… they are still going at it over the Warren / Murdock issue at CRN! Guess the Christian Tabloid business is slowing down for the summer. Here are some titles posted just in the last 2 days!
Purpose Driven Pastor Rick Warren Claims To Be Rupert Murdoch’s Pastor: Here Are The Facts
What the Bible Says About Discipline
Asking the Right Questions About Warren & Murdoch
Will Saddleback Boycott HarperCollins & Zondervan?
Rupert Murdoch’s Purpose Driven Pastor Rick Warren is Now Way Out of Bounds
Rick Warren ‘Works With’ and ‘Strengthens’ Mormon Churches and Other Non-Christian Sects
This entry was posted
on Wednesday, May 23rd, 2007 at 10:33 am and is filed under Linked Articles, ODM Responses, ODM Writers, PD/SS, Updates.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
127 Comments(+Add)
Wait a minute! You mean to tell me that Rick Warren is actually Rupert Murdoch’s PASTOR??!!
Get out!
Ken: 4 Questions
Rick Warren said that he was Murdoch’s pastor. He did not say he was a member of his church and Saddleback has confirmed this. What is the biblical mandate then for this discipline to be public if Murdoch is not a church member? If you feel it is mandated, then how do you know Rick Warren has not already done something in private, and taking two or three to witness this discipline? How long does he have to complete stage one and two before taking this public for a person not a member of his church (i.e month, year)?
Let’s assume that you had claimed to be Murdoch’s pastor but he was not a member of your church. How would you handle this discipline and by what medium would you take it public?
Ken,
In your article linked 5-22, you said, “So now we can see that Rick Warren already at least knew about Murdoch’s newspaper which features soft core porn, however, apparently he made the chose to ignore that 80 per cent in sin and instead focus on “the 20 percent†that equaled $2 million.†When I questioned your assumption that Warren ignored the sin issue for money, you said that “apparent†is defined as “hardly a statement of fact.†http://www.christianworldviewnetwork.com/feedback.php?&ArticleID=1971
Since you have not retracted that statement, I assume you still stand by it. My Webster’s dictionary defines apparent as 1 : open to view : VISIBLE 2 : EVIDENT, OBVIOUS 3 : appearing as real or true : SEEMING. So you can see why one would think that you must have had some pretty solid evidence. Why would you want to further the flippant assertion made by a secular newspaper? In Christ, I appeal to you to read Matt. 12:36. Would you have a problem with this? [HYPOTHETICAL] The Los Angeles Times stated that John MacArthur will make money from his new book The Truth War. So I then say, apparently he wrote it just to make money. Now I can just add your line, “hardly stated as fact†to define apparent and all is well.
How do I know Warren isn’t doing for the money? I don’t and neither do you.
Darren,
Remember, it was you who asked for this:
“Rick Warren said that he was Murdoch’s pastor.”
This is beyond question.
“He did not say he was a member of his church and Saddleback has confirmed this. What is the biblical mandate then for this discipline to be public if Murdoch is not a church member?”
Rick Warren is responsible for discipline now because he is claiming to be the pastor for Rupert Murdoch. Biblically one need not be in your local church to act as spiritual counsel; to deal with a person’s sin privately, and if they will not repent, to have to publicly reprimand them.
A good example would be that as a former high school football coach I had a few Christian players that while under my care I was responsible in the Lord’s eyes for concerning any spiritual discipline which might have been necessary. I’d often “pastor” them and should they have sinned publicly I would have discussed it privately with them and then made them publicly repent of their public sin. If they had refused then it would have also been my obligation as a Christian pastor to rebuke them publicly.
“If you feel it is mandated, then how do you know Rick Warren has not already done something in private, and taking two or three to witness this discipline?”
You can choose to express what sure seems in my view to be a very naive mindset and be willing to believe this, but he could easily have said so by now. For as you mentioned Saddleback has spoken.
“How long does he have to complete stage one and two before taking this public for a person not a member of his church (i.e month, year)?” This now becomes a red herring.
“Let’s assume that you had claimed to be Murdoch’s pastor but he was not a member of your church. How would you handle this discipline and by what medium would you take it public?” Answered above.
“When I questioned your assumption that Warren ignored the sin issue for money, you said that ‘apparent’ is defined as ‘hardly a statement of fact.’†Darren, as long as number 5 is still ascribed to “apparent” then my usage of it stands: “manifest to the senses or mind as real or true on the basis of evidence that may or may not be factually valid
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/apparent
So if it’s slander and libel then let Rick and the Saddleback boys attempt to sue me and they will quickly find out no lawyer worth his salt would take the case on that word containing only the meanings you apparently want it to have.
And this is just too easy: “How do I know Warren isn’t doing for the money? I don’t and neither do you.” Um, yeah…therefore I said “apparently,” as in – “manifest to the senses or mind as real or true on the basis of evidence that may or may not be factually valid.”
Darren, I suggest that it’s past time for you to grow up into the time in which you live and to cease bothering me with your misconceptions of the Christian faith. For you see, I’m not your pastor.
Quick, somebody ask Rick Warren if he’s stopped beating his wife.
Very mature Ray Jr.
Ken criticizing someone for not being mature… now there’s some irony for ya.
Although, I do have to say that the usual name calling, outrageous remarks and general unloving tone have been absent from Silva’s comments as of late. It does make for a good conversation and makes his point of view much more palatable. Thank you for that.
Hey no problem. All in how I’m approached.
I’ve pretty much sat this one out so maybe someone would answer a question (from someone who has NOT read all the accusations)…
How is it that Warren is being attacked when the whole story is not known? That is, how does anyone other than the parties at hand know what’s been said between these two?
Neil
Ken,
I appreciate your direct answers on three of the questions. On the one you labeled a red herring, you cannot answer it because you don’t know what is happening. Discipline in private could well be happening with progress. Whether I think it is really happening is not the point, but that it could be happening is the point. You call my view naïve, but it is not. My view is that I don’t have the facts so I choose not to assume the best or worst. APPARENTLY, assumption versus fact guides your ministry. What’s naïve is to allow the enemy to use you to attack someone that is proclaiming the gospel. Is your mission to correct a few things in him or would you prefer he was removed from ministry?
“Darren, I suggest that it’s past time for you to grow up into the time in which you live and to cease bothering me with your misconceptions of the Christian faith. For you see, I’m not your pastor.â€
Let’s rewrite that: Ken, I suggest that it’s past time for you to grow up into the time in which you live and to cease bothering Warren with your misconceptions of the Christian faith. For you see, you are not Rick Warren’s pastor. But I would never seriously write that, because it’s not very grown up.
