I really don’t want to bring the whole he said, he said between Ken Silva and Richard Arbanes back to life but I found this thread to be interesting in the comment section. Many were up in arms that RA would threaten to sue a “brother” in KS. Indeed, there is not agreement here amongst the writers on the entire issue. What makes this comment thread interesting is the team politics that is happening. You see, I think this entire thing is more about a “us” verses “them” mentality than anything else. According to Mr. Silva someone else has gone to him privately and asked him to alter a post or that person would have to go to Mr. Silva’s Biblical authorities. What has Mr. Silva done? He has refused to follow the Biblical mandate and simply said, “no.” I’ll deal more with that later. But I want you to read Mr. Chew’s comment. He is saying that the Scriptures don’t apply to KS because RA violated them. Later, he goes on to say that the Bible doesn’t apply to the situation he is talking about b/c he is talking about free speech. The reading is unbelievable. For people who like to rail against the emergents they deem heretical because of gray areas it certainly seems as though they are making a run at a little ambiguity for their own benefit. At the end of the day I am convinced this is about team politics than it is about following God, Jesus or the Bible. It’s about preserving what they are comfortable with and having something and someone to fight against. Below is the quote.
Daniel Chew Says:
August 5, 2008 at 9:14 amCD:
Amen.
Phil Naessens:
Pastor Ken broadcast this mess because the ISP threaten him with the removal of his website unless he removed that “offending” article. So there was real action involved which have implications for the entire issue of free speech as well. If Abanes would just threaten Pastor Ken, or slander him, then yes, he should have turn the other cheek. As for 1 Cor. 6 and Mt. 18, they do not apply since Abanes has already violated them in going after Pastor Ken.
There you have it. What else can be said really?
![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")
147 Comments(+Add)
Interestingly enough, my comments are now being blocked. At least my last one didn’t go through. I wonder why?
I owe the owner of that blog an apology, my comment is now up.
Two Comments:
First, Chew has posted this same line of “reasoning” elsewhere. Clearly, he needs to go back to seminary. Simply put, as is so obvious, two wrongs don’t make a right. Someone is not absolved from following a scripture if they see someone else failing to follow it. Odd. And in response, I offer this new translation of Matthew 18:
“If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you — unless you feel like it is your public duty to expose him to the world because Free Speech is involved. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over, and if he doesn’t, at least you have the entire world behind you breathing down his neck to help out as much as possible. But if he will still not listen, take one or two others along, so that every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses — unless, of course, you have already taken it to as many people as possible, in which case you can just keep rejoicing, for the pressure will be unrelenting. If continues to not listen, tell it to the church. But then again, my brothers, on second thought, worry not about this last step if you’ve already moved it into the first step you’ve decided to take” (Matt. 18:15-17, KSV – Ken Silva Version).
Second, I want to post this very important short observation statement for your comments:
_______________BEGIN
Over the last two weeks, I’ve seen (with no small amount of jitters) the coalescing of a small by HIGHLY volatile sub-group of “Christians” that is very reminiscent of some cults I have dealt with over the years. It’s been very disturbing to watch. And we will see, I believe, a serious hunkering down occur (isolationism), which is the classic reactionary mode of such grooups.
Oddly, the catalyst for this deep division in the church has been Rick Warren, Saddleback, and Purpose Driven — i.e., if you support Warren, then you’re against God, Truth, Scripture, and Jesus (no matter what you say/do); if you’re against Warren, then you stand for God, Truth, Scripture, and Jesus (no matter what you say/do).
All issues — ALL ISSUES — are settled via an analysis that begins and ends with: “Is this person for, or against, Rick Warren.” It has gotten so bad that even a individual’s spiritual maturity and/or their actual salvation is now being judged by whether they do, or do not, see Warren as a heretic/false teacher. Of course, that kind of measuring stick is found NOWHERE in the Bible, which teaches that one’s salvation is dependent on their relationship to, and understanding of, the person and work of Jesus Christ (see John 3:16; Romans 10:9; 1 John 5:11-13).
I have also been noticing how these folks are now consistently making reference to themselves (either directly or indirectly) as the “discerning remnant” — that is the beginning of the isolationist mentality I was mentioning above. Such thinking is only a few steps away from going off and living in some compound ala Waco, TX (David Koresh and the Branch Davidians) — if not literally, then at least figuratively (i.e., by isolating the mind from rational thought and logical analysis of facts). This response in such persons is usually marked by:
1) a deep-seated “us vs. them” mentality,
2) feelings of persecution,
3) paranoia, and
4) a kind of xenophobic response to any/all attempts to have a more tolerant/civil approach to various issues or to “others” who do not feel as they do on every topic.
Not surprisingly, such a percpective is also often linked to an extremist end-time obsession that acts as fertile ground for the planting, watering, and harvesting of all kinds of conspiracy theories related to such things as the Antichrist, the Great Apostasy, and the so-called coing One World Government. An excellent book that discusses such matters is Selling Fear: Conspiracy Theories and End-Times Paranoia.
This is all very disturbing. But God is in control.
____________END
peace in him,
RAbanes
Richard,
Your comments are certainly welcome here. Consider this a friendly reminder though that this post does not have to do with your reasons for why you did what you did. I appreciate you avoiding discussing that here.
As for your comment about how everything seems to start and end with where does the person stand on RW, it is hard to argue with your observation.
Abanes is showing himself to be quite the whiner.
I find it intresting that in the, ahem, “literal” context of Matthew 18, Jesus had yet to die, and be resurrected, Pentecost had yet to happen, therefore there was no church,i.e. us, as we know it.
So in context, what church was Jesus talking to?
Anyway, by your definition, Abanes did fail to meet the “requirements”; and you call us legalists?
This is whole thing is a joke, on your side of it. Especially in light of some of the idiocy that has been attempted behind the scenes since all this blew up. Suck it up! Shut up! Move on!
JM: Consider this a friendly reminder though that this post does not have to do with your reasons for why you did what you did. I appreciate you avoiding discussing that here.
RA: You yea, yeah, yeah. Been there, done that. No need to rehash the whys, wherefores, becauses of yesterday, and the day before, etc. et.c etc. Just tried to keep it with addressing your OP. Good one.
RA
If there was any Biblically dry ground yesterday, I believe it has succombed to the flood of self interest long ago. I cannot see any future productivity coming from the continuation of what has become a sad spectacle on all sides.
Revenge or self justification, maybe.
Chris P,
Thanks for stopping by to whine about RA’s whining…
remember:
youbecomewhatyouhate.
Chris P. perhaps you have missed the 29 articles in the last week on CRN about Richard Abanes. Or maybe you missed the 16 articles the last week on AM about Richard Abanes. Or maybe you missed the 7 posts on Extreme Theology about Richard Abanes (albeit indirectly). Whining is abounding on all sides I guess.
Quite frankly I’m tired of hearing about it. But as Joe aptly pointed out it’s about team politics. Your comment only goes to further confirm that.
I realized a long time ago that you’re only interested in lobbing a grenade into a conversation. Your not serious about dialog or discussion. Rather you’re interested in stirring up discord. And the bible has a lot to say about a quarrelsome person.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz ZzzzzzZzzzzzzzzzzzzz ZZzzzzzzzzzzzz Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz ZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
RAbanes
Hello,
What I find highly disturbing is the double standard….it was a violation of Scripture for Mr. Abanes to go to an ISP rather then going to his brother but it is not a violation for Mr. Silva to hopscotch the first two requirements and take this directly to the world….which is what I was trying to point out….
This is a sad commentary on what happens when we fail to adhere to God’s Word and place our allegience to man over our allegience to God…
Phi
Aren’t we all teams players in one way or another? We all hang with our own amen groups, do we not?
Why would we expect anything less from those we agree with!
Mean to say disagree with….
I’ve never seen anyone here kick scripture to the curb for the sake of the team. I’ve seen disagreement on interpretation but that is different.
Good point, Scotty. We must strive to be impartial and loyal to Christ. We tend to forbear the sins of our own team and pounce on the sins of a team we do not appreciate.
Joe,
Would you mind terribly to clarify the group and/or individuals to whom you were referring when you made the following statements:
Indeed, there is not agreement here amongst the writers on the entire issue. What makes this comment thread interesting is the team politics that is happening.
And again:
At the end of the day I am convinced this is about team politics than it is about following God, Jesus or the Bible.
