It is sometimes breathtaking the lengths discernmentalists will go to fabricate a story. If you didn’t know they were serious, you’d think most of their articles were rejects from The Onion. Today’s example comes to us via the Boar’s Head Tavern:
No one can squeeze as much out of a single book in a seminary class booklist as free-range pope wannabe Ken Silva.
To what is Michael Spencer referring? It seems that Pastor/Teacher/President/(insert-your-favorite-important-sounding-title-here) Ken Silva has decided that the New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary is paving the road to hell.
Why?
It seems the NOBTS has included a book by Richard Foster in one of its classes. Oh N03Z! Contemplative Mysticism is coming to get us all, and make us all into (gasp) Catholics!
[In reality, much of "Contemplative Mysticism" is a half-baked 'conspiracy' of supposed New Age-ishness and Catholicism concocted by the discernmentalist crowd, in an attempt to codify the Regulative Principal into daily practice. Is the New Age movement dangerous? Certainly. Unfortunately, Mr. Silva and his ilk do more to blur the lines between what is acceptable for personal meditation and what is pagan practice, fomenting slander and division within the church. In reality, it is little more than overwrought Catholiphobia writ large.]
It’s hard to even make it through the first paragraph without vomiting at the pompous slavishness, as “Pastor” Silva writes:
Apprising Ministries further alerting the Body of Christ to growing apostasy within the Southern Baptist Convention through the proliferation of Contemplative Spirituality/Mysticism. You’ll see that New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary is also promulgating The Cult of Guru Richard Foster as this SBC seminary uses the Quaker Swami’s Celebration of Discipline in one of their own courses on so-called “spiritual formation” as does Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary. The question is: Why does the “Protestant” SBC need to turn to a Quaker mystic for spiritual formation which is in direct counterpoint to the Reformation?
Aside from the unnecessary name-calling, Silva basically creates an army of straw men and GBA characterizations (aside from a complete lack of understanding of what gnosticism and mysticism are), that it’s sad that any Christians are drawn in by his utter hatred and foolishness toward the Body of Christ.
It seems that someone at the NOBTS has started peeling back the rock and examining the critters crawling around at Apprising ‘Ministries’, and Ken doesn’t like it:
Perhaps the idea was to brand me some kind of kook with the use of the rather hyperbolic descriptor “New Age” in front of mysticism. Maybe in this way the average reader might now likely be predisposed to just ignore anything I might say in the pieces linked within the SaNO post.
Maybe no branding is needed, but it is obvious to the reader that ‘kook’ is an adequate assessment, as one commenter on the NOBTS blogger’s site notes:
For the record, when Ken talks about “doing his homework”, a good chunk of that is simply linking to articles he himself has written. In just the article he posted in his comments, links to his own material outnumber links to other sites two to one. Don’t believe me? Go look for yourself.
But probably the best assessment of the pile of garbage that is Apprising ‘Ministries’ (two lies for the price of one!) is Michael Spencer’s:
I can’t believe that we still have people who link this constant slander. Silva is everything wrong with blogging, and the bloggers who link him are the rest of what’s wrong.
Well said, Michael!
HT: BHT
![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")
112 Comments(+Add)
Really, how much can we trust Ken Silva… he was once a Roman Catholic so I think he is tainted. I mean has he ever stated he renounced all of his RCC beliefs?
LOL!
iggy
“I can’t believe that we still have people who link this constant slander. Silva is everything wrong with blogging, and the bloggers who link him are the rest of what’s wrong.”
Wow. And that’s one of the accommodations of blogging, you can make sweeping assessments about “what is wrong with blogging” without acknowledging that many feel your blog is what is wrong.
“free-range pope wannabe Ken Silva”
And then for dessert you can throw in a personal invective to mirror the slander that offends you about him. And of course the deciding factor is that he does it more and to a greater degree. So the difference that we seek is quantitative.
I saw no actual response to the paragraph quoted, it was only used as a springboard for an across the board pronouncement of the blog world and to dismiss Ken in unflattering personal terms. The “research” was absent, but anything about Ken Silva is worth linking to. I believe Neil’s post was much more on topic and did not as a whole degenerate into a Ken bashing party.
Rick,
Here is part of the “research” of Ken Silva…
Quakerism was part of the Reformation. It was as one person calls it “the extreme left wing of the English Reformation” Source PDF
So, how can it be both opposed to the Reformation and part of it? Ken is just being ignorant as usual with his historical facts or worse being a revisionist to twist history to his preferred “reformed” theology (what ever that may or not be)
If Ken wants to be taking serious, which I have spoken to him personally about this, he need get a little more history under his belt. Otherwise, as he attacks people he just gets to be more of a mockery of himself.
iggy
I don’t see how calling Ken a “free-range pope” is any worse than Ken calling Richard Foster a “roshi”, “swami”, or cult leader. It’s pretty tame actually.
Actually Ken would like the power of the Pope. He certainly enjoys telling people they are wrong, and what they should think.
Anyway, a book on a reading list for a class at a seminary doesn’t prove anything at all. Who knows what the professor said about the book? Does Ken bother asking? Of course not. It’s much easier to make stuff up.
“I don’t see how calling Ken a “free-range pope” is any worse than Ken calling Richard Foster a “roshi”, “swami”, or cult leader.”
It isn’t. My point.
Rick,
I see what you’re saying. We should try to take the high road. I was just saying I don’t see “free-range pope wannabe” as perjorative as Ken’s labels.
I guess the thing that always still surprises me is how thin-skinned these people seem to be. They spend all day throwing bombs, but then if someone does anything in defense, they act as if they are somehow being persecuted. You can only poke a bear with a stick for so long, you know.
The other “fact” that is off in Ken’s statement is that”baptists” are only recently calling themselves “reformed”… historically they are persecuted by RCC and the protestants…
So the real question is… Why is Ken calling Baptists who were not protestant or reformed historically reformed and the then calling Quakers who where reformed as if they were not?
Again, Ken comes across as just ignorant and foolish…
iggy
I find it troubling that these colleges are so often attacked by these concerned citizens. Ingrid claims to lead the way for concerned parents; I guess Silva rallies for concerned religious leaders.
What I find troubling is that they want students to read less widely. They want to narrow down what these institutions allow to make up the enriched environment that should go into a place of higher learning. Can the Bible be the only textbook? How do these young people sincerely choose God of their own freewill when everything ever offered to them while growing up at home and now when they are off at college is filtered exclusively through the Bible?
