This was a classic example for the ODMs response to the criticism of their teacher/mentor, John MacArthur and their theology. I thought that the talk given by Shane McGee in this film was well thought out, well presented and very true in regards to the content in The Truth War. Ken Silva, general editor of Christian Research Network, fails to address any of the content brought up in this film. In fact, his only rebuttal was mocking the film and the movement behind the thinking

The quiet arrogance displayed here is ample evidence of the fetid fruit of the neo-liberal cult of the Emergent Church currently infecting your church’s youth group. These kind of men who are always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth are the new fires of Molech that spiritually obtuse evangelical leaders are sacrificing your children to.

Listen for yourself to this gibberish as a “Christian” agnostic argues how difficult the Bible is to understand using the same arguments as would an unbelieving skeptic. [emphasis mine]

It never ceases to amaze me what these ODMs will write when they are unable to defend their position, including labeling someone as an agnostic. Instead of addressing the issues at hand, they name call and dismiss the claims as arrogance with literally no explanation.

Let me say this about the film – I agreed with most of what McGee had to say. It is more arrogant of John MacArthur to declare that the scriptures are a simple thing to interpret than for McGee to say they are more complex than what meets the eye. Anyone who has taken a basic course in Biblical interpretation knows how intense the process can get when interpreting the scriptures and applying an ancient and sacred text to modern contexts. It is certainly not as obvious at the ODMs would have it.

So there are basically two roads you can take. You either go down the path that the ODMs have chosen. It’s the idea that your exact interpretation of the scriptures is the only interpretation, and everyone else is a man-loving heretic. Or, you are faithful to interpret the scriptures before God to the best of your ability, and accept the fact that we are broken humans who may not get it right 100% of the times. You agree on the essentials, and realize that both pre-trib and post-trib believing believers can read the same scriptures, interpret them very differently, yet worship along side one another.

  • Share/Bookmark
This entry was posted on Wednesday, September 5th, 2007 at 12:49 am and is filed under Emergent Church, Ken Silva, Linked Articles, ODM Responses, ODM Writers. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
+/- Collapse/Expand All

29 Comments(+Add)

1   David C    http://davidcho.blogspot.com
September 5th, 2007 at 1:36 am

I am sorry, but the guy lost me after he described MacArthur’s take on the Emergent Church as “diatribes.”

2   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
September 5th, 2007 at 4:55 am

I would say the he does overstate the case for difficulty. However, the fires of Molech might be a “little” over the top.

3   Rick Ianniello    http://rianniello.blogspot.com/
September 5th, 2007 at 5:53 am

ok – help me out … what does ODM stand for?

4   chris    http://agendalesslove.wordpress.com
September 5th, 2007 at 6:20 am

Having listened to all 3 videos (J Mac’s found here and here) As well as Shane’s. J Macs take on the emerging church is not much of a diatribe. The radio show host is quite frankly the “diatriber”. If their is such a word.

I feel bad that Brian Mclaren was not more clear in his statement on salvation. But I feel worse that “Way of the Master” chooses what gets heard as opposed to the entirety of Brians beliefs.

5   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
September 5th, 2007 at 7:00 am

“I feel bad that Brian Mclaren was not more clear in his statement on salvation.”

And chris, if he cannot make that clear and unamiguous then we need not go any further. That is exactly what people like me, who are not out to smear, cannot get over. A twelve year old child can make salvation clear and MacLaren cannot?

6   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
September 5th, 2007 at 7:11 am

Nathan,

Even Peter states this:

2 Peter 3:16
He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

So, MacArthur seems to think Peter is a liar… For JM to state that the Bible is easy to interpret seems to go against what the Bible states of itself!

Blessed?
iggy

7   chris    http://agendalesslove.wordpress.com
September 5th, 2007 at 7:25 am

Rick,

I need to be clear and say; I’ve heard Brian unambigously state “Christ is the way to salvation”.

In this interview that was excerpted on the radio program it sounded as though a microphone was stuck in Brians face and he was asked “What do you think about Hell?” It would be interesting to here the entirety of his answer and not just the section that “Way of the Master” chose to air. I don’t necessarily disagree with Brian saying “Christians get roped into this argument declaring ‘Christ is the only way’ to heaven” I took it to mean that this is how the argument begins with non-believers. Not that Brian has a problem with the statement but that non-believers do.