Ken, this is the third time you have chosen to question my spiritual maturity, but I tell you that it does not help you in making your point on the things that matter. I am certainly interested in debate over these subjects with you, but I’ll take no spiritual counsel from you, as I don’t know you well enough to see your qualifications as a pastor or elder.
Darren,
I give you this; here’s the choice you made. You now stated that what I am doing right now in calling out Rick Warren for his hypocrisy is to “allow the enemy to use” me. Good Darren.
Now you can see the way someone like me, as a real preacher sent from God, has a narrow message which causes people to get on one side of the proverbial fence or the other. I live with this every day and now so will you, but unfortunately in this case where you have put yourself on the wrong side of it.
Ken,
What you are “doing right now†is causing strife by seeking to discredit Rick Warren for what you think he is doing. The fact is you don’t know. What Ted Haggard did is a fact. We know it. What Rick Warren has done with Murdoch is not yet known. It is impossible for you to know if you are right or wrong unless you have specific knowledge that you have yet to print. That means either you don’t understand it or you are choosing to cause strife. You ministry of assumption is wrong. I agree that Rick Warren has said he is Murdoch’s pastor and has a duty to carry out but he does not owe you or me an explanation of how that is going. Matthew 18 in my Bible does not provide a timeframe this process. I notice you have still not answered that as one of my original questions, so I will give it to you again. How long does he have to complete stage one and two before taking this public for a person not a member of his church (i.e month, year)?
Rick Warren does not have a free pass with me. He is a fallible man as are you and I. What I am not willing to do is hinder a real preacher sent from God like Rick Warren who is doing ministry and sharing the Gospel, because that would put me on the wrong side of the fence unless they were doing something so harmful to the body as to compromise that message.
I have done open air preaching with and similar to Ray Comfort from Dallas to Russia and I have had my share of hecklers. They hinder the sharing of the Gospel and I see that as them being used by the enemy. Let’s be helpers, not hinderers
The purpose for the barrage of articles has more to do with search engine results than a mission from God. Nothing new is being said in the “new” articles and missives. By posting repeated articles with Warren and Murdoch’s name in the title Ken increases traffic to his site. Combine the frequency of titles with the repetition of the names in his articles and the result is a search engine honey pot.
Whew, I’m not so sure you guys should be so comfortable being so judgmental. That’s a sin ya know.
nathan,
Would you please add the missing “t” into the title…
Ken, in your example about the football players, you said that you:
“would have discussed it privately with them and then made them publicly repent of their public sin. If they had refused then it would have also been my obligation as a Christian pastor to rebuke them publicly.”
Using your example, how would you have made them publically repent (where, in front of whom) and if they refused, how would you have rebuked them publicaly (where, in front of whom)?
Thanks, deborah
“Whew, I’m not so sure you guys should be so comfortable being so judgmental. That’s a sin ya know.”
Ken, I strongly recommend reading – nay contemplating – on the meaning and spirit of Matt 7:3. Perhaps it will be eye-opening to you and your ministry as it appears you have never read it before.
Ken,
Apparently, Darren was trying to be polite in his language choice saying:
which allowed you to CLAIM to be on the side of God in this matter.
I, however, won’t be nearly so polite. What you are doing is causing unnecessary strife in the church for something that is a) blown terribly out of proportion, and b) is none of your business. What you are doing (and have been doing in your time at AM, Slice and CR?N) is NOT God’s work, but quite often the work of Satan, when you propogate lies, half-truths and strife.
It is clear that your calling is NOT from God by your approach and the bitter fruit of your “ministry”…
Ken,
To be a little bit more philospohically clear here:
1) If your stiltedly gnostic view of the world is true, then the elect cannot be deceived or led away from the truth, and all you’re doing is causing a stir amongst those rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic, as they will perish anyway.
2) If your worldview is false, then you are causing unneeded strife within the body, chipping away at the church, itself, when it is in need of building up, not tearing down.
Either way, you’re either irrelevant or foolishly incendiary. Your calling, as you are acting it out, is from the same spirit as that of Cotton Mather, Torquemada and the popes who persecuted and burned the reformers.
deborah,
Please know that the this all depends on the kind of sin, severity of it, who it affected etc. I really can’t answer the question the way it is currently phrased, I’m sorry.
Todd,
Yep, I’ve read it young man.
Chris L.,
*yawn* Heard it before and it would be hard for you to be more wrong. Apparently you’re used to it by now. Though I do not claim to be a prophet, “It is clear that your calling is NOT from God by your approach and the bitter fruit of your ‘ministry’…”; oddly enough, this is the same reaction they would always get from the smug self-satisfied religionist of whatever time period they were sent to oppose.
And this, “the same spirit as that of…the popes who persecuted and burned the reformers,” is incredibly foolish coming as it does in a time when so-called “Protestant” evangelicals like Rob Bell and Rick Warren openly are embracing the Roman Catholic Church as a Christian denomination in direct opposition to the spirit OF those “persecuted and burned” Reformers.
I have to wonder Chris L. if you even think through the logical conclusions of your pompous religious blether before you spew it at Christ’s servants…
Ken,
You wrote:
Give it a break and look in the mirror.
You have placed yourself in the seat of the Sanhedrin, ignoring the advice of Gamaliel as it pertains to both “Seeker Sensitive” and Emergin/Emergent. If these movements are of God, nothing you can do will stop them and you only work against Him. If they are not of God, they will die out as a result of being cut off from the root.
There is nothing pompous about the gospel I, or others here, proclaim. It is the entire gospel as taught by Jesus – faith IN him and preaching the Kingdom – balancing -doxy and -praxy, with no favor to either.
Ken,
How do you know Rick Warren is not in one of the first stages of Matthew 18 discipline? Answer: You don’t.
How much time is he allowed to practice the early stages of Matthew 18 discipline before we can judge he has failed to take it public? Answer: There is no time frame.
Since you have failed to answer these questions, I have answered them for you. Instead of telling me that I am wrong, tell me why the above two answers are wrong.
Ken, okay, rather than dream up a hypothetical situation, how should Warren publically rebuke Murdoch? What public venue would be appropriate, and what should he say?
deborah
What is the original source for the idea that Murdoch is born-again?