I am all for parents encouraging Bible study among their children and discussing conversion and what goes into being a Christian. I begin to see problems when parents want the only thing that their kids are exposed to be Christian teachings while surrounded by only Christians 100% of the time. How can a kid ever be given a choice when reared in that environment?
My examples and questions may seem like extreme rhetoric, but with the homeschooling fad of today, it is possible for kids to be raised in exclusively Christian environments and then sent off to Bible colleges to finish out. It can seem only a step away from cultish brainwashing. I know families that would plug their little ones into a wall socket and program them like little robots if they could all in the name of preparing them to be soldiers for Christ.
On the flip side of this, you have the debauchery of many secular universities which is just as bad. No wonder it seems our country has few places for truly well rounded scholars anymore.
Free range pope is a pretty good descriptor of Ken and the other ODMs. They claim the power of ex communication, make prophetic proclamations, and claim the power to decide who is a fit leader for individual congregations.
Also, there’s no such thing as a reformed baptist.
Well, being at a large, secular university which is known as a party school, I can attest that debauchery is alive and well. I can also attest that the students who come from Christian households who get involved do it because they wanted to from the start the majority of the time. I’ve known people who partied just as hard while at Christian colleges.
The fact is the kids need to have freedom to make a decision at some point. Postponing it will often just make it worse. I think sometimes churches focus on having kids jump through the right hoops so much, that they forget about the spiritual formation aspect of life.
I know I grew up in a denomination that was way into kid’s camps, youth camps, and the like. I never could afford to go to most of these things, though. I’m grateful for it now, actually, because I see that I was able to develop more of an individual backbone than some of the other kids I grew up with. Sometimes I think the group-think and cliques that develop in youth groups are more detrimental to kids than not going at all.
Phil – that is my point, we should be different not just less. When you get so frustrated that you cannot refrain from name calling, it is time to take a break. We should attempt, as is Iggy, to refute the issues. And usually Spencer is much more thorough than just pasting something as a springboard of counter attack.
I would disagree as well in having Foster’s book in seminary but that is far from a singular problem with many seminaries.
Friends,
Add my seminary, Cincinnati Christian University to the list. Not only was I forced to read Foster’s book, but I had to write a review of it. And if that’s not bad enough, I had to read Hybels and Willard. May as well add my undergraduate Great Lakes Christian College too. There I had to read John Steinbeck, Aristophanes, Leroy Garret, Joseph Conrad, Brevard Childs, George Orwell, Aldous Huxley, Barna, and once a professor actually recommended I read Eugene Peterson (for which I am eternally grateful he did!!!!) (Oh, I did a semester at Emmanuel School of Religion–there I had to read Barth and Schliermacher!!!)
I wonder how long before Pastor Silva condemns Christian colleges that actually require students to read the Bible and go to chapel? I wonder how long before he is upset because AP is not on the required reading list?
On a brighter note, about a week ago I removed the last vestiges of links to ODM sites from my own blog and from my Blackberry. I have not visited SOL, ALL, ET, LTR, or AM for about a week. I feel strangely refreshed and alive. I have not been thinking about all that is wrong with the church. I have not been contemplating anger and ways to ‘prove others wrong while maintaining my own (self) righteousness.’ It has been rather exhilerating leaving behind all that is grace-empty for all that is grace-full. Instead of finding out and writing about all that is wrong, I have been praying the Psalms. (Uh-oh. I guess I’m a contemplative mystic too!!!!)
I don’t know if this will get me kicked off here or not, but: Jesus Rules! I am so glad that Jesus loves me! Even me.
your friend in the fight for world domination,
jerry
Isn’t seminary or college a place for the mind to expand? Isn’t that the best place to read any and all literature? Isn’t that the place where ideas are challenged and seeds planted and watered? Foster’s book may be a load of m*****, but that doesn’t mean it should not be read. I think the book is rather meaningless and I wrote so in my review for the class. That doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be read or that it has nothing at all valuable to say. This is the same argument for Harry Potter. Sure magic might be ‘evil’; however, it’s a book!
I am opposed to anyone who says we shouldn’t read books. I recall several times in the history of humanity when people said we shouldn’t read. I oppose all attempts to regulate reading and control thought.
Right before I quit SOL, I saw a post opposing the book called The Shack. I immediately said: If she is opposed, then it must be worth my time. Seriously, at the point of seminary, a person ought to be able to read, for example, Foster and discern the meat from the cake.
jerry
PS–I put a quote up on the front page of my blog today. See if you can guess who wrote it.
jerry
What about a meatcake? Is that meat or cake?
Ummm….meatcake….
By the way, I found this while looking for said “meatcake” – 6 pounds of ground beef and mashed potatoes for icing. I don’t know if it’s cool or disturbing.
That.is.awesome.
“Seriously, at the point of seminary, a person ought to be able to read, for example, Foster and discern the meat from the cake.”
That opinion is legitimate. So is the opinion that some things should be avoided. One of my Bible school professors wanted prayer for his oldest son who mlost his faith at an SBC seminary. That could happen anywhere, but seminaries are to expand our Christian devotion not offer our review of books that do not edify. That opinion is legitimate as well.
Its hard to expect people to listen to us if we’re unwilling to listen to them.
Rick,
I profoundly disagree with your take that seminary is ‘the place to expand Christian devotion.’ Many people go to seminary with no Christian devotion at all. Take Jim Morrison for example, “When I was back there in Seminary school…” All hyperbole aside, are you blaming SBC for this young man losing his faith? Maybe his father had something to do with it? Maybe the young man had something to do with it. Can the blame be pinpointed to SBC or a book by Foster?
I couldn’t disagree more that seminary is a place where we should not ‘review…books that do not edify.’ Frankly, I learn more about my faith by reading books that do not ‘edify’ (in your sense) than I do by reading the ones that should edify (in your sense). For example, I’ll take JK Rowling’s Christianity over that of Tim LaHaye and Left Behind any day of the week. Nothing in Left Behind edified me, but much in Harry Potter did.