Contextual it is difficult to discern the “meat” of dialogue. Which I find to be egregious on the part of the ODM’s. Time and time again they “sound the alarm” without providing context to the conversation.

Quite frankly I think this reinforces Shane’s point that context is equally important as the words that we find in scripture. To paraphrase another commenter that I recently read “When Jesus tells the story of the good samaritan he says ‘the religious readers crossed over to the other side of the road’ The other side of the road was only 3 feet away and it was either a cliff or a wall” That makes a far more powerful point than “They crossed to the other side” which in our context denotes 20-50 feet.

8   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
September 5th, 2007 at 7:35 am

ODM = “Online Discernment Ministry” – a much nicer term for watchdawggies…

9   chris    http://agendalesslove.wordpress.com
September 5th, 2007 at 7:36 am

Additionally John MacArthur has used scripture inaccurately before and I don’t see anyone “sounding the alarm” on him.

here
as a quick example.

10   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
September 5th, 2007 at 7:37 am

If one wanted to downplay hell because he felt it presented an unbalanced view of salvation, he could give a clear but tacit acknowledgement without emphasis and thereby provide proof that he isn’t moving away from Biblical teaching of the “lake of fire” (I know Bell undermines the word hell and prefers lake of fire – same place different words).

For example, “I believe in an eternal place of justice but I believe God’s love through Jesus on the cross provides an escape as well as eternal life for all who believe.”

Simple, no?

11   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
September 5th, 2007 at 7:38 am

chris,

To MacArthur… “that was orthodox, but it is just a set up!” seemed to make it clear that JM would never agree with Brian even if he did… what I did hear clearly in that interview was JM setting up Brian in a way that there was no way JM could look bad… I mean there was no reference to the “source” of which they had taken the statements of Brian… I mean… I have quite an extensive collection of Brian’s lectures… and I would have to dig pretty deep to find the one they used… I remember it… but can’t recall exactly which one it was.

Without that reference, JM could say Brian was saying ANYTHING HE wanted Brian to be saying without the context.

These guys cry, “Context, Context, Context” when you state something that is clearly in the context such as when on Larry King Live MacArthur stated the Jewish leaders killed Jesus… then later as if it was an after thought stated that was ’secondary” yet, the statement that first came out clearly sounded anti Semitic… All on the panel heard it that way and Johnny Mac had to do some back peddling to make it clear he was not.. because he was a “true-christian”…

So, there is a huge double standard here between what “Grace To You” people slander or take someone out of context to show how “apostate” he is… or when you show them a mirror as to what they themselves look like… they back peddle or just call you names.

Blessings,
iggy

12   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
September 5th, 2007 at 7:43 am

Rick,

how is “hell” and “the lake of fire” the same if “hell” is tossed into the lake of fire?

Rev 20: 13. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.14. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

I think that most miss that we will not be going to “heaven” or we will not be getting saved from “hell”…

We will inherit the New Heaven and New Earth… or be tossed into the Lake of Fire which is the Second Death…

At least that is what I hear Brian McLaren teach when he regurgitates N.T. Wright…

Be blessed,
iggy

13   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
September 5th, 2007 at 7:47 am

It’s conversations like these which conjure up the image of Seinfeld’s Soup Nazi saying “No Grace for You!”…

14   keith    http://fivepts.blogspot.com
September 5th, 2007 at 7:53 am

I watched Shane’s video (at least as much as I could stomach)…mind-numbing rambling for me. He should have written some notes before turning on the camera.

Everybody’s got their own fan club!

15   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
September 5th, 2007 at 7:55 am

Rick,

Echoing Iggy’s clarification on hell and the lake of fire – the reason Bell (and others) treat these as two different things is because, in the Hebrew mind (and therefore, the context in which they were written), they were two different things, though both part of the same ’system’.

