Ken = God (Part 2)

Posted by: Nathan
in Emergent Church, Hypocrisy, Ken Silva, Linked Articles, ODM Responses, ODM Writers
15
Mar

If you haven’t heard Mike Corley’s latest broadcast with ken Silva, you must! (www.mikecorley.org). Ken Silva makes this statement concerning those who disagree with him over his “discernment” ministry:

“They want to attack me, that’s fine. They will just find themselves fighting against God.”

This guy officially has a complex now.

  • Share/Bookmark
This entry was posted on Thursday, March 15th, 2007 at 5:37 pm and is filed under Emergent Church, Hypocrisy, Ken Silva, Linked Articles, ODM Responses, ODM Writers. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

 

+/- Collapse/Expand All

28 Comments(+Add)

1   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
March 15th, 2007 at 6:19 pm

Hey Bro, the link doesn’t work. I think you need to edit it.

2   Russ N.    http://russ-ramblings.blogspot.com
March 15th, 2007 at 6:47 pm

I’m listening to MC right now….does Ken, Ingrid, Dwayna, et al know that he uses Steven Curtis Chapman’s “Live Out Loud” as bumper music??? That’s “beat music” after all……..

Shouldn’t he use hymns and gospel music for bumper music?

3   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
March 15th, 2007 at 7:24 pm

Ok, so it’s wrong for McManus to “make fun” of people but it’s ok for them to mock “emergents?” I don’t understand.

4   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
March 15th, 2007 at 7:40 pm

Joe,

For some people, that’s called a ‘double standard’.

However, when you’re speaking for God, it must be OK, I guess…

5   Russ N.    http://russ-ramblings.blogspot.com
March 15th, 2007 at 8:15 pm

Joe – Ken is right – end of story.

I just sent Mike an email asking questions around how the points he and Ken brought up on the radio align with what Ken writes daily.

I’m finding as I read Slice 2.0 that there are a few people who contribute that are reasonable and willing to engage in discussion. We may not agree at the end of our discussion, but then again Paul and Barnabas parted ways over John (also called Mark) and his role in their ministry. It would seem to me that there is room to disagree in the church.

As for Ken, he lobs his verbal grenades and when pressed seems to hide behind “be like the Bereans” and goes no further….again, Ken is right, you are wrong and will continue to be wrong until you prove him right.

Just once I would like to see/hear Ken write/say “I was wrong – please forgive me”…

6   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
March 15th, 2007 at 8:42 pm

Hey, was it Ken that directed us to lucas labrodor, he of the emergents are stupid and young? If so, do go back to youtube and see his other videos. He says that anyone who believes in eternal security is wrong–if Ken really is an SBC pastor he can’t associate with that guy! That would be compromise

7   Nathan    
March 15th, 2007 at 9:29 pm

Russ,

Mike is incredibly open to conversation. He does however hold strong to the same logic and attitude that Ken has.

8   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
March 15th, 2007 at 10:02 pm

ROTFLMBO!

I think I wet my pants a bit!

This is so rich with irony….

Blessings,
iggy

9   Matt    
March 15th, 2007 at 11:07 pm

Just for the record, Mike Corley has also used David Crowder as bumper music. DC is an emergent singer/songwriter. Therefore, using Silva’s logic, Corley is emergent because he played emergent music on his radio show as bumper music.

10   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
March 15th, 2007 at 11:34 pm

Matt,

I have been thinking about that for a long time Crowder is very popular and write amazing songs… along with Chris Tomlin… all very much into the emerging conversation…

You me me laugh again (but it was not as embarrassing this time)

Blessings,
iggy

11   Russ N.    http://russ-ramblings.blogspot.com
March 16th, 2007 at 6:30 am

I’ve finished listening to the program. A couple of things.

1) Ken gets ramped up at about minute 45 – up to this point he’s been even-keel in his discussion, but then the SBC comes up and hold on…I’m guessing that’s a glimpse of Sunday mornings around the coffee table at his church.

2) They did bring up a point (that I agree with even if I don’t see/read Ken actually DOING it) – they said that they are speaking against the teaching of the person and not the person.

