’s letter about Ken’s illness was full of grace, and that she expressed doubt about his asking for money in a way that expressed honest concerns, not outright judgements?
Here’s part of the context of your quote: “And why is it that a man’s illness and financial needs is suspect? Why is it that they could “sort of stike a cord in any of you?†I just think most of you like to listen to the heart of things when it suits you and at other times you just rip things apart with all your reasonings. That is a real problem here. One which you accuse others of, but cannot see that you are guilty of the same thing.”
Julie’s pondering about Ken’s finances seems to have gotten lumped together with everyone else’s “ripping things apart with all their reasonings.” Perhaps she should be considered wise for simply recognizing that one needs to be wise about giving.
Why not comment on her kind request for prayer for Ken?
Karen,
Though I do not often agree with all that Ken Silva has to say, I do not want to see him in the difficulties that he is in. I do not like to see any person hurting like that. I do think it necessary to be careful with my finances and not be guilted into giving. Even a right ministry can promote a wrong way of giving. It is my duty to be thoughtful about such things. I am not any more suspect of Silva than I am careful about other ministries that I give to.
The rest of the discussion does end up to be a circular argument (semantics, who watches who, the pot calling the kettle black, etc.). I believe those who write/created this site also share their beliefs on their own blogs, so it can’t be said that they are only about deconstruction. Chris has a number of very meaningful and informative posts on his other blog.
It is difficult to be against something that has no definition. The definition you’ve provided me and other readers here of “emergent” simply sounds like sin, and it sounds like any and all wayward trailings of Christianity throughout the ages. I can’t see how something that a person can’t define can still be railed against. It is vitally important to know exactly what the problem is instead of it being some kind of nebulous threat that people can only react to. I see questionable teaching now, yes, but nothing that is any different from past years and before my time. There’s always been false teaching through the ages; there have always been those opposed to the Bible and masquerading as not. To lump a bunch of people into a category (”emergent”) that you cannot define is simply impossible. How do you know that they even belong? I’m seeing everyone who disagrees written off as “emergent.” It’s merely become a way to shut people out without consideration.
I do think the one comment that I completely disagree with is this:
“What is odd to me is that Slice has not singled out any one Ministry in an effort to criticize and dissect it.”
Slice is famous for having a jones for: Rob Bell, Rick Warren, T.D. Jakes, Seeker-Sensitive churches, Mega-churches, et. al. Part of the issue is that very point, the very, very odd conglomeration and narrow view of what is being “watched.”
Karen, I do hope you continue to visit this site and consider what people write here as much as you do at Slice. However, if you have better things to do, and they truly are better, then I wish you well.
Gee, I said “ONE” ministry, not several. One. You need to reread what I said in light of that or you totally missed what I was saying, which is not a surprise to me. And there is a wonderful article on Emergent on Slice by G,Gilly. He does not mention the New Age but he does explain Emergent very well, as well as I think anyone can, although, I do believe you probably won’t agree. I said, “Gee” cause I peeked back here again and got sucked in. My own fault. How do you say “Bye Bye” for the last time in English and mean it? I am having a hard time with that!
(Clarification: I realize not all people who call themselves emergent are the same. So read the following with that understanding.)
I often feel that I have met what many seem to view as today’s “Mr. Classic Emergent,” in the pages of a group of novels by an author I was reading a number of years ago. In his novels one of the characters will often be a young man who will be anti-doctrine, pro-love and especially bent on helping the poor. It’s been too long since I read them to say for sure, but I recall there being an emphasis on, “It’s more important to be like Jesus than to have a biblical understanding of who he was and on what his atonement meant.” The young men characters don’t believe in hell. “Religious” figures in the book are portrayed as dour, angry, unloving, concerned about “doctrine/religion” but not love.
Some think that these young men characters are types of the author himself, and that the “religious but not loving grandmother” in many of the books was representative of his own grandmother. These novels were all written by George Macdonald, ( the same George Macdonald whose fantasy writings apparently had some influence in CS Lewis becoming a Christian), who lived from 1824 – 1905.
Three conclusions to draw from this. First of all, it is sad to think that those “emergents” who view emerging as a new thing don’t realize that they may be falling into the same old lies Satan has used before. Secondly, Satan will continue to use the same arguments, excuses, to blind people to following God, and we can learn from the past.
George Macdonald may have been accurate in his portrayal of the “dour, religious grandmother type.” But in my opinion George Macdonald’s book are missing a character type: a person whose concern about “correct doctrine” includes the results of having true correct doctrine: love for others, and JOY.
I’ve been doing a big of searching on the Internet to find a “definition” or at least a clearer description of the Emergent Church. I think this one, by Scot McKnight, is helpful. It’s maybe less a definition but more a listing of pros/cons.
You make an important point, Amy, that, essentially, “there is nothing new under the sun.” It seems as if there is a strange kind of panic over this new threat to the church when it may be yet again a reheating and re-serving of the same tricks that satan has always used. Seeing it as a new threat is part of the threat.
Julie,
It’s not a new threat, and yet, what is different about now and pre-twentieth century false teachings is that humanly speaking it’s so much easier for false teaching to be spread through the availability of books and other media.
I believe that Scripture teaches that the “last days” began in the New Testament; but I also believe that there seems to be a “last of the last days” concept in scripture, that is that scripture teaches that things will get worse and worse. (See II Thessalonians 2, for example). I’m not one to try to pinpoint when that “last of the last days” is. I also believe that at some point God will pour out His Spirit in a way that hasn’t happened before. Perhaps He is already doing this. I believe that part of that pouring out could be helping people discern against the horrible delusions of which Satan is capable. Personally I wonder if the things in the extremes of the “Charismatic movement” that are unbiblical are Satan’s way of getting people to be hardened against a real work of the Spirit.
Chris,
Could we put “Rob Bell’s Trampolinianity Hits a Brick Wall” up for discussion? Within that article Ken Silva provided an excerpt from Rob Bell that used the issue of the virgin birth to make a point.
I would like to know, for starters, whether there is something in the complete context of the excerpt that would give one a different understanding of what he was saying.
Secondly, I have great problems with the way Rob Bell has presented the issue of the virgin birth. I realize that his main purpose wasn’t trying to prove/disprove the virgin birth, but by what he said he may have given people who already doubt the virgin birth grounds for holding onto their doubt. He may also have opened up doubt for those people who have never heard the way “virgin” can be interpreted in the Old Testament.
Does he anywhere in the book explain that there are other reasons to call Mary a virgin as in “virgin-person who has not had sexual intercourse,” for example, the last part of Matthew 1:18, “But while she was still a virgin, she became pregnant by the Holy Spirit?”
Amy,
I will try to get something out on that this evening. I’ve got some more context around it…