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.â€
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.
![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")
25 Comments(+Add)
“I don’t have to “prove†anything.”
Uh, actually you do.
By attacking Ken what you are implying is that Rob Bell, Brian McClaren, Rick Warren etc, etc, etc, are okay, and Ken is not.
Therefore I ask that you show me why you hold this opinion.
What I find is that sites such as this or E-what, or Patrick Lane’s sorry excuse for a blog, confine their arguments to who is “nice and tolerant” and who is not. I have yet to see, on these blogs, any kind of statement as to what you really believe.
What I see is a concerted and united effort to destroy any who dare to expose the post modern abomination.
I almost laughed at all the back patting that went on amongst those who thought they personally closed down Slice.
I have been at the anti ec/seeker friendly/ liberalism/ mystcism/ blog game longer than most. What i found most laughable was the shock of these people who thought the church would surely recognize them as the saviors of the church. How dare anyone question their faulty theology.
The true church already has a savior.
The fixation on Ken Silva borders on the pathological.
You can disagree with Ken. That is your right, as well as being entirely irrelevant. At least you know where he stands, unlike the jellyfish theologians of the post-modern apostasy trying to pass itself off as the church.
This is strictly a personal vendetta.
I ask the same questions that were proposed to myself, and Ken, and Ingrid, etc.
Do you think you are a prophet? Is it your job to police the church? Aren’t you just a “watchdoggy”?
Quis custodiet ipso custodies?
Chris P.
The problem is that neither Ken nor you have “proved” anything beyond name-calling and non-sequitirs with Rob Bell, Warren and such. Lots of smoke but nary a flame.
I have no skin in this game other than standing up for brother Christians mugged on the roadside by tinpot crusaders tipping windmills – literally – for the hell of it.
As for personal vandettas and pathological psychoses, one need look no farther than Silva. His utter lack of anything concrete in 90% of his criticisms borders on lunacy, and what he does “discern” requires little in the area of discernment – even my 10-year-old could discern it was wrong. Just try questioning him on something of substance – Oh my! The recriminations and dissemination fly with nary a fact (but lots and lots of straw men) in sight.
I don’t think any of us are prophets, and I don’t see us policing the church – we’re defending our brothers against modern-day phariseeism from you, Ingrid, Ken, Procter and others, rather than shooting the wounded and whining because the music in church has a beat and John Doe has Jim Roe speaking at a conference, while Jim praised Betty Roe’s book which quoted Thomas Merton ten years ago.
Scott at VS has well-documented that we’re not “watchdoggies”, nor do we want to be. We don’t care who watches us, and when given specific issues to discuss (rather than sham, broad brush attacks like yours) we won’t hide behind straw men, lies and changing the subject by questioning your salvation.
The church is in far less danger from apostasy, today as in the first century, than from modern-day Judiazers who expect everyone to toe their exact line of systematic theology (or goofy literal isogeses).
As for “this is a personal vandetta”, I can only assume that you are referring to Ken’s morbid fascination with Rob Bell and every word he utters.
Chris P,
Here’s a bit of creative writing I’ve used to place myself in the spectra of modern theology, and where my beliefs lie.
I have been critical of a number of movements (from emergent to “TR”), and I have been critical of the movement I have grown up in (the independent Christian church). It isn’t about who is “nice and tolerant”.
As for watchdogging, Scott from VS gave a list of well-respected ‘discernment’ ministries which have actually demonstrated a good record of discernment (unlike Slice/CRN):
- Reasons to Believe
- Ravi Zacharias International Ministries
- The Christian Research Institute
- Stand to Reason
- Walter Martin’s Religious Info Net
It’s not about watchblogging. It’s about gross malpractice, malfeasance and (like Ken’s insinuations about Mosaic today) utter gossip being passed off as “discernment”, all the while putting window-dressings in hell on earth.
“Uh, actually you do.
By attacking Ken what you are implying is that Rob Bell, Brian McClaren, Rick Warren etc, etc, etc, are okay, and Ken is not.”
What a silly leap in logic. Chris infers what others clarly do not imply. To point out that Ken Silva is wrong in his methods and the substance of much (though not all) of his critique is not to imply some kind of carte blanche endorsement of every person in his crosshairs.
