Love One Another (only if they are just like you)
So we are commanded to love one another right? In fact, I remember a certain scripture saying, “let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God.â€Â I don’t recall there being a condition on that verse either. I didn’t say, “let us love one another, unless they are Muslim†or “let us love one another, unless of course they are Hindu.â€
Well, it looks like a little leaven has leavened this whole website. Apparently scriptural principles go into the category of “MOAA (Mother Of All Apostasies)â€. They are up in arms over a shirt that says “can’t we just love one another†using symbols from various world religions. It did not say “can’t we just accept each other’s religion†and it didn’t say “can’t we just accept one another’s God.â€Â It simply said “can’t we just love one another.â€
This is at the heart of the hyper-fundamentalist religious system at A Little Leaven, C?N, Slice and Apprising. They only will love people who are like them. Anyone else needs to first believe what they believe, and then they are worthy of love. It’s a good thing that Christ loved us when we were following another religion. And they think WE are the reason Christianity is in church decline.
![Image of The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31Jl6fhDLxL._SL75_.jpg "The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith")
115 Comments(+Add)
Nathan, the other side of this is Eph 6:12 – our struggle is not against flesh and blood – yet how easy is it to make the struggle against the physical, tangible person in front of us (or across a computer screen)? Very.
It does seem that until you get cleaned up and walk, talk, act, think, and do like the owners of the websites you mentioned, then a person is not acceptable to them (and there appears to be an unlimited number of ways that one doesn’t walk, talk, act, think, and do like them…). Yet I know that my own ability to change is limited so it’s a catch-22….I will never be accepted by them. So be it.
To me it seems that Little Leaven was reporting on a Christian t-shirt maker putting out a t-shirt that basically promotes ecumenism among the world religions. The shirt basically implies acceptance of all world religions as valid. That is how I read it.
The “love one another” verse is basically for those within the Christian church- not necessarily for loving everyone in the world.
Timothy,
I don’t necessarily implies that all those religions are valid. Are you actually arguing that Christians aren’t called to love their Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, etc. neighbors, only other Christians?
The fact is we are commanded to love everyone regardless of their religion. If Christians actually did this, it would go a long way in improving the witness of the Church in the world.
Phil, regarding the t-shirt, I believe that most people looking at the t-shirt would think the message means that “loving one another” also means loving their religion (because of the use of other religions’ symbols.) That is where the t-shirt maker is going wrong.
Regarding the separate issue of the “love one another” verse…. it was addressed to those within the Christian church, not to the whole world. The t-shirt misuses the “love one another” verse to apply to the whole world (and it’s various religions.)
Of course, God commands us to love our enemies, i.e., those who are not for Christ, for they may come to the faith.
Tim Bell,
Have you ever read the story of the Good Samaritan? Have you looked at the context that Jesus told that story in?
On another note, I love how the “editor” sneaks this line in on the CRN article – “We bet Brian McClaren has a few of these T-Shirts in his wardrobe”. Keep those Google hits comin’!
I’m surprised Rick Warren wasn’t tied in somehow, too.
Did they include the pentagram for the church of Satan? Even if it was well meaning, the implication is obviously interpreted as a universalist message.
By the way, the answer to the shirt’s question is “No”.
“The ‘love one another’ verse is basically for those within the Christian church- not necessarily for loving everyone in the world.”
“, God commands us to love our enemies, i.e., those who are not for Christ”
Those two statements hurt me so much. It is so sad that we view people of different faith as our enemies, and we are called to love them out of obligation, not because the love of Christ flows out of us. Those two statements are at the core of the Christianity that Silva, Ingrid and Leaven promote.
Henry,
pray tell who we cannot love? I would greatly appreciate this new insight.
1) We are to love EVERYONE (regardless of religion, or lack thereof) – a command that yes, the church often does a poor job of executing.
2) I’m not sure how effective the T-shirt is at relaying the message from #1, as ‘love’, in the vernacular parlance, tends to imply ‘acceptance of equal validity’ in post-modern culture, whereas we, as Christians, understand it in the light of I Corinthians 13, or even C.S. Lewis’ summation – ‘caring enough about someone else that you’re willing to do something about it’.
Sorry – hit ’submit’ too soon
My point is that Christians will probably be the only ones who understand ‘love’ as intended in the shirt’s meaning, but that it would give a different meaning of ‘love’ to the unbliever who might read it – and I think clarity is more important than ‘being hip’…
Chris,
I would generally agree that the shirt may have a different meanings to an unbeliever than a believer.
The funny thing is if you look at the other shirts offered on that site, they are a lot more in the “fundie” vein. They actually have one that says “Christian Soldier” on it, and another one that that says “hellsucks”. I’m not necessarily making commentary on it, but it just seems odd that a company that offers a “Christian Soldier” t-shirt sells this shirt as well.
I actually agree with Ken Silva to a point on this shirt. It seems to use the wrong bible verse. “Love your neighbor as yourself” would make more sense. Gentle correction here would be better than foaming-at-the-mouth fundamentalism.
Nathan, my “no” was a sad commentary of the Christian capacity for love, not a new insight to our clear Scriptural commandment. It seems the church is really not interested in exploring the depth of brotherly love offered by the Spirit. It is self effacing, self denying, and emotionally difficult to actually love one another. God did not mean to “love his soul but hate his guts” That is nothing but a reflection of what the world does. When we treat our enemies much less our brothers with partiality then we are no different than a lost person like Rosie O’Donnel. She is lost, we claim to be both followers and exhibitors of the Lord Jesus.
