Ken Silva says we don’t need the teachings of Jesus today! Ken offers us this quote of one Rob Bell,
“What we need now more than ever is the teachings of Jesus.”
Ken follows this with this statement in response to Pastor Bell…
No Rob.
What kind of Bible is Ken teaching if he believes we don’t need to teachings of Jesus. What kind of morally bankrupt doctrine does he hold? Certainly a gospel which does not include the teachings of Jesus is no gospel I want to be apart of.
**Editors note*** This is an exact word for word quote of Ken’s. I even took a screen picture in case it changes. No, I don’t for a minute believe that Ken is espousing that we don’t need Jesus but I couldn’t pass up the opportunity to accurately misquote Ken as he done to many–be it Bell, McManus, or whoever. Now, whenever Ken says he believes we do need the teachings of Jesus we can pull this quote up and ask how the two can be true.
23 Comments(+Add)
Yeah, I actually saw that quote earlier, and kind of shook my head. Wasn’t Jesus main teaching that He was the Way, the Truth, and the Life? Which one of these doesn’t the world need?
Joe,
I wonder why you also only partially quoted Rob Bell’s quote, which Ken quoted more fully?
The quote of Bell from Ken’s article is: “What we need now more than ever is the teachings of Jesus, who pioneered a brilliant way of loving nonviolence that truly would make the world a better place, if we have the guts to listen…
(Read the whole article here: http://www.callingallpeacemakers.com/)
You partially quoted that quote and ended it with a period instead of dots to show that something was left out. You wrote,“What we need now more than ever is the teachings of Jesus.†You misquoted.
I realize that your main purpose in writing this is to make fun of your perception of Ken Silva’s pulling things out of context. I just wanted to put up the context of both of these to show that the full context of BOTH quotes is worth noting and thinking about, even if noone wants to discuss it:
ADDING context to your partial quote of Rob Bell’s quote brings up many questions, such as, is he expecting the non-Christian world, especially the violent religious sector, to truly adapt to the message of “turn the other cheek?” How do they begin to follow this “teaching of Jesus?” By their own might and power, without the Holy Spirit?
Here is the rest of Ken’s quote, from CRN,
http://christianresearchnetwork.com/?p=2228
“What we need now more than ever is the teachings of Jesus.” No Rob, what people need is to surrender to Christ and be born again or they have zero hope of ever living out the teachings of Jesus. Have you read Romans 8:6-10 lately?”
Would you mind putting a link to the article you’re quoting from? Here’s the rest of Rob’s quoteWhat we need now more than ever is the teachings of Jesus, who pioneered a brilliant way of loving nonviolence that truly would make the world a better place, if we have the guts to listen…
For preaching “loving nonviolence,” sure, that’s why Jesus was brutally tortured and crucified. But this is where Bell’s repainted, and just as spiritually bankrupt, social gospel is revealed: “What we need now more than ever is the teachings of Jesus.” No Rob, what people need is to surrender to Christ and be born again or they have zero hope of ever living out the teachings of Jesus. Have you read Romans 8:6-10 lately?
Amy – I think they were trying to resemble wht they believe Ken does as a mocking. Jesus pioneered a brilliant way of loving nonviolence. Wow. What book was Bell reading?
Amy, Henry is right. He is trying to illustrate absurdity by being absurd and you got punked.
Ken does this stuff all the time.
Henry,
I got the impression from what Joe said that he was leading the reader to think that the rest of Ken’s, not Rob’s, quote was left out. But I realized that might not be the case after I posted my comment.
David,
Congratulations, you are the first person to ever tell me “you got punked.”
I wouldn’t mind seeing one detailed example of “this stuff.”
Amy,
I cut and pasted directly from Ken’s article the Bell quote. I realize there was more, but if you go to the link that you kindly posted you will see that the quote I used is a exact match of Ken’s right down to the bold. SO, you see, I didn’t leave out the quote Ken did and now you get two for one as I also gave you a detailed example of “this stuff.”
It’s been a good night. I got to spend time with the fam, went for a bike ride, and now I get to double quote Ken. It really is the simple things in life.