It was when he was with the A-team.
amy,
“What is the original source for the idea that Murdoch is born-again?” To my knowledge the “original source” is known. However, Warren has claimed to be Murdoch’s “pastor.” By doing so he is accepting Murdoch, who is most likely Roman Catholic, as a “Christian” because we don’t pastor those we consider to be unbelievers. I pray this helps.
amy,
*psst* Don’t tell anyone but I made a typo above, it’ll be bad for my image.
Should read source is UNknown.
Ken
“All in how I’m approached.”
So your behavior is dictated by how you are approached, and you are kind to others only when they are.
Sounds like a second grader on the playground.
And you question people’s “maturity.”
Ken,
“By doing so he is accepting Murdoch, who is most likely Roman Catholic, as a “Christian†because we don’t pastor those we consider to be unbelievers. I pray this helps.”
Surely we pastor those who are in need of our pastorship, whatever stage of life they’re at – whether they’ve been Christians for decades, or whether they’re new converts, or whether they’re yet to become Christians but have questions and concerns which we can answer. I thank God that he’s put Mr Warren in a position where he can be a pastor to people like Mr Murdoch.
David.
David C.,
I hope you’re not really as spiritually dense as that comment makes you appear.
Darren: “Rick Warren said that he was Murdoch’s pastor. He did not say he was a member of his church and Saddleback has confirmed this”.
So Warren claims to be the Pastor of a guy who doesn’t even go to his church? What does being his pastor mean then? If Murdoch’s Pastor is RW, yet he is forsaking the assembly, then the problem is even deeper than orriginally thought.
David B.,
Pastors shepherd the sheep i.e. believers. Others, if they wat it, we may counsel, befriend, work with etc., but we can only be pastor to believers. The point is not whether Rick Warren is a great guy and can inspire men, the issue is if Warren’s “in a position where he can be a pastor to people like Mr Murdoch,” then he is also in a position where he must also publicly denounce Murdoch’s blantant sins.
Ken,
I still fail to see how this situation concerns you or anyone not associated with Warren or Saddleback. Honestly, like I’ve said on multiple occasions, I am not a Warren fan. But really, I don’t care what he does or says, for the most part. He’s not accountable to me, you, or anyone else on this board (unless there are some Saddleback elders lurking here). I can only influence the people God has put into my life. Worrying about the Church at large just seems like something best left up to Jesus.
phil,
I really do understand your views here. But I just happen to disagree with you. Way it goes sometimes.
Kent,
You wrote:
Here’s a response from Saddleback:
This was posted over a week ago, but the lame attempts from watchdawggies like Ken to give other Christians they dislike a black eye continue.
Phil wrote:
That’s the point, Phil – it doesn’t concern them. Ken, Ingrid and company are just gossipmongers hiding behind a cloak of sanctimonious piety, all the while making a mockery of the One they claim to serve.
Chris L.,
Just a loving reminder. You are going to have to give account to Christ for your judgmental words concerning the Lord’s servants if you don’t repent. Please be more careful and ask for eyes that see and ears that hear. Maybe it isn’t too late for your heart to become soft:
Ken, just a loving reminder. You are going to have to give account to Christ for your judgmental words concerning the Lord’s servants if you don’t repent. Please be more careful and ask for eyes that see and ears that hear. Maybe it isn’t too late for your heart to become soft.
Ken,
I will not apologize for calling a spade a spade here. What you do with AM/Slice/CR?N is exactly what I claimed. I hope and pray that you will see the error of your ways and that what you are doing is divisive gossipmongering, couched in false piety (which you so aptly demonstrated in your most recent comment). You demonstrate who it is that you serve with your slander, gossip and lies – and it’s not THE One you claim…
While I continue to find things in my life for which I must repent, what you have identified is not one of them.
Ken,
Just a loving reminder. You are going to have to give account to Christ for your judgmental words concerning the Lord’s servants if you don’t repent.
We know we will give an account, and I am pretty sure it will be “well done, my good and faithful servant”. You on the other hand, will have to answer for the divisiveness that oozes from your website. It is not a divisiveness based on the true and false church, but a divisiveness based on faulty research and interpretations.
Guys,
Please, in the name of Christian charity, let’s please stop lobbing spiritual ad hominem at one another. It only serves to defeat the spirit of unity we are called to in John 17:22,23. Does that mean we have to agree on everything? Absolutely not but let’s discuss the points of disagreement with civility as much as we can.
As I see it, the points of contention are the following:
1. As Rupert’s pastor, what disciplinary role if any should Rick take in reprimanding Rupert for his porn channels in Europe?
2. Was it appropriate for Rick to accept a $2 million gift from Murdoch, given his somewhat dubious income sources?
3. At one point, as Christians, do we in the blog-o-sphere stop beating an issue to death? Is re-visiting an issue over and over again tantamount to gossip and/or spiritual voyeurism?
4. To what extent should we cut Rick some slack (aka grace) for some of the things that he says that are later pulled apart and parsed for possible theological error?
Now I’m sure that some or all of these questions will appear to be biased in one direction or another and to some extent, they are biased because the author (me) can’t help it. I’m human, fallible, prone to bias. But I tried to be as objective as possible. So, please accept this comment the way in which it was intended, to encourage civility in the public square even when we think our opponent happens to be a sanctimonious gossipmonger.
Peace,
“Rick Warren is Rupert Murdoch’s pastor in the sense that over the years they have had “numerous spiritual conversations and times of prayer,â€
“Numerous spiritual conversations and times of prayer”? Goodness, if that’s the criteria for being one’s Pastor, I guess that would make most believers Pastors of numerous brothers and sisters in Christ! That’s absurd, if that’s Warren’s definition of a Pastor, he needs to re-visit the definition.
Kent,
I think Chris L. answered your question. I will add that the following two questions that Ken will not answer, further describe that we don’t have the data to know how he has handled it and if we never know, it does not mean that Warren has not done his duty.
How do you know Rick Warren is not in one of the first stages of Matthew 18 discipline? Answer: We don’t.
How much time is he allowed to practice the early stages of Matthew 18 discipline before we can judge he has failed to take it public? Answer: There is no time frame.
Kent,
I think the definition of pastor is difficult to nail down. Is it pastor of a local church, pastor in relation to the community, or pastor as in priesthood of all believers. Is it as simple as spiritual leader?
Perhaps you could share your definition of pastor and we go from there.
