Ken recently attacked a group called Relevant Christian over a piece they wrote called Why Christians Suck. When Relevant Christian wrote a response blog to Ken’s attack, Ken fired back again.
I just thought it might give everyone a good laugh to read Ken’s last line in his rebuttal. It is so ironic an hypocritical:
Perhaps this will teach them not to attack the Body of Christ, as it was these men who were the ones so quick to brazenly, albeit in their quiet arrogance, criticize “modern†Christians. Bad idea boys for our Defender is strong. peace youselves.
And they are the ones that are “attack[ing] the Body of Christ”? Right?
He also makes this funny statement about their “inappropriate language” in their response. Apparently Chris P and Ken would disagree over what “inappropriate language” is.
We have had numerous people send us emails and comments attacking us personally in regards to the statements made in this blog.
Warning: Inappropriate language ahead. Think of it; I have to warn my readers that a post from a minister allegedly sent by Christ Jesus uses language offensive to Christians. Well, the kind that they think s*#$ anyway.
The omitted word was “suck”. However, just the day before Ken had no problem publishing this word as a title to his blog. But, now that he has to play the sweet and innocent martyr, the word goes back into symbols as being “inappropriate”
![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")
33 Comments(+Add)
That first quote is too much.
And just yesterday Chris P. told me my answers “suck.” maybe Ken just reprimanded him in private.
I gotta agree, that “attack on the Body of Christ” was hilarious. I suppose, to Ken, it’s not hypocrisy since those he attacks cannot be part of the Body.
Some times I wonder – given the shallow arguments, the blatant hypocrisy, statements such as that quote – could it be that Apprising Ministries is just a neo-fundamentalist parody site?
Neil
A couple of points of order boys:
1) I’m not Chris P.
2) The warning is in reference to Tony Jones’ comment on the Bible: “I think the Bible is a f***ing scary book…”
Thanks, carry on with the “conversation.” O, and peace.
Personally, I’ve been having fun in the comments section. I’ve probably danced up to the line a few times but oh my soul those people get under my skin!
I will opine here that, while Ken et al are certainly ridiculous and worthy of “discernment”, I fear we are emboldening them too much with post after post dissecting their hypocrisy. Can I humbly submit that we let the dead dog alone for a little while?
I just hate giving them more attention.
Sorry Matt, then the win. I, for one will not go quietly into the night. (See Independence Day)
I have to disagree with you on that Joe. These guys will never “win.” You saw what happened when they got so righteous that they finally turned on each other. (RIP Ingrid…RIP Slice of-oh wait, nevermind)
Matt,
I think we do need to be careful not to consantly hit the same gong over and over, I agree. In doing so, though, we do need to be careful to continutally pick new topics posted over at CRN and to keep our focus on what it written, rather than the person behind it. (Which all of us, me especially, need to remember…)
“they finally turned on each other. (RIP Ingrid…)”
Might want to listen to Joe on this one friend. Ingrid and Chris P., and a host of new faces, are still with me at CRN – the old “Slice of…” It’s a glorious time to live, is it not. To the end!
Ken Said:
1) I’m not Chris P.
2) The warning is in reference to Tony Jones’ comment on the Bible: “I think the Bible is a f***ing scary book…â€
1. no onw said you were. Chris P. had no problem saying “sucks” but you do. However, Chris P. tends to be your public defender here.
2. NO WHERE in your article did you mention Tony Jones. In fact, the word that were referring to was “s*#$”. How does all this jive with tony Jones? Don’t try to justify your words with some random explanation.
Matt,
I agree and disagree. Ken Silva is making outlandish claims against Godly men and their ministries. No one is speaking out against this modern day pharisee’s teachings. While I don’t think we should attack the man, I don’t think we should shy away from exposing people to a different perspective. If I have cpme across as attacking Ken as a person, I apologize. I sometimes have a hard time separating the message from the messenger.
1. First time that I used “crude” language here or anywhere else that I recall.
2. I used it since you only onderstand post-modernese and “authentic” language.
3. I am also thinking of using 6th grade level writing in my next comment so that even the college graduates can understand it.