Joe,
You said, “I realize there was more, but if you go to the link that you kindly posted you will see that the quote I used is a exact match of Ken’s right down to the bold.”
Are you seriously using this as a “detailed example” of “this stuff?” Yes there was “more” and it was right there, in Ken’s article.
Because if you go up a little further in Silva’s article you can see the quote from which he quoted: Straight from his article, he first gives the quote by Bell, followed by his evaluation of it:
” “What we need now more than ever is the teachings of Jesus, who pioneered a brilliant way of loving nonviolence that truly would make the world a better place, if we have the guts to listen…
For preaching “loving nonviolence,” sure, that’s why Jesus was brutally tortured and crucified. But this is where Bell’s repainted, and just as spiritually bankrupt, social gospel is revealed: “What we need now more than ever is the teachings of Jesus.” No Rob, what people need is to surrender to Christ and be born again or they have zero hope of ever living out the teachings of Jesus. Have you read Romans 8:6-10 lately?”
Is this what you call “leaving out the quote?” Surely any reader could see the context given immediately above.
It would appear then that I actually didn’t make a mistake in saying that you left out part of the quote. It would appear that you perhaps overlooked the fact that he had given the quote in context.
No, I don’t think it would appear that way. Your right the context was right there. I apologize.
No matter, though Amy, your first statement was that I misquoted (or failed to fully quote) Bell. The truth is I didn’t even read the Bell article. I simply cut and pasted. Apple X, Apple V.
Amy, I believe one of the skills you would excel at is research (I’m being serious) because you once told me you were trained in translations so I’m sure you can do the research and see if we’re right or not.
Either way, it rarely seems you and I will agree, right?
I understand your use of the period if you cut and pasted Ken’s excerpt from the quote.
Technically, the way Ken wrote the quote with a period is correct I think. If I’m remembering grammar rules correctly, ending punctuation goes inside the quotation marks whether it’s part of the quote or not. In any case, because he has the quote immediately in context above, the period should cause no problem.
Either way, what I’m trying to say is that it’s not my quote of Rob. It’s Ken’s, I just borrowed it.
Joe,
I’m confused by your reply but thanks for the apology.
I’m still lacking the detailed example.
I understand this isn’t an example. What I’m saying is that if you really want to see an example do some research on Ken’s work. I have a feeling you will excel in research. You may well come to different conclusions than I and many here have. That’s all I was trying to say.
Joe,
I just think that if “this stuff” is so prevalent and obvious it would be easy for someone to remember and point to an example.
It would be helpful to know at least one of these examples. I remember seeing some accusations in the past, but they seem to be subjective. I wish I could remember where the last discussion was. I’m interested in fairness on all sides, and if someone can show me the apparently numerous places where he has absolutely without question taken something out of context then I’d like to see them.
If you can’t point me to them, maybe Ken can.
.
Because I disagree with some of Ken’s tone etc., I cannot be accused of being a panderer. Ken does use some hyperbole and even sometimes borders on misrepresenations, but the majority of his research is spot on. Anyway, why do you guys seem stuck on engaging Ken and his methods instead of discussing truth?
Every reader without an allegience either way would readily see that Bell and MacArthur (for instance) are on a vastly different path and they interpret the Scriptures way differently. Now if you accept Bell’s method of interpreting and teaching Scripture so be it. But you cannot pretend that there is no difference.
Bell himself, to his credit, openly admits that he no longer interprets the Scriptures along the same lines as historical evangelicalism, so why do some of his admirers attempt to deny that he is travelling a different theological road? That is denying the obvious.
Bell may be correct, MacArthur may be correct, but they cannot both be right. (I just use them as examples) So when in a dialogue, it is fruitless to argue whether Bell really agrees with orthodox evangelicals but he just says it differently. Bell and others don’t believe that themselves and to their credit they admit it.
So the dialogue isn’t whether those teachings are different, it must be are they Scriptural. That should be the core of a respectful and truth seeking dialogue. And please, the dialogue isn’t about Ken. What a waste of time. If you can wade through some of the unpleasantries Ken brings some issues to the table. I openly admit it was his research and articles that informed me about a theological struggle that I had not known, specifically the emergent church.
And so I quote from that great theologian, Joan Rivers, “Can we talk?”.