Good points to consider and summations, John…
JohnD said “I’m human, fallible, prone to bias.”
You are in the wrong meeting my friend. With that attitude how can you ever expect to be a warrior for truth? Away with that skirt wearing and pink tea spirit, what would Jesus think?!
(The above comment was made in satirical language intended for all of us to again reassess our humble standing as we attempt to represent our Savior. Sometimes we get the ink when it should all be His.)
Rick,
It would be adviseable for you to revisit: “With that attitude how can you ever expect to be a warrior for truth?”
Man, with the kind of, “I’m afraid to scratch my own hiney” attitude in this pathetic new evangelical man-love passing for Christianity, if Luther had been this kind of spiritual sissy these fools wouldn’t even have a Bible in their hands to read and say they don’t understand.
I think we can all reasonably surmise that being a Pastor is a bit more than this “over the years they have had “numerous spiritual conversations and times of prayer,â€
Let’s look at it from another perspective. If I dated a woman “numerous times” and had “many conversations” with her and even changed the oil in her car, would that make me her husband? Of course not, I could have performed many of the functions a husband might, but those things don’t make me her husband.
You see JohnD…
By the way, Ken, that is a very man centerd view. Nothing revolved around Luther, nothing. Only the Spirit of God and He could have used parrots if He so desired. But being an Arminian myself, I would tend to agree with your view of man’s responsibility. Maybe you aren’t a Calvinist after all!
Rick,
Straining at gnats. You know well Luther was God’s instrument through whom He worked. The point is Luther was obedient and made a stand because he felt he KNEW this is what he had to do. Luther stands as the exact polar opposite of spiritual sissies like Rob Bell.
Ken,
Name-calling aside (which is all it is), God calls men and women in every generation – of which Rob is obviously one – and which Luther was, as well. Perhaps those you refer to so lovingly as “sissies” have something you lack – humility. They don’t need to remind people all the time of their calling, because it is self-evident – something that is obviously beyond your comprehension.
While you may be an instrument of God, I suspect it is (at the moment) in the vein of Pharoah and not Paul – or Caiphas and not Cephas. Perhaps you should stop trying to “remind” people of your “calling” – if it is true, it will be self-evident. If it is not, you will have to remind people or else they won’t believe it (and even then they won’t)…
Rick,
Believe me, I see.
I’m one of the notables that was banned from the Old Slice for quoting Scripture. Nevertheless, I strive not to be baited by being called a “fool” (Jesus had something to say about that term of endearment I believe in Matthew 5), a spiritual sissy and apparently a member of something called: “pathetic new evangelical man-love passing for Christianity.”
By the way Ken, on occasion in the privacy of my own home, I have been known to scratch my hiney from time to time. But thank you for your concern.
Ken,
You can call Rob Bell many things, but “spiritual sissy” certainly isn’t one of them. Have you even ever listened to any of the man’s sermons? He’s certainly more provocative than 99% of the pastors I’ve heard.
Not that that has anything to do with this topic, but, seriously, I wonder how you can make the accusations you make sometimes.
“Jesus had something to say about that term” fool:
Since Jesus is God and all Scripture is God-breathed, Jesus tells us:
“The senseless man does not know, fools do not understand.” (Psalm 92:6)
And, “For the waywardness of the simple will kill them, and the complacency of fools will destroy them. (Proverbs 1:32)
And, “You blind fools!” (Matthew 23:17)
Yes, Ken, but Matthew 23:17 isn’t yours to use as you like, unless you happen to be Jesus…
Ken,
Now that you have exposited “fool,” can you do “sissies?”
You guys just don’t get it, do you? I feel sad for you, I really do. *sigh*
And we, for you, Ken – you might be able to “fool” the weak, but we’ve not been taken in by your hatemongering…
Ken,
You wrote, “You guys just don’t get it, do you? I feel sad for you, I really do. *sigh* ”
Does this mean you have no answer?
But my question was serious. I don’t have a problem with using the word fool because it is supported by Scripture. We just need to be very careful how we use it. I don’t find Scripture to support sissy.
Ken loses.
Again.
Aw shucks, so I lose yet again. C’est la vie.
Ken,
You comment above that you are using to justify yourself to be able to abuse others… is fallacious…
YOU ARE NOT JESUS… AND JESUS CAN SAY WHAT HE WANTS ABOUT FOOLS…
You are a mere man… who like the rest of us Hope in Jesus for our salvation… so if there is one that does not “get it” it is you in your attacks against your brothers and sisters in Christ Jesus… Unless you have somehow obtained perfection on your own, humility should be on your sleeves.
Now I will sit back and see you next abusive comment or see you ignore this completely…
Be Blessed,
iggy
This is how I envision Ken Silva.
I love his abusive comments. They are extremely entertaining.
“You are a mere man”
Don’t look now iggy bu tyour ignorance is showing: “O foolish Galatians,… Are ye so foolish?” (Gal.3:1,3) What was Paul?
David C.,
It’s been used here before. But fortunately I still have more hair than that guy.
[blockquote}As I see it, the points of contention are the following:
1. As Rupert’s pastor, what disciplinary role if any should Rick take in reprimanding Rupert for his porn channels in Europe?
2. Was it appropriate for Rick to accept a $2 million gift from Murdoch, given his somewhat dubious income sources?
3. At one point, as Christians, do we in the blog-o-sphere stop beating an issue to death? Is re-visiting an issue over and over again tantamount to gossip and/or spiritual voyeurism?
4. To what extent should we cut Rick some slack (aka grace) for some of the things that he says that are later pulled apart and parsed for possible theological error?[blockquote]
1. – He should take a role.
2. – Sure.
3. – As long as legalism from neofundies exists – they’ll attack and as long as they attack someone will counter with grace.
4. – Grace? Precision? – that’s not how watchblogging works.
Ken,
Paul was an Apostle… and “fool” was not used in that passage as you use it… Paul “loved” the galatains greatly… he was sahming them out of his love…
You are just abusive… and I did notice you cannot say one nice thing to or about me…
Abuse is not a Christian value nor “pastoral”.
You really need to repent from your arrogance. For I fear that if you don’t God will shame you for your lack of humilty.
Be Blessed,
iggy
“and “fool†was not used in that passage as you use it… You are just abusive”
As you instruct and judge me you are now judged by your own words: “You really need to repent from your arrogance. For I fear that if you don’t God will shame you for your lack of humilty.”
Ken, I was the one who brought that up.
