Slice/CRN Discussion: Cheapening the Discussion via Demonization
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.
![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")
14 Comments(+Add)
So, I actually got to meet Rob this week. We’re not close personal friends, but God used him to answer a very specific prayer request in my life this week. The conclusion that I have been coming to based on conversation with my wife and some others is that Ken Silva is the heretic. I realize this may seem overly harsh to some, but if you take what he says and look hard at it, he is teaching a gospel that is not contained in the Bible. His venomous tongue is used to sow discord and disease amongst the body of Christ and IT IS TOXIC!! I am convinced more than ever that Rob is a man of God. I am also convinced more and more that people like Ken, and most of the other contributors at CRN are used of the Devil to hack at the body of Christ. They may have good intentions or they may hide behind good intentions but their putrid fruit shows in how they love those they claim are their enemies. Ken’s arrogance and false pride proves itself over and over again in his post. He is not honoring God nor is he protecting God’s bride. Mr. Silva, I refuse to call you a pastor. I will pray for your repentance.
I’ve never met Rob Bell, but from listening to his sermons, I do get the feeling that he is sincere and genuine. I guess having a growing church is enough to be labeled a cult these days. I grew up in a small conservative church, so I’ve seen this thinking. There really are a bunch of people who think they are the remnant, and the vast majority of professing Christians are deceived. To me, that is the height of arrogance. I think Jesus may have said something about that type of thinking somewhere….
I think Ken ripped into the guy because he expressed an affinity for dark beer. That probably got SBC Rev. Silva’s knickers in a twist more than anything else.
If demonization is bad, why are you so obsessed with Ken Silva and painting him as a demon? You people are hypocrites.
I think I will add ‘hypocrite’ to the list, as well, as it seems to be used in ways that don’t actually imply hypocrisy.
Demonization requires an inaccurate portrayal of one’s beliefs and an attempt to paint an individual as completely bad and thoroughly faulty.
I’ve been on record saying that there are a number of things brought up by Ken which should be discussed, and should be of concern. I’ve also noted that Ken refuses to discuss, with any substance, any and every contention with his methods and/or conclusions.
This is not demonization, Chris, nor hypocrisy. It can be verified across multiple chains of evidence and reference. He has also been personally, privately, confronted, and has been given ample opportunity to correct any misperceptions in forums he frequents, with little appreciable return. I have not once called Mr. Silva’s salvation into question, which is not something he can claim about those he attacks. No hypocrisy here.
Why Ken? It’s not only Ken, but it is endemic of a number of watchbloggers. Ken is just the most over-the-top offender. It’s kind of like talking about ego problems in the NFL, and immediately talking about Terrel Owens. In the case of TO, he’s a great football player, but his attitude sucks. In the case of Ken, I’m sure he’s a great guy in real life, and who am I to question his salvation? On the other hand, though, his writing is vitriolic and most of his attacks are lacking in the most basic tenets of logic and exegesis.
Sorry, Chris, but there’s no obsession here, no demonization, and no hypocrisy.
I’m beginning to see Ken in a new light — the light of Luke 18:9-14.
“To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else, Jesus told this parable….”
Ken has become (in my opinion) so confident in his own righteousness that he’s looking down on everyone else as the Pharisee did in this passage – particularly those in evangelical Christianity that are engaging the culture and working to fulfill God’s mission on earth – to have all nations declaring God’s glory.
Like Chris L. I think that some things Ken brings up should be discussed and debated. The problem is that with Ken he won’t argue substance – he’ll point you back to his echo chamber known as apprising ministries as proof of his argument’s validity.
There is pharasaic behavior, and then there is being an actual pharisee. You would have to be an unbeliever to be a true pharisee.
We are not told to engage culture and/or establish a Kingdom. If so He wouldn’t have to return at all. We need to make disciples of people not cultures and nations. Revelation tells us that it is those FROM every tribe tongue and nation. Redeem the time not the culture. God requires obedience, not our ideas.
