I feel like this article was little more than a cheap shot at Rob Bell. Could you imagine Paul writing his list of credentials and then say “I write this to tell you that I can relate to Peter and Barnabas’ success, but just did it all better.” Our lives are supposed to be given to bring people to God with our stories and experiences, not prove how we are more spiritual because of the path we chose or how overqualified we are to combat a methodology. It’s sad when someone feels they have to prove themselves with such lofty credentials, only to use them to cut a brother down. For me, that is a sign of deep insecurity and extreme brokenness.
This entry was posted
on Monday, June 9th, 2008 at 10:02 am 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.
197 Comments(+Add)
He also seems to think that Bell is some sort of theological lightweight. The fact that he has an M.Div from Fuller seems to be lost on him.
You’re right though- it’s the words of an insecure person.
What truth is there that emergent sermons/books are about “we don’t have the answer,were just thinking aloud”???
If they are, i think Ken as a point when he said he gave back his licences, till he was sure where he stood..
Andy,
Well, as far as Rob Bell goes, you can listen to his sermons for yourself. You can download the sermons from the last 12 weeks here.
I’ve read a lot of books associated with the Emergent movement, and I’m pretty comfortable saying that pretty much all of Ken Silva’s accusations are strawmen at best and lies at worst.
There’s a difference between saying “I don’t have all the answers” and saying “I don’t have any answers”. I’ve heard people associated with the EC say the first. I’ve never heard anyone say the latter.
Which just means he learned from others and was able to pass their tests. I agree with the original essence of Nathan’s point. Credentials, early fathers, Calvin, Arminius, MacArthur, Bell, or anyone else mean nothing to me. I must study and answer for myself.
We have too many lemmings in every camp. Paul said,
Jesus asked about who men said He was, but His point was who do YOU say He is. Academia many times is a hinderance to simple faith and when I see the fawning over men like MacArthur or Bell or anyone it exposes idolatry. And credentials just mean that many have less than you and many have more.
A man like N. T. Wright has lots of credentials but that does not translate into interpretive accuracy. I’m sure Ken would agree with that.
Credentials = a man made word to indicate what that man thinks of himself or someone else, it cannot be relied upon to reveal what God thinks about the credential holder.
There’s a difference between saying “I don’t have all the answers”
hahahaha wrong way round dumbo alert
Credentials = a man made word to indicate what that man thinks of himself or someone else, it cannot be relied upon to reveal what God thinks about the credential holder.
My point wasn’t to brag about Bell’s credentials, as much as it was to talk about the stupidity of the premise of Ken’s article. Particularly this paragraph:
He makes it sound as if Bell just decided to go to a counseler to get his questions answered, and didn’t delve into Scripture, or really have a calling. Actually, if you read Bell’s biography, his call into the ministry wasn’t some calculated thing. Of course, what’s that matter to Ken.
By the way, in case anyone was wondering why we say Silva and his ilk are guilty of slander, this is what we are talking about.
Why do you think ken wrote this piece?
Anybody?
What’s your beef with Wright, Rick? I actually think you might be surprised if you read some of his stuff. He’s probably closer to you on things than you might think.
The fact that is says this at the bottom.
As well as the fact that the Apprising site is Ken’s personal site.
Jose,
why do you think he wrote it?
OK, I see I probably misread Jose’s question. I’m just used to people coming here and claiming, “I didn’t write that”.
Who knows why Ken writes what he writes? Boredom, jealousy, anger, etc.
My first though was because of the little spat he got with
Richard Abanez.
I think they were both going back and forth who was a better apologetic @
ET.
I was curious why he post something to defend his credentials.
Although many belive he has no credentials.
Who cares why, I did not like that piece. There are some with which I agree in principle, but we all think way too highly of ourselves already without some accreditation chronology.
As Bro. Roloff used to say,
Phil,
Yea I was scraching my head on that one.
Paul called his credentials – “dung”. Doesn’t really light up a resume, does it?
I found this line interesting, “It was there [the spiritual wilderness] where I would meet Jesus Christ for real and He has since been transforming me into someone who today has the privilege of encouraging and teaching people…”
When I listen to Rob Bell preach, it is very clear that he meets Jesus regularly. Very few preachers resonate with me the way Bell does. He comes out of his meetings with Jesus and communicates them in such a way that his hearers meet him too.
I praise the Lord for Rob Bell. I pray for him regularly.
I did find Ken’s background interesting. It was a good bio.
Watch the potty mouth Rick.
I feel very naughty. I might watch a PG movie on TV!
Dung…dung…bulldung!
What’s your beef with Wright, Rick? I actually think you might be surprised if you read some of his stuff. He’s probably closer to you on things than you might think.
blast againnnnnnnnnnnnnn
i give up
I’ve read Wright. No thanks.
That was a strange article. Why did he write it? Ken, what was the purpose?
JH,
(singing)
“He was emeerrrrrrgiiiiing when emerging wasn’t coooool.”
How sad. Ken really shows his hand when he says this: ”
So in the early 90’s I was actually doing the emerging thing even before there was an emerging thing; playing in bars and trying to make Christianity fit the “culture” of that day all around me. ”
If I had a dime for everytime some pastor defined “emerging” as “making Christianity fit the culture” I’d host my own website. This only goes to show that Ken, like most critics of emerging, have no clue what they are critiquing.
I have listened to everyone of Bell’s sermon’s for years now and have the utmost respect for him and his ministry. I am challenged by his teachings every week and have no doubt that he is deeply committed to Jesus Christ and the church.
Rick: What is your beef with Wright?
peace,
Chad
“Rick: What is your beef with Wright? ”
*His complicated view of Scripture.
*His complicated view of everything.
*Women as elders.
*Different views of redemption.
And a host of things related to the Church of England.
Other than that, I love his conferences!
Sometimes I wonder if people are just upset they couldn’t make something work for themselves.
I knew a pastor who aped the PD stuff and wanted to be seen as “the pastor”–where people looked to him as the “anchor personality” of the church, book author, etc. etc. etc.
He could see the “vision”, but had no skills to take us there.
It really wasn’t who he was and he burned out because he wasn’t clear on who he really was and who he was meant to be in ministry.
MY CREDENTIALS:
A 22 year stint as a stellar sinner including arrests, nights in jail, bank robbery planning, selling drugs in high schools, immorality, violence, and a murder plot foiled by a gang fight.
MY CHRISTIAN CREDENTIALS:
1. 3 unremarkable years in Bible College.
2. Saved by God’s grace.
3. The deepest intellect in modern Christian history.
OK, two out of three.
Rick,
Number 3 could have remained unsaid.
It’s like saying the earth is round.
Everyone already knows that.
Thank you, Nate, you have the gift of discernment. I would have left it unsaid however I’m not confident everyone knew it.
Your humility is worth emulating.
Rick,
*His complicated view of Scripture.
*His complicated view of everything.
*Women as elders.
*Different views of redemption.
And a host of things related to the Church of England.
I’m on my second Wright book in as many weeks and I have found that his view of Scripture is actually profoundly refreshing. The things he says about Kingdom, Resurrection, are wonderful and, IMO, right on the mark.
I don’t know much about his views on redemption just yet, or women elders (although I have known a lot of women who, aside from the fact that they didn’t carry any official title, may as well have been ‘elders’; or were!), or the Church of England, but I am becoming more and more intrigued by his thoughts and exegesis.
Nevertheless, ‘different views of redemption’ is a loaded sentence since, at the root of it, it is still redemption. The Bible actually does describe our redemption in a number of ways. Read The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross by Leon Morris for a great exploration of this.
jerry
Wright pretty much holds to a Christus Victor view of the Atonement. He’s definitely not Universalist, either.