How about this? Seems more fitting.
Hey David C.,
You know funny thing, I remember the day when they took that picture of me. The photo shoot ran late and man I was hungry.
Ken,
First off I have not said one cannot judge as in discern…
second… to judge another as in condemn.. that is wrong… and I have not done that to you… you have to me many times… but what’s new.
Point to one arrogant thing I have stated and I will repent… will you?
(Bracing for the snide and abusive comment again…)
Be blessed in the full measure of Christ Jesus,
iggy
iggy,
You just don’t seem to be able to hear me so we’d be best just leaving one another alone right now. I wish you well…
Ken,
i hear you… and I hear you really good… I think it is you who cannot hear… it is you who I praise God that His love and Grace and mercy saved me… and I am glad that God does not judge me as you do… In that i also praise God that God has saved you by His Grace…
I also will stand and turn the other cheek to you as long as God wills…
So I stand here… and know my God is Faithful and true… and is will and able to forgive even the worst sinners…. sinners Ken deems as unworthy to even have a conversation with without abusive put downs… You have never shown me any love… grace or mercy… and still refuse to see yourself as just a mere man like me… standing before a perfect and righteous God. Or do you stand on your own righteousness? I sure don’t!
So, I stand on Grace… and pray for you daily to come to Grace and Knowledge of Jesus Christ…
In that find your calling fulfilled in Him and not your own works.
Be Blessed with all the Grace and mercy and Love of Jesus our King….
iggy
iggy,
Can you quit with all the pious religious blether – please!
Ken,
If you call the Grace of God pious religious blather… then I wonder about you…
Can you actually have a conversation without the put downs and abuse?
How is Grace and Mercy and Love… pious religious blather?
LOL!
You do crack me up!
Ken of all the pious religious blather here and else were I do not hold a candle to you… So, it is good you can see that in others… but really do you walk with Jesus? I do not see it in you… honestly… I see you hate me… and that is all. I bless and you curse… I bless again and you curse again…
So, I bless you again! LOL!
Be Blessed in all the abundance of Life that Jesus our King has for you,
iggy
“Pastors shepherd the sheep i.e. believers. Others, if they wat it, we may counsel, befriend, work with etc., but we can only be pastor to believers.”
Which is an interesting principle, but…well, I suppose it depends on how you’re defining “pastoring,” but it seems to me that if someone approaches a Christian pastor in need of pastoral help of some kind – guidance, counsel, prayer, whatever – then to insist that that person be a Christian believer before one offers pastoral help, would be both impractical (how would you tell?) and unChristian (if we’re not offering help to all, including non-Christians, then I’m not convinced that matches up well with the Biblical model).
“The point is not whether Rick Warren is a great guy and can inspire men, the issue is if Warren’s “in a position where he can be a pastor to people like Mr Murdoch,†then he is also in a position where he must also publicly denounce Murdoch’s blatant sins. ”
Would that really serve any purpose, though? I’m kind of assuming that Murdoch isn’t a Christian at the moment – and Warren “publicly denouncing Murdoch’s sins” would (I’d've thought) be more likely to put him off making any sort of Christian commitment, and less likely to encourage him in that direction.
David.
David,
With all due respect I have no affinity for this kind of new evangelical sentimentality. And I define the word pastor in it’s Biblical context.
iggy,
Before you spew religious words and blether it would be helpful for you to go study what they mean. And by the way, you don’t have the power to bless anyone…
Ken,
You’ve pointed out a key point in the issue:
Here, you have chosen a VERY narrow interpretation of the word “pastor” as only parallel to ‘elder’ or ‘overseer’ (which is similar in meaning to, but not as encompassing as ’shepherd’).
David’s defining of the term above is actually closer to the picture painted by God in the Bible. As Jesus taught in his parable, the lost sheep are still sheep, nonetheless. In offering spiritual counsel to someone upon their request – even if they are not a member of one’s local congregation – a pastor is, indeed, ‘pastoring’.
The only thing you’ve succeeded in doing with this “story” is to make mountains of molehills and to demonstrate to the world one more instance where Christians like to talk about grace, but they are hypocrites when it comes to practicing it.
Ken Silva:
Jesus:
Ken,
“Before you spew religious words and blether it would be helpful for you to go study what they mean. And by the way, you don’t have the power to bless anyone… ”
Lest you for get the words of scripture and of Jesus,
“And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”
In that I forgive you and thus bless you again as you curse me…
Ken, your heart is on your sleeves… (Romans 3:14)
You need to rest from your “works” and come to the finished works of Christ Jesus.
Blessings to you from our Great God and Saviour Jesus Christ,
iggy
Chris L,
Ken chooses whatever interpretation backs his own views… he can then justify hating and judging others. He can also justify not having to change as he has placed himself under the Law… and become it’s slave… even if that law is a man made one. He needs to come to Christ and no longer have the Law be his master. In other words Ken seems to have not come to the end of himself and realized he died by the Law and can only live by Christ Jesus. His master is sin as he is under the law that leads on to their death. Yet he is blinded to the understanding he is dead and needs Life and Life is in the Son, not our own (Self) righteous works. (Romans 7)
And that is what I am praying for, that Ken comes to the end of seeking his own right(eousness) and seek and walk in the right(eousness) of Jesus Christ. He thinks he is, but it is evident by his fruit he is not bearing God’s Fruit.
Blessings,
iggy
Is the paid staff “pastor” at 1st Baptist the pastor of the people down the street at 2nd Baptist Church? Is that calling confined to a membership role at a local assembly or was it meant to be lovingly used to all sheep in different ways to be sure?
For instance, why is it OK for MacArthur (or others) as a pastor/teacher to write books and sell tapes to teach sheep in many local assemblies without him being their so called “pastor”? Do you see what I mean? Why can a church have a pastor/teacher come and speak but not recognize him as a pastor/teacher to them as well as his home church? Is his gift/office only recognized in a certain building, or is his calling universal throughout the body of Christ? And if his calling is only to his local membership then he should not be teaching or pastoring others.
In a sense, a God called pastor can use his office to all sheep even if the proximity means his interaction is limited. The same for elders within the body, no where in the New Testament is it taught that elders, or pastor/teachers, or evangelists, or prophets are confined to a local gathering. This notion has come to be widely accepted because of the disjointed nature of evangelical local churches.