As for Bell, he is problematic, at best.
Chris P.
Paul, even after his experience on the road to Damascus says that he is a Pharisee (Acts 23), and most of the Jewish Christians in the first century appear to have come from the Pharisaic tradition. It is only 5 or 6 of the 7 types of Pharisees that Jesus rails against, and Jesus’ theology was in line with the 7th type of Pharisee, though his interpretations of Torah on some counts (who is my neighbor?) sometimes were more encompassing.
Most of the usage of ‘pharisee’ I see tends to point to the 5 ‘bad types’ of pharisee, which would not be unbelievers, but hypocritical (or hypercritical) believers.
In the Luke 18 passage, Jesus is contradicting a very righteous stereotype (pharisee) and a very unrighteous stereotype (tax collector). To his audience, the story of the pharisee and the tax collector would be the modern equivalent of the story of “the Pope and the pimp” (quoting RVL, but not intending to bring catholocism into the debate).
We to become part of the Kingdom – not sometime in the future, but starting when God is given control in our lives – Jesus, his disciples and Paul all went out and preached about the Kingdom of God/Heaven. God requires obedience, yes, but robots, no. We are created in His image, and, as such, have a creative impulse that is of Him, and we must use this talent – and any others He has given – in furthering the Kingdom.
As for Bell, when you listen to him over a period of time and when you understand what is happening with Mars Hill in Grand Rapids and its impact, he is not problematic unless “obedience” is strictly an individual effort and applies only to passive obedience, but not active obedience.
Hey all,
Ken Silva does indeed go over the edge too often. I am having a bit of a back and forth email with him at the moment. There is truth often in what he says but it is just as often spoiled by hyperbole.
I’m blogging my way through “Velvet Elvis” over at http://ascenttotruth.blogspot.com
Join me there for discussion if you’re interested.
Michael,
I’ve written study guides for all of the chapters in VE, here: http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/?p=122
I’ll check in to your discussion tomorrow…
I have some issues with Bell but I don’t think he is a heretic.
By the way, did anyone notice that Ken Silva hasn’t used the “I studied under Dr Walter Martin” card in a while. For those who aren’t familiar, Ken used to say that he studied under Dr Walter Martin. But then it was found out that “studying under” actually meant he listened to some tapes, which is not the same thing. Ken implied that he had a personal relationship with Martin, which he didn’t. By implying this, he misrepresented himself and Martin (whom I respect). To put this in plain english for Chris P, Silva lied. I guess this blog is doing some good. It changed some of his behavior.
Mike Krahn (any relation to Dave Krahn?) I read your post. I have to say I find it interesting that you suggest that Bell set’s up the worst of evangleism and makes it look bad. Now, your point of what works in G-rap may not work in elsewhere is valid but you prove it with a for instance there may be somewhere where using the term “Christ-follower” is never useful. Maybe and never are hard words to back up with any concrete evidence.
Matt,
I did a quick search of Apprising.org and I counted over twenty times where Ken refers to Dr. Martin as his “teacher”, although I don’t think he used the term “studied under”. Still, I could say that C.S. Lewis (another brilliant mind kicked off the island by the discernment crowd) would be one of my “teachers”, even though he died a month after I was born.
In this post from June 21, 2006:
http://www.apprising.org/archives/2006/06/what_has_change.html
Ken finally admits he never met Martin but was trained in the ways of apologetics and discernment by listening to his tapes. I think someone (I don’t know who) finally called Ken on it and he had to ‘fess up. Of course, that didn’t stop Ken from referring to Martin as “my teacher” in subsequent posts.
The funny thing about the Silva article you mention is Martin’s view of Catholicism.
According to Wikipedia: Dr. Walter Martin was a figure of controversy who aroused great loyalty among his colleagues, and deep animosity from many of his detractors. He was criticized by some fundamentalist Protestants for his affiliations with Pentecostals and Charismatics (even though he was a Baptist), and for his refusal to classify the Roman Catholic church as a “cult”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Martin