Of course we are supposed to love our enemies. But there is no distinction on that shirt and if I wasn’t a believer I would assume it meant all religions should love each other and co-exist as equals. I’m sure you can see the ambiguity of the shirt if you remove your “Slice” glasses.
The shirt misrepresents the co-existance of love of Hindus and also believe they are in need of salvation that can only be found in Christ. It supposes that Hinduism and Christianity can co-exist in love as equals which is very misleading.
Now if you were going to India as a missionary and you printed shirts that said “Christians Love Hindus” that of course would be good and useful. But surely Nathan you see the problem with that world religion shirt.
Nathan,
A Little Leaven is NOT saying to love people ONLY if they are ‘like you’. Your headline is deceptive and misleading.
The post in question ends by saying, “if you truly love your neighbors then you will love them enough to tell them that Jesus is the ONLY way of salvation and that they are involved in a false religion that will send them to hell”.
This is precisely what the Biblical meaning of ‘loving your neighbor’ means. We must love them enough to tell them the truth. We must risk offending our neighbors with the exclusive claims of Christianity.
That T-Shirt, as well meaning as it sounds, is not advocating the Biblical concept of loving your neighbor. A Little Leaven is right on the mark.
Ah, “Who is my neighbor?”
And yet, the good Samaritan was on his way to Hell probably because we have no evidence that he believed in Messiah. How does
interact with the story of the good Samaritan.
Nice to see you back and about.
Val, if I could remember your last name I would call you it.
The good Samaritan story was not teaching evangelism.
But Rick, neither are these T’s. Also Val’s statement seems to equate Love and Evangelism with very little room for anything in the middle.
Rick,
I’m not sure what you mean by that comment, really.
I mean how can we separate out evangelism from loving out neighbor? I think the question is not one of telling people in other religions that Christ is the only way, but what happens after we tell them.
Just because people are told does not mean they will all become Christians right away. Do we take an attitude of “we told them, and let’s shake the dust off our feet”? What if even after we’re rejected we commit to serving others in love? Does that not speak louder than our words?
I don’t get it. We are called to LOVE EVERYONE. There is no conditions tied to that. It didn’t say love them unless they are Jews. We are to love our neighbors as ourselves. I hate how “we” view “them” as out “enemies”. I don’t think Jesus saw the Jews around him as his enemies. I have a friend who is a devout Hindu, and I sincerely love him. I do not consider him my enemy. Part of my love for him involved sharing Christ as well.
I agree with Chris, the T-shirt COULD be taken as acceptance of all religions. However that is not what it says. It also seems that the t-shirt company (judging from their other shirts) had no intention of saying “accept all religions”. Perhaps contacting the company and talking with them about their intentions would have been a more LOVING game plan than publishing a global announcement that they are the Mother of All Apostasies.
Val,
how many people are in your life that you let know “they are involved in a false religion that will send them to hell.” My guess is probably none.
The shirt “simply said ‘can’t we just love one another.’” Let me try and clear up Nathan’s faulty logic. The obvious indication is: “Can’t we just love one another because all religions lead to God.” That is beyond question for anyone who actually understands this foreign mission field of pagan America.
Absolutely I should love everyone but only to a point which stops short of accepting their worship of demons. As a Christian I must also love someone enough to let them know all religion is false. It is man trying to DO something to please God. The Christian faith is not a religion, rather it is a relationship based on what God has already DONE.
I must tell those involved with religion as a way to please God – whether it be Southern Baptists, Muslims, Roman Catholics, Jews or Emergents – the Truth as lovingly, gently, patiently, and as often as they’ll let me, but I must tell them the absolute Truth.
So yes, “This is at the heart of the [proper Biblical Christianity] at A Little Leaven, C?N, Slice and Apprising.”
Somehow, I suspect that Jesus’ definition of ‘love’ goes far beyond telling someone they’re wrong…
…just sayin’
If we look at Paul, it seems his method in both Athens and Ephesus was to talk about the gospel and the kingdom, and to let the truth in his words and actions speak for themselves, rather than attacking the gods of the cities in question.
Joe, (Is this Martino?)
Sorry, I’ve been out of the country. I’m back for a few days.
My last name is Parson.
About the Parable of the Good Samaritan. First off, good Biblical hermeneutics tell us that we must first establish the context of the passage before we can properly interpret a passage.
Let us first establish the context of the post and see if the context of the Parable of the Good Samaritan has A Little Leaven running afoul of scripture.
The gist of the post at A Little Leaven is pseudo-universalism. The offending t-shirt asks the question ‘Can’t We Just Love One Another?’ (This reminds me of Rodney King’s statement, “Can’t we all just get along”?)
The implication of the message of the t-shirt is that the bickering between other faiths about truth, life and salvation is hateful and we should stop it and “just” love one another.
Under this scenario if we ‘love’ our Hindu, Muslim and Buddhist neighbors then we will stop arguing with them about Allah being a false deity, the Bahavagita being a false source of spiritual truth and the 8 fold path not leading to true salvation. We’ll just love them. In this way of thinking telling them the truth is unloving. Getting along is loving.
With that said. Let’s look at the parable of the Good Samaritan.
This parable is not teaching us to NOT share the truth with our neighbors. It ask the question who is our neighbor? The point of the passage was to show us who our neighbor is. It is not about salvation. In a very real way it is about bigotry and prejudice.