And because of this practice the world wide body of Christ is disjointed and accountability suffers. I would like to hear Chris L’s view on the metamorphosis of the modern pastoral office and how the western ecclesia has made it a disjointed and “franchise” set up, not the interdependent and loving family that we all should be.
Rick,
to me it revolves around that the person being “pastored” needs to submit to the pastor… in that there can be influence, and even if needed disciplinary actions. Otherwise pastoring is nothing… one can only teach if there is a student… one can only pastor if there are people there being pastored… If Murdoch is just getting “advise” and RW is hoping to have influence on him, and Murdoch ignores the things RW has said, then RW may think he is Murdoch’s pastor, but he is not… Murdoch did not submit.
Again, the donation thing is irrelevant as anyone can “donate” money to non profits and charities and get tax write offs… or they can have motives other than getting the Gospel out… who knows maybe it is Murdoch’s wife who made him write the check! In that we do not have all the pieces and to attack RW and Murdoch as Ken has is way overboard and to me reeks of self promotion and not warning to the flock. In fact much at Slice and CRN are that to me… self promotion… Ingrid for her radio show… and Ken for being able to justify himself being called pastor/teacher…
I have ministered pastoral in hospitals on the streets… yet, I do not myself care if anyone calls me “pastor” or even teacher… which people have told me I do very well at also. I am not bragging as I see these as “gifts from God” and not my own fruit… not my own works… I study and study yet only God will grow His Fruit in someones heart…
To just have a pastor be a leadership/teaching/authority to me misses the essence of pastoring… and that is to edify others and guide them toward the Gate… and that Gate is Jesus. I really have nothing to offer, but Jesus has everything to give…
Blessings,
iggy
Henry,
You asked:
In some ways, I look to Paul, who set up local elders in the churches that were planted. The method he used, and hinted at by Jesus in several places (ex. “wherever 2 or 3 of you are gathered”), parallels the practice in the synagogues (where many of our early Christian brothers met each week up through the third century in several notable cases).
In the synagogue ’system’, each local body was autonomous. Only members who were considered to be of that community were allowed to give the reading and d’rash in their Sabbath worship gatherings. Members from other communities who were gifted with teaching skill and ability could come and teach there, though, during the remainder of the week. Thus, we see Jesus ‘preaching’ in many synagogues, but we only record him giving the reading and d’rash in Nazareth (and possibly Capernaum).
In each community, the local elders could ‘bind’ (prohibit) and ‘loose’ (permit) behaviors/activities based upon their reading of scripture.
In the case of the Galileean synagogues, where Jesus was located, there was no ‘higher body’ to which to appeal. In the Judean synagogues, though, appeals and questions could be decided by the Sanhedrin.
So, it is not surprising that Paul, a Judean Jew, would appeal the question of the Judiazers and requirements of the law to the church council in Jerusalem (Acts 15) – because that is the only authority to whom the Judiazers and those confused by them might listen to, but that his general practice would be to give autonomy to the local ecclesia via the leadership of their elders.
With the printing press, internet and modern communications, many new questions are introduced, but I think we have to fall back onto Paul and Jesus preference for local autonomy in most, if not all matters.
OK, if your assessment is accurate then how can a pastor/teacher teach sheep in other local churches by means of books, tapes, radio, internet, and television? Wouldn’t that be a usurping of the God ordained oversight of each assembly?
You cannot say that each pastor/teacher is limited to his local assembly as far as his calling is concerned, but then allow him to teach other sheep. His teaching is his authoritative calling so it should be confined only to those he is called to, no?
The one thing I would add to this conversation is that true leadership in my eyes is based more on submission than on authority. I think to try and translate the way synagogues were structured is not always going to easy or ideal in today’s world. For any type of church discipline to take place it has to be in the context of the members submitting to each other. When it comes from an authoritarian context, that just seems to open wide the door to potential abuse.
Also, I think the one thing that we can’t discount is that the majority of the populace in Jesus’ time was still probably illiterate, and really depended on the Priest at the local synagogue to feed them the Scripture. Today we are probably at the other end of that spectrum, but I would still venture to say that there are still a lot of people who depend on their pastor as the main dispenser of spiritual wisdom.
I don’t know what my point is entirely, other than that, yes, we can take general concept from the first century church and apply them today, but in a lot respects it seems the Church has been given a lot of freedom when it comes to actual leadership structure. I also think that generally, the more hierarchy that is involved in a leadership structure, the more potential there is for abuse of power.
Phil,
“The one thing I would add to this conversation is that true leadership in my eyes is based more on submission than on authority.”
Be careful as that is what I have been saying… Ken may say your not saved also! LOL!
Blessings,
iggy
This is an extremely serious and relevant question which may reveal why the church has strayed from its roots. If all churches were interdependant and interaccountable wouldn’t it provide a more authoritative basis for Biblical truth?
Of course we’ve lost the chance for that completely, but how about denominations like the SBC. There is no accountability and the denomination is purely based upon missionary cooperation. While avoiding the Papal model, wouldn’t it be adventagous to have the elders oversee the entire denomination?
My two cents. There seems to be a pastoral “gift” and a pastoral “office” in Scripture. The pastoral gift can be exercised without holding the office and when you think about it, there are a number of instances when the pastoral office is not characterized by the gift.
Certainly in the SBC, the pastoral “office” is always connected to a local congregation responsibility and as such, this is where matters of discipline come into play in accordance with 1 Cor. 5. In fact, it’s not just the so called “pastor” who is being called to task here, it is the whole congregation.
But the application of the pastoral gift in serving to nurture the Body of Christ certainly can be exercised without an attendant requirement to publicly denounce someone for bad behaviour. For example, as a recovering alcoholic saved by grace, I frequently find myself in a “pastoral” role with others who struggle with the same addiction. I might be farther along the road then they are so I have an opportunity to share my “experience, strength, and hope” with them in a way that does not condemn but uplifts and offers hope. Do I ever compromise my belief that Christ calls us to a “narrow path”? Absolutely not but I reference that narrow path from the perspective of my personal journey and not in a legalistic sense that condemns and ostracizes. Again, in this context, I am only talking about exercising the “gift” of pastor. I am not talking about the “office” of pastor.
By the way, I love the conversation. We’re actually discussing ecclesiology without calling anybody a fool. This is good stuff.