I’m surprised more people don’t like him, as he’s done a lot of really good work to refute the whole Jesus Seminar debacle. Basically, almost anyone who has written anything against it, starts by citing him.
Ken should have become a famous musician. Sigh. . . The record business is so short sighted.
BTW, using the name of Stevie Ray Vaughan in the same sentence as Bruce Springsteen and Goo Goo Dolls . . . Blasphemy!
I’m confused.
Is this satire? or just another sad ad-hominem attack on a Christian brother?
It seems that you who have commented negatively about Ken are jealous of his ministry and his testimony.
And you should listen to his music. It is pretty good!
“And you should listen to his music. It is pretty good!”
Yep, it really is, and he has a great voice.
PB – do you understand what ad homenim means? Or is it like your ‘understanding’ of satire?
I’m not seeing an ad homenim in this article – and even folks who normally have sympathy for Ken seem to be a bit confused as to the purpose of the linked article…
Huh? It would be one thing if this were just his testimony, but unfortunately Ken takes something that should be a positive thing and manages to turn it into another hit piece on Rob Bell. It’s sad, really.
Phil – where was the attack on Bell in that post? I read some contrasts he sees, but I did not see any real attacks.
Rick,
Well, it’s the whole tone of the piece, which is basically Ken telling us why he’s in a place where he can pass judgement on Bell. Look at this sentence:
So, basically, Ken seems to be saying he went the Biblical route while Bell didn’t.
I don’t know, Phil. That does not seem like a very gracious reading of what he wrote. Pretty judgmental.
There’s gracious, and then there’s delusional. Clearly the whole article is one big “thank God I’m not like those Emergents“.
Thats a really mean thing to say, Phil. But thats okay, right? Because you are saying it about an ODM, you (and this site) can justify the tactics you decry.
Why not just take down your mission statement? Its confusing when you use these mean spirited ungracious words to describe a brother in Christ. You are becoming what you hate.
Where can I find it? I would love to hear it!
What comments are you reading, PB? I didn’t see anything ‘mean spirited’ or ‘ungracious’. Phil didn’t make the comparison to Bell – Ken did…
YouTube has a larger trailer for this film. It is produced by a Catholic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahLem-krZe4
James Cone- “Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer and we better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community. Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal.” He goes on to say “The black theologian must reject any conception of God which stifles black self-determination by picturing God as a God of all peoples.” (pg 63). Clearly Cone does not believe in the God of the bible and in fact in that second quote Cone goes on to fully reject (I believe) the true God of the bible.
Quickly I found a newspaper article in north Carolina that seems to have forever linked Cone to Wright. The article in the news observer published march 21st 2008 quotes Wright as saying that Cone is the basis of the church’s views, and then goes on to quote Cone as saying that Trinity United Church of Christ (Jeremiah wrights church) is the church which most closely follows his (Cone) particular flavor of BLT.
Wright- Racist!
Chris,
You would have to ask Ken to share. He does so rarely, but I have been priviledged to hear it.
Chris L.
Of course you cannot see it! It is on comment 42, then 44.
Our lives are supposed to be given to bring people to God with our stories and experiences, not prove how we are more spiritual because of the path we chose or how overqualified we are to combat a methodology.
Thank you for the conviction. That I am not more spiritual because I supposedly live a supposedly cleaner/more holy lifestyle than other people I know is something I needed to realize. All of us are broken. Some of us are just blind to it. Hopefully all of us will realize the need to humble ourselves before God.
PS — I would love to hear Ken’s stand up comedy routines . . . not being sarcastic, I just find his former occupations fascinating.
Yes, PB, but I can’t see any more charitable reading of the piece and the specific self-comparisons to Bell, so Phil’s observations would simply be ‘accurate’ and ‘matter-of-fact’, and not over-the-top, by even the most conservative defintion…
PB,
This should be the most revealing statement about yourself and those you hang with… but that would mean you would have to understand irony… you just stated you are hateful, mean spirited and ungracious with your words and that Chris L. is becoming just like you! LOL! You should be happy as that would mean you have a disciple! LOL!
iggy
–I don’t know, Phil. That does not seem like a very gracious reading of what he wrote. Pretty judgmental.–
You havd to understand, pastorboy, when an emergent does this, telling us about his or her history (or story, I guess as they would put it), and uses it to bash people who disagree with them, then their only raising questions and deconstructing everything and telling us that we’ve gotten everything wrong and everything must change and so on and so on.
When someone like Ken refers to his own background, he’s being judgmental and mean-spirited. He should just calm down and get on Bell’s trampoline.
–Thats a really mean thing to say, Phil. But thats okay, right? Because you are saying it about an ODM, you (and this site) can justify the tactics you decry.–
Hey, don’t be too hard on them, they are at least making token verbal ascents to “playing nice”, like at Extreme Theology a week or so ago.
Though I still think that just means they want people to not pick on them, while they can be an nasty to someone likeIngrid as they wanna be, and hide behind the excuse of humor when called on it.
Jazz and PB-
If Rob Bell or anyone else publically compared his own spirituality with that of someone else, calling the “other” someone who seeks human counseling where as he sought Jesus, I and I am sure others here would be calling foul. Your allegiance to a man (Ken) seems to blind you to the arrogance and pride in his own words.
Furthermore, Ken clearly does not have a clue what emerging is if he thinks he was “emergent” by going to bars and trying to fit Jesus into the culture around him.
peace,
Chad
Chad,
Sometimes it is like talking to stone statues as nothing seems to penetrate how far off these guys are about emerging/emergent… completely and utterly clueless is about as close to what I can describe them.
iggy
Yes.
It’s just sooooo judgemental, so mean-spirited to point out that people are being….(gasp!) judgemental and meanspirited…and in the name of God making a ministry of it.
Excuse me while my eyes roll into the back of my skull.
Agreed, Iggy.
McLaren is so right when he writes about Protestants being so wrapped up in “protesting” something since the Reformation. They have no identity of their own unless they are comparing themselves to what they are not. Sadly, it appears that some go to even great lengths to make up stuff just so they can keep on protesting.
peace.
It’s a sickness to go through life looking for something to fight.
Yes NC…and you have summarized this websites entire purpose in that comment.
PB-
There is a difference between looking for people and things to protest against and those that exist to help neutralize those protests. Surely you can see that.
John,
Please – I’ve closed down the other thread, partially in response to the sniping there…
As to your specific comment, I would note that we aren’t the ones constantly using war/violence metaphors, and that most of the ‘fighting’ is not in the articles, themselves…
“using war/violence metaphors”
You mean like this: “for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses.”
“We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ,…”
No, Ken – I am referring to the use of war/violence metaphors against brothers and sisters in Christ…
Chad,
Is that sort of like the difference between the God who does not really know what is going to happen tomorrow, and allows the creatures he created to determine their own destinies and change his mind, and the sovereign God of the Bible who knows all things, predestines all things, and is in complete control of all things?
Chris L,
Where was that in the comment/article in question?
Do you mean the God that created and controls and predestined this blog? In that case, you are warring against God.
It was a follow-up to the ‘always looking for a fight’ – expanding on the previously noted penchant for battle/war terminology vs. other brothers, standing in contrast to your jibe…
huh?
PB,
Actually, no.
Once again, and I know this is really hard for ODM sycophants to understand, when people make a “ministry” out of kicking people in the shins and they get criticized for it, it’s not the same thing.
Sorry.
Just isn’t.
So you can keep on with your “you do it too” dreck, but it only serves to demonstrate what a raging hypocrite you are.