Sorry friend. The notion of not reading certain books, especially at the seminary level, because certain books contain ‘dangerous ideas’ is absurd. There are parts of the Bible that are not particularly edifying (see Leviticus, parts of Joshua, Chronicles) but I hardly think that means we shouldn’t read them or study them.
your friend,
jerry
ps–you may have guessed that I am greatly concerned about any idea that seeks to prohibit freedom of thought. Censorship does not protect people’s minds. This is why there are 66 books telling us about Jesus and not just 1.
Jerry,
One quibble with what you said about parts of the bible not being edifying. Those parts may not have edified you at the time, but that does not mean they are not edifying. I would quote the N.T. passage about all scripture being usefull, but I know you already know that and agree with that. What does it mean to edify? If those scriptures are useful for us, they do edify. But more than that, I just began a sermon series in Leviticus. One of my major points this past Sunday was that Leviticus has tremendous value and can be very edifying to our relationship with God and with eachother. I’m not the greatest preacher, but if you want to listen, I’ll try to post this series on our church website. I’ll put it on here when I get them up.
“For example, I’ll take JK Rowling’s Christianity over that of Tim LaHaye and Left Behind any day of the week.”
We are in a different universe.
This only serves to demonstrate how people don’t understand what a real theological education looks like.
It’s not indoctrination.
It’s called being exposed to all ideas/voices in a discipline for you to critically assess, understand, etc. etc.
But what do you expect?
ANOTHER thing…
It’s ironic that a “Quaker” is bashed as being a counterpoint to the Reformation.
Quakers were “dissenters” who took aspects of the Reformation so seriously they were persecuted for it.
Again, if you had a real theological education you would know that…or at least know how to learn about the people you bear false witness against.
Yes – Rowling’s fiction is more obviously fiction, and has much less potential for misunderstanding and misapplication to real life…
I’d take virtually any other type of Christianity than Left Behind Christianity. The paranoia the ODMs display is a direct result of the terrible theology behind it.
How ’bout Right Behind Christianity. Put some weight on the other cheek for awhile…
“Yes – Rowling’s fiction is more obviously fiction, and has much less potential for misunderstanding and misapplication to real life…”
Another example of erudite dismissal of a viable view of eschatology. Any eschatological view that differs from your is “fiction”. And Rowlings’ Christianity is more desirable than Tim Lahaye. There’s the statement of the year and your interpretation is an example of how anything can be defended when you know ahead of time who said it.
Considering your response to the Christus Victor theology of the cross, this seems a little inconsistent.
Also, I know that Chris L doesn’t reject all eschatology that is different from his own, however, he does reject pre-milleniall dispensationalism, which has a great many problems with it, starting with its non-existence up until 200 years ago, and ending with the wild accusations of ODMs which are rooted in the belief that we are in the “falling away” of the end times.
If you consider eschatology and the theology of the cross as carrying equal weight than we certainly differ.
Christian P,
Please don’t read too much into my statements about Leviticus. After all, my current series of podcasts at my blog is from the book of Leviticus. It’s not that it does not edify at all. It’s just that, at times, long lists of dead people and dead practices are rather meaningless when you are having a particularly bad day. All Scripture is useful, but don’t forget what it is useful for. Ultimately, it must lead us to Christ.
Rick,
Rick, brother, friend, part of the problem with LB is that it is far too certain it has all the answers and doesn’t take into consideration the FACT that no one knows the day or the hour and that all the ’signs’ are only the beginnings. We have been living in the last days since the day Jesus ascended into heaven. What else is there for Him to do but return?
But this is all beside the point. The reason I prefer Rowling to Lahaye, or Dumas to Lahaye, or Shakespeare to Lahaye, or Dillard to Lahaye, or Peterson to Lahaye, or Dostoyevsky to Lahaye is because they are not saying, “This is all there is and you had better believe it.” They are not, either, presenting their theologies and novels as Scripture which is what Lahaye does. Rowling writes extremely long metaphors about the nature of Christian faith. Lahaye re-writes the Bible and adds to it which is prohibited in both Testaments. And, furthermore, I have dismissed Pre-trib theology precisely because it is not a viable view of eschatology. Sorry, but it is more fiction than the fiction that props it up. I didn’t just know what I wanted to say, I said what I believe because I have studied it and read the books. I’m not saying that belief in LB eschatology is damning, but I am saying it is full of bad theology (for example, with respect to Israel.)
Again, beside the point. My main objective here is to agree that seminary education or any education for that matter is not simply a matter of indoctrination. This is why books are written and this is why books are read. That is why there are professors and students. That’s why education costs money. That’s why we take tests.
Literature is one of the greatest gifts we have on earth and, to be sure, all truth belongs to God. (I think that was Calvin.) Where would we be without poets and dreamers and writers?
And if you want a degree from an educational institution you have to read what they tell you to read whether you like it or not. If you want to change the reading requirements at SBC or anywhere then you should be on their board or regents or trustess or be a prof. That’s all I’m saying.
Simply blogging about your displeasure with a reading list (as Ingrid and Pastor Silva do) and condemning those who do the reading or take a degree, will not ultimately change anything and ultimately carries no weight. It only shows them for the arrogant, uneducated, unthinking drones that they are. I despise this notion that people who are under no authority whatsoever have a right to judge from the outside the motives and practices of others. Shame on them.
Faith is bigger than those narrow self-appointed, self-righteous judges who only read what one another has to say.
jerry
PS–did you know that Christmas and Easter are two Holidays that are celebrated in nearly every single Harry Potter book? Have you read HP? I read Left Behind. I’ll take HP in any universe. Did you know that sacrificial life and death and resurrection and love are themes in every single HP book? Or did you make an ‘erudite’ judgment a priori?
Considering dispensational eschatology posits a crossless salvation for Israel, I’d say the two are at least related.
Wow, I love this thread it was hill-freakin’-larious!
iggy
hmmmm meat-pie…. my wife makes the best broccoli beef pie!
Jerry – I am ambivalent toward Harry Potter, however I recognize the name of Jesus and His gospel without hidden metaphors in the Left Behind series even if I do not subscribe fully to their eschatology.
I do not consider any other view of escahtology than my own as “fiction”, and there have been many sincere students of the Word as well as followers of Christ who subscribe to that view, as have there been those who embraced other views.
I definitely think there’s room for different views of eschatology. When it becomes an issue is when one’s view of it starts interfering with other, more important things. for example, I think we should take the call to be a peacemaker more seriously than somehow hoping for war, which some dispensationalists have been known to do.
