Watchdawggies at work... do not disturb!If it wasn’t already apparent to discerning and non-discerning readers, alike, there is very little research actually conducted at the “Christian Research Network”.  In fact, about a third of what gets passed off as research is little more than glorified gossip, at best.

As one peruses this pothole in the information superhighway, he or she may be struck by the “balance” of three types of postings:

  1. Reporting the Obvious: Articles documenting things that really don’t require all that much ‘discernment’ – Mormonism is a cult, the press hates Christians, the health & wealth gospel is a sham
  2. Spiritual Encouragement: Always a good thing, though there’s a number of better places to go.
  3. Gossip/Slander disguised as ‘Discernment’: Articles which either mock other Christians over tertiary doctrine or differences in taste/style, decry brothers as ‘heretics’ and ‘apostates’ based on opinions and isogesis, or – most often – which completely distort quotes from brothers in Christ and then slander them as if this were the sum total of their ministry.

Were the metatopic of CRN “Physical Science” instead of Christianity, this balance and “depth” of research would be something like this:

  1. The Obvious: Water is wet, the sky is blue, things tend to break when dropped from great heights
  2. Encouraging Words: Recycling tends to save natural resources; Don’t litter; Flowers are very pretty during the springtime
  3. Near or Utter Falsehood: Cold fusion really works – you just don’t understand it correctly; Galileo was wrong about heliocentricity because he couldn’t see supernovae 6 billion light years away; There are tall people who live on the moon (oh, wait, that was actually taught by LDS founder, Joseph Smith!)

As it pertains to Category #3 and “Research”: At CRN, it has become fairly obvious that Dwayna has no connection to reality when it comes to research; that Chris (”the only cure for AIDS is death“) Perjak is all about sound and fury – lots of long seemingly-unrelated Biblical text with ‘unusual’ literalistic interpretations followed by general broad-brush invective; and that Ken Silva has never met a logical fallacy he didn’t embrace.

Red Hot BashTo wit – we ALL have our faults.  Among mine, blog-wise, is a chief overuse of sarcasm, verbosity, and beating dead horses.  However, I would never deem to teach people how not to be sarcastic, how to write concise articles, or how to allow a subject to just drop and to leave it alone.  An old boss of mine called this type of behavior “leading with your glass chin”.  Perhaps this is a lesson that could have been taken into account before choosing “research” as part of the title of your “ministry” (as tenuous a proposition as it is that CRN/Slice can actually be referred to as such).

When average Joes (all of us – not just Joe) like the writers here can so easily eviscerate what passes for “research” at CRN, one really must wonder what defines “research” over there.  In the immortal words of Inigo Montoya, “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”  While even the best minds sometimes get pwned, it seems to be becoming a common occurance to directly disprove Slice claims with written or photographic evidence.

And so it was yesterday, when commenter ‘Matt’ provided photographic evidence (left) of Ken’s rush to slander Mark Driscoll over the name (”Red Hot Bash” New Years’ Eve celebration) as if it were some sexual slang or innuendo for church-sponsored sleaze.  Unfortunately for Ken, there’s an entire Flickr photoset to dispute his smear.  I wonder if there will be an apology made to Driscoll and Mars Hill (cue chirping crickets).

Perhaps it’s just time for CRN/Slice 2.0 to end the charade and update their URL to – at least then there would be truth in advertising.

  • Share/Bookmark
This entry was posted on Tuesday, April 10th, 2007 at 10:46 am and is filed under Chris Pajak, Commentary, Dwayna, Hypocrisy, Ken Silva, Misuse of Scripture, ODM Responses, ODM Writers, Original Articles. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
+/- Collapse/Expand All

2 Comments(+Add)

1   deborah
April 10th, 2007 at 11:22 am

You guys are at your best when you deconstruct the articles. While the points here may be valid, this one seems more about name calling than being constructive.

Chris, please tell me that all the links back to this site were part of an inside joke on how they do things over at Out of 12 links, 7 link to articles here, 4 lead to outside sources and 1 links to someone who could be described as one of this blog’s “minions”. (I use the word minion completely tongue in cheek, but find it interesting that the one link goes to Scott who wrote against quoting yourself back in Jan).

Anyway, as someone who de-lurks rarely, you guys generally do a good job but this particular post seems more in tone with those you are speaking again. FYI, I lurk on most of your personal blogs as well and I find them interesting and challenging. Keep up the good work.


2   Chris L
April 10th, 2007 at 11:56 am


You are correct – upon re-reading, this article was more beating the dead horse from yesterday (the Mars Hill piece) and breaking no new ground/analyzing anything.

My apologies…

I think it would be hypocrisy to just delete this and pretend it didn’t happen (since I’ve criticized Ingrid for the same), so I will leave this comment as my own self-condemnation/retraction for recycling instead of writing anything new…

My deepest apologies again to you and other readers…