It’s simply to point out that Ken Silva is wrong in his methods and the substance of much (though not all) of his critique. Period.
Good post………
Ken COULD do the same thing he is doing without all the name calling and personal attacks. He chooses not to. Yes, positions are attached to people. We should remember they are PEOPLE. People for whom Christ died. People who profess to be followers of Jesus. People who are our brothers and sisters in Christ.
Ken does, at times, have some good points. But that gets lost in all the invectives and names.
SOL/CRN and the likes are rabid fundamentalists. I was born, raised and pastored many years in the fundamentalist baptist movement. I told my wife last night fundamentalism attracts people who are authoritarian and mentally unstable. SOL/CRN is certainly the former and I am unqualified to judge the latter.
Your Friend,
Bruce
Chris P
I am curious where on CR do the writers tell us anything about what they believe? Every tab you look under is how they are the watch dog for the church. I have yet to see what they believe. I guess if you are to busy destroying Gods people I can see how you might forget little details like how you believe.
I too grew up in the fundamentalists mindset. I understand what you are saying. I understand that Mr. Silva has some good things to say, but to me the benifit is far outweighed by the harm. I’ve sat five feet from people that Mr. Silva has attacked with nothing more than conjecture and wild leaps in logic and witnessed first hand the hurt he and others like him have caused in these people’s life. It was at that moment that I knew I could no longer sit back and just idly watch him attack good men. There are some (very few) posts that I agree with Mr. Silva on, but until he stops attacking people I can not be silent.
Your blanket criticisms of us are false. I always refer to Scripture first when confronting anyone. What I find is that whenever a Biblical argument is posted no one and I mean literally no one wants to discuss or debate.
However when someone wants to post all of their “wonderful” ideas no matter how half-baked or unscriptural, people trip all over themselves to get in on the “conversation”
Paul says in Romans 2 that God is no respecter of persons, which is sometimes translated as He shows no partiality.
The word in Greek means literally, He ACCEPTS no one at face value. We can however REJECT anything that contradicts the Word, in fact we are commanded to.
God has never asked for our thoughts and feelings on any matter, neither do I. The only standard is the Scripture, by the revelation of the Holy Spirit. The only words we need to link to are thev Scriptures.
I don’t care if you call yourself emerging or whatever. I reject your argument.
I think the problem is that it is almost impossible to have a two-way conversation with the people that are bashing Rob Bell, Mclaren, etc. They say it one way, and are unwilling to listen no matter what evidence is presented before them. I personally just gave up. It’s not my job to defend everyone. I’ve read a lot of the stuff, weighed it against Scripture, and came to my own conclusions. No one has to listen to me, but I don’t have to listen to them either, I guess.
I guess it’s sad in a lot of ways – it’s like we’re forced to take a position of “my way or the highway”. I don’t think there’s one Christian writer who I could point to and say they’re 100% or even 90% correct. Does that mean I throw out everything? The thing that bothers me about most of these things is the spirit in which attacks are made. I’ve yet to really see a convincing argument based on the substance of most of things.
Chris P.
Was your last statement directed to all of us or me in particular? Just looking for some clarification there.
Thanks!
Chris P.
Let me clarify. You are right! Everyone on CRN uses scripture. They know how to take scripture and make it fit what ever point they are trying to get across. I would like know what all of the writer’s personal doctrine is. I can assume what everyone believes based on all the attacks and horrendous accusations made against others but I hate assuming.
Joe and Ken have conversed on many occasions. I would like to know if the people at CRN ever have conversations with these men they speak so dire about. All I see from Ken and Ingrid is they take something they read of the internet, link to it, and than tear it a part. I have no problem with disagreeing or debating. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. They have the right to dislike Rick Warren, Rob Bell, Mclaren. They even have the right to point out from scripture why they believe they are wrong. This is not what is going on. They show no love, mercy and they attack people. The bible has a lot to say about that. Tell me why the emergent church is so wrong but you can do it without attacking people you know little about. Recently Ingrid took a church that was using money to bring people in the lost and she ripped them a part making scripture fit what she was trying to say. I have a problem with that.
Regarding Chrissy P’s assesment of my site as a sorry excuse for a blog.