This passage has nothing to say about ‘eligible candidates’ for evangelism. That is not its point. You must use other scriptures to discover who those candidates are. Using this passage in this discussion is not sound reasoning or Biblical interpretation. This passage doesn’t teach universalism at all.
In other passages we discover that Jesus tells us to go into all the world and make disciples. That means that people of every tribe, race and religion are eligible candidates for hearing the exclusive claims of the gospel.
We also know from Jesus’ own words and the example of the Apostles in the book of Acts that some will be outrageously offended by the exclusive claim that salvation can be found only in Jesus Christ. It is a stumbling block for Jews and foolishness to Greeks. Yet our message is that God so loved the world THAT He gave his only begotten Son that whosoever BELIEVES IN HIM will have eternal life.
The Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists are participating in religions that will lead them to hell. The loving thing to do is tell them that. The loving thing to do is take a hard line with them on the exclusive claims of Christianity. Many will be offended and upset by that message. Many already are. But, to truly love our neighbor (regardless of their skin color or religion) we must unapologetically tell them the truth.
What did God do when He so loved the world? Did He make the world yield more crops? Did He give peoeple more clean water? Did He cure all diseases? Did He so love the world that He provided redemption?
A man is unknowingly walking toward a cliff that will lead to his death. He is also thirsty. Do we:
1. Give him a drink of water.
2. Do nothing.
3.Give him a drink of water and tell him about his predicament.
4. Tell him about his predicament.
5. Give him a great big love hug.
Numbers 2 and 4 are the only viable actions.
Ken,
Your rewording from “Can’t we just love one another” to “Can’t we just love one another because all religions lead to God” is, at its heart, what I am talking about when I keep harping on the use of straw man arguments.
I think, particularly when looking at the other T-shirts sold on the site, that your rewording is NOT what their intent is, and it is not only uncharitable, but slanderous in dealing with the beliefs of the site owners.
However, I think your rewording is what many non-Christians might believe the shirt to mean, which is why I think that the design is faulty.
In this case, I think that ‘Leaven/C?N/Slice/AM’ are in the wrong for attacking the heart and motives of the T-shirt designer/seller, as I can understand what it is they are trying to convey – because I already understand Christ’s message.
Additionally, I think that the designer/seller is in the wrong, as well, not because of motives, but because in trying to be creative (a talent given by God) they have created something with an unintentional double-meaning, depending upon the theological orientation of the reader. However, this ‘wrong’ is not an intentional one, nor itself a ’sin’.
Nathan,
You’re youth is showing. You may want to wise up a bit and not assume things about me.
Here is your statement, “how many people are in your life that you let know “they are involved in a false religion that will send them to hell.†My guess is probably none.”
You are gravely mistaken in your assumptions and in your judgement to make such a statement.
I have travelled the world preaching the gospel. I have preached the exclusive claims of Jesus to Hindus in the slums of Kolkata, Muslims in Indonesia and Buddhists in Hong Kong. The people the Lord has given me the privilege to share the gospel with numbers in the tens of thousands.
I have been beaten, thrown in jail and had my life threatened because of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Can you make the same claims?
It is here that you and I would disagree. I’m not sure I agree with that statement. I personally wouldn’t wear the T shirt b/c I think that almost all “Christian” T’s are lazy excuses to do honest evangelism. Well, I’m back to work. ”
Parson, it’s good to see you again.
The “love one another†verse is basically for those within the Christian church- not necessarily for loving everyone in the world.
Wow… I know that this had been addressed already, but do you have ANY Biblical backing for this?
Jesus was very clear that we are not just to love those that love us (i.e. within the Christian church), but we are also to love those who hate us – our enemies. We are to love ALL people.
You have a very distorted view of the Bible if you think it says Christians are only supposed to love other Christians.
Chris L.,
With all due respect, you have provided a great example of why I have tried to help you see your spiritual pride. You seem to always feel you must attach “straw man” to virtually anything I say. Well, here is what I actually said: The obvious indication is: “Can’t we just love one another because all religions lead to God.â€
From this you said: “I think, particularly when looking at the other T-shirts sold on the site, that your rewording is NOT what their intent is, and it is not only uncharitable, but slanderous in dealing with the beliefs of the site owners.” I didn’t say one whit about “their intent” so there is zero chance I am “slanderous.”
Then you go on to say: “However, I think your rewording is what many non-Christians might believe the shirt to mean, which is why I think that the design is faulty.” Which is EXACTLY what I am talking about. So you attempt to impune my integrity and then turn right around and refure yourself by saying you feel as I do.
Ken,
“The obvious indication is: ‘Can’t we just love one another because all religions lead to God.’”
You are looking in that way too much. Judging by the message of the other shirts that the company makes, that was not the intent.
Val,
Your age and disconnect is showing. I currently work exclusively in countries that are level 5 security. In fact, I am leaving tomorrow to visit a country where two of our missionaries are in a maximum security prison. If you truly did work with these people, you might actually have some love for them (more than just saying they are going to hell).
Nathan,
Seroiusly, are you having trouble reading? In the comment just above yours I just pointed out that I didn’t say one whit about “their intent.â€
And both Chris L. I agreed “However, I think your rewording is what many non-Christians might believe the shirt to mean, which is why I think that the design is faulty.†Which is EXACTLY what I am talking about here.
Like I said, I think these people made a simple mistake. Gentle correction is called for here, not foaming-at-the-mouth fundamentalism.
I agree, Matt. A voice of reason. By the way, its a good thing Warren didn’t make those shirts, huh? Of course he should know better, I think.