Ken said (regarding Dan Kimball) “You know what Dan, it’s not personal. We could be friends, but what you do, what I’m telling these guys, is what you do I hate. The righteous hate what is false – they don’t hate the people. I’m not saying Dan’s at fault, his teaching is, and I can certainly love Dan and hate his teaching.”

I’d just like to see this lived out in the miss-ives from Ken.

12   Matt    
March 16th, 2007 at 7:14 am

What kills me about that episode of MC is that he starts off quoting a devout Anglican, CS Lewis. One of Lewis’s closest friends was Tolkien, a devout Catholic. In fact, in “Surprised by Joy”, Lewis says that Tolkien was one of two key figures in his life that brought him to Christianity.

Does that mean that Corely supports the Anglican/Catholic church?

13   Chris P.    http://jeremiahsquestion.blogspot.com
March 16th, 2007 at 9:15 am

Wow The cool thing is Mike and I, like Abraham, can be called a “friend of God”!!!

14   Scotty    
March 16th, 2007 at 9:50 am

I tried to listen to the whole show as I know that Ken has an important message for us all BUT, I was overcome with the desire to move my hips to the bumper music that was played…Lord forgive me I’m a sinner!!! ;-)

15   nathan    http://www.nathanneighbour.com
March 16th, 2007 at 9:58 am

please continue to send mike emails. mike@mikecorley.org.

I was laying in bed last night thinking about this whole situation. It really is absolutely in credible the way these guys think of themselves. Prophets to the world, voices of God, the protectors of THE truth. In the broadcast, Ken actually says that pastors cannot keep up with all the doctrines going today. That’s insulting to so many pastors today. Yet, somehow he as a “pastor” is called to keep up with everyone’s business.

Is this a hopeless situation? What can we do above this site to raise awareness about Silva’s heresy and lies?

16   Darren Sapp    http://vaporministries.blogspot.com
March 16th, 2007 at 9:59 am

At the core of this issue is not that Ken has called himself God, but rather his confidence that his position is the biblical one. I have had interchanges with him where I say that my opposing view is based on scripture. Would I then say to him, “Ken, if you have a problem with that you are arguing with God.” This is like Calvinist and Arminianist both saying theirs is the biblical view. I am not willing to say that Ken is completely wrong or that Erwin McManus is completely biblical. I just don’t think anyone should run around saying that have cornered the market on interpretation. None of us can fully understand 100% of God. Thankfully we have the Holy Spirit to guide us.

On this same issue, I notice that on the Mike Corley program, Ken told the story of the man who met with McManus and stated something like there is too much emphasis on evangelism. Ken met the man and was told his quote was somewhat different. So, one of them is not being truthful. Why does Ken assume it is McManus? Maybe the man is lying. This is why I cannot trust everything Ken says because his view is so biased. God knows all truth and the truth usually always comes out. Scripture tells us, “Truthful lips will be established forever, But a lying tongue is only for a moment.” – Proverbs 12:19

17   nathan    http://www.nathanneighbour.com
March 16th, 2007 at 10:05 am

My question is, how does Ken have so much time to meet with people concerning interchanges made with Erwin nearly 10 years ago? He is going beyond “discerning false teachers” and moving into hypersensitive criticism. Most pastors I know are too busy dealing with their congregation and community, that they don’t have time for stuff like that. There are two ways I see it.

We can combat “false doctrine” by research every pastor who speaks and then inform the world of how off they are. Or, we can teach the truth of God’s word to the world around us, informing people of what is right and empowering them to make their own conclustions.

18   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
March 16th, 2007 at 10:19 am

nathan wrote:

We can combat “false doctrine” by research every pastor who speaks and then inform the world of how off they are. Or, we can teach the truth of God’s word to the world around us, informing people of what is right and empowering them to make their own conclustions.

Yes, but which one of these will gossip-mongers pay for? Ken needs cash, or did you forget that?

19   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
March 16th, 2007 at 10:24 am

I’ve listened to it twice and here’s some observations.