Of course not all them do, butI have certainly known some who have. I have seen some people who actually hope for more conflict in the Middle East, for instance.
Iggy,
It’s meat-cake; not meat-pie. You are apostate aren’t you?
jerry
Phil,
That meat-cake story is one of the most disgusting things I have ever seen. I think I’ll go vegan…well, maybe not.
jerry
I’m glad something I said today made got some response.
Phil,
There’s no room for anything other than what Ken and Ingrid tell us to believe. Are you mad!?!?! You could get us all in trouble with that sort of thinking Winston. Get a grip man!
jerry
So sorry… meat cake sounds good too… but what type of frosting?
iggy
Jerry,
Now if we can only get Ken and Ingrid to agree theologically we might get somewhere. But since all the ODM’s seem to have their own relative truth based on whatever tradition they follow, that will be tough.
Ingrid: baptismal regeneration (I think… correct me if I am wrong)
Ken: if an emergent stated they believed that, they would be turning to RCC heresy.
Ken: All mysticism was evil and bad.
Ingrid: Puritan mysticism is good as long as you stay in denial it is mysticism.
Ingrid: Luther was right
Ken: anyone he thinks is a reformer (regardless to whether they are or not) is good, but anyone he deems is bad (reformed or not) is just bad. History means nothing as long as Ken thinks he is right… and Calvin… he is not right but let’s teach him anyway as if he was… or… whatever floats Ken’s boat at the time.
Ingrid: Man based preaching in man made pews and pulpits while wearing suits.
Ken: Hates man based religion though promotes it daily
Ingrid: hates any music not to her taste. As long as it is classical and performed by classical (often non christian and possibly gay performers) it is good. Any form of modern music in worship is bad, unless of course she likes it.
Ken: “I like the Goo Goo Dolls”
See?
iggy
Mashed potatoes for icing! You really have to look the link above. It’s amazing…
I. am. stunned. Must. have. cake. now.
I think Ken created CRInfo.com just to give himself some more press time. Perhaps all this Silva bashing is orchestrated by the man KS himself. This way he pulls liberals into his site to hear his point of view, knowing that there is no other way that a lib. would read a word that he writes.
Thus, you readers, are drawn into his game, and you have no clue.
When I pull up CRinfo.com, I get the Conflict Resolution Information Source – definitely not something Ken is remotely familiar with…
Expecting Ken to orchestrate something is kind of like expecting government efficiency – it’s an oxymoron…
“Expecting Ken to orchestrate something is kind of like expecting government efficiency – it’s an oxymoron…”
Glad to see you’re staying on that high road of CRN.Info’s mission statement and not stooping to taking personal cheap shots. It sets a much better example than us ODMmers.
The remaining paradox is this: Ken’s views are so aberrant and so absurd that they do not deserve interaction that avoids condescention and personal name calling, however they do deserve blog and post time which in a contorted way validates them on some level.
So in effect, suggesting Foster’s books teach a form of eastern religion techniques contrary to New Testament teachings is so detached from reality it must be mocked along with the view holder. I would venture a guess that John MacArthur espouses the same view so is MacArthur living in a fantasy world as well?
The entrenched certainty concerning the certainty of others is classic irony.
Agreed, Rick – quite a quandary.
And, as Ken’s comment shows, his propensity to miss the forest for the trees is truly epic.
Rick –
To put a very simplistic image to the HP vs. LB theology discussion –
If LB had to be reduced to a sandwich board, it would say “The End is Here”.
If HP had to be reduced to a sandwich board, it would say “Love your neighbor”
I reject any imagined HP theology, however the LB “theology” should include both statements. I disagree with some of the fundamental issues of the Left Behind series, not the chronology but the assumption that everyone who rejected Christ would have another chance.
But Tim LaHaye cannot be considered a raving fundamentalist by any stretch. He seems a balanced and humble man however now a rich one through the mecantile aspect that pervades western Christianity. Another area I disagree with the Left Behind series.
I think it would be more accurate to say the LB eschatology rather than theology.
Rick,
When I read LB I was immediately drawn to this passage from Peter: “In their greed these teaches will exploit you with stories they have made up.” (2 Peter 2 3a; check out the entire context.)
You summed it up when you wrote, “He seems a balanced and humble man however now a rich one through the mecantile aspect that pervades western Christianity.”
Did not the apostle warn us of those who use godliness as means of gain?
PS–rejecting even the ‘imagined’ theology of HP is another fine example of not seeing the forest. I’m sorry you are so quick to discredit something so wonderful. I’m not suggesting you have to like or read the books, but to simply write them off is mind-boggling to me. Still, I think there is far more fantasy in LB than there is in HP.
jerry
So you embrace a false convert who encourages witchcraft and elevates homosexuality and the dark and demonic over a genuine brother in Christ?
Hmm….Better check 1 John, examining whether you love the brethren or not….
Once again, this site falls far short of their supposed ‘calling’ and ’standards’ by bashing another brother in Christ, Ken Silva.
Another thing…where is the apology to Ingrid for her calls on Miley Cyrus? What ‘Christian’ would pose nude? What Christian father would allow his 15 year old daughter to be photographed nude? I’ll tell you: A false Christian father who is more concerned with cashing out his daughter to resurrect his dead career. The same kind of Christian mother that Brittany and Lynn Spears had so we have one who is drug addicted, insane, slutty, and the other is 16 and pregnant.
Hmm….I just do not think that we serve the same holy, righteous, wrath filled, yet loving, merciful and kind God. The one clearly presented in the Bible.
Alright, I’m a little confused. LB is Left Behind, but is HP Harry Potter, or Historic Pre-millennialism?
Pastordude,
I have read all 7 HP novels and not once did I see an act of homosexuality. For that matter, I saw not one act of heterosexuality except for one brief snog between Harry and Cho. At the end, they were all happily, heterosexually, married and never had any pre-marital sex at all. As for the rest of your drivel…you obviously have not read the books. Seriously. In HP the forces of darkness and evil are soundly defeated. Grow up.
jerry
Oh Please! There were multiple posts acknowledging the things Ingrid got right. And saying she posed “nude” is a) incorrect, b) inflammatory, and c) either a mistake on your part an intentional misrepresentation of the facts.