Nathan,
Your first judgemental comment to Val reminds me of the time that you assumed and reacted against the idea that my “project” was only for Christians because I mentioned that I felt it was necessary to share the gospel with people before talking about purity, because the gospel is at the root of purity.
You said to Val, “how many people are in your life that you let know “they are involved in a false religion that will send them to hell.†My guess is probably none.”
Perhaps this later comment is even worse: “If you truly did work with these people, you might actually have some love for them (more than just saying they are going to hell). ”
First you judge his involvement. Then you judge his love.
You’re picking up from somewhere that “traditional” missionaries do nothing much more than preach on hell. How deceived you are, and how divisive you are.
I don’t know about the circumstances of doing ministry in Hong Kong, but certainly most people don’t go to Calcutta or to Indonesia just so they can tell people they’re going to hell or get some kind of glory for themselves. Certainly most people would go into a ministry like that because the go because the love of Christ compells them. The dangers of going to preach to Muslims in Indonesia are great. Hindus are also extremely antagonistic to the gospel and if someone wants to go somewhere to just tell people they’re going to hell, surely they could pick a more pleasant spot than Calcutta.
Val never said he was “just telling people they were going to hell.” He said, “Yet our message is that God so loved the world THAT He gave his only begotten Son that whosoever BELIEVES IN HIM will have eternal life.
The Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists are participating in religions that will lead them to hell. The loving thing to do is tell them that. The loving thing to do is take a hard line with them on the exclusive claims of Christianity. Many will be offended and upset by that message. Many already are. But, to truly love our neighbor (regardless of their skin color or religion) we must unapologetically tell them the truth. ”
You may assume that he is a person that hates the people he talks to, that wouldn’t show an act of Christian kindness to the people he speaks to, that would never help a person in any material way. That he has no love for those with whom he shares the “only way.” How can you make such assumptions?
What is this antagonism you have towards people who even mention the word “gospel” without talking about the social aspects of it, or who talk about “hell” at all?
“foaming-at-the-mouth fundamentalism.” A bit of an over statement gentleman. Leaven’s post was sarcastic but hardly “foaming at the mouth.”
“Certainly most people would go into a ministry like that because the go because the love of Christ compells them.”
Should read, “Certainly most people would go into a ministry like that because the love of Christ compells them.”
amy,
You said tyo nathan: “You’re picking up from somewhere that ‘traditional’ missionaries do nothing much more than preach on hell.”
That kind of teaching is very deeply ingrained within the “message” of his pastor Erwin McManus. My thought is he gets it from him.
Nathan,
You’re grasping at straws mate.
I never said that the ONLY thing I preach is that they are going to hell. I preach both God’s law and the gospel.
God’s law tells us that we’ve ALL, myself included, broken God’s law and deserve hell.
The gospel tells us that Jesus Christ lived the law perfectly for us, died to propitiate God’s wrath for us and is offering salvation to all who trust and believe in Christ for their salvation instead of their own good works or false religious ideas.
Rather than digging yourself deeper into that whole, you may want to consider apologizing and admitting that you we’re wrong for saying what you said about me.
Christian Humility would suit you much better than your arrogant brash assumptions and need to always be correct.
I am offering you my forgiveness. Please consider repenting.
“tell them about their predicament”…
Yes.
Whoa, Dude! You’re about to fall off a cliff you can’t see ahead because you’re blind, poor guy. Come back here to safety! We don’t want you to die.
It sadly comes across more like:
You rebellious degenerate you are willfully running toward the cliff! You deserve to fall and if you do, then my hands are free of your blood. And you! You…you…you…evil (fill in the blank of label or different group). You didn’t rebuke them for moving toward a cliff they can’t see…you just said: “Whoa, Dude! You’re about to fall off a cliff you can’t see ahead. Come back here to safety!” You don’t say it the way I say it so you don’t really believe in the seriousness of their rebellion. AND you said, “Dude”!
To which I would respond:
Yeah, and my wife’s hot too.
=)
I’m tired of being told that because I want to be careful not to come across like a jerk when I tell someone the Truth of the Gospel that somehow I’m not as committed to it in the first place. The LOVING tone/attitude of my Gospel proclamation is KEY to the credibility of my that witness. No love, no witness.
It’s not love vs. truth…Love IS the Truth. A Love that would go so far as to die unjustly for the undeserving. That’s not denying the gospel, that’s the good news.
To constantly say it is a denial of the gospel is just tiresome and mistaken.
Val,
where did I say the ONLY thing you preached on was people going to hell? The article certainly capitalized on that fact, and you seemed to jump right in by quoting the article in your original article. I apologize if you assumed I was saying that. And yes, my comment was probably a bit too harsh. I just think there are enough preachers flying around the world telling people they are going to hell.
Amy,
“First you judge his involvement. Then you judge his love.”
Does C?N and Slice not do this all the time? Why is it that you defend Ken doing this, but when it is done here you react?
Ken,
“‘foaming-at-the-mouth fundamentalism.’ A bit of an over statement gentleman.
The ever so anonymous editor of your site (and you do claim to be the editor) called this the MOTHER OF ALL APOSTASIES for goodness sake! And you are saying that this isn’t an over reaction? Sound like you know just as much about overreacting as you do Erwin McManus.
Nathan – I don’t know who you hang around but I’ve never heard someone share the gospel like you portrayed. That may be a creation meant to support whatever you were attempting to say. And then the “my wife is hot”, where did that come from.
