Apparently I was missing something, and Ken Silva laid it all out for me in his latest [miss]ive. Ken begins to debunk my article earlier today by showing my obvious link to McManus (insert gasp here). But then he reference one of the articles on his own website that I have already addressed. Ron Foster, formerly a part of mosaic, makes this hilarious statement:

Really, Ken? Maybe Foster holds the same prophetic gifting as you. He can actually know what people really mean, even though they have clearly spelled it out. That seems like sound research… say Christian Research for a Christian Research Network to me, right? We wouldn’t want to bother with anything like…say, hard evidence, interviews, writings or sermons. Ken continues in the [miss]ive by addressing my statement that the watchdoggies hold to historical writings just as much as scriptures. Silva writes

So let me get this straight Ken, you don’t hold to early church writings as much as scriptures. Yet, you are upset that I have criticized the faith of the reformation, specifically the writings of Spurgeon? On top of that, you equate my criticism of Spurgeon with a criticism of “biblical” Christian faith. Which is it? Ironically Ken goes on to defend the doctrines of Spurgeon with little to no scripture. Here are a few highlights of the rest of the [miss]ive.

Highlight #1
Ken: The problem is Spurgeon wasn’t advocating that anyone “fatally wound people”
Spurgeon: His communications with the corn are sharp and cutting. He cuts right through, cuts the corn down, and casts it to the ground.

sounds pretty fatal to me.

Highlight #2
Ken: Then Neighbour trots out the old Emergent eggplant about how Jesus was only “strong with” people who were “religious leaders.”The New Testamen record doesn’t bear that out.

Any scripture to back that up? Or maybe Edwards would have the answer.

Highlight #3
Ken: He whines in his version of the “gospel” that, “It should not be a tool to simply walk through fields of people, cutting people down that are not well.”

Uh, who was it again that said, “”It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”?

Highlight #4
More ranting on the quote from Marianne Williamson, falsely attributed to Nelson Mandela.
So my sin here would probably be nothing more than not updating my blog. Go watch Akeelah and the Bee

Highlight #5
FINALLY some scripture! Ken quotes Mark 4:26-29. He tries to apply it to Spurgeon’s quote. However, this scripture is talking about bringing souls into the kingdom. It really isn’t about cutting people down with the gospel, and leaving them… how did Spurgeon put it? Oh yes… cuts right through, cuts it down, and casts it to the ground.

Highlight #6
closing arguments: I humbly offer that before a young man like Neighbour decides to take on a man powerful in Christ like Spurgeon he should spend a lot less time meditating on the mystic musings of Erwin McManus and instead start listening to the absolute Truth of Jesus Christ.

So am I taking on Christ or Spurgeon? Or is it the absolute truth of Spurgeon? Am I missing something here?

For the record, I am a Spurgeon fan and studied his work and life extensively in my undergrad work. But unlike some, I am able to find elements of his writings that I disagree with. His word is not perfect or biblical. Last time I checked, it was the Catholics that made people into saints. Also, 6 out of the 7 information links in the article were from (you guessed it) Ken himself. Once again, bad “research” methods.