Neil
I marvel at your ability to discern who is and is not a true follower of Christ. If I send you a list of names can you give me their status as well?
Neil
Jerry,
He’s referring to the character which the author said she always thought of as being homosexual. Were John speaking of something which he knew he would know that character was also celibate for the entire run of the books, which is exactly what Christians who are tempted by homosexuality are called to.
But as you can tell by the rest of his bitter tirade he’s not interested in a the truth of the situations he referenced, nor in a clear sighted analysis of literature, he’s just here to vent his spleen against anyone who disagrees with him.
John,
Nice to see you haven’t given up doing the work of Satan and continue in your accusations against your brothers and sisters.
Do we say we are “called”?
At times we should take Silva to task for his misbehavior, but the comments thread has gotten a bit of momentum on the personal side.
Neil
At the risk of hijacking the thread completely… would someone summarize the theology of HP and is it really “Christian” or accidentally “biblical”?
Neil
Hmm….I just do not think that we serve the same holy, righteous, wrath filled, yet loving, merciful and kind God. The one clearly presented in the Bible.
PB,
I’d like to know where get the idea that “wrath-filled” is one of the attributes of God. In fact the only time I see anything like that phrase in Scripture is in Nahum 1:2 where it says,
But that is in the specific context of Nineveh. God’s wrath certainly isn’t an inherent quality. It’s a temporary emotion or action that He exhibits, but certainly not an inherent descriptor. You make God sound schizophrenic.
Ken,
At least you are admitting your standard is lower! LOL!
iggy
John,
WHo are you to judge anyone? Were you saved by anything other than grace yourself? If JK Rowling professes Christ, who are you to say she is saved or not?
BTW even from a “Rapture” perspective the Left Behind books have such bad theology that it is adding much to the book or the revelation… I see a great warning in the book itself not to add to it’s profeceys yet, Lahay took great liberties and even ignored that warning to promote his version of it. It was good fiction but bad…. very bad theology. Even R C Sprouls thought it was bad…
So what is worse lies stuffed in the skin of truth, (as in the Left Behind books) or a book of fantasy that in it’s core is about True Love protecting us.
Again, though you profess grace I rarely see it from you.
Have you never made a mistake as a believer? I hope you received more grace and mercy than you promote here and elsewhere.
Saved by grace,
iggy
JKR has said in interviews that her religious belief (Christianity) was the key inspiration for many of the themes and story lines – including much of the climax in Book 7.
To my knowledge, Ms. Cyrus has NEVER posed nude for anything. If you’re referring to the one photograph in question (Vanity Fair), she was fully clothed with a bare shoulder holding a sheet (see behind-the-scenes shots)
(aside from the fact that she wasn’t nude…) Not Cyrus – if you check, multiple sources report that he and his wife were not on the set when the controversial picture was taken, and that – when they got the proofs for publication – the Cyrus’ all objected to the particular photo at issue.
Can I borrow your copy of the Book of Life so I can find out who is a real Christian and who is a false one?
“JKR has said in interviews that her religious belief (Christianity) was the key inspiration for many of the themes and story lines – including much of the climax in Book 7.”
She also is decidedly not evangelical and admits she goes in and out of believing there is life after death. Her “Christianity” doesn’t seem to be mine.
Tim,
I got that. My point is simply this: Regardless of what the author said about the nature of the character in the book (after all the books were written), the fact remains that if she hadn’t told us we would never have known since there is not one single overt reference to anyone’s sexuality in the books–save for the fact that most of the characters are or end up married; or, as you point out, remain celibate.
One final point to the preacherdude person: The books are not about sex at all nor are they about magic, and you shouldn’t read them as such. Magic is incidental to the plot. The books are about sacrificial love triumphing over evil where magic, persuasion, and violence could not and did not. For all the efforts of Dumbledor to stamp out Voldemort’s evil and presence it was not finally done until someone sacrificed themselves–namely, Harry Potter’s mother– because of their love for another. Harry learned from that example and followed the same pattern in his own life figuratively dying and resurrecting in every novel.
But enough HP for the time being. The point of the post had something to do with what we should read in college or seminary and who is and is not going to hell for reading such things. I agree: we should read books and study them in college.
your friend,
jerry
ps–the other day I dropped my pen. I tried to use the accio spell to retrieve it. It didn’t work. Here I thought all I had to do was read the books and I would automatically have special magical powers! (Anyone know any good broom repairmen? With the price of gas what it is and all, I might need to get mine out of the cupboard.)
Rick,
Her Christianity doesn’t have to be yours. It has to be hers. I’m glad your faith is strong enough never to doubt, but for those rest of us in the real world, sometimes faith flags. Haven’t you read Matthew 28 where it says, “some of them doubted”? Come on Rick. Surely you are wiser than this.
jerry
Jerry – In mark 16 Jesus scolds them for their unbelief and hardness of heart. Without faith it is impossible to please God, so unbelief is a sin especially about the most basic of Christian beliefs about eternal life. I would love to hear Ms. Rowlings beliefs about who Jesus is and if He is the exclusive way to eternal life.
To attach Christian realities to the misty metaphors of any movie is subjective at best. And when the story lines and metaphors are so thinly interpreted then anyone can massage them into their own theological mine shaft. A horror flick that pictures bodies coming out of graves can be interpreted as portraying the resurrection.
Let Ms. Rowlings identify her beliefs and which parts of her stories were purposely written to convey those Christian beliefs. I have heard wiccans say that the HP movies obviously legitimize their theology as well. I reject the panic stricken response in some evangelical circles but I also reject the tortured view that somehow, someway these pictures and books were disguised Christian theologies. It is beyond reasonable belief.
John,
I hope that your kids don’t make mistakes along the way. I sure wouldn’t want to see all of those fingers pointing back at you.
The Miley Cyrus issue has nothing to do with doctrine. It is feasting upon the sins of others and in this case a teenager. It is impossible to accuse and intercede simultaneously. That is also why we need to continue to acknowledge a firewall between the teachings of some and those teachers as persons. It is a wall I sometimes breach.
Does this mean only evangelicals are true Christians?
Neil
See, it does cause people to dabble in witchcraft… just like two popular sit-coms from the ’60’s.
Neil
“Does this mean only evangelicals are true Christians?”