I’d be interested in your critiques if I saw you level them equally at the undeniable slander and lies of your hero.
But I get it, you’re the only people who understand Jesus, the Bible, etc.
Two words:
coma inducing.
OK – I sense a virus transfer.
No – it’s like the firefighter called in to put out the fires set by serial arsonists. Both deal with fire, and both may be ‘making a statement’, but only one considers the best interests of all involved, including the public at large…
PB,
I have no idea what you are talking about. You seem to have a knack of making stuff up to rail against.
NC,
My hero is Jesus. You want me to say that Jesus slanders and lies?
I guess I do not get that.
And I am not a sycophant, because that would indicate that I serve and follow Jesus for my own self interests. I am a slave of Christ, for His interests.
So I am wondering, is your comment the pot calling the kettle black?
Chris L.
Huh, what jibe?
RE: violenc/metaphors.
Actually, Paul there is speaking about the methods of the world and how the ultimate purpose of his “destroying of strongholds” is rooted in v. 8 of 2 Cor. 10:
For even if I boast somewhat freely about the authority the Lord gave us for building you up rather than pulling you down…
Yep. that sounds like the purpose of ODM’s.
Bottom line: quit trotting out scripture if you’re going to use it unreflectively.
I will pay big money for a bunch of pain killers. They are for thread pain.
Chad,
I was making a comparison to your comment # 62 where you established a difference where you created a strawman (those, obstensibley ODM’s) which kick against the shins and those (obstensibly ADM’s and this site) which are the heroes who defend them.
NC,
Which is the purpose of ODM’s?
I think it is building up of the one true church and defending the historic, biblical faith against those which would tear it down.
Thats what biblical discernment is….
You know what’s funny, PB?
As soon as I posted I thought, he’ll probably say “Jesus is my hero”.
So sad and tedious in your self-righteousness.
Pot calling kettle black?
How?
In what way?
It’s a lovely turn of phrase, PB.
But you’ll have to add it to the list of things you really don’t understand.
It’ll have to go right under “satire” and “ad hominem”.
Comment #31 + #59 – #11 x #42 = I am right and you are wrong.
Proof.
Good pun Rick.
PB-
I still see no relation to what I said and the omniscience of God. You’re grasping.
What I said is not a strawman, PB. I was merely pointing out that there is a difference between looking for a fight and those who attempt to neutralize those fights or shed light on them. Why is that so hard to see?
NC,
Is that sorta like Chris saying ‘I better call this satire’?
LOL. Shoulda wrote it. !!
RE:
Which is the purpose of ODM’s?
I think it is building up of the one true church and defending the historic, biblical faith against those which would tear it down.
Thats what biblical discernment is….
Ok. Great.
PB, Chad’s comment #62 wasn’t a strawman. In no way was Chad misrepresenting an argument. It was a metaphor.
Chad,
No, you are grasping. The only difference between this site and the ODM’s site is that this site only has a limited scope of ‘discernment’ turned on those which they are already against. The ‘ODM’s’ discern all things, wherever they are found, according to scripture. This site clearly really does not care about scripture, as it is used really only against ODM’s, and thrown out when it comes to women in ministry, homosexuality, and other subjects that harm sensibilities like the omniscience and sovereignty of God.
LOL.
You’re so clever.
PB,
I know you cannot speak for Ken, but you seem to align yourself with him fairly well, tell us then, since ODM’s “discern all things…according to scripture,” what is Ken’s intent on comparing Rob Bell’s suppossed humanism with his seeking after Jesus? What, exactly, is Ken discerning? Is it that he is more righteous than Bell? Is it that Bell does not seek after Jesus? Where is his scriptural proof?
thanks.
If this site is to put out fires created by the ODM’s why does the fire spread?
Wow – so many lies, so little time to dismantle them…
That’s funny – I just look at the current front page, and only 3 of the 10 articles directly reference something ‘ODM’, and a 4th is tangential.
Nix. More appropriately written The ‘ODM’s’ discern things not 17th-20th century traditional, wherever they are found, according to Calvinist/semi-Calvinist systematic theology. Sadly, too, they misrepresent a good number of their targets and slander them in doing so.
Shenannigans again – see previous notation. I can find numerous examples (like with the Atonement article from Friday, and numerous other ones) that prove the lie in this statement.
Really?
In the discussions late last year on women in ministry, I didn’t see any writers here espousing positions in absence of scripture – though a number of hermeneutics and interpretations were compared. There are interpretations and denominations who take scripture very seriously, yet come to different conclusions on the exact roles of women within the church – particularly as it relates to cultural and cross-cultural commands.
Last week, I didn’t see any of the writers here contradicting scripture in regards to recognizing homosexual sin as such. I did see them, though, recognizing that it is just as bad a sin as any other sins – like slander – that often get ‘passes’ within the church. Recognizing a double-standard is not condoning homosexual practice.
And the last time I checked, nobody here has questioned God’s sovereignty, or what the Bible has to say about his omniscience. Granted, a number of us don’t hold much truck with systematic theology, which didn’t really come to fruition until after the printing press was birthed.
Perhaps you just need to take a break, as your accusations are becoming more wild and un-Christlike with each passing hour…
If you’re a single fire-station fighting a set of arson-driven five-alarm fires, not all of them are going to be put out efficiently…
I would note that I have received a rather large number of emails & such in thanks for the counterpoint we have provided and for drawing the light of truth back into the topics at hand. Whether it’s the guy at a small church who’s been castigated for mentioning Spiderman in a sermon, only to be “spotlighted” for selling out by Slice; or youth group leaders who have successfully blunted criticisms about using Rob Bell’s materials with their youth groups; or pastors and small-group leaders thanking us for some of the actual research reported on historical Christianity or application of Christian concepts from the Bible rather than extra-biblical systems – these are the folks I think about when I’m writing…
Are we perfect? No.
Do we sometimes do a poor job at it? Yes.
Do we depend on Christ to guide us? Yes, I certainly hope each of us does.
Do we always listen to Him? Not as often as we should.
Thinking back to the story of the boy rescuing starfish drying up on the beach and throwing them back into the sea – we may not be able to get to them all, but it matters to the ones we do…
Similarly, to further abuse the prior metaphor, we may not put out all of the house-fires set by arsonists, but I’m sure it matters to the homes that are ’saved’…
Great words, ChrisL.
Wow… and how many times is scripture used at CRN outside of attacking Bell, Warren, McManus, Pagitt, McLaren, every catholic in the world, and gays? Oh wait… it is also used occasionally to prove Calvinism is the one true religion. Don’t act like the ODMs have such a high view of scripture just because they pull it out every time they need a verse taken out of context to prove their point. I usually see more writings of Calvin, Spurgeon, and MacArthur than scripture on these sites.
Jose,
I have talked with a lot of the men that CRN cuts down on a regular basis. Believe me, they enjoy having at least one site on their side. Plus, the world needs to know that The Faith isn’t just about angry Christians arguing over music and picking apart every single doctrine.
Great way of putting it chris.
I understand your reasons behind this whole site.
But the arsonist on the other side sees this site as another arsonist.
It’s like two boys fighting for the same girl (church). ODM think they are right and so do you. Eventhough you both disagree.
ODM’s can start fires and from you point of view they are hurting the “house” .
It’s something that will go on and on.
We all have a different understanding of the word of God and we all interpret differently many things it says.
But one thing we should all agree upon is the love of God towards both you, us and ODM’s.
I see this site as a tool and i learn from it. some ideas I dont agree others I do. I take what ever the Lord leads me to.
Keep standing firm at the end of the road the lord will make things clear to all of us, That is my prayer.