I’d like to understand what “team” and what “writers” are you referring to.
In Him,
CD
CD,
While I’m not Joe, I can tell you that I, for one, at least have been rather critical of RA’s actions in the matter with Silva, basically declaring ‘a pox on both your houses’ in the matter. I’ve also been rather pointed in asking both parties to utilize means other than our comment threads in their disagreement.
IMO, RA shouldn’t have gone to the ISP w/o approaching Ken first, and he shouldn’t have threatened legal action if he believed Ken was a Christian. Ken, on the other hand, played the complete drama queen, and if IPower is to be believed (and there’s no reason not to, since they’ve no history of dishonesty, unlike their customer in this matter), then they didn’t delete Ken’s site, but rather he pulled it down on his own volition.
I would suggest that the “team” Joe is primarily referring to is the one of the ODM/ADM’s (Online “Discernment” Ministries/Armchair “Discernment” Ministries, whichever term you like), which circles its wagons and defends its own, particularly in things it would be whining and crying about if the shoe was on the other foot…
I’ll let him clarify, though, as that is just what I took it to mean…
Thanks Chris L.
I agree with your final assessment and think it best for Joe to answer for Joe.
In Christ,
CD
I’m rather tired of this whole issue . . . but would really like to know what Biblical mandate you’re talking about that requires one to alter a post at another’s request?
The Biblical mandate is to go to a brother when you are sinned against, and then if that doesn’t work, go with a brother. In this case, I have attempted to have a brother do a three way call, which has been rebuffed. Repeatedly, I have asked for contact information to his board of directors at Apprising and been rebuffed. So tell me Amy, have I followed the Biblical mandate believing that Ken has sinned against me by assigning a Theological worldview that is not mine–which others have read to my detriment?
I think the Biblical mandate may involve repairing the damage done to another as an outward expression of sincere repentance.
I’m a bit tired of this myself; there needs to be some real healing and reconciliation in this matter.
There does, but I am doubtful that it’s really all that possible in every case. When you have a group of people convinced their entire theology is above reproach and they are entrenched in a “truth war” how can there truly be reconciliation? Short of a miraculous move of God, I don’t see it.
My experience has shown me that at some point you just let them go off and their little remnant movement will die off on its own. It’s not like there haven’t been plenty of little groups throughout history that thought they alone possessed the entire truth.
True. One day ODM’s will share a page in the history books with the Essenes.
Jesus said let the wheat and the tares grow alongside each other. There may not be real reconciliation possible in this life but we’d do well to learn to love the unlovable. That would include those who would nail us to a cross or speak evil of us (or doing the latter while doing the former).
Sad to see that the whining and misinformations concerning non-issues continues from some writers of this site.
Well Ken,
You can always clear that up for me. I am at a loss as to what to do next. I have contacted yo0u privately, you are the one who went public. Not me. Please clear up the facts for me.
I have asked repeatedly for contact information from you for your board and that has been rebuffed. Do you deny either of these facts?
Ken,according to the SBC your church is no longer part of the SBC. You’re not listed on their website. That means your church needs to have its own 503. Just so you know ill be contacting the IRS tommorrow demanding an investigation. I have a letter where you were asking for money and made claims I now believe to be false. That’s wire fraud.
Blessings
(comment #21)
Joe,
If things were as simple as you state in the earlier part of comment #21, then yes, you may have acted Biblically. But even though I haven’t followed this situation closely I’ve seen enough to wonder if things are as you’ve presented them.
You said, in the first part of #21,
According to my memory you threatened Ken with your lawyers if he didn’t remove (or apologize for?)what he said. If that is the case I don’t see how you contend that you went to your brother in a Biblical manner.
Also, hard to understand why you’re concerned about Biblical mandates when, according to my memory (which may be faulty) you seemed to be just fine with RA not following the Biblical mandate as you have described above.
You thought that I had a BIG problem insisting that RA explain his over-generalizing potentially slanderous statement regarding Ken’s fans. I wouldn’t have thought of stepping in and mocking you for asking for an explanation regarding Ken’s use of the word “Christian agnostic” to describe you, if there had been occasion to do so. I’m having difficulty seeing your objectivity.
Please correct me if I am wrong regarding the above information and accept my apologies if I have unintentionally remembered things incorrectly.
Just wondering, is your problem with having the theological term “Christian agnostic” applied to you a problem with your understanding of what he meant first off, or with his later explanation of what he meant, or both? Just a question . . .
Amy,
I didn’t threaten a lawsuit. I have even said, “Ken, I’m not looking to sue you, I want to settle this amicably.”
Amy, you are wrong and I forgive you. I did go to him privately and asked if we could talk about it, that was shot down. Again, it comes back to Ken, being right. I wonder if his board suggested he talk to me and he said “no” because he didn’t want to appear to be weak would you still defend him? I’ve asked Ken to dispute the facts and he hasn’t.
The man has divorced himself from all accountability. Period.
By the way Amy, what is a “Christian Agnostic”? Does Ken get to make terms up to get his hits up?
Amy,
Where did Joe mock you? Call pastors from Ken’s town and ask if any of them think the man is even qualified to be a pastor. Talk to people who have really met him. People like Paula of purpose drivel talk about how bad their pastor was, talk to some of the people who have left Ken’s church. The SBC is planting a new church in the area because ken’s church is “non functioning”
This man has serious issues and needs help.
I know for a fact, his board is a group of people who are very loosely connected and who in this case at least some of them agree with Joe.
I’ve been to the area where he lives, I know his reputation. Call his former area director, the information is out there.
ai-yi-yi-yiiiiii….
round and round….
ick.
Brian,
Your threat is crazy. Don’t you have something better to do. Just wondering, do you consider yourself a Christian?
Brian,
“Ken,according to the SBC your church is no longer part of the SBC. You’re not listed on their website.”
From the SBC website:
http://www.sbc.net/churchsearch/church.asp?ID=5866%2D03743
I don’t think the IRS has time to listen to fools.
BTW it’s 5013C
D Harris
How do you know anything?
You “brothers” had better tread carefully.
Stalking is a crime even on the internet.
You have taken this from the ridculous to the Daliesque.
Chris P.
According to the association website. Yes, I am a Christian. I am not threatening anyone just making a promise.
Ken is a fraud and I am in a place of life where I can make it my life’s mission to expose him. He fancies himself a reporter. I’m confident he’ll understand its not personal.
What Brian has said about Ken being fraudulent constitutes real slander here and his threat to contact the IRS and report Silva has been publicly made. He may not realize that those who falsely and maliciously report someone for wire fraud are themselves at risk legally, and websites that allow this kind of character assassination are also at risk. Brian has completely left the realm of speech that’s protected by the 1st Amendment here, let alone Christ’s teachings, and a number of others are borderline on this site on an ongoing basis when it comes to character assassination of Ken. This is not the conduct of fellow Christians, period. Those who viciously slander Ken and then hide behind the “you can’t sue me, we’re Christians” label need to be exposed for what they are—liars in need of a reality check. You can’t act like the devil and hang onto the “brother in Christ” label. What’s been said here has been duly noted, and I would add that if anything is done to harm Apprising Ministries by Brian or anyone else, I personally pledge to do all I can to help Ken and his ministry get the kind of counsel that will put an end to this. This kind of speech and behavior has nothing remotely to do with Christian opinion on someone’s views. It is pure malice with intent to harm someone’s reputation. When the church fails to judge things righteously, the world has to do it. Enough is enough.
Joe,
I pray you are well. I would like to share a passage from our Lord’s Sermon on the Mount.
“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God. “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. “Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you. (Matthew 5:9-12 ESV)
If a Christian is doing God’s will and is denigrated by people falsely then that Christian is not to seek revenge or to get back at them. He or she is to rejoice. Therefore, ask yourself is all this talk about lawsuits and other secular means is what Christians should be doing. I pray that all of us will seek the higher ground here.
In Christ
Mike Ratliff
Ingrid
The law allows me to report anyone if its in good faith. Based on my investigative work I believe in good faith that ken is engaged in illlegal activity. Now you can pledge all you want, I relish the opportunity to bring all of this into the light.
If Joe is lying let’s look at that, if Ken is lying let’s look at that.
So tell me how is Joe lying? Ill be happy to show where ken has miss-represented issues. Let’s do this ingrid, if ken is innocent, you have nothing to fear.