-Ok…
But what does that have to do with Chris L and this site. Chris has appropriately distanced himself from me, an avid liberal, on a number of occassions which is entirely appropriate and in no way offends me.
The only thing I recall him saying in defense of me was that I didn’t claim to be “emergent” as Ingrid accused me of being. That is only a reflection of what I’ve said on my site. Listen, I know my perspectives are right out there with Bishop Sponge so in no way do I fault anyone for keeping themselves 10 yards away from me at all times. That’s cool. So stop the guilt by association. I am at times just an ass but that’s not Chris L’s fault.
i’d like to affirm patrick in what he said…he is, at times, just an ass
. kidding my man. seriously though, what i think i see happening with Chris P’s response is that he believes that Joe is defending emergent/warren/everyone else, whereas, as has been previously stated, he’s really only concerned with seeing Christians treat one another as the Scriptures demand.
I’ve not read everything by Bell, McLaren, Warren, or Silva, but i have read some. My concern is Christ-likeness, which I have difficulty seeing in the work of Rev. Silva, regardless of how many times he points to the “brood of vipers” passages or the cleansing of the temple. Christ didn’t make up ridiculous labels for the pharisees. Sure, he questioned their honesty, their spirituality, and even their inclusion in the kingdom. However, he was God. and Is God. Rev Silva is certainly not.
Mike
Chris P,
I wonder if you’ve read Velvet Elvis. If not, perhaps you could read it and comment on it, or on issues in general brought up by Rob Bell. And perhaps there could be a discussion of your viewpoints on this site – a discussion of the issues, not the personalities, spiritual states, etc of Rob Bell or Ken Silva.
John MacArthur says something good here. Check it out.
“But what are we to do with this understanding? First of all, we should resist any temptation to wield these doctrines like a judge’s gavel that consigns multitudes to eternal doom. We must not set ourselves up as judges of other people’s eternal fate.
On the other hand, we must recognize that those who have turned away from sound doctrine in matters essential to salvation are condemning themselves. “He who does not believe has been judged already†(John 3:18). Our passion ought to be to proclaim the fundamentals with clarity and precision, in order to turn people away from the darkness of error. We must confront head-on the blindness and unbelief that will be the reason multitudes will one day hear the Lord say, “I never knew you; depart from Me†(Matthew 7:23). Again, it must be stressed that those who act as if crucial doctrines were of no consequence only heap the false teacher’s guilt on themselves (2 John 11).”
So, according to MacArthur, those who are in error have themselves to blame and God will be their judge. If only Silva, a MacArthur fanboy, would take this advice. If Bell, McLaren, Driscoll, Warren or whoever is the flavor-of-the-month antichrist are truly apostate, why doesn’t Silva just hand them over to Satan?
The rest of the article can be seen here:
http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/jm-231604-6.htm
Matt,
You quote Macarthur as saying, “We must confront head-on the blindness and unbelief that will be the reason multitudes will one day hear the Lord say, “I never knew you; depart from Me†(Matthew 7:23).” It doesn’t seem that what he’s said can be accurately summarized as teaching that false teachers should just be handed over to Satan. He specifically said, “confront head-on the blindness and unbelief.”
Scripture is full of warnings about false teaching and false teachers. Christians can still warn each other, especially their friends, their children about false teaching, in the same spirit of those apostles who were concerned that believers fall from the truth. (See 2 Peter 3 17-18, for example)
Imagine that “Jim” hears sermons from “Pastor Mike” over the Christian radio station that exalt God and point the way to living a godly, obedient life. But one day Jim hears something on one of the sermons that just sounds a little questionable. He does some research on “Pastor Mike” and discovers that he is Mormon. Should Jim contact the radio station and tell them, uh, did you know that “Pastor Mike” is a Mormon, and that he’s molding his sermons so that Christians will not pick up on that? If the radio station refuses to listen, should Jim just “hand Pastor Mike” over to Satan, or should he warn his friends, who are listening to Pastor Mike, and buying Pastor Mike’s tapes, that Pastor Mike isn’t a Christian at all, and that eventually following his teaching could take them away from Scripture?
(I used that particular example because I once heard a wonderful sermon over the radio that I didn’t realize was being preached by a Mormon.)