Depends upon what we agree is the definition of “evangelical”. My broad definition is someone who has been born again by God’s Spirit and believe that Jesus is the only way to eternal life by grace through faith. I would have to examine the beliefs of the Church of Scotland which Ms. Rowlings is a member.
More importantly you’d have to ask her…
Neil
A modest review of their website renders them creedally orthodox. They adhere to the Westminster Confession.
Rick,
Have you read the books or just seen the movies? Either? Both? Neither? JK Rowling has said explicitly that the books reflect her Christian faith. She has said this explicitly. Now, on the other hand, JRR Tolkien explicitly DENIED that his Middle Earth books were metaphors for Christian faith. (I have a blog post about this where I document these assertions.) So what I don’t understand is why Tolkien who was at best a moderate, smoking, drinking Catholic is revered and Rowling who professes to be a Christian is denounced. It is a double standard that makes no sense whatsoever.
But to the point: Have you read the books?
jerry
PS–Another author, Dostoyevsky, who also professed to be a Christian (and who is revered among evangelicals for this fact); who wrote books that included murderers, atheists, and scoundrels among other things; and who was also noted for his gambling and marital problems among other things. Yet no one seems to be challenging his ’salvation’ or ‘faith’ or ‘christianity’ as they do Rowling. The problem people have is that she used ‘magic’ (little more than the recitation of Latin phrases) as the medium for metaphor and wizards for her characters.
PPS–can you document for me where ‘wiccans’ have said her books reflect their ‘theology’? I can probably find some wiccans who also read the Bible. Jehovah’s Witnesses use the Bible. So do Mormons. So do Baptists. So what if wiccans like her book, what does it prove?
Friends,
Sorry about the sloppy grammar in that paragraph about Dostoyevsky. I do apologize.
jerry
PS–Neil, good point!
Jerry – google the wiccans and HP and you will have much reading. Here is one former witch as she assesses the series.
http://www.pacinst.com/witch.htm
I have not read the books or seen the movies nor do I plan to. I have watched and read many reviews from believers who have. I do not subscribe to the hysteria nor do I subscribe to the notion that Christian theology is taught in them. They are nothing more than fictional stories that have made JR rich. I do not ever read fiction.
Does she claim Christian theology is taught in them, or that her Christian faith served as a basis for the plot?
Neil
Rick,
It is/was just plain and simple worldly gossip… nothing more… though I agree that prayer should have been the first thing done, then peaceful seeking the best for Miley and her family. But in the “spirit” of SoL (gossip/divisiveness) we got judgment and condemnation instead of biblical reconciliation.
Personally I think there is a major spiritual issue with Ingrid… but unless enough people pray, it will only get worse.
iggy
Foster is a Quaker. Does anyone have a problem with Quaker theology and teaching? Here is a snippet from a Quaker blog from some who calls herself Robin M.
Any problems with this approach?
Rick,
People are going to do what they are going to do. The Bible Church I attended took part in a Richard Foster meeting. In a letter to the elders I noted Rick was a Quaker, Mystic, Charismatic and 2/3 rds of his quotes were from Catholics. I asked “if we are neither Quakers, Mystics, Charismatics or Catholics why are we participating in this ministry?” I received the typical answer: “He’s a nice man and teaches about prayer, what’s wrong with that.?” So there you have it. “Nice” trumps “orthodox”.
Robin M. is a renowned theologian who…Oh sorry I thought I had something credible to say.
Rick,
This will be the last thing I say in this thread about this subject because at this point I’m just beating a dead horse (but I have the nerve to admit it!)
1. You don’t read fiction?!?!?!?!?!?!? Good grief!
2. If you have not read the books (or even seen the movies) I cannot imagine what basis you have for making judgments about the nature or content of the books. I saw a post the other day that was a review of a review of a review that illustrated the absurdity of doing just that: Making judgments without any real firsthand information. Reading reviews is not the same as reading what’s between the cover, printed with ink on paper. That’s like reading the blurbs on the dust jacket and saying you read the book or seeing a trailer and saying you saw the film or saying you did research because you trolled the internet using google.
3. Even Jesus does not judge without opening the books and, presumably, reading them. (Revelation 20:11-12).
4. I too have benefitted from reading Borg, Crossan, and Pagals and a hundred other authors who are not explicitly Christian. So? I learned a great deal about Jesus from them. I learned exactly the sort of Jesus I won’t, can’t and don’t follow: Theirs! But I’ll tell you this, I don’t think Eisenhower would have not read Rommel’s play book in WW II if it had been given to him just because he feared he might become like Rommel or because he might ingest some rather bad doctrines. Instead, he would have read it, learned from it, and strategized accordingly.
Granted, that is not how things work in some seminaries, but I can think of no better place for it to happen than seminary. Point is, we live in a place where the enemy publishes his plans in a thousand ways, in a thousand places, a thousand times per day. Why shouldn’t we read the enemy’s play book, learn from it, and strategize accordingly? That’s really all I’m getting at here.
your friend,
even when we disagree,
jerry
Nor should we learn from them – I suppose you mean to add?
Neil
Oh man
Okay. Whoever posted the behind the scenes photos. Billy Ray WAS there. So was his wife. She was topless, except for the sheet covering her top. But the actual photos in the magazine show and entirely different picture, that is something that a Christian and Christian dad should shun and run away from. I don’t blame Miley- I blame her father/publicist/agent.
I never said they were not in the book of life. I question anyone whose very public actions do not line up with what they claim.
Its so funny when someone questions this site and its writers about the hypocrisy they display, the person is shouted down, and invectives and sarcastic remarks from guys like Tim are thrown down. Oh well, it just demonstrates your ‘christian’ maturity.
Corey, I am disappointed. #1, my kids have ALL screwed up. I love them and discipline them. My daughter (17) still does not date (her choice), we still have battles over the way she likes to dress, but she is VERY clear about the standards in the home, and though she may hate it at the time, my home, my standards. I pray she does not depart from it when she is gone, but if she does, it is on her. I have trained her up. I wouldn’t allow that photo to be taken, or for her to be covered in a sheet only in the presence of men. Do a study in the bible and see how God feels about exposure of skin after the fall.
Phil,
Read Romans 1-3:20. Count the number and note the context of God’s wrath. Then Read 3-5 and understand what he has done to save us from that wrath. He is both and. I guess you could read further and see he has chosen, predestined, elected, some for salvation and others for wrath. Love and wrath. Of course, that probably does not fit your ‘red letter’ construct.