Well Chris,
As near as I can tell it was also the first time that “relevent Christian” used the word. I mean as long as it’s your first time, I suppose it’s OK. It’s probably not that bad. You’re right! That does sound like 6th grade logic!
Golly – more hostility, anger, and personal attacks.
Is it just me or has the CRN posts of late gotten pretty shrill?
Anyway.
umm….
at the risk of sounding like a 6th grader…
This is just a dumb issue to go around and around on.
Pick. Pick. Pick. Pick.
I’m reminded of my grandfather’s chickens.
One got an open sore on it’s neck. All the other chickens started to pick at the sore, causing it to open and bleed more.
My grandfather had to remove the wounded chicken from the pen until it healed. If left to their own devices the chickens would have picked until the bird was dead. Seems that people aren’t really different.
It’s one thing to contend over theology/doctrine of first order. Even when I don’t agree with someone, I understand the need to discuss, argue, debate, etc.
But it’s a whole other thing to demonize people over secondary and, in this case, tertiary issues. I mean “sucks”….Is that word really sending people to hell?
It’s all just a pissing match on the fringe of reality/relevance. The world is dying for a Savior. If as much energy was spent on living and speaking the good news instead of lobbing bombs at people I can’t help but wonder if our respective communities and churches would look different (i.e. more people coming to Jesus by virtue of God’s people spending their time where Jesus invites us).
Oy.
Another Nathan,
I believe the initial post was not so much over the word ’sucks’, but to illuminate a bit of plank-speck going on with Ken/Chris.
You are likely right, though, that there has already been way too much energy spent on this particular issue…
my point was more about making an issue of the word “sucks” in the first place (i.e. plank dancing–my terminology). With the tone and name calling notching up at CRN/apprising it’s all really baffling to me.
I never knew such terminology was so central to the simple message of the Gospel.
I don’t mean to get snarky, but I feel like people are standing on the deck of a sinking cruise ship and arguing over who gets to use the hot tub next.
The more I see this happening–in the blogosphere, at churches, in board meetings, etc. etc.–it makes me want to call it quits. It’s coma inducing.
Who would want to become part of any segment of Christianity with this steamy pile apparently being its primary concern? If that’s what “being right” or “committed to the Lord” has to be, then who needs it?
another nathan,
Sadly, everything you said is so true…
=/
look what a mess we humans can make…
Ken…you can tell yourself that all you want. So can Ingrid.
It doesn’t make it any less worth a chuckle.
Funny as the article points out that though the women was truly guilty… Jesus had compassion on…. are you ready for this?
A SINNER!!!!!!!!!!
Then Jesus (gasp) has he audacity to tell those with stones that they can only cast it if THEY ARE WITHOUT SIN!!!!!
So, Ken, are you without sin?
Jesus said, “Who condemns you?”
The woman replied, “No one sir.”
Then Jesus said, ” “Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.” ———-
Ken, did you notice that Jesus did not condemn the sinner?
Do you believe the words in John? “For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.”
Yet, you point your fingers at others as if you are worthy and without sin… perfect as the Father in Heaven is?
Did I miss your ordination? Did I miss your ascension to the Throne of Grace? Did Jesus stand up and say, “Hey, Ken, take my seat of Judgement.”?
Through all this all I can say is the words of Jesus on the Cross… “Father forgive them, they know not what they do.”
I forgive you Ken… I do not condemn you… so go and sin no more… (John 20:22; Acts 8:22-23; Acts 13:38
“Blessed are they whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will never count against him.”
So be therefore blessed,
iggy
iggy,
*stifling a yawn* I hate to spoil your emerging party of man-love but did you happen to notice John 3:18? Jesus didn’t have to condemn her because she, and all who are not in Christ, are ALREADY condemned. And John 3:36? The wrath of God ALREADY abides on those not in Christ. This was a trap, notice the man isn’t there? Chris Lyons can tell you he would have had to have been stoned to death as well.