Wow man, this stuff is out of control. There was a point not too long ago that I really valued CRN and Slice type work. While I still think there is a great need for discernment ministries it appears that Mr. Silva and crew are just going overboard. Drop it man, is it really a big deal? While I still will visit their sites and try to keep up with what’s going on in churchianity I think I am going to start focusing more on defending the faith type stuff. And I don’t mean stuff like what kind of music, type of dress, type of Bible version is the “right” one, I mean defending against other worldviews. Atheism, New Age(astrotheology) etc. Does that mean that I think that we don’t need to critique what the church is doing any longer, no, I think it is very needed. There is an element that has taken the Warren concept and has made church a freaking Circus to “engage culture”. It has taken a decent idea and turned it on its head. Same idea with the emergent(emerging) there is an element that has taken Biblical truth and thrown it out the window to the point that personal feelings equals God. This is basically New Age thought. It really is a shame that Ken and his crowd couldn’t take discernment within its bounds and not attack so much that it makes their efforts almost fruitless. We as the body of Christ need to ban together to fight the (real) enemy, Satan, whose deceptive ways are working now more than ever.
BTW a great resource for defending the faith is Stand to Reason. http://www.str.org, of course, Greg Koukl endorsed Dan Kimball’s book, They like Jesus…… so by default Ken would most likely label him as apostate……..
Jeff,
The main reason is that there is some rift between Christian Research Institute… Walter Martins’ baby he left to Hank Hanagraft… (sp)
There is some sort bitterness as to some seem to feel left out as the rightful heirs of WM…
So, if you are connected to CRI as Greg is… then you are held in suspect or whatever they judge others by… If you read any of Dywana Litz’ posts on CRI she is gleeful that they are having issues and have lost a recent lawsuit over misrepresenting donations… but true to these guys nature… no grace, mercy or love… just judgment and condemnation.
And of course none of this is about “real” discernment ministries…
Blessings,
iggy
“a great resource for defending the faith is Stand to Reason” [because I agree with them and] Greg Koukl endorsed Dan Kimball’s book” is more like it.
Ken wrote
Actually, >“a great resource for defending the faith is Stand to Reason†[because it happens to agree with the Biblical orthodoxy and orthopraxy, unlike Slice/CR?N/AM] Greg Koukl endorsed Dan Kimball’s book†is most like it.
Why lookie there; cursed foiled again. When will I ever learn?
I think Ken’s motto is more like
Do Unto Others Before they Do Unto You.
David,
It is more like:
“Do unto others, then mock them and call them names, then call your self a “God Appointed” Pastor/Teacher/Editor/Discerner while never once edifying or uplifting or give Grace or Mercy… I mean why should I? I am Ken and know all and can justify hate and rationalize my judgmentalism by my flimsy excuse for doctrine… why grow in Grace when you can push the Law… be it man made of whatever… boy someday i am going to be bigger than Walter Martin who mentored me by the tapes I bought from his ministry… yep I am sure I will be bigger than him if I just keep hurting others and pushing my say to the top…”
Or something like that…
Be Blessed,
iggy
I may get skewered for this statement, but I was on the god hates fags website yesterday. Some of what the CRN / Slice writers have said is not far off from some of the GHF.com thinking. I guess hyper-calvinism will do that to ya.
Nathan – that is grossly unfair.
Rick,
Not from my experience… in fact it seems that though CRN and Slice and a few others… have expanded this hate, only with less vulgar language…
IOW, they disguise their gospel of hate with pretty words and tickle ears with it… I mean it is enticing… to be a “remnant” and to “be the few that hold to the truth” while “the church as a whole is falling into a great apostasy”… it is just “God hates ________.” only in a more appealing manner.
I know I have received much of this hate from them… in fact I closed my comments after a row with Jim Bublitz.
Blessings,
iggy
If you do a research of the activities and speach of the Westboro clan they are without competition. They sing songs of hate, post that George Washington is in hell, and the stand and holar to griebving parents that their fallen son is in hell and God is glad. You cannot defend that comparison, they are in a league of their own.
Plus, I do not consider them as saved but of course Ken is a brother. Do not let your emotions carry you to a place of absurdity even while you vehemently disagree with Ken.
Rick,
Ken is a brother to me… but has made it clear i am not a brother to him. He has declared me not saved…
Do you think I am saved?
Just asking…
You can email me in private if you like.
Blessings,
iggy
Let’s see…uh…mmm…I…well…I think…OK, yes, you are brother in Christ. If someone like you who studies the Scriptures and is involved with ministry isn’t saved who is? Not then the 90% of professing believers that never pick up a Bible.
Serious directional disagreements, sure. But to pull the salvation card is a little hysterical.
Although you are saved, I happen to be one of the 144,000. The tribe of Frueh (the original Greek, I’ll teach you later)
a few excerpts from the GHF website FAQs page:
“In short, we adhere to the teachings of the Bible, preach against all form of sin (e.g., fornication, adultery, sodomy), and insist that the doctrines of grace be taught publicly to all men. These doctrines of grace were well summed up by John Calvin in his 5 points of Calvinism”
“God certainly is love, toward His elect (His children). But He certainly is not love toward the reprobate (children of the devil). That’s why His elect go to heaven, and the reprobate go to hell.”
“Because the Bible preaches hate. For every one verse about God’s mercy, love, compassion, etc., there are two verses about His vengeance, hatred, wrath, etc. The maudlin, kissy-pooh, feel-good, touchy-feely preachers of today’s society are damning this nation and this world to hell. They are telling you what you want to hear rather than what you need to hear, just like what happened in the days of Isaiah and Jeremiah”
“Because the truth is harsh. We use great plainness of speech, and will not beat around the bush when it comes to someone’s eternal soul. ”
Read this and tell me if it sounds familiar. Is it really grossly unfair? I read the tone in which they are writing and it is the same of Mr Silva. They really are not that far of from these guys.
fatalism and hate is the same across the board.
Tes, Nathan, but although those exerpts seem congruent there are other teachings and behavior that would separate them from others. The founder of the WBC is obsessed, and I mean obsessed, with homosexuals. I often though he might be battling his own tendencies.
By the way some of those exerpts would also loosely align themselves with Luther, Edwards, Wesley, Finney, and in some instances Paul. Of course the thing about the Bible preaches hate is a lie. Those people don’t preach, they just yell.
I’m not a Calvinist, but I would say in strongest terms possible that Phelps & Co. are NOT a credible example of Calvinism.
I have many good friends in the emerging church conversation who are hardcore Calvinists, and to draw comparisons with the GHF crowd — no matter what their website states — is inaccurate and offensive.