Are you frustrated because others don’t share your perspective? That is not the emerging way, brother.
Ken,
To backtrack a bit, you wrote:
The problem is that what I wrote may have agreed with your INTENT, but did not agree with what you WROTE. To wit, you wrote:
By saying that the obvious indication of what they wrote was your straw man (Can’t we just love one another because all religions lead to God), you are saying that the people who designed/sell the shirt intend this meaning.
Your own words impugn your integrity, not mine. This re-wording of people’s quotes in ways they would not agree with is what I am CONSTANTLY having to bring up as your signature straw-man tactic. Please let people’s words be their words – in the context intended – rather than twisting them to mean something they would likely not agree with.
Rick,
I think Nathan’s “Yeah, and my wife’s hot too.” was a wee bit of sarcasm hearkening to a previous thread.
As for his characiture of the ’shared gospel’ – I would say that it is definently similar to what I hear shouted from a particular street corner here in Indy by an ‘open air preacher’…
Chris L. – if the T-shirt people are orthodox and Ken knows that, then he would never have said they meant to be unitarian. I did not take Ken’s explanation to mean they purposely were unitarian, he meant it came across like that. That’s how I read his remarks.
Yes, Chris, but that is the rare exception. The rule is most Christians never witness in the first place, right? But I sensed some frustration of Nathan’s part. Oh well, we’ve all been there.
Rick,
“That’s how I read his remarks.” I appreciate that but you have to understand that Chris L. knows more about what I meant than I do.
Nathan said,
“First you judge his involvement. Then you judge his love.â€
Does C?N and Slice not do this all the time? Why is it that you defend Ken doing this, but when it is done here you react?”
First, no, Nathan, they don’t do it “all the time.” Secondly, I don’t defend everything that SLICE or CRN or Ken does.
I don’t recall defending Ken for “doing this.” Show me. In context.
Most importantly, if I have ever wrongly defended someone for anything (which may have happened) that does not change the fact that I was talking about you, not your “brother.” Is it not true that you “judged Val’s involvement? That you judged his love?†If it’s true, then it’s true no matter how imperfect I am.
Rick,
Just to somewhat defend Nathan who seems to be the brunt of the attacks here, I have heard plenty of preachers telling everyone they’re going to Hell without really explaining God’s love. I just saw a new street preacher on campus today. I just think those kind of people do a good job of telling people God wants to kill them, but don’t really tell them that God loves them.
Nathan,
“and you do claim to be the editor.” You show me where I claim to be “the editor.” Sounds like you know as much about me as you do a proper Gospel presentation.
Chris L.,
“an ‘open air preacher’…” An open air preacher now represents all of what you guys think is fundamentalism? Yikes. What’s that thing about the kettle that CRN.Info? is constantly crying…
Ken,
I agree that you might have meant something different than what you wrote, but since the site you quote seems to indicate the apostasy of the shirt-makers, Henry’s qualifier “if the T-shirt people are orthodox and Ken knows that” is not self-evident…
from the CRN “ABOUT” website
“General Editor:
Pastor Ken Silva”
You are the ONLY editor listed. Everyone else is listed as a contributer. Maybe there is another editor at C?N? Or is that title given to those who are too coward to give their names?
From the “About Us” page on C?N.com
General Editor:
Pastor Ken Silva
It seems Ken is outed… again.
Ken,
Hearkening back to a huge number of the discussions about open air ministers last summer vs. Rob Bell’s “Bullhorn”, I would say that I see ‘open air preachers’ are A representation of fundamentalism in the same way that Spencer Burke is A representation of Emergent thought, though I suspect that a greater percent of ‘Emergent’ thinkers reject Burke than fundamentalists who reject prototypical open air preachers…
OK, you guys are becoming obsessed. Here, lay down on my couch and I’ll help you escape from the Ken fetish. It’s really refreshing!
Chris – I reject the abrasive and caustic methods that some open air preachers use to disseminate the truth. The difference is Burke doesn’t have the truth to disseminate.
I would argue that most open air preachers hardly have truth to disseminate as well.
Ken said: “Show me where I claim to be “the editor.”
From CRN’s About Us page:
General Editor: Pastor Ken Silva
If the shoe fits…
Henry,
I’m talking about how the gospel comes across in the hands of some…
I would agree with you that we need to tell them of their predicament.
No disagreement, and it doesn’t bother me when people don’t share my perspective…what bothers me is when people imply or say outright that a kind Gospel appeal is “watering down” or “another gospel” or leading people to “a different Christ”, etc. etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum ad infinitum…
HEAR ME:
I’m not saying YOU do this…I’m just dovetailing off of what you rightly said…I think you’re a fairminded guy from what I’ve read…
I’m just concerned that we do not make the Truth a lie when we are unloving in our attitude and tone when sharing the Gospel.
I never said anybody actually uses those exact words, maybe some of the phrases, but it’s an example of the tone/attitude that is portrayed by the folk who bash a gentle, kindhearted gospel as “man-centered”. God does not break the tender reed…in my experience in ministry there are a lot more tender, bruised folk out there than those who are consciously rebellious.
The “my wife is hot” comment is just a silly reference to the other post TITLE about saying DUDE and HOT…I’m just trying to lighten up the mood. Sorry if the joke fell flat…
my summarizing sentences of my first comment bring the whole thing together….
hope that helps make sense of things…
Nathan – if any open air preachers don’t have the truth )i.e. Phelps) I stongly dissassociate myself with them as well.