I will say I find your complaint here to be funny based on how you’ve built your ministry.
BTW, I’ve already contacted the IRS. My legal counsel has assured me I’m on solid ground.
~
Hi Mike,
I have noticed that any and all comments I make at your blog are never posted, just deleted.
It is nice for you to have a site like this that allows you to post your opinion even when it is disagreeable, huh?
That sounds a lot like “taking the higher ground” to me.
peace,
Chad
BTW, it’s 501(c)(3) if you’re talking about non-profit, tax-exempts.
Ingrid,
The only factually based statement in Brian’s comment was the assertion that Ken’s church is no longer a part of the SBC, which he concluded based on the listing of the SBC of its member churches, which Ken’s church does not appear on.
How is this slander? At worst it is a conclusion that is wrongly jumped to due to an oversight by the SBC’s webmaster.
Since you clearly have access to manpower that most people don’t perhaps you would be kind enough to employ some of that manpower in clearing up the confusion by having someone call the SBC and inquire whether or not Ken’s church is SBC affiliated. If it is, I’m sure that Brian will be happy to retract his statement and issue an apology, and if it is not I’m sure you’d be more than willing to do the same.
So we can safely assess that Brian is not a Christian; or a Christian that has been led astray by Richard Abanes and others who believe they can go to law against a brother in Christ, who refuse to obey the scriptures as written in Matthew 18 and 1 Corinthians 6.
Here is your warning Brian; after this I will not eat with you.
This team politics is so sick. I just got done with a week in NYC sharing my faith on a team with brothers from all different church backgrounds, different races, cultures, genders- yet we were united. Why can’t this site and its people all get on Jesus’ team according to what the Lord Jesus Christ taught us? Why can’t we unite to bring the world to Christ? All this site does is divide and conquer. Why can’t we agree?
God the Father
God the Son
God the Holy Spirit
He was, He is, and He is to come
We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.
Ingrid,
And if Ken is a fraud?
Not saying he is…
But… if… You might have some explaining to do about backing him….
Just a thought… and again I did not say Ken was a fraud.
iggy
Why are you directing this towards Joe? Joe deliberately wrote Ken that he wasn’t seeking a litigation based solution, but rather an ecclesiastical one. Perhaps you meant to direct this towards someone else who is known for deploying lawyers against those with messages she disapproves of.
Pastorboy,
I suggest you return to your many master’s level studies of the scriptures. 1 Corinthians 6 does not apply here as Brian is not seeking legal recourse between himself and Ken, but rather is seeking to see Christians obey the law. Romans 13 applies here far more directly than 1 Corinthians 6, and if you weren’t playing team politics yourself you’d be approaching Ken to make things right and obey the governing authorities.
The Roman Catholic church attempts to justify their actions in hiding priests from prosecution using this same argument, it was wrong when they did it, and its just as wrong in this case.
Pastorboy-
It is because of silly comments like this:
That your plea for this…
cannot happen. As long as you continue to make the litmus test for unity a mental assent to a list of propositions that you deem as the line in the sand than you will not have unity.
By the way, I want nothing more than what your plea calls for, as do most on this site. Are you willing to join me and others in joining hands with Catholics and anyone else who desires to bring healing to the world that belong to Jesus our Lord?
peace,
Chad
The most interesting thing is how the those who attacked others so viciously are so offended and resort to calling for peace when they are in the hot seat…
They gave no mercy and now beg for mercy.
They gave no grace and yet beg for grace.
They beg for peace, yet only declared war…
So how is this “truth war” going… ?
“I never knew you…” Matthew 7:23
Peace,
iggy
Matthew 18: 23″Therefore, the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. 24As he began the settlement, a man who owed him ten thousand talents[g] was brought to him. 25Since he was not able to pay, the master ordered that he and his wife and his children and all that he had be sold to repay the debt.
26″The servant fell on his knees before him. ‘Be patient with me,’ he begged, ‘and I will pay back everything.’ 27The servant’s master took pity on him, canceled the debt and let him go.
28″But when that servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii.[h] He grabbed him and began to choke him. ‘Pay back what you owe me!’ he demanded.
29″His fellow servant fell to his knees and begged him, ‘Be patient with me, and I will pay you back.’
30″But he refused. Instead, he went off and had the man thrown into prison until he could pay the debt. 31When the other servants saw what had happened, they were greatly distressed and went and told their master everything that had happened.
32″Then the master called the servant in. ‘You wicked servant,’ he said, ‘I canceled all that debt of yours because you begged me to. 33Shouldn’t you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on you?’ 34In anger his master turned him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed.
35″This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother from your heart.”
Hi Chad,
The reason you comments are deleted is that you never seem to comment according to the rules. More specifically, you do not respond to the theme of the post. You want to your comments to be posted then do that.
In Christ
Mike Ratliff
Ingrid,
All due respect ma’am, but Brian doesn’t represent the writers of this site, or the people who post here. You know we can’t be held responsible for his words in an open comment forum, so why bother with that threat? In fact, since we’re so keen on free speech, the writers here allow comments like that through in the intrest of not censoring the conversation so that no one can cry “free speech!!!”. Anyways, I just thought I’d clear the air there.
We don’t ‘viciously’ slander Ken Silva. If this website is vicious slander (and comments of random people not associated w/ the writers don’t count, not that Brian’s comment was slander anyways), what is yours Ingrid? Please, show some honesty here. You are not above reproach, ma’am.
Joe
Rule #1- do not question me.
Rule #2 – do not question those who “amen” me.
Rule #3 – do not question my sources or lack thereof.
Rule #4 – see rule #1.
You are right Mike. I probably did not follow your “rules.”
peace,
Chad
This very nicely sums up my opinion on the vast majority of stuff posted on ODM sites.
Chad,
This is what I’m talking about. You make up your own rules. Sorry, but your comments violate the rules I have posted on my blog which means that if you want to question me or anyone else on my blog then prove your supposition by scripture. Period.
In Christ
Mike Ratliff
Technically, it’s “501(c)3″ – and a church doesn’t need one to be tax exempt or listed as a charitable deduction.
Neil
Yeah Phil, I’m not sure how that comment could be written with a straight face?? Don’t they see that they do that very thing, joyfully even? I’d like to see them defend their actions…?
Chad,
Well put… that seems to be the rules in Mike’s world…
iggy
Chad
The word catholic means universal.
It does not mean the Roman Catholic Church.
It is those who repent of their sins and trust the Savior.
Your comments show why your team is the divisive team. We will welcome you over to the light with open arms.
Neil,
What “technically” constitutes a “church”?
I mean there should be people in it right?
When I was church planting I did not file a 502(c)3 as I did not see that 6 or 8 people made it necasarry. Also I had no one donate money…
iggy
John…
Over to the light? Now you’ve gone too far. His comments show nothing of the sort. You talking out of one side of your mouth calling for unity, while judging another brother in to hell with the other side shows why your comments have served only to divide. But hey, you can see things however you like. This is ridiculous.
pssst, Mike, where is our proof? Oh, yeah, you deleted my comments. Guess you get to say anything you want then. Again, isn’t it nice of CRN.info to allow your comments to go uncensored even when you do the things here that you don’t allow on your own blog?
peace,
Chad
oops..the “our” above should be a “your”
That says it all, PB.
Well at least you’re acknowledging the fact that you see it as a matter of different teams. I’d like to think that disagreements don’t come down to a matter of team loyalty, but sadly it looks like they do. The issue is that once we start thinking in terms of the good of the team, we become willing to put the team in front of the truth.
So there’s one standard for those on your team, and another for everyone else. This is why I hate the term “truth war” so much. Once you start defining sides in a war, it seems that the desire to defeat the other side take precedent of loving them.
Huh?
Looks like Chris P and Todd Friel have some more competition in the race to replace the incompetent Holy Spirit.
Good luck, PB. I never knew you had aspirations beyond lobbing inflammatory bombs at fellow Christians and being a sycophantic lapdog for ministries of fear and anger.
I don’t blame you though. When you think about it a spot on the Trinity is really the brass ring.
And just think, if you get the position your impulse to self-glorification of your own right-ness is just part of you preserving your sovereign glory.
Kind of like the peace of Westphalia. All the “religious folk” running around fighting each other and setting themselves up as their own authority that answers to no one so much that the secular world had to put an end to it.