–Your allegiance to a man (Ken) seems to blind you to the arrogance and pride in his own words.–
Funny, I don’t recall ever having given my allegiance to Ken. It’s simply that I think he’s right, and that ya’ll are only looking for reasons to fault him.
–If Rob Bell or anyone else publically compared his own spirituality with that of someone else, calling the “other” someone who seeks human counseling where as he sought Jesus, I and I am sure others here would be calling foul.–
Well, let’s see, here’s some things he said in the Relevant magazine interview a few months ago…
–And the church has contributed to that disconnection by preaching horrible messages about being left behind and that this place is going to burn–absolutely toxic messages that are against the teachings of Scripture, which state that we are connected with God, we are connected to the earth, we are connected to each other.–
Now, are you really going to say that here he isn’t comparing his own beliefs to those of other people’s? Really, using phrases like “horrible messages” and “absolutely toxic messages”, that’s some pretty strong terms there. And, of course, we all know to whom he refers when he talks about ‘left behind’.
Or this.
–I think you just begin by acknowledging that (America’s idea of church) is an absolute total failure. The whole system that says these few people, because of what they said, did, believe, etc., are going to Heaven and everybody else is going to Hell, is deeply flawed and must die.–
I mean, really, he pretty much trashes everyone here, except the few enlightened ‘emergents’ who buy into his panentheism and universalism.
Jose,
One of the biggest differences I find in this site with others (ODM’s) is that even in the midst of disagreement we do not judge the hearts of those we disagree wtih. You will not find me (and as far as I can tell, anyone else who likes it here) calling Piper, MacArthur, Spurgeon, Ken Silva, Ingrid, Chris R., or anyone else we disagree with doctrinally a “heretic” or “antichrist, apostate, false-brother” etc.
Yes, we will have disagreements this side of heaven. But I would still sit at the table and share communion with all of them. I wonder if they would say the same.
peace,
Chad
Jazz,
Big differences. Bell is making broad generalizations about the church as he knows it from his perspective. Nowhere does Bell say he is more spiritual or “getting with Jesus” more than the next guy or gal. You dont have to agree with him. I happen to think he’s right.
You are dancing around the question I asked you. Why does Ken intimate that he gets with Jesus where as Bell gets with humans? What is Ken implyng? Is it that he is more righteous? Is it that he talks to Jesus and Bell does not? What is it?
–Furthermore, Ken clearly does not have a clue what emerging is if he thinks he was “emergent” by going to bars and trying to fit Jesus into the culture around him.–
I have to laugh at this. Seriously, if someone asks an emergent a question, they should not expect a straight answer. Ask for a statement of faith, and you’re called Modernist. Ask almost anything else, and they try to pull you into their never-ending ‘conversation’.
Say something nice about them, and they’ll smile demurely and agree. Say something critical about them, and they’ll howl that you don’t understand.
Well, as long as emergents want to play coy and not give straight answers to honest questions, they really have no cause to cry out when they think people don’t understand them.
Because IT’S THEIR OWN FAULT!!!
–Nowhere does Bell say he is more spiritual or “getting with Jesus” more than the next guy or gal.–
Actually, he is saying that exact thing about everyone.
Jazz,
A life with God goes far deeper and involves so much more than a quick answer to a set of questions. You should know that.
Whatever conversations Ken has had with emergents or whatever he has read he obviously has not understood. He seems to think himself “in the know” when he says he was emerging long before everyone else was by being in bars. That is absurd. That is the characterization of emerging made by someone who doesn’t even want to know the truth.
Jazz-
Answer the questions.
Jazz – in this you are correct. Many emergents and/or Purpose Driven and/or seeker people speak with condescending terms about the doctrines that some of us believe. That is exactly what they decrie about in the ODMs.
If you are pre-trib you are made to feel like you have an IQ of 90. The quotes from that magazine are only representative of the disparaging speech. Even Rick Warren advises chasing those people out of the church to make it easier to implement his program. That is exactly what a church did to me when it went PDL.
JAzz,
can I have the links of those comments if you have them.
BTW I do have issues with bell myself.
What is Emergent BTW?
Rick,
No one should be condescending to anyone regardless of differing views. Don’t make the mistake of lumping together those who are emerging or PDL or whatver with condescension, as you seem to imply by saying, “many.” Many compared to what? If you go by just what you see on blogs, than maybe. But this represents a small segment of the overall conversation.
I regret that you were made to feel like you have an IQ of 90. All of us here know it is at least 95, Rick.
The main point is this: Ken is not disparaging a belief or a set of doctrines but a PERSON who is a fellow brother in Christ. Again, he says this:
Long story short; unlike Rob who (for whatever reason) decided to to seek human counseling, and there is a place for that, and continues sharing his doubts with others I personally opted to go the route of “spiritual wilderness” ala Paul in Galatians 1.
Now again, what is Ken’s point in saying this? I contend that it is none other than to make himself appear more righteous and infer that Rob Bell does not consult Jesus but humans for his inspiration. That is condescending on a whole other level, Rick.
It’s fascinating to me how this is really about power.
A group that dominated the church with their attitudes, by shaming people, driving churches with fear and control are now losing that power and it doesn’t feel good.
It’s really not about right or wrong. It’s about a loss of control…and reaping what you’ve sown.
Sucks to be on the receiving end, doesn’t it?
At the end of the day, people who whine about the chickens coming home to roost are pretty sorry.
And, NO. This comment doesn’t mean I agree with PD or everything McLaren or Bell says–or even the way they say it.
But the point still stands. When a community of people have hurt others for years and years and then that gets called out, it’s not the same thing.
So much for valuing “the truth”.
nc,
“But the point still stands. When a community of people have hurt others for years and years and then that gets called out, it’s not the same thing.”
Which community are you refering to?
ODM”s, SBC, pre-trib, pentecostals, Assembly’s of God, JW or Emergents?
Kind of broad there buddy.
Chad – if you desire to elicit my rejection of some of the ODM’s verbiage and condescention you have it as well as my archived posts and comments. I use the collective pronoun “many” subjectively and I reserve the right to attach my own % to the word.
I reject self righteousness from all quarters including mine, if it ever shows up in my lifetime. If indeed it has or will show up, I have a fail safe plan to explain it away with creative definitions that center around the words like correction, humbly, discernment, anointing, calling, concerned, stand, and many other related words that camouflage anything that may falsely appear as self righteousness.
I continue to keep my superior intellect under subjection so I can be used among the doctrinal proletariat, and even sometimes generously condescending into serfdom. The crumbs from my cerebral table can be used to feed the sniffing dogs, I certainly do not need them. The last time I thought I detected any self righteousness in my heart was on September 3, 1994, and I quickly came to realize I was mistaken.
Wow, Rick – masterfully said… I think you might have been clearer to be more broad in your examples of ‘many’ in the initial comment
My apologies again for the “Left Behind” crack last week… As a follow-up – how would you prefer that I/we differentiate between pre-mil dispensationalism (sometimes called “left behind theology”) and “Left Behind” (the book) theology?
On a side note, though, if you’re too slow answering, it may be a moot point, since we both may be wrong in our eschatology
Shoot! I’d better call my dad tonight and wish him a happy Father’s Day.
“since we both may be wrong in our eschatology”
I have dismissed that possibility. In order to be clear and differentiate between LaHaye and my own eschatology, let us refer to mine as the “Prophetically Insightful and Totally PRE-view of Everything as it Pertains to the Literal Return of Jesus Christ Before Everything Else Happens”.
Or as we call it in the shop,
PITPEPLRJCBEEH
I just earned Chad’s 95!