Hmm, looks to me biys like my title is “General Editor,” not merely editor, huh. I have stated right in this CRN.Info? watchblog that every contributor at CRN is an editor as well. Each of us uses the generic editor at times.
So sorry iggy, no “outing” here. And you guys would be hard-pressed to make an accusation stick that, whether you agree with me or not, I don’t state my opinions and then stand behind them in my own name. I have done so repeatedly on radio programs well. I fear NO man.
I don’t have to for the Lord Himself will defend me. It’s to the end for me guys. Anyone who challenges me in what I teach must be willing to go there as well. And that’s the way it’s supposed to be. No where to run, nowhere to hide.
Those who wish to come after me, you won’t have to look to find me.
“Each of us uses the generic editor at times.”
how convenient for you.
Chris L.,
You do realize your explanation re. open air preachers vs Spencer Burke would be to use the same kind of argument you always criticize me for.
“No where to run, nowhere to hide. ”
Martha Reeves and the Vandellas.
5 trivia points for me.
The Book of Revelation…
nathan,
Way to deal with the editor issue and admit that you were wrong. Your snide little remark has zero to do with the fact that I do not use anything to hide what I am personally saying.
How much does Dwayna use the editor title?
Ken,
Perhaps I am missing it, but how so? I am leaving a great deal of room for error on my part. The “I suspect” is there to indicate such, and is primarily a suspicion based on 1) discussions on open air ministry from Slice 1.0 and associated blogs (which trended heavily in favor of it and the tactless ‘hellfire and damnation’ themed messages of many open air ministers) and 2) discussions from ‘emergent’ bloggers like Scot McKnight, Bob Hyatt and Mark Driscoll who eschew Burke’s teaching.
Dwayna…don’t get me started.
Ken –
The ‘editor’ function on C?N seems to still be a topic of conversation. Were it simply to link to articles of interest/agreement, then anonymity would not matter. However, it seems to bleed over into unattributed (and therefore, unaccountable) commentary. This lack of accountability is where I see the comment lying.
As for ‘General Editor’ vs. ‘Editor’ – this seems to require a level of hair-splitting that you (collectively) seem often unwilling to extend to those you criticize.
Regardless, the issue is one that could be easily remedied on your part, but should be harped on less on my part and others in general (though reasonably reserved for specific instances of use/abuse).
On Following Judah’s Lion I am not the editor. I am the Grand, High, Exalted, Mystic, Ruler.
I used to do open air work on the weekends, in a large city. It was done in love and in truth. Lots of folks stopped to listen. We talked to people individually. Folks got saved. Folks made fun of us. There was follow-up.
I remember standing by Burger King, my feet freezing, after a presentation (I remember it was Burger King because I went in and turned on the hand dryer to warm up my feet.) A woman and 2 or 3 daughters came up to me. They had heard the message and said they wanted to receive Christ. I was a bit astounded. “You do, all of you?” We talked. They prayed. It was a bit unreal, those family members coming to Christ at the same time, there in front of Burger King, in the midst of hundreds of pedestrians.
God knows how many people were really born again through that ministry. People who worked in that ministry wanted to share the gospel, and this was a good way to do it with a lot of people, in a busy place.
Another side of street-preaching.
Chris L.,
As to your point re. open air, I can see you were not being dogmatic. I would say from the “fundamentalists” I know we would feel the same way about the type of open air preachers you bring up as those emerging guys you mention might Spencer Burke.
Concerning the editor issue, I only am hair-splitting because there is zero doubt that I stand by what I say with my own name. I have discussed the issue of the editor with my contributors again and we’ll see what happens.
So I guess if people don’t like it then they’ll have to harp away.
Joe,
“How much does Dwayna use the editor title?” I don’t know…you’ll have to ask her.
Rick,
“Dwayna…don’t get me started.” Yes, by all means please do spare us your further blether on this subject.
Hey Ken, about the editor thing I feel real strongly. Who cares! You’ve said enough with your name on it without anyone having to search out “editor” posts.
It’s a red herring, guys.
Rick,
I do appreciate that, and I agree. I personally have never once hidden behind any editor. These guys can take any shots they want at me. It’s only fair.
I think ya’ll need to spend just a bit more time defining your terms and seeing where the real differences lie.
1. Do we all agree that the Bible teaches that people in other religions will face God’s judgement and spend eternity in hell?
2. Do we all agree that the Bible teaches that people who do not trust Christ for their salvation will face God’s judgement and spend eternity in hell regardless of how ‘good’ they may have been in this lifetime?
If there are any who believe there is salvation for non-believers or people in other religions outside of trusting in Christ then we’ve got a more serious debate that needs to happen. If we are all in agreement then we have some common ground to work from.
Which is it?
I think the usage of the “editor” is a bit of cowardice… we should stand behind our own words especially if we are doing a “hit” piece on someone… there is no accountability if one hits then hides… it reminds me of when the soldiers would hit Jesus and then say, “prophecy and tell us who hit you!”
the “editor” it is a joke… and a feeble attempt to sound bigger than they are.
iggy
Iggy,
I think using an anonymous editor is no big deal at all. Many news outlets around the world follow this convention.
You’re problem is you don’t like what is said at CRN. They have a bad habit of stepping on your Emergent toes and smashing your favorite pet doctrines and favorite heterodox ‘theologians’. That’s the real issue.
This whole ‘editor’ debate is silly. Who cares if you don’t like it and thinks its a joke. You have your own site to manage. Let CRN manage its affairs the way it sees fit.