Amy,
I know your response was not directed at me, but I’m going to answer from my perspective. I would say in your example about the radio pastor, that I would not necessarily feel compelled to call out the radio station. If I found out such a thing was happening, I would quit listening (which I don’t ever listen to Christian radio anyways) and maybe tell friends and relatives about it. I don’t think I need to hold everyone in Christendom accountable. The radio station has a board of directors that is responsible for that.
The same goes for churches and other ministries. If a pastor writes a book, I am free to agree or disagree with him. However, other than tell the people I have a direct responsibilty for my opinion, I don’t think it is my place to set myself up a judge and jury for a pastor at some church on the other side of the country. The leadership of that church is responsible for that pastor. They will answer to God about how they lead that congregation. It is not really my worry. That is my opinion in these types of matter. I don’t think it is helpful when people launch vendettas on the internet against certain pastors and teachers.
Phil,
I wouldn’t necessarily call the radio station either. I can’t keep up with everything I hear that’s deceptive, and God hasn’t burdened me to try to correct every wrong that I come across. But he does burden me at times for some things, for the sake of warning people who don’t have their antennae up for danger in “Christian” places.
I have many friends and friends of my kids for which I do feel some responsibility. And I see them looking into things simply because the church is using it, or “it’s a cool book that my friend read,” etc. Many, many kids parents don’t know what their kids are investigating and being influenced by, and feel that their kids are safe if they are at a “Christian” activity, reading a “Christian” book, watching a “Christian” movie. I wouldn’t have enough time in my day to try to warn everyone about everything that I know is going on. But sometimes there is one small area that I can work on, become knowledgeable about, and talk to kids and/or their parents or church leaders regarding the issue.
I know of very few men and even fewer women who are careful about doctrine, who want to acknowledge that there is an enemy who wants to destroy them, make them ineffective by whatever means possible. I wish that every church was like the church that I am attending now, where the emphasis is on parents instructing their children in the Word of God – to help them know God, so that they more readily recognize when something is not of God. But that’s just not the case, and I will not stand by and watch young people be taken in by the latest Christian craze and say nothing.
I believe strongly that discernment ministries are important and useful to the body of Christ. That’s one of the reasons I haven’t hesitated to speak out when I see something in a discernment ministry that I believe is more harmful than helpful to the body of Christ.
If the leadership of churches were into the word of God and if pastors held themselves accountable to that leadership, discernment ministries would not be needed as much.
Amy,
I understand you and phil have been discussing this but I have to ask a question. Let’s say that you feel Velvet Elvis is a bad book for your friend’s kid to read. You would probably have some passages to cite when you talked to her, right? I imagine you might even in the privacy of your friendship talk about the author a little. But would you attack that author? Would you spread awful half truths and gossip about him? Based on what I’ve read you post, I sincerely doubt that you would. Too often “discernment ministries” only do just that –spread unfounded junk. That, in a nutshell is my problem with these “ministries.”
Amy,
Since you bring up Velvet Elvis and Rob Bell – I have to say that the one thing I like about him is that he takes the Bible very seriously. That’s the one thing that I’ve really appreciated about Bell preaching and teaching.
But anyway, I agree with Joe. I seriously think that the arguments I’ve heard where people actually look the issue have been very weak. They always end up in name calling. I’ve noticed that Ken actually put a new Rob Bell rant up today concerning Bell’s new book – the one that’s not even out yet. So the book is condemned mainly because of it’s title and the fact that Rob Bell wrote. That just doesn’t seem very discerning to me.
Joe,
No, I wouldn’t intentionally spread half-truths and gossip about anyone. In real-life situations where I have personally confronted someone’s error I have approached with an extreme amount of caution and with an attitude of pleading, “Please, can’t you recognize the danger in this.”
I am not trying to defend Ken Silva’s method or tone of critiquing Rob Bell. My original response to Matt demonstrated that I believe that Matt is misunderstanding John Macarthur. I don’t believe (at least from the excerpts Matt wrote in his comment) that John Macarthur is saying, “Just hand false teachers over to Satan.” Macarthur specifically said, “confront head-on the blindness and unbelief.â€
I think that the best way of confronting something head-on is to look at the specifics of what someone is writing or teaching orally and compare/contrast it with scripture in an unemotional and calm manner, to try to present information in a way that people will be able to look at it and think through it for themselves. I have, however on a few rare occasions believed that telling someone to their face that they were false teachers was something that God called me to do. That has been something I have done 3 times and each time it was very difficult for me to do.
