Does anyone else find it odd that 16 out of 25 posts at Christian Research Network right now are written by the “editor”?  If discernment is from God, then I wonder why he would like to remain anonymous 64% of the time.  Just thought I would point that out.

  • Share/Bookmark
This entry was posted on Wednesday, September 12th, 2007 at 9:57 am and is filed under Editor, Humor, 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

41 Comments(+Add)

1   Phil Miller
September 12th, 2007 at 10:14 am

Perhaps I’m just stupid, but doesn’t having Ken Silva listed as the General Editor under the “About Us” section of CR?N imply that he is the “Editor” who is writing these posts to any normal reader. I know Ken denies being the Editor, but it seems rather odd to me. Maybe it’s like Clark Kent denying being Superman or something.

2   Nathan    
September 12th, 2007 at 10:18 am

no… we have had this conversation with him several times. he is the “general editor.” However, any one of his writers can write under the name “editor.” He has failed to give logic for this… but it is his explanation, none the less

3   Rick Frueh
September 12th, 2007 at 10:21 am

The editor is the same person who wrote Hebrews.

4   Phil Miller
September 12th, 2007 at 10:31 am

Well, my point is that any normal person looking at the site for the first time and reading the “About Us” section would assume that “Editor” and the “General Editor” are the same person. I know it’s old news, but if anyone can be the “Editor”, than it is taking all accountability away from the writer.

Maybe the “Editor” is supposed to be a collective noun like the “White House” in press releases, or better yet the Borg. It is the collective conciousness of all the contributors at CR?N.

5   Rick Frueh
September 12th, 2007 at 10:34 am

Yes, Phil, the Borg has infiltrated CRN. Resistance is futile.

6   Tim Reed
September 12th, 2007 at 10:35 am

Maybe the “Editor” is supposed to be a collective noun like the “White House” in press releases, or better yet the Borg. It is the collective conciousness of all the contributors at CR?N.

We brought that up before. Ken refuses to take responsibility for what the editor writes. So apparently it isn’t the C?N equivalent to editorials.

7   Sandman    
September 12th, 2007 at 10:55 am

It’s disappointing that CRN will not provide the opportunity there for other believers to sharpen their iron.

8   Brendt
September 12th, 2007 at 10:59 am

For 64% anonymity, shouldn’t this post read, “Posted by Na****” ? ;-)

9   David C
September 12th, 2007 at 12:04 pm

Can somebody point to this Ken Silva quote which said something to the effect that after he wrote a missive, he marveled at its eloquence and depth and said, “Lord, I could not have written that myself. You wrote it. You gave it to me.”

I wish I could have saved it. Does anyone remember?

10   David C
September 12th, 2007 at 12:13 pm

I just noticed that Teampyro does not have listed Slice, CR?N, and Apprising. They used to have all three listed on their blogroll.

Trouble in ODM paradise? Could that have contributed to Ingrid’s decision to retire Slice? I know Phil Johnson’s resounding endorsement of Slice meant a lot to Ingrid, but the links Slice, Apprising, and CR&N vanished with no fanfare.


11   Ken Silva
September 12th, 2007 at 12:24 pm

“[Team Pyro] used to have all three listed [Slice, CR?N, and Apprising] on their blogroll.”

This is not true. The earlier Pyro – pre-Team – did have the original Slice of Laodicea listed under “Interesting” and I believe afterward they went Team as well.

Team Pyro did have Christian Research Net listed under “Exceptional” prior to Ingrid’s handing it to me. I pause for a moment that you boyz may insert applause and your appropriate anti-Ken sentiments here.

Ok, that was very special. But neither of the incarnations of Pyro ever had Apprising Ministries on their blog roll at any time. There has absolutely never been any connection whatsoever – even Kevin Bacon-style – between Pyromaniacs, Ken Silva and/or Apprising Ministries.

You may continue your blether sans me now.

12   Tim Reed
September 12th, 2007 at 12:37 pm

You may continue your blether sans me now.

Suuuurrreeeee. Fool me fifty or sixty times, shame on you….

13   David C
September 12th, 2007 at 12:41 pm

Thanks Ken

I see that you do obsess over who has you linked and you doesn’t.

To make you feel good, I have you linked on my blogroll. It is labeled “Prophet (LOL).” Sorry, couldn’t be more creative.

So you’ve made it, Ken. You now grace my blogroll. You Ken Silva and I David Cho now have a connection! Enjoy your 15 minutes because it will last exactly 15 minutes.

Team Pyro did have Christian Research Net listed under “Exceptional” prior to Ingrid’s handing it to me. I pause for a moment that you boyz may insert applause and your appropriate anti-Ken sentiments here.