1. Does MC sound like Dave Ramsey to anyone else?
2. I actually like what ken says about going to the Master and saying, “What do you want me to to today? And if he (the Master) says go to 7/11 and jump up and down on one foot then that is what I am going to do.” It’s too bad Ken won’t let others follow God like that.
3. I love how they assert that what they are saying is true and then use themselves as the proof.
4. You gotta go to Bruce’s blog and read Chris P’s comment. It is truly humerous.

20   Matt    
March 16th, 2007 at 10:32 am

Just for the record, I am currently corresponding with Corley. It has been friendly.

21   Chris P.    http://jeremiahsquestion.blogspot.com
March 16th, 2007 at 3:29 pm

“Prophets to the world, voices of God, the protectors of THE truth.”
Sounds like the church’s job to me. As for the Holy Spirit; the truth he leads us into is neither contradictory nor independent of the Scriptures. Jesus is the Truth, and He neither contradicts nor excludes the Word.
Hey Joe, I do try.

22   nathan    http://www.nathanneighbour.com
March 16th, 2007 at 5:46 pm

Chris P,

I post this again…
For the record, I don’t think that ANYONE here has a problem with the fact that people judge the church. That is fine. But what happens when those judging are are making false accusations, mocking the men as well as the doctrine, and their lives or words to not reflect that of jesus’? Are we who diagree with Ken just supposed to be tolerant? Are we, who are painted with with broad brush strokes, supposed to lay aside our convictions and let the “judges” move on?

Chris, how is what we are doing here any different from what Ken is doing on CRN? We are discerning that Ken is wrong, biblical and often heretical, and are warning the church. I guarantee you that I have just as much conviction about that as Ken. So now what? Where do we go from here?

23   Neil S.    
March 19th, 2007 at 7:04 am

Nathan,

What we are doing here, calling out Ken and his ilk, is different in one major way – no one here has claimed that disagreeing with them is tantamount to disagreeing with God.

Neil S.

24   Matt    
March 21st, 2007 at 8:07 am

I was just listening to the newest Mike Corley program and I have to agree with him on one particular segment. He talked about how when we read scripture, we need to figure out what the original author’s intent was before we get into the “I feel” stuff. I agree with this 100%.

The ironic thing is that I heard a talk by Donald Miller in February and he said the EXACT same thing. He talked about how he was in a James bible study recently and the leader started getting into how people felt about the passage. Miller had to stop the guy and remind him that they had to figure out what the passage meant before they could start talking about their feelings.

25   Neil S.    
March 21st, 2007 at 8:22 am

Matt,

I’d like to see this kind of humility and discernment from Ken and Chris P. and… The willingness/ability to say “I agree with this portion, but disagree with that…” would be a refreshing change from their m.o. of bash and slam and condemn and gripe and…

A little interaction would go a long way…

26   Matt    
March 21st, 2007 at 8:35 am

I was reading Silva’s take on Mormonism and I noticed this.

“While I don’t agree with all he teaches, Dr. Ron Rhodes is helpful here…” and “However, Dr. Norman Geisler, regardless of what he else he might teach, is correct here…”

It is refreshing to see that he will use experts he doesn’t agree with (granted, it comes off as a back handed compliment). If only he’d take a fresh look at the more theologically conservative emerging church leaders like Driscoll, Miller, and McKinley.

http://www.apprising.org/archives/2007/03/the_mormon_chur.html

27   Neil S.    
March 21st, 2007 at 9:02 am

OK – good examples… I wonder what the reference to Geisler is about?

Neil S.

28   Russ N.    http://russ-ramblings.blogspot.com
April 2nd, 2007 at 6:56 pm

Has anyone else noticed Ken’s latest pet-phrase “those that have ears to hear” or “those that have eyes to see”?

When I do a quick check, there’s one reference in Ezekiel, but the rest are all spoken by Jesus.

One Trackback/Ping

  1. The World According to Bruce » Blog Archive » God has a website    Mar 16 2007 / 9am:

    [...] Thanks to CRN.Info and Analysis [...]

Back to top