I have two books I hope to read this summer that should help me clarify my own eschatology…”Surprised by Hope” and “A Case for Amillennialism”
I’m really looking forward to both.
Rick –
That earned you a 97, friend.
Nathanael-
Surprised by Hope is amazing. It has really sharpened up my thinking on things I once never cared to think much about. I have been teaching that book chapter by chapter at my church – this is how important I found it to be.
My blog has talking points for each chapter as we go through them. So far we are up to chapter 6.
peace,
Chad
I would say that to a degree it is critics own fault that they don’t understand “Emergents” (oddly enough, I don’t think any of us here call ourselves that). The fact is there are a lot of people who have problems with certain things in the church, and it seems that a lot of the people with power would rather stick their fingers in their ears and say, “I can’t hear you” rather than address the issues.
The other thing is that sometimes your questions don’t deserve a straight answer because they are nothing more than traps.
You see, I’ve dealt with people with a critical spirit my whole life who have like to wrap it under the guise of “discernment”. I have seen attack family members and tear apart churches. They cause damage to the the body of Christ. The funny thing is that these people seem to have the thinnest skin when it comes to receiving criticism of any kind.
So I can understand the attitude of a lot of people who are commonly at the receiving end of the ODM’s rants. Really, in the end it’s probably better to ignore them, and not answer their “questions”. They don’t owe them anything.
I do not agree, Phil. I have heard Pagitt (and others) dance around straight questions instead of being honest and saying, “I do not believe as you do, or even as I used to, I now believe…and this is why…”.
That would be more helpful all around.
My dad, who pastored for 25+ years, had a great line that he used often with those who disagreed with him on adiaphora, or matters that don’t really affect one’s salvation before God.
He would say to the person after they presented their case of why they are right and he is wrong, “You may be right about that.”
Sorta takes the wind out of the sails.
Rick, perhaps Pagitt is taking cues from my dad. I’ll have to tell him.
Rick,
I’ve heard Pagitt do that, too, and I really think he does that to avoid stepping into a trap. It might not be the best strategy, but when you’re put in the types of situations he is, I think he kind of feel backed into a corner.
When someone like Todd Friel asks something like, “will a Buddhist end up in hell”, you know it’s not because he’s genuinely interested in your answer. He wants to beat you over the head with his.
Personally, I think Doug probably underestimates the mean-spiritedness of some of his critics.
Rick,
I was very active in one denomination (to the point of seeking ordination) but found that since I believed in eternal security, I would not be ordained… I left over doctrinal differences.
I attended one of the largest non denominational denomination (insider joke) and when I found I did not agree with pre3-trib was laughed at and even told I was not saved by one person when I stated I was “looking” into the mid trib view.
So, I see it a bit disingenuous to state that I mock you on a personal level for being pre-trib.
I usually state that I just do not see it in Scripture and that since I do not I do not teach it. If something is clear like the Resurrection, I teach that… but if it is not clear as in the (hidden) Rapture, I do not teach it.
Now note I used to teach it and could explain the scripture to back that view, but when I took the scripture itself in context with itself the Rapture theory seemed to not stand up.
I am not against anyone for believing that view and have only expressed the things I see wrong with it as in the idea of “escapism” and in that have also been told many unkind things such as I do not believe such and such and so on.
Again, I personally have been mocked and left a few churches over this becuase of not being accepted on the unity we shared and others focused on this one difference.
I hope you understand a little from the other side of the story now.
iggy
–JAzz,
can I have the links of those comments if you have them.–
They come from an article the magazine Relevant, I think from earlier this year. Relevant has a website, but last I was there, that interview hadn’t been posted. You may want to check, though.
–You are dancing around the question I asked you. Why does Ken intimate that he gets with Jesus where as Bell gets with humans? What is Ken implyng? Is it that he is more righteous? Is it that he talks to Jesus and Bell does not? What is it?–
If you’re trying to say that Ken is disparaging Bell, well, do you really want me to hunt up the nastiness people here said about Ingrid a couple of weeks ago in a discussion I was involved in?
What did those kinds of comments say about those who made those comments, and about their views of the victim of those comments? Were they not saying they are more righteous then the one they were insulting? When they intimated that Ingrid did what she did only to get hits, is that not a disparagement for which they had no proof?
No, what those comments said was that we believe when you spread falsehood about someone else you should apologize to them instead of insulting them. Calling someone to correctness doesn’t have to include an implicit self-righteous element to it. Notice in those comments (as far as I can remember) no one was saying “check me out I’m better than Ingrid because I did this instead”.
I cannot remember ever saying anything about Ingrid personally, only what emanates from her blog and radio station.
Jazz,
You’re a liar and misrepresenting everything.
Jose,
Yeah, cuz Emergents oppress people, J.
Really. They do.
I’m talking about the institutional experience of Christianity that a lot of people have had–regardless of the flavor–i.e. the people who have held institutional power. That’s my point about how this is really all about power.
The fact that that experience is and has been called out as sinful and a failure of the church does not automatically translate into a hatred of the church, a betrayal of the gospel, etc. etc. etc. with all the typical knee-jerk ignorant complaints that people broadbrush with.
It’s called honesty. It’s the only path to healing and redemption. Again, so much for people’s commitment to “the truth”.
Jazz,
Sorry, I had to type quickly, I shouldn’t have typed at all. What I meant to say is that you’re basically lying by misrepresenting everything you’re talking about. It doesn’t match the facts at all. Sorry for the quick flippant remark.
Joe
Because…I’m a liar too…and I am good at misrepresenting stuff too. I really regret saying anything now. I wish my government computer did a better job of restricting me from posting comments at work. It’s where I’m the most stressed and quick tempered…hence…snarky remarks.
Joe C works at the Big Lots and was in the middle of having to explain for the 92,517th time today that they have a strict “You bought it, You’re an idiot” return policy, which is stressful.
lol BTT.
Jazz-
You still have not answered the questions. Two wrongs do not make a right. So one last time: What do you imagine Ken is implying by saying that Bell goes to humans where as he goes to Jesus? Is he saying Bell does not go to Jesus? Is he saying that he is more righteous than Bell?
This is the last time I’ll ask and then I’ll simply assume what is quite obvious already.
yeah yeah…everyone make fun of me…I’m lame.
Evan, the AF is a lot like Big Lots actually…
I’ll let you figure the rest out.
In that the AF (and the Navy) have been so neglected, due to the occupation of Iraq and the hemhorraging of resources toward the Army & Marines, that you’re having to deal with lots of “slightly damaged” stuff?
I know about that part.
“Is he saying that he is more righteous than Bell?”
Actually, Chad, Ken is making a point with his usual melodramatic flair. I did not find that post especially mean towrd Bell. A little narcissistic, but not any real attack on anyone.
–Jazz-
You still have not answered the questions.–
So, let me guess. Are you the same Chad who last week at Extreme Theology wouldn’t answer my questions? Perhaps not, but if so, I find your actions here inconsistent.
–Jazz,
You’re a liar and misrepresenting everything.–
Strong words. Care to try to prove them, or are you content to play the “lib game” and say that it’s the seriousness of the charge, and not the truth behind it, that really matters.
Sad, if you do. I would expect more from a military man. I would hope such a person would run from “lib think” as fast as he can.
jazz,
Really what would that matter? If he is and it was wrong to you that he did not answer, then you should give an answer and not be inconsistent yourself.
Joe is far from a “lib” so before you misrepresent yet another person, try to use some people skills and communicate even if the other is not up to YOUR standard, which seems to be as low as those you are not answering and calling names.