By the way, please refrain from asking me any more questions here because I won’t answer them. I certainly respect Chris Lyons’ right to moderate the comments of whomever he wishes but since my answers/comments appear long after the fact I choose to not comment here anymore. I hope you understand, thanks. peace out dawggie-watcher.
Ken,
A couple of things:
1) Despite the sarcasm, you actually addressed the topic at hand, rather than just try to be ‘cute’ or name-call. That is what we’ve been asking you to do (not the sarcasm part – the actually addressing the topic).
2) I don’t like deleting comments, and I have not done so on this blog. However, when someone, like yourself, plays the part of a troll – posting irrelevant accusations and snarks solely for the purpose of divisiveness – I took a tip from a number of other bloggers and moderated them so that a) the instant gratification of the trolling goes away; and b) to be aware of them and nip them in the bud whenever I got back to my PC.
3) If you actually started trying to address the topics at hand instead of trolling, I’d drop you from moderation. Unless you are vulgar or outright blasphemous, I won’t delete anyone’s comments. We will not behave poorly and try to create a false witness by selectively moderating comments, the way Slice used to do.
Iggy,
I would have to disagree, for similar (but not identical) reasons as Ken, with your exegesis on the story of the woman brought to be stoned. Here is my understanding of the circumstances and the ruling made by Jesus in this case:
http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/?p=90
“posting irrelevant accusations and snarks solely for the purpose of divisiveness”
This is where we differ. But that’s alright, you see what you see and I see what I see. I just wanted people to know why I’m not going to be commenting here. I’m not angry, I understand completely, and I respect what you said. Thanks.
Speaking of downright laughable, two things:
1. Did you see how compassion is spelled at our Friends site?
2. Did you read Mike Ratliff’s post about how someone tried to “pound” their point into him? But he stood resolutly against the heretic? Nathan, was that you? What really burns my britches is he used one of my favorite Luther quotes
All man was condemned…. as that is the level field we start from…
Yet again… John 3:17 says it plainly enough…
“For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.â€
So to say she was already condemned really misses the point… Jesus came to save the sinner not condemn the sinner…
Here set before Jesus was a condemned sinner… condemned by the Law, yet she was not stoned as ALL THERE WERE SINNERS… exact the one who could have stoned her… Jesus… and he did not.
The wages of sin is death… and according to the Law… she was to die… yet Jesus gave her live… through forgiveness.
So where in the story did the woman reject the Son… it seems to me she is totally at the mercy of the Son…Who then gives her mercy and grace… thus saves her.
It seems that is what is missing from your theology Ken… Mercy and Grace…
Interestingly I don’t see it say the man was or was not there… but a major point is missed… the woman was CAUGHT IN THE ACT… which means the guilty was part of the plan to trap Jesus…. and was there, or there was a double standard… or the man was not there…. yet we are not told directly. Could it have been that all the men there had been with her also? Again, we are not told… one can only infer and conject… the point is ALL HAVE SINNED AND ALL ARE CONDEMNED AND HAVE NO RIGHT TO CAST STONES…
Neither you or I hae a right to cast stones as it is only by Grace and mercy we are saved.
All man is condemned… that is the given… yet as Romans 5: 8 states. “But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.”
Remember it is by Grace we are saved not of works… so none can boast… except that God is gracious and merciful.
The main thrust of the story is that the wages of sin… death was not administered to the woman… though by law it was REQUIRED…. the follow through of the condemnation is death… Jesus came to give us LIFE…
And the woman lived… and it is thought by tradition that she is Mary Magdala… the same woman who broke open the jar and anointed Jesus’ feet with tears and washed them with her hair…
Blessings,
iggy
…blog in a manner worthy…
Iggy,
Did you read my post on the subject of the woman? I think you’re stretching the meaning of this passage.
Chris
Carla,
Could you expound upon what it is you’re trying to say? I’m not that bright of a guy so those short sentences throw me.
