From time to time we get watchdoggies (watchdoggie apologists) point out that Elijah made fun of the prophets of Baal or that Paul was quite forceful with Judaizers, or some other such example of an OT prophet or NT apostle going all buck nasty on someone. The latest was Mike Ratliff in the comments.
So the question I have here is this: why is it ok to use the example of men who were in direct contact with God as a template for behavior, and ignore their admonitions to peace, gentleness, kindness, and humility?
I’ve asked this like 4,000 times, but I guess I’ll just continue asking until I get a reasonable response.
This entry was posted
on Thursday, October 4th, 2007 at 9:21 pm and is filed under Uncategorized.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
![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")
28 Comments(+Add)
Tim, I’ll take a stab at it.
Since as a general hermeneutical rule, it is proper to interpret Scripture with Scripture, we must assume that mocking false prophets or anathamatizing proponents and pushers of damning heresy has its place within any community of faith. We also must assume that these actions or attitudes are not in conflict with genuine, biblical peace, gentleness, kindness, and humility.
Pretty simple if you look at it like that.
I agree with you, Dave. But two things. Where is the peace, gentleness, kindness, and especially humility demonstrative in so many of the watchmen blogs?
Also, do you not agree that claiming someone like Rick Warren is not saved as evidenced by his refusal to hear you is out of bounds?
I don’t think that you really answered his question.
It’s one thing if you are *occasionally* combative or harsh. There are a lot of places in Scripture to back that up.
But what kind of a ministry are you running if *all you do* is engage in sarcasm, mockery, and intellectually dishonest reporting?
I promise, I agree with the basic content of much of what Ken writes. But it’s all so bad! The sloppy logic, the prideful identification of one’s ministry with some sort “holy anointing,” and the general incoherence of the stuff at CRN just makes me, well, sick to my stomach.
Would it really kill the guys over at CRN to be nice once in a while? Why does being “on fire” for Jesus mean that you have to be so mean? I swear, I have no desire to meet any of you people because you’re all a little frightening, if not unhinged.
Clearly,
So by your logic, its all cool to sit down and write some more scripture, after all, the apostles did it.
Because nice guys don’t get the Google-juice?
Because God says what “we are His hands” and that “justice is His”, so it’s our job, by extension, to enact it?
Because “this is my opinion” doesn’t sound nearly as convincing as “God told me to say this…”? [Just ask David Koresh...]
Because (according to Jim Bublitz) there’s no such thing as “non-essential” doctrine, so any deviation from my interpretation is ‘damnable heresy’?
Because “enforcing our own legalistic rules of personal holiness as somehow being the message of the kingdom” is a whole lot easier than actually living in the kingdom?
Am I getting close?
No, Tim. Careful exegesis of Galatians 1 reveals that if the apostles themselves, angels, or anyone preaches a different gospel they should be accursed. I don’t agree that this is an issue of apostolic authority and not applicable to us today.
Rick, I agree with you and MG to some extent. I agree with most of what I read of Ken in content (although I am not the Calvinist my friend Ken is)and I agreed with much of what Ingrid wrote as well. My strategy has been a little different than theirs — not the voice of a prophet, but rather the voice of a teacher. I don’t want to just warn those already in the fold, but I also want to help those who may be on the brink. By God’s grace, I have had opportunity to help many via personal email.
Also, I think crn.info could take a big dose of grace as well. Think about it — this whole site is designed to pretty much to critique everything that Ken Silva writes. Many posts are designed to make him look dumb or completely out of touch with reality.
Anyone who feels they are defending the truth of the gospel really has no need to go into “make peace mode.” If you truly believe the gospel is being compromised, soldiers, grab your helmets!
Dave,
You wrote:
I would disagree on two fronts:
1) The site is designed to try to find the best way to live in a fallen world – to be in the world, but not of the world – not outside the world tossing stones at the Christians that dare move into it.
2) We really don’t need to write anything to make Ken look dumb or completely out of touch with reality. He does a good enough job of that on his own. We’re just serving by giving support to brothers shot in the back by friendly fire…
The problem is, the gospel isn’t being compromised – the gospel’s a pretty straightforward thing. It’s the systems and interpretations of non-gospel issues elevated to the level of scripture, and then wielded like hammers to beat up other Christians for actually trying to live out “salt and light” as something more encompassing than a viral marketing campaign for fire insurance…
Whatever Chris. I’m trying to explain to you that if you truly believed the gospel was being compromised, you should react that way. I truly believe that at times it is being compromised, thus the way I act. The fire-insurance accusations are getting old. I mean who doesn’t believe that salvation saves from hell too? I understand that it saves from sin now in this world and I’m so thankful for that. The same gospel that saves is the same gospel that sanctifies.