Amy,
Experience has taught me that to spend much time in debate with people like those who run this site is a futile endeavor and at times causes such a dark spirit to rise up in oneself, be it a prideful desire to come out on top or an anger one might see as righteous indignation but ends up causing one to spend innumerable hours in fruitless banter which is time away from bathing oneself in God’s word and studying it that one might become a fruitful doer of the word and not a hearer only.
I commend you on your efforts to stand up for what is right, but clearly there are many who see only what they want to see and despite the fervent efforts to enlighten them they remain clouded in their judgment.
God’s blessings to you,
Bill
And God’s Blessing to you and yours Bill. Your information helped me gain some insight to your POV. Thank you.
Henry,
My grievances with Ken have also not been with the content of what he has said.
Bill,
I appreciate your words, and realize the wisdom in them. For myself, I think that trying to show what is true can be God’s desire for a number of reasons. I also know that sometimes I need to put my focus elsewhere when I have it on conversations going on here. Truly I don’t think that “proving points” is a pride issue for me, but I hope that if it is, God will show me.
I was thinking this morning how I need to know and immerse myself in God’s Word more and more.
Anyway, today I’m off to enjoy the beauty of God’s creation in a new hiking spot, so won’t be writing anymore today.
Well, Bill and Amy, I think your excellent comments and advice go both ways, since arguing with like-minded people on any site, whether here or on Slice or elsewhere, gets you no where.
It is interesting to note that the people who often perpetuate and split hairs in some debates, to my very great distaste, are not always “people like those who run this site” but are often people like yourselves who, in an effort to “stand up for what is right” create a great amount of futility in your own right. Who’s wasting who’s time?
Frankly, Bill, your comment is as distasteful and pig-headed as any, for you have allotted yourself the characteristics of being not only rightfully experienced, but also right.
Much of this debate on this website or elsewhere, no matter who thinks they are right and noble, is moot. We are limited in knowing. Despite your fervent efforts, in your own clouded judgment, to enlighten me in your ways instead of God’s, I remain open to God.
*tsk tsk* Julie says Bill’s comment is “distasteful and pigheaded.” Very close to official name-calling there. And just who might she be to say to Bill: “your ways instead of God’s, I remain open to God.”
Well, maybe Bill’s way are God’s ways, but lo and behold, it doesn’t look like she’s too open to them. And if we are all so “limited in knowing,” then how is anyone ever going to know anything? So I guess we should just all follow our hearts, huh.
O, but what does Scripture – if it really is Scripture – tell us about that in Jeremiah 17:9. And what do you suppose regenerated Christians are to make of 1 Corinthians 2:16 – “we have the mind of Christ.” Does that mean now we have the mind to know for sure that we don’t anything for sure about God?
You know what Ken?
As far as I’m concerned at this point, I don’t even see, hear, or read anything you have to offer. In fact, I didn’t even finish reading your comment above, because I already know what kind of poison I’ll find there. Find your scripture to lambast me — I do not care. You have nothing to add. You’ve made yourself your own joke.
Julie says to me: “I don’t even see, hear, or read anything you have to offer.” Uh-oh, looks like a contradiction here: “I remain open to God.” What if God is trying to speak to you through me?
And yet the one who says “limited in knowing†dogmatically states: “I didn’t even finish reading your comment above, because I already know what kind of poison I’ll find there.”
Wow, so now you actually “know” beforehand what I will say. Hmm, doesn’t appear you “remain” very “open to God” here Julie. Thought you might wish to reconsider this.
Get real, Ken.
You’re trying to debate Julie’s personal decision to ignore you with some bizare fake religious “foreknowledge” “I gotcha now” debate? You are a joke. It’s her personal decision. You can’t prove her wrong because she wan’t even proving anything. Except what you heldped her to prove.
Ken, your arrogance continues to amaze me! So by not being open to what you have to say, Julie is not being open to God….hmm.
When others say something that you disagree with, you dismiss them as wrong or heretical; but when you speak, others should listen to what God may be saying through you. Unbelievable.
Even though we are limited in knowledge; experience teaches us that your perspective is predictable. One thing you are, Ken, is consistent!