As I’m sure you’re aware “hell”, gahenna, was an actual, physical location of the town dump of Jerusalem in the Hinnom Valley, which was also the location of (ironically) the sacrifice of children to Molech. In using this term, Jesus was bringing forth an image that was present, here an now, and had future implications.

The lake of fire, on the other hand, was not a known, physical location with contextual meaning attached to it. It has no present component, but is the future destination for hell.

We have lumped the two concepts together (hell and the lake of fire), and attached to the single, amalgamated concept only the future destination. This is why Bell and others try to separate the two – in order to restore the present implication of gahenna, in addition to the eternal implication of the lake of fire.

16   chris    http://agendalesslove.wordpress.com
September 5th, 2007 at 7:59 am

Blessed?
iggy

Why the question mark? Are you not sure anymore?

For example, “I believe in an eternal place of justice but I believe God’s love through Jesus on the cross provides an escape as well as eternal life for all who believe.”

Simple, no?

Very simple indeed. My question is would the ODM’s have issue with that because you don’t blatently say “SIN” or “Hell”? Would they accuse you of glossing over the “truth” of the gospel; because your terminology doesn’t fit with the narrow view that there is only one way to deliver the gospel message?

17   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
September 5th, 2007 at 8:01 am

I know, I know, but why not throw the colloquial crowd a bone, especially when you know that many use the word hell as a catch all? When Bell does some of his linguistic gymnastics he confuses much of the orthodox crowd.

Why not say,”I know what you mean when you say hell and if you mean a place of eternal punishment I agree, however let me do some word delineation to help us come to a more Biblical understanding”.

Wouldn’t that help?

18   chris    http://agendalesslove.wordpress.com
September 5th, 2007 at 8:04 am

I watched Shane’s video (at least as much as I could stomach)…mind-numbing rambling for me. He should have written some notes before turning on the camera.

Certainly a mish-mash of thought. But worthy of a discussion. No?

Everybody’s got their own fan club!

huh?

19   chris    http://agendalesslove.wordpress.com
September 5th, 2007 at 8:09 am

I know, I know, but why not throw the colloquial crowd a bone, especially when you know that many use the word hell as a catch all? When Bell does some of his linguistic gymnastics he confuses much of the orthodox crowd.

I guess this begs the question…When Bell speaks of Hell who is he speaking to? Is it the orthodox crowd? Or is it the non-believer?

There in lies the rub.

20   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
September 5th, 2007 at 8:11 am

chris,

“Why the question mark? Are you not sure anymore?”

When I speak of the double speak and standard of those who declared war on “truth” against their brothers (I know they think they are defending “truth”.. but how can truth be defended with lies and slander and such?) I just get overwhelmed with all the blessings of Grace that come to me by them as they call me names and tell me how I am not saved and am condemned to hell…

I have even been accused of being trite of mocking when i state at the end “blessings” as i always have and do.

SO I wonder… of all that… do any of us really feel…. Blessed?

Rick,

“I know, I know, but why not throw the colloquial crowd a bone, especially when you know that many use the word hell as a catch all?”

I do! Yet they don’t! They seem to twist it to mean people like us deny hell altogether!

Now, I admit that some debate in-house whether “hell” is a sort of “purgatory” which was originally taught in Judaism… (always wondered where the Catholics got that) and if “hell” is emptied of its dead at the resurrection it seems it may be a type of purgatory until all are judged. (which as far as I can understand does not include the “Chirst Follower”.)

So, I toss a bone all the time… but the dog likes to chew on my leg instead! LOL!

Blessings,
iggy

21   keith    http://fivepts.blogspot.com
September 5th, 2007 at 8:26 am

Chris: Some people think Shane “hit one out of the park”…others think MacArthur. I’m in the latter group. Hence, “Everybody’s got their own fan club!”

22   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
September 5th, 2007 at 8:46 am

Keith,

I watched Shane’s video (at least as much as I could stomach)…mind-numbing rambling for me. He should have written some notes before turning on the camera.

I agree! Yet, Ken’s take seems to miss that this is not some uneducated man who has no grasp of Truth… in fact as i listened I thought that men like JM who make statements like “it is easy to read and understand” about the bible… demean it in that they are saying that we can approach God through the Bible and understand Him… and in that get saved.