Let’s just hope it doesn’t take 30 years.
PB – To my knowledge, there is only one “team” – the church. When you subdivide yourselves and cast other Christians as anything less than such, you’re creating a “team” that has nothing to do with Christ.
BtW – I don’t know who Brian is, and his email address is not a valid one. We don’t prohibit anyone from posting here, thought we do prefer that they identify themselves properly.
Well, this raises all sorts of theologal and legal questions – but I suppose that’s not what you meant… I only meant to point out that, according to the IRS, a church does not need to file as a 501(c)3 to be considered as a charitable organization that can be claimed as a tax deduction by the donors.
That was my only point.
Neil
D. Harris,
I’m not trying to defend Ken Silva on this. I really don’t understand the whole situation.
My question to Joe was trying to understand what he meant by “Biblical mandate.” He then asked me questions which basically were asking if I could support him in what he did. I was trying to clarify just what he did do and what the real situation is.
As far as Joe “mocking” me I was referring to his saying that I needed help and I believe a couple of other comments when I was trying to hold RA to accountability for his comments which talked about ALL of Ken’s fans comments falling in various categories such as obscene, profane, etc. I believe that EVERYONE should be held accountable for what they say. It’s difficult for me to see someone like Joe so desirous of having Ken held accountable when he didn’t seem interested in holding RA accountable. I would have seen RA’s comments about “Ken’s fans” as potentially slanderous if the same type of comments had been made by someone about, for example, “Rick Warren’s fans.”
Joe,
I don’t think I ever read that you wanted to sue Ken. That’s not what I said. I do believe you talked about bringing your lawyers in, correct?
As far as the “Christian agnostic” term, I think that using labels, even ones that are supposedly well-defined, can be hurtful, and lead to division. To create a new one serves little purpose except to antagonize.
I also believe that what you said in your article (which initiated Ken’s response) about having a problem with people talking about believing something “because the Bible says it” could be hurtful, is misrepresentative of a certain group of people, and can lead to division. There are so many times when that is exactly what needs to be said.
Since you are concerned about being misrepresented, may I take this opportunity to say that you misrepresent many folks by labeling? “Fundamentalism” is changing. I rarely see you talk about the kind of people I know who don’t hesitate to call themselves fundamentalists, yet who are not uneducated (often the opposite), not KJV only, and though they believe in separation from wrong teaching are careful how they go about treating other Christians with whom they disagree. People who give their lives to ministries of evangelism AND discipleship. Compassionate folks. What purpose does it serve for you to use the the label “fightin’ fundies?”
Amy,
I personally have had some interactions with self-described fundamentalists that reflect what you are saying…
however, there ARE angry, fightin’ fundies out there…there are some angry, fightin’ hard right evangelicals too…
They’ve hurt our witness to the world…they deserve critique.
Joe,
My mind is full of so many peoples’ issues this summer. People in “real life” – it’s difficult to attempt to add to that with people I don’t really know. But I believe there’s something else I need to get straight from you:
Didn’t you call Mike Raitcliff a false prophet on his blog or somewhere else? Is that a correct memory? If so, did you simply mean “false prophet” as in one who lies about God’s truth, who does not belong to God? Or something else?
If you did call him that, I take it you really meant it. It’s a serious accusation. Maybe it’s more important to clear that up – exactly what you meant by it – than to deal with what Ken has called you.
Amy,
Please see my post titled Farewell…
If you have further questions for me about why I believe Mike Ratliffe is a person who grossly miss-represents God, feel free to email me.
And while we are “discerning” one another not even one lost person has come to the knowledge of Christ and neither has even one hungry person been fed by our “discernment”. This is ridiculous!
We are called to unity so that the world will see the love of Christ manifest through us. But instead of humbling ourselves by serving one another we divide ourselves in teams in this “truth war”. Where has Christ commanded us to fight a “truth war”? The way of Christ that He asks us to follow is the way of the cross, of laying our lives down. That means we should not have a reputation to protect. I sincerely hope no unbeliever reads these “truth wars” of ours.
P.S. By “we” I include myself for I have participated in this as well.
BTW,
If Ken is violating the law (Not saying he is…) someone reporting him is the Biblical thing to do.
There are people of all stripes who deserve critique. That doesn’t absolve anyone (including myself) from being careful about lumping individual people together, placing them in a garbage bag with a label (fundamentalist, emergent, emerging, mega-church, small church, PCUSA, AOG, charismatic, Baptist) and presenting them to the world as RUBBISH to sort through.
On the other hand, people, ideas, movements need to be looked at in the light of God’s Word. Criticism is necessary.
Bottom line, I guess it’s always important to remember that there are individuals who “wear” labels, who in reality wear other more important labels, such as:
1) For this man, woman, child, Christ died.
2)A struggling brother. Help. If appropriate, help by “church discipline.”
3) A false prophet. Stay away.
Identifying and agreeing about #3 perhaps causes the most strife.
Being personally “labeled” by others with something that we know doesn’t “fit” should help us become more sensitive to being careful how we see others and especially how we talk about “them” publically.
Eugene,
The sad thing is that the “other side” of the Truth War that “needs to be defeated” doesn’t cast it that way, or even believe there is/should be a Truth War.
This “truth war” is a fiction perpetuated by people who need something/someone to fight/hate, etc.
amy,
Are you the regular amy that posts here? For some reason you seem different.
iggy
Amy…
hmmm….then why do you seem to be sooooo bothered by what you perceive here and nary a word about the people this site responds to?
I mean, you wouldn’t have an issue with the occasional excesses of human nature found here if it weren’t for the consistent nature of excess posing as “ministry” elsewhere?
Seriously.
I’m asking in seriousness.
It seems that you always try to soften critique of substance there by highlighting a critique of occasional form here.
Iggy,
It is Saint Amy for you.
Eugene.
I was confused as it did not seem the regular cross examiniation style that she normally uses.
iggy
Is what’s happened with RA/Ken Silva that’s now grown into Joe/Ken Silva a battle that needs to keep going? Does someone need to just lay down their sword and say enough is enough. Is it even possible at this point?
Can a person in good conscience ask another person to remove the labels he’s been called when that person thinks his own labels are justified?
What principle is being implied when “lawyers” are brought into the equation, no matter on what level? How is this “going alone to your brother?”
Eugene, maybe there needs to exercise “discernment” about “discernment.” I can’t separate Biblical discernment from reaching lost people and feeding the hungry.For example-
1)Just a brief glimpse: there are people in a village that I have lived near for years who have horrible family lives, many problems with alcohol, demonic possession or oppresion, poverty, hunger. They have a church. They are part of a religion that sometimes has Christians in it.
But they aren’t taught to know and follow Jesus according to His Word. They believe that their salvation can be prayed for after death, so how they live this present life doesn’t matter.
This type of church could be criticized for its wrong doctrine. But some would cry “let’s stop the criticism and simply work together.”
2) Children are neglected – emotionally and physically – because parents haven’t learned from scripture or their own parents that following Christ means taking care of their children’s needs. They don’t follow the scripture that says, “Those who don’t work shouldn’t eat.” It takes immense discernment to see that “handouts” from churches and governments are NOT the answer. (This is an area where people CAN feed themselves, though it’s difficult – not an area wiped out by drought, etc.)
3) What sounds like an evil spirit straight out of the NT is active in a church service, leading the church through a young man – who I’ve been told is filled with the “Holy” Spirit. What is this doing to people’s souls?
4) Discernment issues over what to do about apparent demonic oppression are dividing Christians who need to be united to be doing the incredibly important work God’s called them to do – which is ultimately a work of reaching the lost and discipleship.
5) Promiscuity abounds. Christians haven’t been able to discern what sexual purity is for many reasons. Including not having scripture to tell them. And some of them are Christian in name only, but they don’t know it. They in reality have no Holy Spirit to help them avoid temptation.
Some Christians’ answer to sexual promiscuity is to pass out condoms. Others want to present Biblical teaching and mentoring. Discernment is needed to know what to do in this situation.
NC,
First of all I don’t say “nary a word.”
Secondly, I can’t answer your question in full, because it’s too complicated. Part of the answer is that if this were a place where “ODM’s” weren’t sliced, diced, and even pureed at times you would hear a lot more from me about “the other side.”