Phil,
For myself, having the first chapter of Bell’s book available to read was enough to cause me to bring up several questions about Rob Bell.
What does he mean by the “divine spark?”
Does he believe in an actual hell?
Does he believe that we need someone to intercede for us besides Christ? (reference to “the mass”)
______
Chris, and whoever else is interested,
Here’s are some questions I’ve been thinking about:
Can God call someone to cry out a warning that so-and-so is a false teacher without calling them to “analytically” back up what they are saying?
Can God gives someone a burden/knowledge that someone is a false teacher? If He gives them that burden/knowledge, does it come with a guarantee that that person’s own nature won’t get in the way of his message?
I know from my interaction with people that “pastor” Ken Silva has attacked, he has not talked with most in person. One key figure that he consistently attacks has made several attempts to meet with him. his response has always been “no”. Why won’t the guy meet with the very people he is attacking?
Nathan – I’m speculating here, but Ken likely won’t meet with the people who he’s been attacking because Ken is right and the other person is wrong – end of story. There’s no need for Ken to meet because he has proven them wrong with his missives.
Disagreement has been something the church has faced from the early days, but the disagreements were dealt with face-to-face. Ken’s unwillingness to meet (in my mind) shows he’ll cling to some verses that justify his position and ignore the ones that show error in his ways.
I’m sure he’s got some mental gymnastic routine in place to justify his position but have you ever seen in his writings where he is wrong? Me either.
Amy,
You asked
Amy,
This is a good question. I do not think that He asks people to do things they are incapable of doing. If they believe they are incapable, like Moses, He provides assistance with an “Aaron”.
I also do not think that He chooses people to give a prophetic message, but then to use false methods in which to convey it (look at the standards set for prophecy in the OT).
This does not mean that the prophet/messenger is infallible (see Peter and Paul and their tussles), but in all cases I can think of, logic and truth are part and parcel in what God provides in a message.
However, I do believe that God uses people like Pharoah, Sennacharib, Baalam, Caiphas and others, whose bent is to destroy and whose messages and methods are not of Him, to judge and/or to strengthen. When I see people who use unGodly means for a supposedly Godly purpose, it brings to mind the likes of Cotton Mather, Torquemada, Pope Urban II and other church leaders who have destroyed rathern than built up the kingdom of God.
“By attacking Ken what you are implying is that Rob Bell, Brian McClaren, Rick Warren etc, etc, etc, are okay, and Ken is not.”
Since when did Ken Silva become the “standard of truth”? I think that Ken must be as accountable as Rob, Brian and Rick as if he is accusing them, have real proof… not some self indulging belly button staring website that links to itself as it’s own proof! even Ken’s understanding of scripture is flawed as he teaches that God hates you! and twists the scripture to be against God loving us!
from Ken’s website:
“In fact Rob Bell himself is quoted as saying of his critics:
“But I love everybody and you’re next!†he says, giggling. “That’s how I respond to criticism.â€
Bell is and does the unexpected. Then again, he says, so does God.
Yes, Rob; He does. And I love my Lord and since He hates what you’re doing, so I guess I’m next. You see, as a pastor-teacher Jesus tells me to – Rescue those being led away to death; hold back those staggering toward slaughter (Proverbs 24:11).”
So instead of looking for the lost sheep that are staggering towards slaughter, Ken attacks the ones in the pen… I guess it is easier than actually doing any work to save the lost sheep.
I think that Ken and his cohorts seem to be so entrenched in the Platonist/Dualist heresy they cannot read the Bible without their own ego distorting what it says… They distort the teachings of scripture to fit their agenda of selfish ambition…
the more I read his blog the more I see he accuses others and then does that very same thing… thus fulfilling Romans chapter 2… In that he is usurping Jesus as THE JUDGE and will reap the very wrath he loves to speak about…
“Romans 2: 1 – 5. You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. Now we know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment? Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness leads you toward repentance? But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God’s wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed.”
Blessings,
iggy