Wow, even Teampyro can’t stand your inanity. LOL. How does that make you feel given your deep devotion to John MacArthur?

14   chris
September 12th, 2007 at 12:57 pm

Ken has finally convinced me!!!!

15   chris
September 12th, 2007 at 12:58 pm

Ken has finally convinced me!!!!

That he will never leave for good.

16   Rick Frueh
September 12th, 2007 at 1:12 pm

I do not know why you guys feel that way. Three reasons why Ken should be allowed and welcomed here.

1. It’s Christian. (Love your enemies and all that)
2. Chris Lyons welcomes everyone without moderation
3. Ken is the gift that keeps giving!

Come on down, Ken, the water’s fine!

17   Darren Sapp
September 12th, 2007 at 1:22 pm

The editor is just doing the work Gos has called him (or her) (or them) to do. The editor cannot help it if we are all blind. The editor is just “a riddle, wrapped up in a mystery, inside an enigma.” – Winston Churchill

18   chris
September 12th, 2007 at 1:53 pm

I don’t mind Ken commenting.

I do mind that he often does not further dialogue only denigrates it.

19   David C
September 12th, 2007 at 4:04 pm

I am having serious Slice withdrawal. If Ken goes away, then I am committing myself to the mental ward.

Ken, don’t leave.

20   Tyler
September 12th, 2007 at 5:58 pm

Ken can post under ‘editor’ if he wants to. It’s not like he hasn’t said similar things as ‘Ken Silva.’ He could be leaving nasty comments at anonymously but he doesn’t. Does it even matter? I am schocked that this is even an issue – this blog is turing out to be less of a site promoting “Justice, Mercy and Faithfulness” and more about bitter grudge fights between ODMs and anti-ODMs, and I don’t even know what ‘ODM’ stands for. Honestly. Bitching about “oo, you’re obsessing over who links to you” doesn’t help anyone in this discussion. Ken was just clarifying some facts, okay? And don’t think I’m Ken’s ‘guarddoggie’ (I can’t believe I wrote that) or anything, I’ve exchanged my share of emails with the guy on a number of occasions, but this is quite unhelpful.

21   Tim Reed
September 12th, 2007 at 6:08 pm

It does matter when Christians refuse to be accountable by posting anonymously.

22   iggy
September 12th, 2007 at 6:24 pm


I am glad you are not just one sided…


23   Tyler
September 12th, 2007 at 6:27 pm

I’m still not convinced he’s in the wrong if he posts anonymously as ‘editor.’ It’s his website. Ultimately, he is accountable for whatever is posted there. Furthermore, as I said in my previous post, I can’t see him not saying anything as ‘Ken Silva’ that the anonymous ‘editor’ would say, if you get what I’m saying. It would be one thing if he came on here or anyone else’s site anonymously and said “arminians suck…WalterMartin 4 Life!!” But he’s coming on here under the name ‘Ken Silva’ and saying whatever he wants to say. I hardly think he refuses to accept responsibility for what he says, judging by what he’s said as Ken Silva.

But…maybe I’m just giving him the benefit of the doubt again. I really have to stop that. Maybe he posts anonymously as editor so he can say whatever he wants to say without getting emails from neo-orthodox guys saying “You’re being unfair Mr. Silva. Please try to be more gentle, or you’ll end up excommunicating two millenia of believers.”

24   Tyler
September 12th, 2007 at 6:29 pm

But seriously, what does ODM stand for? ‘Online Discernment Ministry?’

25   Rick Frueh
September 12th, 2007 at 6:32 pm

Tyler – why not post under you name? What has happened is that sometimes when someone poses a question about a post and they ask Ken he glibly claims he is not the author. So why not do what most sites do, print your name. What would possibly be the reason for a non specific title?

I never heard his reason.

26   Tim Reed
September 12th, 2007 at 7:01 pm

In the past Ken has refused responsiblity for what was written by “editor”. He is deliberately trying to avoid being held accountable for what is written on that site.

27   Chris P.    
September 12th, 2007 at 9:08 pm

Tyler rightly rebukes you all, and you blow him off?
Sounds like you are not being very accountable.
Ken is listed as general editor, so he is covering up,….how?
I post on there as editor also. Let’s see if yiou can guess which posts.
We comment here using our actual names; and the problem is?

David C is right. If Ken is gone some of you will have to get real jobs.
This blog will improve when iggy and Tim Reed are banned for life.

28   nathan
September 12th, 2007 at 9:10 pm

you don’t understand how anonymous posts are covering up?