Seriously why should any one listen to you guys as you seem to care less to listen and even give an answers by your own standards. Then you cry foul when someone holds you to you OWN standards…
I see inconsistency, but it is not from most of the people here. It is from ODM’s who claim to be more righteous than others can’t even give an honest answer to anyone!
iggy
Jazz,
Why do most of your responses involve making stuff up?
Seriously, you opine that a commenter *may* have wronged you on another blog, which seems to justify a refusal to answer a question.
Then, in the same comment no less, you opine that another commenter *may* be trying to play some game I’ve never heard of, which justifies your calling him out as a “military” man.
Don’t you see you see how childish this behavior is?
I do find it semi-amusing, jazzact, that in comment #100, you state, “…if someone asks an emergent [the contributors here have stated countless times they are not emergent] a question, they should not expect a straight answer.”
And yet, you refuse to answer Chad’s question for the silly reason that on another blog, he did not answer yours?
Not trying to pick a fight, just making an observation…
Shalom
“What do you imagine Ken is implying by saying that Bell goes to humans where as he goes to Jesus? Is he saying Bell does not go to Jesus? Is he saying that he is more righteous than Bell?”
I will answer. I believe Ken was saying that Bell strayed from the Biblical texts and was influenced by other than the Bible. I think he was also saying that he attempted not to do that but stay tethered to sola scriptura.
I think that was what he was implying in a clumsy way.
Nathanael,
Funny thing is that most of us that consider ourselves “emergent/emerging” give straight forward answers… it is just that most people who think in the modernistic way seem a bit lost that an answer can be both/and and not always yes/no.
When asked a question I give an honest answer. That means that sometimes it is not the party line answer that is expected… For example, “What do you base truth on?” It seems like a straight forward question… but is it really?
Well define what you mean by truth, then we will talk further as that question is wide open to interpretation to me, yet to a modernist bible fundy, the only answer is “the bible”. To me the answer is deeper and the bible is “part” of that answer… but so is the Person of Jesus…
iggy
Rick,
Ken is just silly and over compensating for his lack of education…
Sorry, but that is the truth… he is hiding his inadequacy’s behind the bible like a midlife crisis man buying a sports car or large truck and chasing young girls… it is the same thing but just seems more “holy” but it is not. It still harms others as you try to boost one’s own ego.
iggy
iggy,
I think the fact that my generation (I’m 31) embraces mystery and loves dialogue that goes deep into the night and early morning and ends with a sense of ‘…to be continued’ scares those who are locked into the modernist mindset.
I just got back from a camping trip with one of my best friends, and we concluded numerous times that we did not have ‘the answers’ to the questions that came up during our conversations. And it was freeing. I am so glad that I don’t have to have all my ducks in a row, because most of the time I don’t even know where all my ducks are or how many I should have or what species of ducks they are or…
” I will answer. I believe Ken was saying that Bell strayed from the Biblical texts and was influenced by other than the Bible. I think he was also saying that he attempted not to do that but stay tethered to sola scriptura.”
I agree with Rick on this statement. Bell seems to guide to other writers who ODM”S see as emergent.
Iggy,
What’s an emergent? serious question. I really dont know fully what an Emergent is.
Jose,
Emergent is generally specifically linked to Emergent Village.
Emerging is more difficult to define. Everyone you ask will probably have a slightly different answer. But my understanding is that emerging churches:
-focus more on the missional words and concepts of the gospel
-tend to view the kingdom of God as here and now, not someday, somewhere
-tend to avoid the traditional structured church leadership
-are more prone to pick up a hammer to help someone than hand them a tract
-welcome mystery and dialogue and uncertainty
-view church as not merely happening on Sunday
-are less black-and-white, cut-and-dry, who’s-in-who’s-out
-are less prone to view denominational lines as hindrances
-are more prone to join with anyone, whether they claim to follow Jesus or not, if they are living out Jesus’ principles
-believe strongly that our actions either negate or give credence to our words
And a lot more
Of course, these are merely my opinion. As I said, emerging is harder to define.
Hope that helps.
Shalom
Thank you nathanael.
It is a loosely connected group of people who are trying to live out their faith in the context of a postmodern world.
iggy
uncharacteristically brief…I love it, iggy.
For the longer version you would need to buy my book available at Amazon.con…
; )
iggy
“Why I Am Emergent, by a Guy Who Should Not Be”
*Warning–I am at work*
K, now that’s out of the way…
Jazz, it seems to me that you claimed we were slandering and picking on Ingrid; you are the accuser in this case. Prove that we’ve done this. Burden of proof is on you brother. Without a shadow of a doubt, prove it, otherwise, you’re lying, right? Slandering us even? What’s done here is nothing, absolutely nothing like what is done on the ODM sites, how can anyone objectively say otherwise?
I don’t appreciate you ignoring my other comments that came right after my foolish “you’re a liar!” comment. I apologized for my rudeness, but you ignored that.
Also, what the heck is ‘lib talk’? Is that just a characterization/straw man of what “liberal” supposedly is to the politically conservative’s mind? Instead of putting an innane INSULTING label on it, why don’t you just say what you mean and call it like it is?
Joe
–Really what would that matter?–
Was I addressing you, iggy?
–Joe is far from a “lib” so before you misrepresent yet another person,–
Did I say he was, iggy (please note, I am addressing you now).
–Why do most of your responses involve making stuff up?–
What have I made up?
–Jazz, it seems to me that you claimed we were slandering and picking on Ingrid; you are the accuser in this case. Prove that we’ve done this. Burden of proof is on you brother. –
Very well.
I wonder if Ingrid ever has angry dreams where she walks around the house
slapping herself and mumbling things like “Hannah
Montana….argghfieifhfgargle…naughty dancing …..bberghahtgrgleldjfjkfkd….No,
daddy, that’s my pony, you can’t ride it! bhafdhflakfhdlfldhfld…”
ME: Sweetheart – when you get a chance to do a photo-spread for Vanity Fair,
please make sure that the photographer and your publicist don’t do anything that
would look racy. Also, I need to remember not to leave the set before the photo
shoot is done, because our publicist, as nice as he is, doesn’t have your best
interests in mind.
HER: What’s a publicist?
ME: Sweetie, I need you to
know not to do what Miley did.
HER: Oh – OK. When do I get to be in Vanity
Fair?
ME: Never. But I need you to know that Miley did something wrong and
all of the salacious details so that I can be self-righteous about it warn
you.
Ingrid should be ashamed to place herself as one that acts like the Grace God
gave to all of us who are not righteous… (”no one is righteous not one”) She
acts like ssince she recieved Grace she still can go out and bully people…
Miley Cyrus wears underwear?!?! And she has friends?!?!
Ingrid would never
wear underwear or have friends!
(This condemnation thing is so intellectually
incoherent…)
Those are excerpts from rhetoric in a discussion a bit over a week ago, on this blog. Here is a link to it.
http://christianresearchnetwork.info/2008/05/28/miley-cyrus-2-12-ingrid-12/
I believe that was from one or more commenters and most of us reject personal attacks like those, even on those with whom we disagree on other grounds.
Thos comments are a result of the “no moderation” policy, which by the way is the reason all yours get through as well.
– think the fact that my generation (I’m 31) embraces mystery and loves dialogue that goes deep into the night and early morning and ends with a sense of ‘…to be continued’ scares those who are locked into the modernist mindset.–
Do stop kidding yourself.
–I don’t appreciate you ignoring my other comments that came right after my foolish “you’re a liar!” comment. I apologized for my rudeness, but you ignored that.–
And yet, they pretty much came down to the same thing, didn’t they? More nicely worded, no doubt, but you’re still calling me a liar. I disagree, but at least I can appreciate bluntness and candor.