Another part of the answer is that I do believe that the Bible teaches that there is a “truth war.” I don’t believe that anyone has a full grasp on it – but Scripture is clear that Satan is an angel of light and that false prophets will deceive many.
I have answered your type of question several times and you might find a fuller answer elsewhere.
So…you feel the need to “soften” the critique because you perceive it to be “too hard”?
Then why not just say nothing?
Since I think you’re smart enough to know that your comments really serve to subvert vigorous critiques that it seems you might even agree with…
What’s the point?
Just cuz you don’t like the aesthetics isn’t a reason to divert from the seriousness of the substance.
Something to think about…
Proverbs 20:3 – Keeping away from strife is an honor for a man, But any fool will quarrel.
Just say’n.
Proverbs 26:17 – Like one who takes a dog by the ears is he who passes by and meddles with strife not belonging to him.
Amy,
Sound like you are in Mexico or South America?
Amy, I agree. My issue with the ODMs are that I see very little real Biblical discernment and a lot of attacking of other believers.
But that aside, I think we should strive for unity in the public arena and what has happened over the last several weeks is a blot on Christianity and I do not see any of those involved showing any humility or wanting to move toward reconciliation and that is really sad. I have a feeling that you feel the same about this. Will you join me in prayer that these brothers that feel hurt by each others action will move towards forgiveness and reconciliation? Will you help by reminding all those involved of the grace that God shown us and that we should extend that grace towards each other?
I will join you in this.
Sorry, nc, if I’ve caused you to misunderstand, but I don’t usually agree with the substance, not just the “aesthetics” of the “vigorous critiques.”
John,
No, but I am easily able to believe the stories of what I’ve read about those places (Mexico, South America) because I see the same types of things where I have been. One of my friends once held a very simple weekly Bible study on the book of Luke for these people and their interest in the Word of God was amazing.
It was as if they had never heard Scripture before.
Ah,
That makes more sense.
Thanks for clarifying, Amy.
Eugene,
A Christian of character can only lay down what they see as truth – lay it down, not give it up – for the sake of forgiveness and reconciliation if God personally leads them to do that.
I believe God wants us to pray according to His Will. I don’t know what God’s will is in this situation. God speaks of forgiveness and unity but He also speaks of division caused because some people won’t acknowledge truth.
There have been some things I’ve seen that I feel like I can say definitely “that’s unscriptural” in these situations (NOT going to a brother first; going to a brother but WITH the threat of “law.” ) Does forgiveness and reconciliation change the biblicalness and the results of such actions if they aren’t acknowledged as wrong?
There are other things that I would need hours to feel like I even began to understand what all was involved. (Even with the RA/Ken Silva issue, the issues under what happened went way back.) So yes, I will pray if God leads me and how he leads me, but I won’t make a commitment to pray in a way that I’m not convinced is what God wants.
“Grace” is more than just overlooking another person’s faults: Titus 2:11-15 For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men. It teaches us to say “No” to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age, while we wait for the blessed hope . . . (NIV)
“I believe God wants us to pray according to His Will. I don’t know what God’s will is in this situation.”
Lord, make me like Jesus.
Chris L Says:
August 12th, 2008 at 10:21 am
PB – To my knowledge, there is only one “team” – the church. When you subdivide yourselves and cast other Christians as anything less than such, you’re creating a “team” that has nothing to do with Christ.
Maybe I’m not clearly understanding the depth and breadth of the subject at hand, Chris L, and even though I understand that you’re not the author of the original piece you did offer an earlier reply and therefore I’m hopeful that perhaps you can help me since you seem to be somewhat of an unofficial spokesman for this blog.
Now, given your statement above I’m pleased to take you at your word. You say that subdividing the church and casting other Christians as “less than” is to create a separate and sub-Biblical “team” that has nothing to do with (and hence we can infer is apart from or outside) Christ.
Given that this is your statement is it then correct to conclude that CRN.Info, by its very design, “responds to” a segment of the church (ODM’s) that belongs to “another team” which is separate and apart from “your team” – or do you consider the ODM’s, Ken Silva, Ingrid Schlueter, et al to be a part of “your team”, i.e. other Christians within the “one team” that is the church?
Conversely it’s also probably sufficient for you to say, “Well, they created their own team and seceded from the ‘one team’ that is the church and we only expose it.” since if this is the case then we still arrive at the same conclusion that we have “one team” which is the church and a sub-Biblical team that is apart from or outside (i.e. has nothing to do with) Christ.
Is this your personal assessment of the subject at hand?
In Christ,
CD
I think all he’s saying is we’re on the same team, even if we don’t act like it. So we should start acting like it. I think it’s pretty simple to see that we all make our own teams, but we need to move away from that mentality and towards unity through the power of Christ’s death and ressurection.
Joe
Thanks Joe C, I do appreciate your comment but I also very much look forward to seeing Chris L’s own personal view being articulated.
With respect to your gracious reply Joe C, who in particular do you personally believe is on the “one team” (i.e. the church) and who, if anyone, do you think is on “another team”.
For example, are all who profess a form of saving faith/belief in Jesus Christ to be considered on the “one team” which is the church – including Mormons and JW’s?
And by extension are all those who deny a saving faith/belief in Jesus Christ outside the church or on “another team” such as Muslims and Buddhists? Or perhaps could Muslims qualify as being on the “one team” because they believe that Jesus Christ actually walked the earth and was a prophet although deny His deity?
What I’m asking is in your view of scripture who is on the “one team” that is the church, who is not, and why?
Perhaps as we wait for Chris L’s reply you can help shed some light on this subject for me.
In Christ,
CD
CD,
I think the key phrase in my comment is: cast other Christians as anything less than such
So, while I understand there will be disagreement between brothers (just look at Paul and Barnabas’ disagreement over John Mark!), when you place loyalty to those who agree with you (your ‘team’) over honest discernment AND you cast brothers who disagree with you as unbelievers (justifying your actions), you are acting an an un-Christlike manner.
Now, to get to what (I believe) is the heart of your question:
I would consider the people who write for Online/Armchair Discernment Ministries to be brothers, and therefore part of the “one team”, and it grieves me when they act like the zealots of Jesus’ day – mistaking friend and enemy, cutting off parts of the church in their zeal…
CD,
I can’t speak for everyone, but I have been using the word ‘team’ to describe the Church of believers around the world. Now I believe that only “The Lord knows who are His”, so I can’t really quantify with total sureness who is Christian and who isn’t, so there’s a requirement of a certain amount of Grace on our part. That’s why things like church discipline have been given to us. If someone is causing such a problem, or spreading known lies about the Lord, well then we don’t necessarily have to have them in our local body. I still have to love them, share the Truth with them, and treat them with mercy and respect.
What I believe about the Church, or “team” of believers is pretty simple, from Scripture:
Humility, gentleness, patient, bear with each other, strive to keep the unity of the Spirit (given to all believers) through PEACE and not ‘truth wars’ or infighting with each other. Because despite our disagreements, it’s still Jesus Christ crucified for our sins, still the Gospel of Grace and faith in the Person of Jesus, a baptism in the Spirit, and the same Creator who created us that unites us as Christians together.
I believe the teachings of the Mormon church and JW church fall outside of this unity in Christ, because they believe in a different Jesus based on extra Biblical stories they’ve created, among other things like salvation based not on the work of Christ but the work of Self.
So above all, I consider the ODMs brothers and sisters because despite our very staunch disagreements about how to carry ourselves and go about our Christian walk, we still believe in the same Christ, the Only Christ, the Only Way, through His finished work and His ressurection. At least, I pray we all do. But the Lord knows who are His. I hope you can see what I’m saying. Peace brother.
Joe
Thank you for your frank, open, and honest replies Joe C & Chris L.
Based upon your replies and the objective, clear, and eminently forthright proclamations of scripture I’m able to arrive at no other Biblical conclusion than to believe that you must love Ken Silva and Ingrid Schlueter (along with the other ODM’s/ADM’s) as your fellow laborers in Christ.
Such love, according to scripture, is to manifest itself in such a manner as to act as evidence to the unbelieving world that they will know that we are united in Christ (John 13:34-35) and such love shall also act as evidence of the reality of our faith in Him (1 John 4:12).