Rick,
LOL! I pretty much knew what your answer would be… but still glad to hear it…
Myself, I am just a pot built for ignoble purposes that hope to be used for noble purposes… a common pot that was for common use that is now a pot that carries in it the Grace and Mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Blessings,
iggy
Robbymac – Phelps is a credible example of a demon posing as a preacher.
Iggy – we have this meal in earthen ware so that the flavor may be of the chef and not the pot.
You guys!
Let’s stop “persecuting” Ken. He likes it when we do, so stop “persecuting” him.
Ken, please keep posting. I love the comic relief.
David C,
Let’s stop “persecuting†Ken. He likes it when we do, so stop “persecuting†him.
You mean then I must give all I have to live for?
J/K LOL!
I do not mean to ever persecute Ken… just hope and pray for him to see that he is not THE JUDGE of all and submit to Jesus as THE JUDGE of all. Simple really. But truthfully my heart aches for Ken and I ask all to pray for him to be blessed more and more by the Grace of Jesus.
blessings,
iggy
There is a reason why I put the double quotation marks around “persecute.”
Ken totally believes he is being persecuted, so we are only feeding his ego when we disagree with him.
Rick,
“Phelps is a credible example of a demon posing as a preacher.”
Yeah, it’s easy to spot the real lunatics, isn’t it? Scary thing is that he has so many followers, but then again, so did Jim Jones and a few others in recent history.
Is Phelps a demon posing as a preacher? Maybe. Could be said “probably”. DEFINITELY could be said that he’s teaching a “doctrine of demons”.
Iggy says,”it is just “God hates ________.†only in a more appealing manner.”
That is an unfair comment. There was an article on Slice by a lady who used to be a lesbian, who had repented from that sin. I believe she is a friend of Ingrid’s. I doubt the Phelps’s have any such friends.
“Ken totally believes he is being persecuted”
Oops, good reason we shouldn’t judge. I’m afraid you’re totally wrong. Sorry about that chief but no such feeling at all.
Amy,
Is she better off if she is placed under performance/shame based faith? Didn’t Jesus state that for some being discipled by the wrong person can be more harmful? (Matthew 23:15)
Also, remember that it is God that saves us not Ingrid… I have seen many saved by God, then leave that very church as God directed them to a more healthy place…
BTW the blank could have had Rick Warren, the emgerents, and any other people group… it is not just about hating the homosexual… So you statement is a bit unfair as what I actually stated.
the statement:
“IOW, they disguise their gospel of hate with pretty words and tickle ears with it… I mean it is enticing… to be a “remnant†and to “be the few that hold to the truth†while “the church as a whole is falling into a great apostasyâ€â€¦ it is just “God hates ________.†only in a more appealing manner.”
Is more about using words as weapons or as a point of seduction to a way of thinking, not just about hating the homosexual, I am stating they hate, fill in the blank… whoever they deem worthy of their hatred… and that is not Godly…
Blessings,
iggy
Ken,
“Oops, good reason we shouldn’t judge. I’m afraid you’re totally wrong. Sorry about that chief but no such feeling at all.”
You use that a lot and it means nothing… it is you who seems to not know the difference between “discernment” and judging “condemnation” of others… You are very quick to judge others… at least we have a bulk of statements by you to back up that you do this…
Also, the scripture does teach, “do not judge lest you too be judged.” (KJV) You will be judged by others as you judge them… so it seem that the Bible is true and played out in your ministry.
That is why I appeal to you to give Grace and Mercy and Love from God to others… and return to the ministry of reconciliation…
Be Blessed,
iggy
“You will be judged by others as you judge them…”
Works for me.
Ken,
Well I guess you become like the God you worship… hate people and despise kindness…
Be Blessed,
iggy
iggy,
Point of order: “You will be judged by others as you judge them…†applies to you as well…
Iggy,
You said, “Is she better off if she is placed under performance/shame based faith? Didn’t Jesus state that for some being discipled by the wrong person can be more harmful? (Matthew 23:15)” I have no idea if Ingrid was discipling this person. She said she was a friend.
“Also, remember that it is God that saves us not Ingrid… I have seen many saved by God, then leave that very church as God directed them to a more healthy place…” Where did you come up with this? What does it have to do with anything that I said?
Why don’t you simply ask Ingrid, Ken, if they think that God hates fags? It would be interesting to see their answer to that question.
Ken,
i receive a ton of mercy and grace and people really love me… LOL! sorry to burst your bubble.
I judge you by YOUR fruit… if I saw God’s I would step back in awe…
Be Blessed,
iggy
Amy,
go ahead you ask… my question is to you… why is Ingrid having a friendship with someone they deem “in darkness”? what of this “separation” doctrine she Ingrid teaches? Can we be friends with darkness” this is the accusation against Rick Warren and the “emergents”… yet she then proudly proclaims and parades this person around… If I prayed and someone was healed, or saved or whatever I do not parade that person around…
So, this seems to be a bit of of a contradiction between Ingrid’s orthodoxy and orthopraxy… they do not line up…
Be Blessed,
iggy
Iggy,
I’m astounded at all your assumptions. Ingrid didn’t parade anyone around. She posted an article by a used-to-be lesbian who she said is her friend. When she became her friend I don’t know. She said nothing about personally having to do anything to do with this person’s change of heart.
You state assumptions as if they are facts.
Amy,
“I’m astounded at all your assumptions. Ingrid didn’t parade anyone around. She posted an article by a used-to-be lesbian who she said is her friend. When she became her friend I don’t know. She said nothing about personally having to do anything to do with this person’s change of heart.”
That sounds like a parade to me! Which to me proves my so called assumptions…. Again, God changed that person’s heart… not Ingrid… If Ingrid did then it will not last, if God did it will, which leads me to that whole “works righteousness” thing I talk about here concerning these ministries… to parade her letter and conversion in such a way, to me is more about proving Ingrid’s “fruit” then giving glory to God…
Why do I say that? Because instead of just giving God glory, Ingrid used it to slam other ministries… and that only was to glorify her own ministry and not God’s good work.
Can you also point out that post on this “woman”? As I remember it but cannot now find it… Did she “remove” it?
Blessings,
iggy
Curses, my comment didn’t go through! Anyway, just wanted to put this out there. Ken has called on Rick Warren to boycott Zondervan because of it’s connection to The Satanic Bible, among other things. Well, if that’s the case, then John MacArthur should do the same.