Also, if we left, Ken would have to get a real job.

29   Chris L
September 12th, 2007 at 9:13 pm


I’m not a big fan of the tone of a number of comments here, including yours above and some of my own. I can agree with Tyler about tone, but he hasn’t yet addressed the same question originally put forth about the “editor” account – why is it even necessary?

Why, when articles by the “editor” are questioned is Ken’s only response “sorry, I didn’t write it”?

It IS an issue of integrity and an issue of accountability when a writer refuses to put his/her name on their own work, and when the “General Editor” avoids any and all responsibility on the part of the anonymous posters…

30   iggy
September 12th, 2007 at 9:16 pm

Chris P.

“This blog will improve when iggy and Tim Reed are banned for life.”


But I would not say that about anyone here… even Ken or you…

be blessed,

31   iggy
September 12th, 2007 at 9:19 pm

Oh and btw i could care less if Ken or anyone else hides behind “editor” that is their issue not mine… so I have no issue with Tyler at all…

But boy Chris P you have a lot of hostility towards me and Tim…

Sad… really…

be blessed,

32   Tim Reed
September 12th, 2007 at 9:22 pm

Tyler rightly rebukes you all, and you blow him off?

Who blew him off? We answered him quite directly as to why it is cowardly and dishonest to post anonymously and that Christians especially should not do it.

33   Jimmy@RelevantChristian
September 12th, 2007 at 11:14 pm

Tyler…yes ODM stands for “Online Discernment Ministry”.

Chris P….my brother, my brother….we had posts on our site at one time that were posted under ‘Editor’ and Your friends at Slice, Apprising etc, etc, gave us a pretty hard time about it…hence the reason we did away with the ‘Editor’ tag. Now all of our posts…much like here at CRN.infom are all done under the said posters name.

So…what’s good for the goose is good for the gander…yes?

34   Julie
September 12th, 2007 at 11:25 pm

What needs is an ombudsman to offset the ever-effusive editor.

35   Tyler
September 13th, 2007 at 7:21 am

I really don’t feel like I’m being “blown off” here, I think they’ve responded efficiently and kindly.

I’m still convinced that Ken is “allowed” to post anonymously. If his reason for doing so is, should someone call him on it, he can respond with “Sorry I didn’t write that” then he’s blatantly lying and will have to answer to God for that. Let him – hypothetically. At least then it will be harder for him to do whatever he does with a clean conscience, right?

36   Tim Reed
September 13th, 2007 at 7:30 am

What needs is an ombudsman to offset the ever-effusive editor.

One thing we’ve tried to do is get an opposing viewpoint on the podcast. However, we’d like that opposing viewpoint to be reasonable and open to discussion. My first choice turned me down, and now we’re discussing some alternatives.

37   chris
September 13th, 2007 at 8:16 am

If Ken is gone some of you will have to get real jobs.

Actually I have a real job. Calling Ken on his inanity is more of a hobby.

38   iggy
September 13th, 2007 at 8:50 am

I have a full time job also… as well as work in ministry… and run an online radio station and am a father and husband…

Ken is a calling of God in hope to bring restoration to him from his destructive ways… (I mean God simply has laid Ken on my heart to reach out to him… in that I know I have failings right and left yet I know God will not fail.)

But, I hear Ken no longer works a day job… and somehow with only a few people in his church makes enough to live on for his daily needs.

And God be praise for it.


39   iggy
September 13th, 2007 at 8:55 am


I agree… Ken can do as he pleases and does… for many of us personally… we put our names to our words and stand by them good or bad.

In that the view is that it is cowardice to not put your name to your words… but Ken can do as he pleases… and be accountable for his words whether he lied or not.

Though I do not understand that anyone would not want to put their name to their work unless they are ashamed of it or that they see it as it is…something that may be slanderous to the other and may even hurt their own ministry… then why post the article?

Anyway… I agree though that Ken and do as he pleases… but then Jesus taught us, “not my will but Yours be done.”

Be Blessed,

40   Julie
September 13th, 2007 at 10:27 am

I’m pretty sure Chris L. has a post about this unusual reliance upon a nameless editor. Anyone know where that is? I seem to remember some decent discussion there.

41   Chris L
September 13th, 2007 at 10:51 am

Here’s the recent one I wrote, though the discussion was mostly off-topic. In this case, after talking to journalists and some sources they pointed me to, I just found it sad that even by the standards of the secular journalistic world, for whom the bar of ‘integrity’ is consistently lower than Christ’s, what CR?N does falls woefully below even their standards…

It might have been this one, which also touched on the subject…