My point is this: You guys are far worse than the ODM’s because you believe the Bible speaks to them about the way that they write and accuse the brethren, then you do it yourselves. The bible calls this hypocrisy. Iggy, please do NOT use the word grace in accusing me. I have more grace in my little finger than you have shown in your writings towards Ken Silva (see Itodyaso’s site) and myself. And that Grace in my little finger is all from God.
Pastordude,
You called him a false Christian and you said she was nude. In my comment I pointed out my amazement that you know his Christianity is false and your error – she was not nude.
I also pointed out that we acknowledeged what Ingrid got right – which btw, is something I’ve never seen here reciprocate.
If that’s hypocrisy – so be it…
Neil
(also a pastordude)
Neil,
As a Pastor/Christian Would you let your christian daughter be topless, covered only with a sheet, in the presence of men for the purpose of being photographed in a magazine that has a huge circulation?
No.
Neither would I. But why? Is there a Bible verse or a biblical principle that you would apply? If so, is this Biblical principle universal for all Christians, or is it just your standard?
I have not given a “review” of any HP books and I believe I have said I am ambivalent about them all. I remain unconvinced that they metaphorically portray any type of “theology” and Rowlings has been very nebulous about the matter.
For balance I d watch some TV which is fiction, I just choose not to read anything but non-fiction except for books like Shakespear and other classic literature. I am not a rabid book burner but it is my choice. I have not read HP because of that and not because demons will jump on me. I have no real problem with people who enjoy the series, however ascribing theology to them leaves me skeptical at best.
When I read Borg and Crossan suggest Jesus’ body did not resurrect but was eaten by wild dogs, at that point I need not read anything they write unless I am writing a scathing rebuke of everything they have to say. You may be able to discern the apostate nature of authors like these, but it would be dangerous to recommend them to anyone else.
******************
Neil – Although I would reject the type of photo shoots associated with MC, I also reject the notion that the mistakes/sins of a teenager should be post fodder for “Christian” blogs. I am sure no prayer meetings have been called. The Hollywood lifestyle is treacherous but what does uncovering her sins accomplish except to say we thank God we are not like these parents.
I have three children all of whom are serving the Lord in spite of my many parental shortcomings. It is all by God’s grace.
Rick,
In agree re: the photo-shoot.
None of this is relevant, since no one is saying it was acceptable behavior. You called him a false Christian based on this. And that is also unacceptable behavior… we could debate which is worse…
Neil
Neil
I didn’t say false Christian. I said false convert. By these fruits- the public indecency of his daughter (which again Rick, I place squarely on Billy Ray’s shoulders) is a representation of this cultural christianity which so many Americans seem to embrace and is miles away from God.
That was the point I was trying to make Neil…What standard? and does the same standard apply to all Christians? If it is from the Bible, and very clear (which nudity is) then I say it should, and it is a fruit by which we may judge a proclaimed Christian’s walk. The behavior of the minor child is to also be reproved by her Christian daddy- there is no way any reasonable Biblical Christian would not have left the photo shoot, dragging his 15 year old Christian daughter behind, at the suggestion of just wearing a sheet up top.
FYI – MC wasn’t “topless”, either – according to her publicist, she was wearing a tank top (with one strap down, under the sheet) and strapless bra. From looking at the rest of the photos shot, I don’t know that BRC had any reason to think that Leibowicsz was going to do anything racy – and when he found out, lodged a complaint. Would have I done it differently? Quite possibly – but I don’t know what it was that pulled BRC off the set. Calling MC out and referring to BRC as a “false Christian” is far more anti-Christian, though, than any behavior they displayed…
You really need to go into stand-up comedy, John, or find a seriously qualified therapist. I’m trying to imagine anyone being able to say this with a straight face…
John,
You’ve been corrected on the bare (oh am I comedic genius or what?) facts twice now, you’d think you could at least acknowledge the discrepancy if not apologize for it.
If only you’d apply that standard to yourself and your ideological allies. Care to explain why you don’t?
PB – I have my own opinions on Mr. Cyrus’s Christianity but I have no inside knowledge. But what I do know is that we as Christians should feel sorry for Miley since her life is fraught with all the trappings of fame, money, and the usual suspects that use a young girl like her as a golden goose. We should not pompously link to unfortunate pictures of an underage girl as if we ourselves are her moral judge.
JH Said: “I asked “if we are neither Quakers, Mystics, Charismatics or Catholics why are we participating in this ministry?”
NEIL REPLIED “Nor should we learn from them – I suppose you mean to add?”
Neil,
Let’s go on a walk. As I have been accused of rambling, just stay with me, we will eventually get to the point.
We Christians are compared to sheep. There is a reason for that. Those of us who are fairly well read, take an interest in theology, participate in forums such as these, etc., are, in the overall scheme of things, very rare. You can research statistic after statistic which bemoans the sorry spiritual educational state of the “average” Christian whose bible study may average only MINUTES per week if that. These same studies (like the Barna Group) show that the majority of Evangelicals cannot begin to explain the very basic tenants of their beliefs. People like you and I and others commenting here are the exception, not the rule. That is not being elitist. That is just the raw, bare facts of the matter.
God has provided for pastors and teachers to train up and guide the flock entrusted to them. They, as good shepherds, are to protect the flock from “ravenous wolves” – another metaphor rich in meaning. One way these wolves attack is through false doctrine. The Pastor/Teacher is to counter these attacks with solid, Biblical teaching. Now to the point, the average Christian in the pew has the spiritual discernment of a hungry child set free in a candy store. It is the job of the Pastor/Teacher to channel what attention span they have into sound biblical doctrine. If my church implicitly teaches against these doctrines on a week in week out basis why should they send people as participants and not observers to a conference that promotes them? I’m all for an INDIVIDUAL expanding their horizons. It is just illogical and counterproductive for a church to corporately sponsor something that is the antithesis of their own charter and to support something on Friday they have just taught against the previous Sunday.
Chris L,
I just read on your stats where you went to Milligan. I grew up in East Tennessee. . . . ** pregnant pause ** . . . . That probably explains a lot.
Pastordude,
What you wrote was:
So “false Christian” is what you said… but, be that as it may, “false convert” is about the same. Either way you said he is not a Christian based on this incident.