I close with a sincere question that is not an indictment — Is such Christ-like love as described above consistently reflected by CRN.Info contributors in their articles and is such Christian charity consistently honored and upheld within the related comment threads toward your beloved brothers and sisters in the Lord which include the ODM’s/ADM’s among whom Ken Silva and Ingrid Schlueter are named?
Clearly you’ve articulated that you accept the reality of disagreements on points of view and we can all see Biblical evidence for doctrinal/scriptural disagreements among the early church (Paul vs. Barnabus; Paul vs. Peter) so, to quote a famous hamburger campaign, “Where’s the beef?”
Based strictly upon the content of your replies I personally struggle to understand why CRN.Info even exists.
Please understand that I’m not delusional and I have no expectations of showing up here out of the blue and becoming “God’s mighty peacemaker” or that perhaps this weekend Team CRN.Info will have a nice BBQ over at Ken’s place with Team CRN in attendance as Ingrid thrills both groups with a soft yet lilting hymnody…
But again, with your position being articulated as is, where’s the peace?
Where’s the love?
Where’s the “turning the other cheek”?
Where’s the 1 Cor. 6:7 on the part of CRN.Info?
So what if it is “one sided”? Who cares? Based on your professed worldview (as I understand it expressed here) what difference does it make if the ODM’s and ADM’s and Ken and Ingrid are, like Don Quixote, tilting at windmills all day long? If this is truly how you feel – that they’re beset by fevered high-noon fantasies about non-existent “truth wars”, etc. – then how is CRN.Info’s “coverage” of their silly antics useful in any way for the advancement of Christ’s kingdom? Is it really worthwhile to profess a humble uncertainty, inexactness, or lack of precision about what’s “right”, but to be really, really sure about what’s wrong? Isn’t that exactly the accusation being leveled against the ODM’s/ADM’s here?
I guess most of my questions would be answered if the reply were simply to the effect of, “We at CRN.Info don’t agree with their team (i.e. ODM’s/ADM’s) and we are in fact convinced that they are wrong therefore our team is against their team.” Such a response would make this entire discussion sensible to me, but unless I’m grossly misunderstanding the conversation at hand that’s not what’s being said at all.
In Him,
CD
CD, please let me speak to what you wrote for a moment. I write here. Every piece I have written could be characterized as loving. Do some of us write things that are in essence unloving? Yup. Just like most of us fail at times to treat others in a loving way. Every other day (she might say every day) my wife forgives me for some way in which I was unChristian towards her. Scripture tells us to be patient with everyone. I say this to point out that what you are referring to is not the whole picture.
In fact a number of the authors and contributors will give you first hand account (actually if you peruse the blog enough, you’ll find they have already been given numerous times) of the damage to ministries caused by online attacks in the name of truth.
But the real issue you want addressed is loving one another to show the world Christ. I think this blog shows that in it’s authors. We do disagree at times, but we function together as a part of the body of Christ by loving eachother despite our disagreements. We seek this among ODMs. We do not seek to make them become like us, but to encourage and sometimes reprove and correct towards loving one another as Christ has loved us, despite and even in our disagreements.
I encourage you to read the Mission, Challenge, What Makes Us Different pages in the upper lefthand corner.
“what difference does it make if the ODM’s and ADM’s and Ken and Ingrid are, like Don Quixote, tilting at windmills all day long? ”
What difference does it make what people write about here as well? It seems the ODMs are adverse to any correction and are sometimes consumed with what people say about them. The charge has been leveled at crninfo that they just exist to shadow a couple of other blogs, well those other blogs it could be said exists to shadow Warren, Bell, etc.
CD – you have said some strong things about me. Who cares? The internet is a wild and woolly animal that should test us as to how important we are in our own eyes. Post what you believe and relax, in the scheme of things eternal we are hardly noticed.
If some would remove the hyperbole, the ad hominens, the non-issues, the personal investigations, the secular pile ons, the self adulations, we might be left with a substantive debate that remained Christian and had real value. Until then, it is what it is.
A merry heart does good like a medicine.
I love this game!!
CD,
I think the answer I would give as one on the receiving end of “Team Truth War” is that I have a fundamental issue with Christians declaring war on their brothers and sisters.
I know of no one on “this team” (the one that holds the view we are all on the same team) that considers Ingrid, Ken or others as not being their brothers or sisters in Christ.
The “Teams” came from those who decided that some of us are not their brothers and sisters and decided to declare this so-called “truth War” which as it turns out is really “truth according to their own relativistic understanding of the doctrines of Christianity.
Unfortunately, most of those on “team Truth War” are Calvinist who claim the doctrines of grace as their “truth” yet, seem to lack all the fundamentals of those truths they hold.
Being one of those who has been told I am “not saved” or “semi-pelagian” (which is really a laugh as it shows their own lack of honesty in looking at what someone believes) I must live every day in forgiveness for their insults and slander against my own person.
My only prayer is that they come to a fuller understanding of the mercy, grace, forgiveness and loving kindness of God… and learn to extend these to others.
Again, not this site, anyone, or I declared this “truth war” decision to have teams. It was those who declared this “truth war” who decided to be divisive and declare so many as less worthy of the Grace of God than they are themselves.
iggy
Thank you Chad.
Amy,
I understand and respect this.
Extending grace to another who does not agree with or forgiving wrong that has been done is not overlooking or excusing that wrong. We were forgiven when we were not seeking forgiveness.
I believe we show this same attitude.
May we all grow in understanding God’s grace and forgiveness and in practicing it towards one another.
It is difficult to read these comments that imply Pastor Ken Silva is a fraud, not qualified to be a pastor, etc…
What is more difficult is understanding why professing “Christians” would use tabloid-style tactics to discredit and disparage.
May I ask the readers a few questions:
1. Have you met and spent m0re than 6 hours with Pastor Ken Silva in just one day?
2. Have you ministered to a fellow Christian who faced losing his house, his wife and his children?
2. If so, did you minister to that person for 12 months or more?
3. If so, would the person you ministered to say that your ministry for that 12 month period was rooted in nothing but the Scriptures?
4. Would the person you ministered say that he grew in a greater understanding in the sovereignty of God, the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit, what it really means that the “two shall become one”.
5. Would the person you ministered to for that 12 month period say that he has a better understanding of his own sinful nature , repentance and the new life that exists for the true believer?
6. Would the person you ministered to after the 12 months actually offer thanks to God for the trials in his personal life and your ministry?
It is not my intent to prove Ken Silva is a genuine, New Testament pastor.
Ken Silva proves it everyday. And If you don’t know that, you certainly don’t have any evidence to prove otherwise.
If you can’t answer “Yes” to two or more of these questions above, I strongly encourage you to say nothing about the authenticity of the role of Pastor that Ken Silva bears.
“It is better to be thought a fool, than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt”- Mark Twain
Stop it…please…you’re killin’ me here!
Seriously, did you even read what you wrote? You condemn us for “tabloid-style tactics”! Bwahaha…
I mean, come on, most of what’s posted on the ODM sites is blatant gossip, and to even say is at the standards of the tabloids is an insult to tabloids.
Does Ken ever talk to or spend time with the people he writes about? Does he even read the books he rails against? I don’t know what Ken does in his time away from his computer, but, unfortunately, the good he does there is tarnished by the venom he writes online.
Jim,
And if you are wrong?
iggy
The fact that you can write this in defense of Ken on a post about team politics with a straight face is remarkable. Especially when you throw this gem onto the end of it:
You really should be writing for the Colbert Report.
JIm,
Actually outside of your number on… which Ken refused to even have a real dialog I can answer yes to all those questions… yet, Ken stated I was not saved… and a few other not so nice things…
Yet, here again, it will not matter to you. As I prove it every day also…
So your point is that we should not be so mean to Ken… they you need to live up to your own standard… and Ken needs to also.
iggy
Actually it should be “It’s better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.” And it’s historically been attributed to Abe Lincoln.
CD-
Hello. You say this above:
And you say this in your own blog:
(emphasis mine)
In just a few short sentences (I didn’t bother to read the rest) you have shown how you clearly believe there Christians who are not to be part of your “team.” People like yourself and other ODM’s first excommunicate those they have disagreements with so that they can feel justified in not loving them.