I guess I’m trying to say: the article wasn’t about whether or not these are gospel issues. The article was about tactics. I’m arguing that you should have the similar tactics if you truly believed the gospel was at stake.
Dave – The gospel is being compromised on many fronts. There are the modern day Judaizers who approach it with legalism and strain at what comes first repentance or faith or regeneration, etc.. Then you have the pragmatizers like Rick Warren who believe you can construct a system that will insure a greater harvest of souls.
Then you have the seeker sensitive people who attempt to manipulate people’s feelings and desires by presenting them with the comfortable things they would normally want any way and in that hoping to have them make a decision many times based on the method and not the Spirit.
The you have some of the emergent movement which in many cases muddies the whole thing up by downplaying a time and place faith experience and playing up humanitarian works with a large dose of wider gospel parameters. Then there are the strict adherants to aspects of the ceremonial law which they attempt to bring into the New Testament, as in baptismal regeneration and even transubstantiation.
Then you have many Calvinist churches that preach the true gospel but are so prideful about their doctrine they have made themselves fairly inaccessible. So yes, the gospel is being pulled like salt water taffy on all sides.
But Ken is absolutely not in touch with reality about primarily who he is. Even his writing style of multiple self links and the overuse of his own names (like ECoD) completely make his writings almost exclusively for the choir’s consumption, and his pomposity and arrogance has even distanced himself from other people who would normally agree with him.
I received confidencial e-mails from two major internet discernment ministries agreeing with me when I wrote an open letter to him exhorting him to tone down the hyperbolic rhetoric last year. I am allowed to state my views here without using Ken’s tactics. They all know that I have serious reservations with some of the men they are edified by, but can there be no honest discourse that checks pride and disdain at the door?
Why would I ever listen to you if Rob Bell was my pastor and right out of the box you labeled him a hollow man of the Ecumentical Church of Deceit. You now would have forfeited all basis for dialogue and in many ways either Ken is afraid of that, wants himself to be the focus, or is interactively lazy and not willing to exhibit the humility it takes to be effective sometimes. The Calvinist issue is somewhat separate except that it elicits a palpable pride among the club members.
So the tone and approach are many times instrumental in the effectiveness one claims he desires. And to top off the arrogance you not only claim people like Warren are probably not saved, but you endorse Ingid’s ivory tower and denominationally parroted view that it is God who is purposely deceiving these people but by his love and grace He has chosen not to decieve you, aren’t you blessed? And you punch the lifeless corpses of those poor morans that God has made targets of His deceptive arrows and by direct inference you suggest God deceives them and wants you to attack them for being deceived. You talk about convoluted doctrine that claims to warn those who can not resist God’s own deception? Huh??? And in a breathtaking and creative way of avoiding any and all correction yourself, you use crticism from others as a proof that you are being attacked because you speak for God’s holy remnant (whatever that is). And if you can sort out that mess and claim it is God’s Word then you are better man than I Gunga Din!Â
How can the Spirit change any of us if we do not examine ourselves fully in the mirror of God’s whole truth, and also by asking the Lord where we could represent him better personally not just doctrinally?
That is my basic and strong disagreement with Ken and others, they are now the issue, not God’s Word. It is possible to be doctrinally orthodox and still be self deceived. Do not ever think the devil’s ministry is restricted to error, he rides with truth many times as well.
I was hoping you would say something like that. Your method of exegesis was that if an apostle did something then it was ok for us to do it, and any apparent admonitions of scripture that bind us to do otherwise somehow jives with that actions because the apostles did it. As a result being a total jerk all the time and calling it a ministry is justified by Elijah’s actions towards the prophets of Baal. However, you reject this same reasoning when it comes to writing new scripture. Perhaps you need to re-visit your methodology to be a bit more consistent.
Tim, you read what you wanted to hear into my comment. I am trying to tell you that the language of Galatians 1:6-9 makes it clear that this is for the church.
According to Paul, it doesn’t matter who brings the other/contrary gospel — whether it is Paul (an apostle), an angel from heaven, or any person in general. The church is somehow to discern this and to let them be accursed.
Two verses earlier he marvels that they are so quickly deserting the gospel of Christ — so soon removed from the gospel. Then in verses 8-9 he tells them what to do or how to deal with or how to think of those who preach another gospel.
This is for the church! This interpretation does not stem from a “Paul did it; I can do it too” hermeneutic.
Correction is needed, but why is doctrinal correction isolated and elevated to the exclusion of personal and behavioral correction? Paul says that anyone who strives for masteries must do it lawfully, or in essence God’s way. You cannot decide that because you perceive God wants the ark back in Jerusalem that you are called to build your own ox cart made of flesh.