And that is reprehensible,
Neil
…along with assigning motives as well.
Rick,
You have made that statement before – and I agree.
Neil
Neil, Chris, et.al
Once again, you miss the point. The fact that was so aptly stated was the people who call themselves Christians and don’t read their Bible, don’t pray, and thus do not do that which is right in the eyes of the Lord are not really Christians, but examples of false conversions that are so rampant in todays American postmodern church.
We as Pastors/Teachers/Elders/learned men (and women) as we shepherd people are absolutely responsible for teaching right doctrine and for (OH NO) church discipline. If Billy Ray were in my congregation, we would sit him down and have a long discussion with him, because we would be concerned for his very soul because of the faith he claims and his daughter claims do not line up with the scripture, as far as his very PUBLIC activities.
I have to disagree with Rick on this one (this is most rare). Rick, this is the life BRC and MRC have chosen. Yes there are trappings that go along with fame. It is BRC’s job, and his Pastor’s job, and the elders job, to have an accountability relationship that will overlook and oversee the behavior in question.
It is just like the pornographer who dolls up a older girl that looks young in a school outfit and advertises it as a girl who is not legal. Miley having a top on ( I doubt it) is irrelevant. What are the motives? TO make her look sexy. Many pervs are going to buy Vanity Fair and have a heyday with this tween’s sexy photos. That is the obvious hope; to sell lots of magazines with this pornographic photo in it. But its okay, because she calls herself a Christian, and she was supposedly wearing a tank top, (excuses, justification, excuses) Whatever helps BRC, his church, and her publicist sleep at night.
I truly hope BRC and Miley get into a real church and repent of these actions that are motivated by the false idol called money and fame. I have no problem with calling another Christian on this behavior, and I am in several accountability relationships where people feel free to call me on my bad behavior when it arises.
And Tim, you are very funny. Heres your pat on the back.
Yeah – who should we believe – you or the people who were there?
And exactly what business is it of yours to obsess over this, since they do have a church family to take care of them and since we don’t know (and shouldn’t care to know) how it is being handled, since it has already been made clear that both MC and BRC are not supportive of what happened?
“I truly hope BRC and Miley get into a real church and repent of these actions that are motivated by the false idol called money and fame.”
I may not attend that church, but do not assume there are not scores of rich men storing up money unto themselves at Grace Community Church. Is there a difference between a man making more money than he needs in entertainment, or a man making more money than he needs as a corporate executive?
I personally surmise that MacArthur himself is at least a millionaire and has much more money than he needs. Where is the greed line? In America it is pervasive through most of the evangelical community. Mosaic has no corner on that.
Why do you keep attaching conditional statements to your involvement? Clearly the reality is that you’ve decided against Biblical commands to place yourself as their authority.
Tim,
Whatever. I have no authority, except that given me by God. Which Biblical command? I would like chapter and verse, please. And not from the Message translation.
Rick,
How did Johnnie Mac get involved?
I’m not Tim, but I could start with Galatians 6:4-5
Each one should test his own actions. Then he can take pride in himself, without comparing himself to somebody else, for each one should carry his own load.
When have I ever quoted from the Message?
Matthew 18 would be the place to start. Also, notice Paul’s methodology whenever he calls for discipline. He doesn’t start by publicly posting gossip about a situation he doesn’t know everything about, he writes to the specific church which is then supposed to handle their business.
Then you’ve got this:
James 4:11
Brothers, do not slander one another. Anyone who speaks against his brother or judges him speaks against the law and judges it. When you judge the law, you are not keeping it, but sitting in judgment on it.
PB,
man every time you post something I am amazed at your arrogance! LOL! in fact here I am amazed as I ahve tried to help you see some of your own errors in your theology and you just poo poo me and state you “are only accountable to God” Bullocks!
You are accountable to God and the people you claim to teach and from what I see you teaching I fear for them and you. It seems that you only see things from your own “relativistic” position and theology and refuse to give answer as to who in your ODM’s camps holds the Truth… Your truth is different from Ken’s and Steve Camp’s and Ingrid’s and Lighthouse Trails, and I need to listen to/not listen to Dave Hunt… believe you and Steve Camp and Chris R and Chris Pajak… who all contradict each other as to what I am to believe.
John, in all humble sincerity, get over yourself and realize you are the one preaching relativism… If your focus in on your doctrine, it is only as good as your imperfect knowledge. If you were perfect in all ways, then I might trust you and your version of truth, but since I sense that you are a mere man as I am, I really do not see me trusting you for my salvation. I will trust in Jesus and walk in His ways as He reveals Himself to me.
When you actually can see beyond your own ego more people will listen to you and take you serious, yet I see as a little more education as Ken Silva who thinks Baptist were historically Reformed and Quakers were not! LOL! Again that is one of the revisionist historical truths that Ken your pal teaches…
On the other hand I see clear and understandable theological points in emergent that seem to flow more from a high Christology that from a lowbrow armchair wanna be theologian perspective I see from most ODMs. I will not settle for Ken’s ignorant lies on historical Christianity… that would be too sad.
When I see that your own theology is not using such squishy and inconsistent language we may be able to talk, yet I think you may not understand that you are the one that must look in the mirror and check your own spirit before you go out and accuse the brethren of their own sin… I think that job is already taken… and i for one would not want to be that guys ally at all.
iggy
And do you have a chapter and verse?
I have many to show you how you are not to judge and condemn others… but you don’t or can’t hear them… or refuse to… so it seems that only the first part is true of your statement… “I have no authority”… in that I agree.
Your continuous slander about your so-called “postmodern” churches… where are they btw… which ones are these? I know of none that exist as postmodernism is diametrically apposed to Christianity… Can you name one? And of that can you give proof they do not use the bible as you claim?
It seems that you misunderstand apologetics. It is not about attacking those who are in error. One can write about those in error in regards to the truth of our Gospel, yet, as far as rebuke, I see that if one slanders another as I see you do so often, the bible gives me authority to rebuke you. Yet, you seem to want to cast others as less worthy of grace that saves you. So I rebuke you here publically for your unscriptural actions against other brothers and sisters in Christ.
iggy
PB – my point was when you said she should get into a real church that is not idolizing money. My suggestion is that even churches that possibly you would approve of is consumed with greed as well. One John MacAthur Alaskan cruise could feed the refugees in Darfur for a month.