–Also, what the heck is ‘lib talk’? Is that just a characterization/straw man of what “liberal” supposedly is to the politically conservative’s mind? Instead of putting an innane INSULTING label on it, why don’t you just say what you mean and call it like it is?–
I used it point out how simply calling me a liar is merely an accusation, and if you expect that to be taken seriously, you were acting in better a way then those who cry “bigotry” or “bias” or “hate crime” without any proof of such a claim. That is a common liberal tactic, and being in the military, I would expect you would know a thing or two about being subjected to such rhetoric from such people.
So, call me a liar if you wish, but if so, PROVE IT. Don’t expect the accusation to do all the work for you.
–I believe that was from one or more commenters and most of us reject personal attacks like those, even on those with whom we disagree on other grounds.–
Perhaps you should reread the comments, rick, and see just how little rejection there was of such comments.
Nathanael
Great title… I might have to steal it… LOL!
iggy (the other green meat)
jazz,
OK… start with your first comment and continue down with the rest of them…
If you can’t see the lies and slander, then take to prayers read some scripture and try again.
iggy
Help me out here, jazz.
You responded with, “Do stop kidding yourself.” to my comment.
I’m thoroughly confused.
What does that mean?
Thanks.
Jazz,
Who made that comment? Rick’s right, the comments are unrestricted. But was it from a moderator/site contributor? Someone who agrees with the site standards and goals? Or was it just a random passer-by? That’s a huge difference. You imply that this site supports slander and malicious talk of others, much like the ODM sites favor doing, but your quotation does not prove that.
My proof is that if YOU, the ACCUSER, cannot prove that this site does what you claim it does, you are then LYING. It would seem that your ’standard’ of liberal talk would then best apply to you, if you think that you can just make accusations and not back them up legitimately. You made the first accusation. I am merely contending that what you’ve said earlier is a lie and a misrepresentation of the facts. You provided no proof of your claim, and so my comment, as rude as it first was, (and I’m sorry for that, really) is a legitimate claim to level at you. Think about it.
Joe
Jazz,
Even worse, your quotation is a piecemeal of different comments. And they aren’t even slanderous…? In this case…I don’t think you’re using the word properly. Your piecemeal comments aren’t even malicious…?
You also fail to consider all the other comments in the thread of encouragement and admonition. Oh and the fact that what Ingrid did was not of Christian candor, nor was it the right thing to do.
Is mocking someone the same as slandering?
Mocking = to treat with contempt or ridicule
Slander= a false and defamatory oral statement about a person
You may call it slander towards Ingrid.
But then you turn around and mock.
Both are considered negative.
Mocking i.e:
” Ken is just silly and over compensating for his lack of education…
Sorry, but that is the truth… he is hiding his inadequacy’s behind the bible like a midlife crisis man buying a sports car or large truck and chasing young girls… it is the same thing but just seems more “holy” but it is not. It still harms others as you try to boost one’s own ego.”
Slander;
what ODM’s do to everyone who doesn’t follow their beliefs.
ie. Myley Cyrus, RW, and etc, etc..
Jose,
I think you’re right. We’ve all been guilty of mocking and slander at some point. Question is, is that our method of operations? Intent? Focus?
Seems to be the ODMs since almost every article they write fits those definitions, besides the lying about people (documented here and elsewhere) and poor and biased research (also documented).
I think you’re right in bringing up the differences.
Joe
Hey folks – I don’t want to shut down this thread, as well… let’s keep it cool…
Jazz, of the conglomeration of comments from the old thread you posted, one bit was mine (in response to the idea that “we need to warn our kids…” as an excuse for gossip…)
The remaining bits of comments were not made by, nor supported by, writers of this site. The “no deletion of comments” policy ends up cutting both directions, but we tend to think that erring in the side of freedom prevents creating a false argumentum ad nauseam, as used to exist on Slice, where almost all contrary comments were deleted out of hand. Unfortunately, it sometimes allows escalation or posting of poor quality material…
Call me naive, but I still feel the motives of the “ODM’s” are pure.
I grew up in a legalistic group that felt it necessary to point out constantly where others were falling short or wrong or even lost. Yet in their heart of hearts, they believed they were being obedient to the Lord. So, because of the love of have for these brethren, I am compelled to give the benefit of the doubt to these online discerners as well.
Love wins.
(except in tennis)
Jazz said –
Here is one of my comments on the thread in question:
I believe a Gehenna sighting trumps any “little rejection” there was!
Rick,
You’ve just been waiting for an opportunity to quote yourself!
Well, if you’re gonna do it, that was the one to quote.
Nathanael,
they may have pure motives… but that does not justify their impure actions. i.e. Saul had pure motive to protect Messiah, for that was what he was doing when he held the coats and condoned the stoning of Steven. Yet, Jesus stated about Saul’s persecution of those of The Way, “Why do you persecute me?”
That is the danger I see with the ODM’s in that they do not see they are persecuting Jesus in their persecuting of those who follow Jesus.
That is why I constantly state that we need stand in prayer for them as they see not what they are really doing.
iggy
I do pray…I think that response thread on Chris P’s admonition for us all to watch how we defend the faith prompted me to pray more than I have in a long time.
Or maybe some DO see it and they just don’t care? I know I have done that before, it’s a very possible trap to fall in to. Either way, it doesn’t make it right to act like that.
Well, I believe they think what they are doing in is right. Whether or not their motives are pure, is something they may not truly know. I mean do we ever truly admit to ourselves the entirety of our motives?
I think the thing that bugs a lot of us here isn’t the fact that they think their opinions are right. Heck, everyone thinks his own opinions are right, or they wouldn’t be his opinions. It’s the fact that they seem unwilling to admit, even the tiniest bit, that’s there’s a chance they may be wrong.
Well honestly Phil, I’ve seen them write about how they have been wrong in the past (the way way past, usually before their ministry started), or how they are evil and depraved and can therefore be wrong. It just never happens. The rubber never meets the road. Kind of makes me question the veracity of their claims.
Someone earlier said something to the effect of “telling someone “they may be right about that” (and you might be wrong) is a great diffuser of tensions. And if you really believe they might be right, or you could actually be wrong (gasp!), it’s so much harder to be snarky to them, slander them, hate on them, etc.
I think I miss this concept all too often in my life. I’d encourage us all to just look at ourselves and really see why we argue in the first place. Is it to help each other out, for love, for Jesus? Or is it just to win for the sake of pride, or ‘defending the Truth’? As if He needed help from human hands…
Well said, Phil.
“Well, I believe they think what they are doing in is right. Whether or not their motives are pure, is something they may not truly know.”
Yeah, I know what you mean. This is exactly how I feel, e.g. about guys like Brian McLaren, Rick Warren and Rob Bell.
In my comment in “I know you are but what am I? A sinner saved by Grace!” about how to deal with one’s wife I also do to a certain degree in life. I seldom argue anymore. Or debate. Especially with one that may have a STRONG opinion on something. I weight it against my pain threshold analogy. My pain threshold lowers with each passing year.
OK, maybe I’m right but at what price am I willing to pay to be right? Is it worth the price when all the parties walk away angry? Is MY being right going to change anything that much in the scheme of things? And when I prove myself correct did the knot in my stomach ease any? Did I do more damage than I repaired? Important questions.
Maybe I’m just old and don’t have the energy I once had…..As an old soldier I learned that sometimes one should walk away from some battles in the hopes of winning the war.
You make some really good points Scotty…a lot to think about there.
I guess my premise is kind of faulty…because…why argue at all??