The behavior of any Bible character is not our template, the teachings of the New Testament are our command. And if you think you are given license to do what Jesus did in the temple, then you will also have to be spit on without reply. We can’t get over a rude store attendant and somehow we think we are like Jesus.
We need revival!
Clearly,
And yet that’s exactly the reasoning you used to justify the nastiness of watchdoggies, and you did it by saying “since the apostles did it it must be compatible with Biblical commands”. Why doesn’t that reasoning apply here? As I said before you need to adjust your hermeneutic of justifiable jerkiness if you want to be consistent here.
I think there is something being missed here in the discussion of Paul rebuking people. It’s this – Paul founded the churches he is writing to. He had real relationships with these people. I don’t think he saw himself as some grand guardian of doctrine, but, rather he was protecting people he loved. Frankly, I do not see anything like that attitude from any of the ODM’s. I see more of a desire to be right than anything.
Also the comparison to Stephen is more than a stretch. What was Stephen originally seized for? It says in Acts 6:8, that he “did great wonders and miraculous signs among the people.” This was a threat to the Jewish powers that be, so they brought him before the Sanhedrin. The harshness he used with them was justified. They were supposed to be representing God to the people, and they were completely wrong. Of course, Stephen ended up being stoned, a result I doubt any of the ODM’s are in danger of.
What is the old saying about the road to hell being paved with … good intentions, perhaps?
I own a rather large dog who does a good job protecting the house from intruders. If, however, he started losing the ability to discern between friend and foe and started biting family and friends on a consistent basis, no matter how good his intentions were in protecting the family, he’d be gone. I would not relish the idea of reinacting the end of Old Yeller, but it would be a needed and necessary function…
And of course Stephen’s final act of hyperbolic harshness was to pray to God that He would not hold it against his muderers. A little different than the “Don’t touch me I’m God’s anointed” attitude that lives openly in the mess called blogdom.
“I’m arguing that you should have the similar tactics if you truly believed the gospel was at stake.”
I understand what you are saying and I too believe perilous times are here. But think about this, many if not most of the watchmen and watchwomen about whom we speak are flag waving Calvinists who openly communicate their utter trust in God’s ability alone.
So with their theology as a foundation, the gospel can never be at stake. But you and I do not believe that, we believe God uses men to accomplish or not accomplish some of His desires. I have always thought that only Arminians should be concerned about the dilution of the message, the Calvinist do it because they feel like their protecting God which is incongruous to their theology.
Oh well.
Tim, please provide a coherant understanding of Galatians 1.
Rick,
I have already conceded the point that I disagree with their methods at times. What else do you want me to say?
Nothing more Dave, I absolve you and restore you to full communion!
Clearly,
I don’t have to when I use your methodology. Notice you didn’t bother to exegete the millions of scriptures about being gentle, peace-loving etc. You simply said “well the apostles did it so it must be Biblical”. I’m using your reasoning here.
So either change your methodology, or embrace the writing of new scripture.
Tim,
You are acting like a child now. I’m done on this thread. I carefully explained to you that my understanding was more nuanced than simply, “well the apostles did it so it must be biblical.” If you cannot get past attaching that to me, then my discussion here is over.
Hey, another watchdoggie sympathizer takes his ball and goes home! Let me quote your first response:
That’s exactly the argument you made.
First, I wonder if we don’t have a bit of a straw man in the question. For example, I know Ingrid takes heat for what was on Slice, but any objective characterization of it cannot possibly say it was all nastiness. There were many posts of edification, from hymns or other things, or even comments from her own life. Maybe the heat-to-light ratio was higher than you’d like, but it wasn’t all flaming posts. It’s just that, like always, the hotter ones got the attention. Ditto Team Pyro, or even (I’d guess, though I haven’t read much yet) CRN.info.
To look at the general question, I think that clarity is crucial to any discussion. Sometimes we have to risk ruffling feathers in order to be understood.
For example, I happen to prefer not upsetting people. Sometimes, in an effort to avoid causing offense when saying something I think might be poorly received, I hide behind so many words that the person to whom I’m speaking doesn’t understand what I’m saying. Is that speaking the truth in love, or just cowardice with a mortarboard?
Does that mean there’s room for sarcasm and pointed ridicule in Christian dialogue? I think at times there may be; like any rhetorical device (e.g. the crudeness of some of Ezekiel’s imagery), they are tools. They can be used to illustrate or to harm. I do think that they can be the 25# sledge for the fallen nature who sees every issue as a nail (I’m certainly guilty, even with my family relationships).
Having been on the receiving end of some pretty nasty statements that ended up being accurate and deserved, I won’t say such things are always wrong. Sometimes it takes the rapier or the acid to find the chink in our armor of self-justification, or to eat it away.
A thoughtful comment Jaes (nickname?)
As long as you don’t make fun of bald men, you should be OK.