Now, granted, you will claim you are just speaking the truth (from your limited perspective, I might add) and doing what you are called to do to “defend” the truth. You wonder why sites like this exist? It is in large part to show that not all Christians apostasize other Christians and call them “Devils” just because we do not see eye-to-eye on every theological issue. It is a good and healthy thing to have meaningful disagreements among fellow members of the body of Christ for it can help spur us onto righteousness and truth. Unfortunately for you and other ODM’s, you have excommunicated the very people who might be able to help you learn a bit more about the great big, gracious God whom we all seek to love with all our hearts, souls, minds, and strength.
CD, do you consider RW to be a Christian?
But perhaps even more importantly, do you consider those who support RW and who believe he is a Christian to be Christians? Are they part of the “team”?
grace and peace,
Chad
Which is probably a corollary to Job 13:5
Jim:
Then talk to his own Apprising “Ministries” board (that he doesn’t listen to). Ask them how Ken responds to correction.
Talk to his former SBC area director, who says that the SBC no longer considers Silva’s church as a viable one. Ask him what he thinks about Silva’s “qualifications”…
Talk to the folks in Claremont, NH, and discern Ken’s reputation from the folks that know him IRL…
Some of us have.
THEN, if it is still difficult for you to read a rebuke directed toward Mr. Silva, THEN you might have some credibility.
Irony aside, your use of quotations betrays anything that follows them…
CD,
I know some more conversations have transpired since you asked your timely and legitimate questions, but I’ll chime in here if I may.
The subtitle to this blog is “Seeking Justice, Mercy and Faithfulness Amidst Persecution From Within.”
This could almost double as a mission statement, in my opinion.
I come from a large family. I’m the second oldest of 9 children. There are two sister-in-laws, 2 brother-in-laws and 8 nieces and nephews. We are close. If one of us were attacked from the outside, we would, at the drop of the hat without thinking, jump to their defense.
We have also had our share of disagreements over the years, some tense and deep, most petty and surfacy. But if one of us felt another was being unfairly labeled or attacked or persecuted or lied about, we would jump to their defense, even against another brother or sister.
It is not a matter of family vs. non-family. We are still family. But within the invisible bonds of our familier ties, we may have to defend one brother or sister against another. We don’t shun the offending party. But we attempt to point out that their accusations are false and that they are hurting the whole family and causing non-family members to question our love for each other.
At least that’s my opinion of this blog and how it tries to restore family unity.
Are all of the authors perfect in their loving delivery? Nope. They fail sometimes…and admit it (sometimes).
Are all of the commenters writing from pure hearts all of the time. Nope.
But other commenters or the author of the OP often point out when a line has been crossed. This is one area where is blog is different than others.
Again, this is just my opinion.
Good questions.
Shalom
Nathanael-
Great analogy. That is how I see it as well.
peace.
Chris..thank you for the quote correction on Abe Lincoln and the Scripture reference.
Seeking validation from the SBC,
giving it’s current downgrade, is not a viable standard for measuring what a true church is…The Bible is the only standard.
Iggy…
What if I am wrong? I have been wrong before, and have learned to trust no man but rather test the fruit of a pastor’s ministry.
Once it is tested Biblically and found to be Scriptural, one can be confident that the pastor is serving and fulfilling his calling, Biblically.
The only confidence I have is the results of testing Pastor Silva’s ministry with the Scriptures, not Pastor Silva alone.
The Scriptures make it very clear on how one can test the fruits of pastor or Christian for that matter.
Chad,
Insofar as the snippet you’ve shared above your short synopsis of my worldview is more or less correct. I’m sorry that you didn’t take the time to read more of the article or review my other works, but perhaps another time.
Furthermore – as you proceeded to astutely point out – because of my Biblical worldview I’m not limited to the “one big family” approach which has been fairly uniformly expressed in this particular thread. In fact based on the scriptures I believe the true church is an incredibly exclusive family.
Based on my understanding of the Bible it’s clear that there have always been two streams of Christianity flowing side by side – one true and one false. One is the church of the wheat and the sheep and one is the church of the tares and the goats. One inherits life eternal and one inherits damnation eternal.
Of course none of us truly knows “who’s who” as it were since only God Almighty can judge the heart, and it may be that the vilest and rankest sinner we have ever known or imagined could, by God’s grace alone, be spared eternal damnation in the waning moments of his life, just as the most outwardly religious, doctrinally orthodox, and Biblically literate so-called Christian may burn in hell forever because his profession of faith was never from the heart.
Salvation is all of God and all of grace, this is the Lord’s doing and it’s marvelous in our eyes!
Yet the Lord Himself gave the church as a whole – and by extension individual believers since believers ARE the church – clear commandments with respect to the conversation of the true Christian’s life, and the fruit it will invariably produce. The Lord gave us examples of faith, obedience, sacrifice, sound doctrine and even discipline.
He also gives us clear commandments about exposing and rooting out false doctrines, damnable heresies, perverse teachers, and those who would corrupt the simplicity of the gospel with the fables of men. So while we who are called by His Holy Name are never called to judge hearts we’re consistently called to judge actions. Like any other function of the body this calling isn’t for everyone. It’s unpopular, it doesn’t win accolades or friendship with the world or the church, and it’s downright messy sometimes.
At this point I could, of course, go into a list of names, but I’ll spare the CRN.Info readership since this is your space and you’ve no doubt already read these exact sentiments from others with whom you disagree and I’m really, really not trolling here trying to pick a fight or kick up any dust, honestly.
Nathanael,
Thanks for your analogy but if I may say so with all respect I believe it falls far short of the mark.
For example, using your analogy as a baseline what would be your response if some of your flesh and blood brothers and sisters viciously raped and murdered your mother in your presence, desecrated her corpse and then walked away laughing and cracking jokes about how surprised she looked during the initial phase of the attack and how silly and contorted she looked afterward. Would you be upset? I should certainly think so.
And what if – after you came to your senses after what you’d just seen – you confronted the offending family members and they simply shrugged off the incident as not mattering or just being an issue of differing opinions, or flat told you to mind your own business because they were just as much a part of the family as you. Would you be even more incensed? Again I should think so.
Now what if, after being totally unable to reason with your murderous and matricidal siblings you called the police and they came and took a look around, saw the bloody mass that used to be your mother, quizzed your siblings and then told you there was really nothing they could do about it because your siblings’ story and your story just didn’t match up and they weren’t sure what the truth was so they were just going to let it go because it wasn’t their business to resolve internal family issues.
I assume you would scream out for justice.
Well the enemies of Jesus Christ from both within and without the church are guilty of a crime infinitely and immeasurably worse than the one I just described. The sins and trespasses of man against an absolutely and infinitely holy, righteous and perfect God are worthy of infinite and unspeakable punishment.
This is justice.
This is “fair”.
Thankfully because of the compassion, pity, and love of the One True and Living God of the Holy Bible some will get mercy instead of justice. This is faithful saying that Jesus Christ came to save sinners, and He is still seeking and saving today to the praise of His glory alone forevermore.
Yet even with this being said we dare not stop confronting and warning those who demonstrate, as a pattern of life, rebellion against Christ and His Word because we love them and we don’t want them to burn in hell forever, we want them to know the truth.
At the bottom of things no one wants to think that they intentionally believe falsehood, amen? Most people want to hold to the belief that the basis of their worldview and their reasoning is “truth” in some fashion or another, correct?
The truth is that the truth can be known and it can be clearly understood by the agency of the Holy Spirit acting in men as it flows from the eminently forthright, objective, clear and consistent witness of the Holy Writ. God’s Word is the means whereby it has pleased God to impart that portion of His otherwise incomprehensible truth and revelation about Himself to His fallen creatures. How glorious and amazing!
I hope that no portion of this comment came across as unduly harsh, unloving or disrespectful to the readership here.
In Him,
CD
P.S. – *WARNING: This section may seem unduly harsh, unloving, or disrepectful to some readers*
Chad, as previously mentioned I can’t judge Rick Warren’s heart as to whether or not he is truly saved (i.e. a true born-again believer in Jesus Christ), but based upon his consistent actions in the light of scripture I have no choice but to treat him as a Gentile and a publican and as a witnessing prospect. Perhaps he’s simply backslidden, or perhaps he’s temporarily gone apostate and the Lord will restore him, but as of this moment he makes himself an enemy of the gospel.