Chris i did… and I do not see I am stretching anything in relation to the fuller view of scripture…
It seems to me when the law was to be enforced with death by stoning, Jesus pointed out all are sinners… (that is that all are condemned and the common field the woman and the accusers shared) Jesus, instead of say, “Yes, stone her she broke the law… for the wages of sin is death…” Stated anyone who is without sin, cast the stone… He was the only one without sin and rightfully the only one who could and did not… thus giving mercy and grace to the woman…
In exchange for the wages of sin… death, Jesus gave no condemnation and gave grace, mercy, (which is forgiveness) and let her live… which is a shadow of the new Life we are given as we come to Christ… sinners, forgiven by Grace and Mercy and thus given New Life and become New Creations….
So, again, how can we justify casting stones on other sinners when we ourselves are but sinners saved by the same mercy and grace that saved this woman’s life?
How is that stretching the subject of judgment and forgiveness?
How is that not a reflection of what we have received in Christ by the Cross and Resurrection…
The only difference is this… because of the Cross and Resurrection “it is finished!” and “if any man be in Christ, New Creation”.
It is interesting that you state as many do that the “death penalty” could not be legally administered…. yet it often was…
Examples of the same time period:
The stoning of Steven…
and Paul’s numerous times he was stoned.
It seems that according to Acts 5:26 that even the Roman guards feared that stoning would take place…
SO it seems that regardless to what is taught by “some scholars” that the bible speaks plainly that stoning seemed pretty common regardless to the “law” of Rome. Politically Israel was a hotbed and was considered troubling to Rome as the Jews did not bow to Caesar… it was a revolutionary time… and violence was common… There were zealots that carried wheat sheaths and would wound the Roman soldiers in crowds… (see I do read you blog).
I see that if Jesus said, “Stone her” they would have… then they would have appealed to Roman law to get Jesus in trouble… for if Jesus said, “stone her.” and they did not, then no law was broken… but Jesus would then be only accused of telling others to break Roman law.
So please if I am missing something here… and am stretching it farther than it should be explain… in all earnestly. As i still see I am not off at all. (Yet again we disagree yet, seem to not “hate” each other) *grin* I do fully admit I could be wrong… yet see enough biblical evidence to back up what I say.
Blessings,
iggy
You cannot take an event (woman) and make doctrine solely from what you perceive from its narrative. You must go to the teaching epistles for guidance.
Paul says to have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness but rather reprove them. He singles out Alexander the coppersmith and desires God’s judgment upon him and God sees fit to include it in Scripture.
Paul says to reject a heretic after he has been warned twice and that implies that we should know who is one. Paul calls the entire Corinthian church as carnal. So there are many examples in the New Testament where Christians should reprove and rebuke with all longsuffering and doctrine (Word). Yes we are all sinners but God has cjosen to use imperfect vessels to complete His perfect plan.
All must be done in love or it is indeed self indulging flesh.
Iggy,
Perhaps I am reading what you’ve written incorrectly, but it seems to argue against earthly justice/consequences for sin. If so, this would be a poor exegesis. We may forgive, and we may choose to have mercy, but we also must maintain a system of justice (based on Noaic law, at the very least).
Chris,
We are to be subject to the “authorities” as the scripture teaches… that was not what we were talking about as I recall…
Even in that, if it was that we were to follow through that “justice must be served” then we should have stoned Paul… but I will move on…
The issue was there was an idea that we can push God to do as we will… to do our bidding, to bend to our wants. We are arrogant to test God and He will pull that person up short every time.
Yet, Paul condemned the stoning of Stephen… and was guilty of murder… Paul spoke of himself as the chief of sinners….
David committed adultery and murdered her husband… yet in repentance was considered “after God’s own heart”… for that is what repentance is… being after God’s own heart.
I wonder if it is better to forgive and leave the justice to God as God states “vengeance is mine”…
Yet, scripture teaches that it is better to suffer injustice for not doing wrong, yet a shame to commit wrong… in that we get only our just deserts…
Blessings,
iggy
“Yet, Paul condemned the stoning of Stephen”
Should be “condoned”… not “condemned”…. sorry…
iggy