If Rick Warren should boycott Zondervan…
This is a great post by Coop over at his blog. It once again shows how Silva and others turn a blind eye when it comes to confronting their idols mentors in the faith. I will say this, both articles linked were written by “editor”. Ken Silva is listed as the general editor, which would naturally lead us to believe that he (the editor) wrote the articles. Although it seems that someone is definately hiding behind the ambiguous title of “editor” over at CRN. Regardless, using CRN logic, John MacArthur is in partnership with the publishers of the Satanic Bible! Oh my! Here’s the article:
If Rick Warren should boycott Zondervan then so should John MacArthur.
In recent posts (here and here) over at Christian Research Network, Rev. Ken Silva calls on Rick Warren to boycott Zondervan, the publishing house that prints his book The Purpose Driven Life. His reasoning behind this is that Zondervan is owned by News Corp, which is in turn owned by Rupert Murdoch. News Corp owns several pornography channels in Europe, and Rick Warren has apparently claimed to be Murdoch’s pastor (this is still hotly contested, and is not an issue I’m going to get into here). Among its other holdings, News Corp also owns HarperCollins, which publishes The Satanic Bible. So what?
I’m glad you asked.
Zondervan, owned by News Corp/Rupert Murdoch, who also owns the company that publishes The Satanic Bible, publishes two of John MacArthur’s books: The Gospel According to Jesus, and Charismatic Chaos. If Rick Warren should boycott Zondervan because of it’s connection to The Satanic Bible, then Ken (and other discernment ministries that have picked up this story) should call on John MacArthur to do the same. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
17 Comments(+Add)
Feel free to check out the comments on the post at my blog, as well. Ken actually slammed me for referring to him as Rev. Ken Silva… just trying to be respectful.
DC,
I recall seeing him (or one of his sympathizers) use ‘Rev’ as an honorary w/o comment before. As I read his comment, it was his modus operandi of arguing something OTHER THAN the point for the purpose of deflecting attention from his hypocrisy/misinterpretation/sloppy exegesis/etc.
If MacArthur hasn’t repented (since 1992) for the lies and false accusations against the Vineyard in Charismatic Chaos, why should it be surprising that he has no problem with Zondervan publishing his books?
Although let’s be fair: these are OLD Johnnie Mac books. Who publishes him these days? And why haven’t they held Johnny accountable for sloppy research, disinformation, and general tabloid publishing?
Oh, right — almost forgot. Because Johnnie Mac’s books MAKE MONEY.
Hey, shouldn’t Christian Research Network boycott sliceoflaodicea.com since Slice appears to use iPowerWeb as a host, the same company that is also host to sites like gaycampers.com and gayjourney.com?
Great post by Coop. They just keep doing it to themselves don’t they? And instead of backing off, our friend Ken decides to jump in and make it even more laughable. Let’s look at Ken’s comments to the article:
1. Ken says: “I don’t use the title ‘Reverend’.
Well Ken, maybe not anymore. Ingrid thanked you today as “Pastor Ken Silva”. You refer to yourself as “Pastor” when your website says “Read Pastor Silva’s latest missive”. So technically, you’re right, you use the title ‘Pastor’ instead of ‘Reverend’. I won’t quibble over whether or not the two terms are different. Pastor is probably more seeker sensitive than Reverend but hey, whatever floats your boat as they say.
But Ken, you have used the title Reverend, haven’t you? Instead of allowing you to embarrass yourself even more and deny that publicly, let me just point you now to: http://www.apprising.org/archives/2006/11/a_southern_bapt.html and the title you used in one of your letters to Lifeway.
As already noted, what you call yourself has nothing to do with the argument Coop makes that if Rick is being called to boycott Zondervan, than JM needs to be called to do same but hey, you brought it up.
2. You say you are not the one calling on Rick to boycott Zondervan. Really??? Ingrid thanked you today for “taking over” at CR?N so I guess that makes you, hmmmm, the editor? The editor who posted the title calling on Rick to boycott Zondervan? And the title calling on Saddleback to boycott Zondervan? I missed the disclaimer Ken that those articles did not represent the position of CR?N.
There’s an idea. Why don’t you publish a disclaimer that CR?N is not calling for Rick to boycott Zondervan. That will clear it up and I’m sure Coop will be happy at that point to retract his criticism of your editorials on this matter. I for one am looking forward to that retraction.
3. Coop committed the “fallacy of the false analogy”?? Ken, you’re in way over your head on this one. Let’s see if I can help to clear the CR?N fog from your eyes. The argument you, aka the editor quotes concludes:
“Would Saddleback Church, The Purpose Driven Church Network and the Southern Baptist Convention be guilty of hypocrisy if none of these groups publically stands against the publishers of the Satanic Bible?”
So the argument you quote has nothing to do with Rick identifying himself as Rupert’s pastor. No oranges and apples here. Rick, Saddleback, the PD network, the SBC, all might be equally guilty of hypocrisy if they do not call for a boycott. Seems like John MacArthur is just as much of an apple in this argument as anybody else.
Ingrid also thanked John MacArthur today for being a “shining light amid the compromise and pragmatism of today’s church.”