This is called rationalization. It is saying that man can save himself if he thinks himself and gains understanding… it is more based on what WE beleive than faith… as it is based on OUR understanding and being certain in that…

I see that is not taught in scripture. We have certainty in GOd who can save us… We hope in what we do not see…

Jesus even states in

John 5:39. You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, 40. yet you refuse to come to me to have life.

You do not know how many people in the MacArthur camp who have told me I am wrong… when I state we need Jesus to understand the bible! That doctrine must flow from Jesus to us out of that understanding… True Doctrine flows out of our relationship with Jesus… not our of some sort of mental ascent. Belief is not just mental… it is faith in action… It is a Life Lived… and that Life being the very Life of Jesus Himself!

Sorry i am going Pentecostal on ya’all! Glory! LOL!

Blessings,
iggy

23   Nathan    
September 5th, 2007 at 10:21 am

I am not too sure how this post turned into an exegetical work on the theology of hell. I think people are missing the point when they critique the style in which Shane spoke (as happens so often). Yes, he could have been more eloquent, but no one has really rebutted what he said.

I think CRN needs to prove that something is wrong, not just call someone names and say they are leading people to hell. The fact is that the scriptures are MUCH more hard to interpret than these guys would lead the world to believe. The passages pointed out in the film are great examples of this.

24   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
September 5th, 2007 at 2:15 pm

Nathan,

That is the issue isn’t it…

We emergents can listen (though i admitted Shane here was a little tough to get through) and we try to get to the core of what the person is stating… as many do not have the theological language down… or that they are MORE EDUCATED and have MORE GRASP of the bible and doctrines as they see it in a wider scope than that of one school of theology, meaning a very narrow Calvinistic Lordship Salvation theological view. This does not mean that the CLS view is bad or wrong… rather that there are also many other types of views even within Calvinism itself!

To state as JM has that the Bible is easy was a major overstatement and biblically incorrect… if like most of the statements against “emergents” are we are too “wordy” then whatever! (that is postmodern for “whatever”)

I only saw Ken call names and make not one single point as to how this guy is wrong… so?

Ken, oh wiseman of God… how is he wrong… is the bible so simple that anyone can understand it… Is John MacArthur the one that we all must turn to for the true word of God as it is so simple for him to read and understand? Is JM the new Pope?

LOL!

Blessings,
iggy

25   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
September 5th, 2007 at 2:43 pm

Here is the funniest thing…

I once here stated that Johnny Mac believes that the Kingdom of God is “only spiritual” and Ken rebuked me and basically stated I was lying…

Well here is the original source in which I heard JM state just that! It was on The Way of The Master…

http://christianresearchnetwork.com/?p=3029

Note also that Brian is taken grossly out of context and “setup” and served softball style to JM!!! What a joke!

Yet, I bet still not one apology will be given to me by Ken “The Cessationists Prophet” Silva

Be Blessed,
iggy

26   chris    http://agendalesslove.wordpress.com
September 5th, 2007 at 5:01 pm

Ken “The Cessationists Prophet” Silva

Actually the full official title is: Ken “The Cessationists Prophet, Teacher, Servant, Pastor” Silva

27   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
September 5th, 2007 at 5:05 pm

Don’t forget “General Editor”… I am sure he means the “General” part as authoritative… like General MacArthur… not “in general”.

LOL!
Blessings,
iggy

28   chris    http://agendalesslove.wordpress.com
September 5th, 2007 at 8:13 pm

Don’t forget “General Editor”… I am sure he means the “General” part as authoritative… like General MacArthur… not “in general”.

Also maybe “King” because I recall one commenter referring to people under his pastorate as “his subjects”.

So Ken “The Cessationists General Editor, King, Prophet, Teacher, Servant, Pastor” Silva

29   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
September 7th, 2007 at 4:39 pm

Shane has published a response to Ken and his “well wishers”.

One Trackback/Ping

  1. The No Name Preacher » Blog Archive » Questions?    Sep 05 2007 / 12pm:

    [...] The good folks at CRN.info put me on to this! Thanks! [...]