Iggy – give it up. It can cause blindness!
Val,
Boy you are so wrong… OK only a bit right… but mostly wrong.
I gave up caring what these people say about “emerging/emergents” as they are so far off track in their attack it is like a parallel universe… only worse… they live over there in la-la land thinking that they are righteous.
My favorite “pet” doctrine is Grace, mercy and love… and I think that all Christians should stand against those who pervert those doctrines as SOL/CR?N do.
So give it a break.
Mostly I come here to preach and teach Ken Silva in hopes he comes to the Grace of Jesus and the Knowledge of His Truth.
blessings,
iggy
Val,
I agree with you on the two points. second, to report news anonymously and to make accusations against someone anonymously are two separate things. If you are going to accuse someone of something, but do it behind the disguise of “editor”, you are a coward.
Nathan,
You’re incorrigible. I recommend that you have a stiff drink or three and then this will all seem like a bad memory too you.
Seriously, you’re obsessing. This is not good for you. Listen to your friends. They speak the truth.
Nathan – you are a closed minded hate monger.
signed, editor
OK, you’re not a hate monger.
iggy,
“I think the usage of the ‘editor’ is a bit of cowardice.” Hmm, let me give that some serious thought…nah, I’ll lose exactly no sleep over this thought…
And: “Mostly I come here to preach and teach Ken Silva”; hey, don’t you go starting some emerging movement around me – he he…
Ken,
The editor is not that big of a thing… I mean if one doesn’t want to stand behind what they say it is fine with me.
Also, I bet you have learned some things from me… it’s ok not to admit it. Like I have said to you before I understand your position and what you think you might lose if you really came to the knowledge of Grace… I lost it and have never regretted it. I lost position (what little i had) friends (what few I had) all for the sake of trusting Jesus in His guiding me deeper into Himself.
It is not easy… it can be scary… but I am praying for you my friend!
Blessings,
iggy
Iggy,
You’re in luck.
Although I cannot speak for Pastor Silva, I have it on very good authority that he is a firm believer in the Doctrines of Grace. If mercy and grace are your pet doctrines then you and Pastor Ken have all sorts of things in common. Maybe you should start there.
Val,
Thanks. But unfortunately iggy’s ilk redefine what you and I would mean by grace.
Val,
Ken speaks of Grace but does not practice it… and that is the main difference between myself and him. His definition is that it is there only if you sin… I see it as the substance that holds all things together.
Blessings,
iggy
Val seems to just not get it. Maybe he was the one that had the three stiff drinks and forgot to bring his logic to the table. It’s expected from a crazed fundie.
Grace is unmerited favor…and sin is anytime one does not live this greatest of the commandments at every moment – Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’†(Mark 12:30)
If you don’t do this you sin – period. Jesus–the God-Man–is the only One Who could ever fulfill this commandment. The moment we take a breath we all fail this miserably. Maybe now you will see how awful and dreadful our peril, but O how merciful and awesome our God is to have lived this for those who will give themselves to Him.
So I hardly see myself as one who doesn’t practice grace. I pray for all the mercy and grace God will grant me.
Val,
how do you disagree with me? You don’t think it is cowardliness to write against someone anonymously?
nathan,
I wouldn’t mean to speak for Val, however I believe he’s politely saying get over it man. One half of one in 10 posts at CRN which might be seen as writing against someone is hardly a reason to waste your entire day on.
Ken,
Grace is unmerited favor is a great start!
Yet, if you study deeper it is much much more…
But, a spiffy definition is a good start and easy to remember.
You see to say it is just unmerited favor overlooks that Jesus was full or truth and grace and was also the one who God placed His wrath on… so if you think a bit more, Jesus full of God’s Grace and truth receive wrath in our place… so how does that fit “unmerited favor”? Please do not try to explain it for me… i am asking this so you will go and look this up…
“Unmerited favor” also compartmentalizes grace as opposed to the continuous flow of grace God has shown from Genesis to Revelation. You them begin to split hairs and say there is “common” grace and “special” grace and so on… this is silly… Grace is the substance all things that exist are held together by… if there where no grace God would not put up with anything. He would justifiably uncreate and we would not know the difference!
So, again unmerited favor is a great start, but truthfully not fully realized in it’s thought.
Be Blessed,
iggy
Blessings,
iggy
48% of the posts on your front page are by “editor”
currently the “editor” has attacked:
-Catholics
-Mark Driscoll
-An online bible community
-Victory Family Church
-Harry Potter Books
-A Christian t-shirt company
-Barak Obama
-St. John’s Lutheran Church
But it really isn’t a problem, right?
well nathan, we probably don’t agree on what constitutes an attack in your mind. Friend seriously, if you actualy took time to count the posts and do the math then you do have way too much time on your hands.
If you can show me that no news sources will pick up stories e.g. from the AP and publish the byline as simply “Associated Press” then we have a problem.
And I’d hardly call this about Barack Obama an “attack”: “True Discernment tests the message of presidential hopeful Barack Obama…” Or this about Mark Driscoll: “Christian Research Net contributor Mike Corley, who recently interviewed Mark Driscoll on The Mike Corley Program, provides a link to an earlier post by Phil Johnson concerning Driscoll.”
It even says the link goes to Mike Corley’s site. That’s a problem I see with you Nathan, you don’t seem to fully think through what you are reading or saying. Man that’s just really a bad idea when you come after someone like me.