“why argue at all??”
What kind of an American Christian are you? Do you know how much our forefathers suffered so we could argue? Man, Joe C., arguing is part of our makeup, we MUST argue and be good at it.
I’ll prove it, go ahead, say something and I guarantee I will start an argument immediately and sound like I know what I’m talking about. That is New Testament Christianity!!
Oh, giggle.
–I believe a Gehenna sighting trumps any “little rejection” there was!–
And I believe you were merely mocking, Rick. As I told you then, I won’t forget.
–OK… start with your first comment and continue down with the rest of them…–
Funny, iggy, how you say that, but give no examples or proof. Just innuendo without support.
–Your piecemeal comments aren’t even malicious…?–
You’ve got to be kidding, Joe C.
Scotty,
You definitely are onto something.
Thanks for sharing.
Shalom to all.
May the Lord richly bless you today as you press deeper into His heart.
Hey Guys are you familiar with 2 Corinthians 11:22-31?
Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they offspring of Abraham? So am I. 23 Are they servants of Christ? I am a better one—I am talking like a madman—with far greater labors, far more imprisonments, with countless beatings, and often near death. 24 Five times I received at the hands of the Jews the forty lashes less one. 25 Three times I was beaten with rods. Once I was stoned. Three times I was shipwrecked; a night and a day I was adrift at sea; 26 on frequent journeys, in danger from rivers, danger from robbers, danger from my own people, danger from Gentiles, danger in the city, danger in the wilderness, danger at sea, danger from false brothers; 27 in toil and hardship, through many a sleepless night, in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and exposure. 28 And, apart from other things, there is the daily pressure on me of my anxiety for all the churches. 29 Who is weak, and I am not weak? Who is made to fall, and I am not indignant? 30 If I must boast, I will boast of the things that show my weakness. 31
The problem becomes, Ken, when one of three things occur:
1) The target of criticism is represented in such a way that distorts their belief/teaching to a point that they would disagree with the categorization (i.e. a straw man is created)
2) The ‘doctrine’ being ‘defended’ is much narrower than what is allowed by Scripture, often further narrowed via extra-biblical traditions and systems of theology, and then treated as a dividing point between orthodoxy and heresy (or apostasy)
3) A combination of 1 and 2.
Unfortunately, it is that you employ #’s 1-3 in attacking said brothers, not that you simply choose to disagree…
Jazz…
“you’ve got to be kidding me” isn’t a response, it’s a non-answer. You still haven’t proved anything, or answered anyone’s objections to your comments. I think you should just back down and leave it be, there’s no intent to slander and mock here. I feel you’re just trying to say that about the site and contributors because we’re pointing out the wrongdoings of people you seem to have uncritically accepted. As I as well once did. I’m praying you can see the difference between what the ODMs do and what this site tries to do.
Peace
Joe
Clearly,
The important part of what Paul wrote there is found in the first verse (21) and last verse (30). This gives you the context of how he was meaning to come across.
“What anyone else dares to boast about—I am speaking as a fool—I also dare to boast about.”
He’s saying, this is foolish to do (boast), and he’s going to do it anyways to prove a point. Whatever ‘they’ can claim, he can claim too, and then proceeds to list these things. But then in the last verse “If I must boast, I will boast of the things that show my weakness.” He shows that those things don’t matter, he’ll boast in his weakness. Because when we are weak, Jesus is strong in us. When we are humble, God is exalted.
I don’t think what Paul did in Scripture there is in any way in the same vein as when Ken wrote.
Ahh Dave Marriot,
Perhaps, you will make a fine Baptist pastor, way to rip the Scripture out of context to support a bad position.
that is a good set of verses, Dave. However upon closer inspection, I am not sure any of this applies to any of us:
I am not sure that blogging is in the same ballpark or even in the same universe. Just an observation.
Well, I have lost wireless access in my house on a couple occasions. Surely, that counts for something…
But Rick, you’re so wrong.
I mean, blogging is the means by which we can know that these people “stand on bloodied ground”.
Chris L.,
“Unfortunately, it is that you employ #’s 1-3 in attacking said brothers, not that you simply choose to disagree…”
Well, this is where we’ll have to choose to disagree. I don’t agree with your opinions.
“I am not sure that blogging is in the same ballpark or even in the same universe. Just an observation. ”
Yes, and it’s a bad one. No one is saying blogging is in the same ballpark, just as the opening Scripture I use within the piece under WAY too much discussion should have be clear enough for the intent I had in simply fleshing out my bio.
Dave is simply bringing out the principle taught within that passage – accurately despite others to the contrary. No human credentials mean anything in front of God.
–“you’ve got to be kidding me” isn’t a response, it’s a non-answer.–
It’s a statement of incredulousness, along the lines of “How can any person read what was said aboutIngrid, and NOT see how nasty it was??”
–I think you should just back down and leave it be, there’s no intent to slander and mock here.–
No intent to slander and mock here? Well, I’ll not say anything about “intent”, but the reality is some different from that “intent”. The words “polar opposite” come readily to mind.
–I feel you’re just trying to say that about the site and contributors because we’re pointing out the wrongdoings of people you seem to have uncritically accepted.–
Yawn. When all else fails, ascribe a wrong motive to the opposition.
–As I as well once did. I’m praying you can see the difference between what the ODMs do and what this site tries to do.–
I think I see quite clearly, thank you very much.
If you think you see so clearly, then why even bother with us? You’re just wasting your time then, right? You’re never wrong, are you?
–If you think you see so clearly, then why even bother with us? You’re just wasting your time then, right? You’re never wrong, are you?–
Nice attempt at putting words into my mouth (or into my keyboard, as the case may be).
Joe C,
Since you’re in the military I expected more of you than that sarcastic “lib talk”.
Nevermind that I have no idea what your being in the military has to do with it…
***satire***
Apparently all military people are lockstep with conservative/republican talking points/slander. That’s the implication.
PS, we’re sick of it.
PPS, How was I putting words in your mouth? I’ve just never seen you say “hey you know what? I’m wrong about this”…no you just fight tooth and nail. It’s disheartening.
But really, if everything’s so clear, why waste time explaining anything to us? Especially in the way you do it? What’s your goal anyways? To be right? I’m just curious.
Joe
But JOE, if you crash a mack truck through the myth that our servicemen and women fall lockstep behind conservative Republican talking points and slander, you might force people to reconsider their widely held notions of what passes for patriotism in this country, and *insert uncomfortable a-rhythmic laugh here* ttttttthat’s not ch-ch-ch-ch-ch-change we can b-b-b-b-believe in.
“ch-ch-ch-ch-ch-change ”
Turn and face the strange…
– I’ve just never seen you say “hey you know what? I’m wrong about this”…no you just fight tooth and nail.–
I’ll take that as a compliment. Thanks.
I haven’t admitted to be wrong in this discussion because it has not been shown that I am wrong. If it had been, I would have owned up to it.
–It’s disheartening.–
What’s disheartening? That I didn’t cave into a weepy mess when you called me a liar? That I provided proof of the nastiness that the people here engage in, and they blind themselves to it, and try to say I’ve shown nothing? That I don’t think, and have desire to think, as the ones here seem to think I should?
–But really, if everything’s so clear, why waste time explaining anything to us?–
Here are your words from a few posts back.
–I’m praying you can see the difference between what the ODMs do and what this site tries to do–
By saying that, you are saying that YOU are the one who is seeing, and I am blind. I responded to you as you responded to me. For you to suddenly start going on like you are now is uncalled for, and is trying to make me seem I’ve said things that I haven’t said.
Looks to me like a point well taken Jazz…