As that shining light, I have to conclude that Dr. MacArthur will lead the boycott against Zondervan in this matter. To do otherwise would be, well, it would be compromise wouldn’t it?
JohnD,
That’s one way to look at it.
I posted this over at Coop’s blog as well:
Here’s just one example where Ken accidentally speaks in the first person when posting as “editor”.
http://christianresearchnetwork.com/?p=1597
Don’t bother fixing it Ken, there are more.
Oh, and I could fill a page full of links where Ken refers to himself as Rev. Silva…like every post on the old Slice. Have a look back at the wayback machine:
http://web.archive.org/web/20060101095343/http://www.sliceoflaodicea.com/
Ken, if it talks like a serpent, lies like a serpent, misdirects like a serpent…
Every time you open your mouth, a lie or half truth comes out. You need to repent of all these half truths and lay weeping at the Savior’s feet for how many times you play verbal slight of hand with the truth. Your critics offer you proof and you try to perform some weak, laughable Jedi mind trick.
“You might notice I don’t use the title Reverend.”
Oh sorry, we just have a hard time forgetting the 1,000 posts over the last two years where you did.
PTDW, Ken has said that the use of “rev” was an automatic signature set up by Ingrid. In every article I checked on the link you provided, “rev” was only used in the “posted by” section. However, within the context of post titles and articles, Ken is always refered to as Pastor. This matches what Ken has previously posted here as his explaination. I also went through 12 months of archives over at the emergentwhat site and found that to be the case throughout the history there. Also, when Ken commented, he used “pastor” or just his name, and that would be true as several of the other blogs where I have seen him comment.
While I agree that during a discussion Ken points to his calling/ordination, when he refers to himself with a title, he (himself) uses “pastor” not “rev”. If you would like to prove that he is liar, please use an example where he actually lies.
deborah
deborah,
I know we don’t agree but I do appreciate what you said here in fairness. I just wanted to point that out.
PTDW,
Careful now that your zeal to get me doesn’t consume you. “What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us” Romans 8:31).
As far as the CRN post that was an oversight which I corrected. If you can’t see that I have zero fear in putting my name to what I say then your zeal to “expose” me has blinded you.
I have explained before that “Editor” is used by any and all contributors at CRN because each is also an Editor. If you guys would do your research you’d see that I am NOT “the Editor,” I am clearly listed as “the General Editor.” I’m glad I could clear that up for you.
Ken,
Just for your consideration, you may want to better define what ‘Editor’ is used for, as it seems to often bleed over into commentary (which is where attribution is important). We started with an ‘Editor’ function here (the “Sliced” moniker) but scrapped it for exactly the reason above.
I think we would both agree that anonymity removes accountability – which is not desirable. And, with Ingrid’s early criticism of this site (and others) being perceived anonymity, the ‘Editor’ function at CRN gives some appearance of hypocrisy (which is why it keeps coming up, referentially).
Just a thought…
Thanks Ken, I try to remember that being true and honest is more important than any agenda, so I try to be fair in how I respond to you.
I’m curious, what purpose does writting under the “editor” title serve? Why not have everyone write under their own name all the time?
deborah
Chris L.,
I hear you and it is sincerely food for thought and prayer.
deborah,
I agree. And the idea of the Editor is CRN is also an aggregate for posts/articles we feel are edifying and many of these kinds of links are short blurbs with links to other sites.
So in my view currently who posts these would be irrelevant because they are not in that case writing anything bu trather linking to it. However, this could open for further review, we’ll see.
Deborah,
While I can see that the owner of Slice (Ingrid) may well have anointed Ken “Rev.”, he had well over a year to correct her if it bothered him that much. The fact that Coop referred to him as such once in one post (without any sarcasm I might add) and Ken found the need to correct him just shows Ken’s continuous pattern of double standards.
Speaking of which…
Ken,
Two minutes of finding posts that contradict you is hardly ‘consuming zeal’. But 100s of posts splitting hairs and using GBA for Warren, Bell, & McManus…pot, meet kettle. Your name (and all the titles your put in front of it,) unfortunately is the one next to ‘consuming zeal’ in your blog war.
Ken,
Just so you know – for some reason your last comment was sucked into the spam filter, from which it was rescued…
These organized boycotts are carnal attempts to publicize our separation.
Henry,
I disagree with boycotts as a rule, as well. I think the point Nathan had in posting this article was not to call for a boycott, but to call on the watchdawggies to have some consistency in their calls for boycotting – if you’re going to demand it from Rick Warren (who you disagree with), then you ought to be demanding it from those you DO agree with (Johnnie Mac), as well…
Chris L.,
Thanks for letting me know. I appreciate it.
PTDW,
I’m seriously guessing your time could be better spent in other ways than to obsess over me. *sigh* Once again, “he had well over a year to correct her if it bothered him that much.” It doesn’t “bother” me, it’s just a fact I do not encourage people to use that man-made title.
“The fact that Coop referred to him as such once in one post (without any sarcasm I might add) and Ken found the need to correct him.” I didn’t feel he was sarcastic either and I would hardly say that I “found the need to correct him.” More like let him know I personally do not use the title unless it’s for protecting sources in a pastor privilege.