“”Strawman” is a much overused label these days, and no one is more adept at creating one than a politician esepecially one like Barack Obama.”
I would call that attacking from the post “Obama the Reformer”, which was on the front page until a few minutes ago.
When the “editor” chooses to link to other sites (i.e. Mike Corley on Phil Driscoll), it says something about what they believe. If an “editor” here posted a link to an abortion clinic, it says alot about what the “editor” believed.
It is cowardly and funny that your people are ashamed to give their names. What other reason would they have?
Pay attention Joe,
“It is cowardly and funny that your people are ashamed to give their names. What other reason would they have?”
Above I already said: “If you can show me that no news sources will pick up stories e.g. from the AP and publish the byline as simply ‘Associated Press’ then we have a problem.”
Nice try though.
Pay Attention Ken,
While I must confess that I was tempted to change my name to Editor. You might want to grab a paper towel, because you have egg on your face on this one. I’m not the editor. I’m not even signed in right now.
Joe,
Welcome to the club. I’m accused of being the editor at CRN here all the time. Guess you need to ask God for thicker skin.
Since Joe says he’s not the editor here at CRN.Info?, just as I am not editor at CRN, I’ll rephrase to the hypocrite who called themself editor and said: “It is cowardly and funny that your people are ashamed to give their names. What other reason would they have?â€
Above I already said: “If you can show me that no news sources will pick up stories e.g. from the AP and publish the byline as simply ‘Associated Press’ then we have a problem.â€
Nice try though.
How does it feel to not know who is writing about who. I was the editor that time.
See the problems it causes.
The problem you have with your AP example is that they are not reporting on opinion. They do not add their own tow cents about an issue or make comments on “strawmen” and such.
Doesn’t bother me. It bothered Joe and out of respect to him I redireted what I said. The problem you have with your problem with the AP example is that as usual you didn’t address the actual topic.
“They do not add their own tow cents about an issue or make comments on ’strawmen’ and such.” My point exactly, neither does CRN. What we do with editor is completely consistent with that aspect of reporting.
I have no problem that anyone disagrees with what we say, how we say it etc.; goes with the turf. However, do yourself a favor Nathan and realize that just because you might disagree with an argument does not automatically equate said argument to a “straw man.”
Believe it or not people can disagree over legimate issues. And because you might not personally see it as a legimate issue won’t change that.
Hey…that was funny how the “Editor” piped in at 8:40 and no one noticed.
FUNNY!
I agree…the whole “strawman” thing is a bit overused and annoying…almost as much as the “red herring” phrase. No offense meant Henry Rick Frueh.
I hate to admit this…but I would have a tendency to agree with the basci arguement of this “can’t we just love opne another” t-shirt.
It does kind of communicate the wrong thing, but I am of the opinion that it is “much a do about nothing”. (see what I did there…I pulled out a different cliche)
The big question here is…would I wear said shirt? Probably not. I have a shirt that is my favorite that you would probably like though Ken…it reads, ” I am open to suggestions as long as they are mine”… seriously…I love that shirt.
On another note….is it really wrong to preach grace and mercy? Is there an arguement here?
Peace!
Jimmy
p.s. we used the generic “Editor” title one time and got blasted for it….hence the reason every post at RelevantChristian has the writers name attached.
” I am open to suggestions as long as they are mineâ€
LOL
How about this:
“Everyone makes mistakes. I made one once, I thought I was wrong but I wasn’t!”
My wife likes to say…
“I may not be right, but I am never in doubt.”
iggy
Hey Rick and Iggy,
Too funny!
My Dad always said, “I am always right…even when I’m wrong”
Peace!
jimmy,
“you would probably like though Ken…” Whatever that means. Do yourself a favor friend and please leave me out of your comment. You really don’t know me.
And by the way, as a matter of fact I have been wrong a couple of times myself…and amazingly enough…my wife was there both times.
Ken,
Jimmy was not attacking you… he was saying that you might like the T shirt also… sheesh talk about thin skinned!
Be Blessed,
iggy
iggy,
Thanks for your great concern for me, however my skin’s fine. I also am rather acquainted with the English language as well but this typo: “you would probably like though Ken…†is unitelligible to me.
I wasn’t offended, but as of now Jimmy hasn’t a relationship with me beyond possibly in Christ so I asked him not to bring me in to his comment. Since he doesn’t kno wme from Adam he can’t very well speculate: “you would probably like though Ken…â€
It appears he was meaning to say, and I’m NOT belittling his typo, I would like this as well: “I am open to suggestions as long as they are mine.†If so, he is mistaken. To me this is an inappropriate witness for a Christian to wear that slogan in public.
No Ken,
You missed what I said. Your editor recently made a comment about Obama making strawmen arguments. Here is his/her exact statement:
“”Strawman” is a much overused label these days, and no one is more adept at creating one than a politician especially one like Barack Obama.”
That was not quoting another article either. Would you consider this non-opinion?
Works for me. I rather doubt Barack is concerned. But he’s welcome to contact me if he personally has a problem.
Don’t you just hate it when you leave an electron trail?
Ken,
i think anyone with an ounce of intelligence could tell what Jimmy meant… and there is no typo… you just can’t read an comprehend that is all…
Here is the whole sentence…
“I have a shirt that is my favorite that you would probably like though Ken”…
He stated you might like the saying on this t shirt… and you are saying it is a typo… maybe he left out a comma… but it seems you have picked at a nitpick and missed the point of the sentence altogether… which is consistent to much I read by you in your writings.
Blessings,
iggy