By extension those who actively follow, participate in, and/or promote RW’s unscriptural flesh peddling are partakers and participants in his rebellion. With this in mind we are to pray for his/their repentance and restoration and until such time we are to actively oppose and expose their error.
wow
Does it not seem you are judging his heart? I will give you this, CD, you have a way with words!
Coram Deo -
I guess my question is, how are we to treat Gentiles, publicans, and witnessing prospects? If you are genuinely concerned for Rick Warren’s salvation, do you think that calling him “Devil Driven” is the best approach?
Even pastorboy doesn’t go that far in his evangelistic methods…
I agree completely.
And its on that basis that I say that you’re absolutely wrong.
CD-
I disagree with you. Sorry you had to write all that.
grace and peace,
Chad
Look, I’m afraid that I’m unable to maintain a proper dialogue with so many respondents on such a broad array of diverging subjects and topics – though I genuinely appreciate the generally amicable tone of the conversation thus far – so let’s bring the wagons back around and look at what this thread was originally about – “teams”, shall we? The gist of the original thread was, it seems to me, about “teams” and how those “teams” tended to rally about one another in defense of a perceived “opposing team” instead of being “one team”.
I believe the microcosm of this comment thread serves to demonstrate the veracity of this simple fact that there is a real and ongoing prevalence of an overarching “us vs. them” mentality within what we would all likely consider to be the broader professing church, amen? Everyone else is seeing this, right? No one has raised this subject thus far but denominationalism alone serves to verify our hypothesis so methinks the case for the existence “team-ism” within the broader professing Christian church is fairly well made and basically irrefutable.
Okee dokee, assuming this is the case then I’ll inject one last observation since it’s more than clear that my Biblical worldview is different than some of the regulars here at CRN.Info.
I can live with the fact that loving family may rebuke and chastise other loving family members. In fact I’m just fine with this concept because I believe the church is the family of God and is the Body of Christ and therefore that it has many different parts which, while differing in many respects, nonetheless operate with a unity of purpose and direction under the headship of Christ which unity is spiritual and supernatural and of God alone and we’ve established that church discipline is part and parcel of the package deal.
I think in the light of scripture we can all also (probably) agree (on some level) that we have in and among the broader professing church false teachers, false converts, wolves in sheep’s clothing, tares, goats and the damnable doctrines of demons since this is the plain teaching of scripture. The plain teaching of scripture is also that the church, the Body, the bride ought to be separated (called out) from the perversions of the fallen world system being dedicated unto Christ as pure, clean, without blemish or spot or any such thing.
Now God Himself is ultimately responsible for this purity, just as He is ultimately responsible for the salvation of each and every one of His own, yet in both cases the instrument He has chosen and by which it pleases Him to do these things is human agency – and boy do we fall short of the immense task, honor, and privilege set before us (yes even ODM’s/ADM’s *gasp*)!
Yet part of the scripturally mandated aforementioned human agency is to expose falsehood and root it out of the church in order to promote and maintain its purity. This is what some believers do according to the Bible and sometimes (I would argue oftentimes) this activity exposes the fact that there really are two separate and competing “teams” in the “game”.
On the one team, let’s call it “Team One True and Living God” is the true, pure and undefiled religion of God’s merit in Christ that is commonly known as Biblical Christianity, and on the other team is everyone else whom adheres to some variant of the one false, tainted, and defiled religion of human merit that is works righteousness (i.e. idolatry) which is basically comprised of everyone and everything outside “Team One True and Living God”.
And sadly, according to the scriptures, the broader professing so-called Christian church contains innumerable imposters, tares, goats, and false professors and children of the devil that will secretly introduce damnable heresies that lead many astray unto eternal destruction.
In my mind it’s simply not acceptable to love people to hell. Making people comfortable in their sin and trespass, failing to tell them of the wrath of God that abides upon them, as they ignore the guilty, nagging conscience God placed within them, while denying the yawning hell beneath them is the very worst kind of hate. People need the truth which is the wonderful good news found solely in Christ Jesus, yet because of our fallen and corrupted sin nature the good news really isn’t that good unless the bad news really is that bad, mainly because most people think of themselves as “good people” as far as sinful man measures “good”. We only need to glimpse at the response of Isaiah or the Apostle John when they beheld the unveiled glory of God’s holiness to get an idea of some measure of our own “goodness” compared to God’s.
May God enlighten our minds and illumine our hearts with His Word.
In Christ,
CD
CD,
A few observations:
While I agree that denominationalism exists and that it creates a level of “team-ism”, it need not extend what I identified as the key downfall of “team-ism” – casting other “teams” into outer darkness for what is (most often) disagreement but not damnable heresy.
Agreed, though I suspect that the prevalence of goats/tares/etc. is significantly smaller than many in the “ODM/ADM” self-selected “team” would make it out to be, as I suspect the grace of God is much wider than some seem to indicate and less wide than others would wish.
For example, last week we had a debate here on the role of women in church authority (which you can read here, starting in the 60’s). While I think some churches are in error in using a trajectory hermeneutic in allowing women in overseer positions, I do not see this as being in the category of “doctrines of demons”, but I have seen it categorized as such in some corners of the ODM world.
In the example of PDL, I would agree that many who follow some of its methods are too pragmatic and are just looking to increase numbers without feeding them as they mature. I do not see the basic idea of the church focusing on Worship, Outreach, Fellowship, Teaching and Evangelism as a “doctrine of devils”, and I have seen a number of churches use this effectively.
As systematic theologies go, I completely disagree with strict adherence to any of them, with Calvinism as about the worst one possible (because of the basic underlying assumptions which end up making God less than God, but that’s a completely different conversation). Despite this, I do not think that believing the basic systems of Calvinism, Arminianism or forms of Open Theism is an automatic disqualifier – or identifier of sheep and goats. God is much bigger than any system man can create to explain Him.
Now, if I had to pick a particularly virulent set of teachings in American Christianity, it would be the Health and Wealth gospel, as it is far too susceptible for men to believe it for selfish gain. I don’t know of any writer here who has defended it…
Additionally, I believe that Universalism (the belief that all roads lead to salvation) is just as dangerous.
As “purity” goes, my primary fear is that one part of the church (primarily in the Reformed/Fundamentalist region) has succumb to the lure of legalism, while other parts have succumb to the lure of hedonism. In reality, Jesus’ call to be salt and light inherently calls us to be part of the world we live in, but not a product of its systems of thinking. Unfortunately, seeing this in pastors’ usage of movies, incorporation of artistic elements into worship, or criticism of musical style are all examples of “barking up the wrong tree”. Carping on such things is petty and divisive and NOT “discerning” by any stretch of the imagination.
Unfortunately, this scriptural “mandate” is blown up in complete proportion to the more important parts of what is mandated within the church by Jesus and Paul… Its primary manifestation in most ODM/ADM’s would charitably be likened to a game of plank/speck, and is more divisive than helpful to the body.
Really? And where is that in Scripture? While I read that the road is narrow, too often this “narrowness” is what is described in Matthew 23:13, and not the narrowness that divides following Christ from following other gods…
Are there wolves? Surely. Are there as many as the so-called “watchmen” cry out about? I’m pretty sure not. Particularly when it requires misrepresenting, prooftexting or outright lying about what other Christians believe. Too often, the sin of these these mistakenly-identified “wolves” is in adhering to different interpretations of matters secondary to Salvation.
And that is where CRN.Info exists to defend the sheep cast out by self-appointed “watchmen” who, like a faulty immune system, exist within the church, attacking perfectly good cells and organs, to the detriment of the whole…
I have become increasingly wary of spending a disproportionate time searching for wolves and not searching for the Shepherd. Warnings should be most effective by teaching truth, and those who tout the power and sovereignty of God acts as if He is oblivious to the danger and desperately needs people and ministries to become consumed with wolves.
And the most subtle spectacle is that the watchmen are woefully ignorant of their own state of carnality which is a wolf they not only let slip through, they sometimes embrace. No one can grow in Christ by watching for enemies at the expense of leaving a broken journey toward the Shepherd.
Labelling a person as unsaved, especially someone like Rick Warren, is sensationalism every bit as carnal as some “circus church” antics, and wildly diverts attention to others while subtly suggesting a divine discernment. There is a tangible obsession with men and a self serving righteousness that is defined as adherance to doctrinal positions, not as the residual effect of passion for Christ, but many times as the only element necessary to be defined as passionate.
If it were not for wolves, an increasing number of Christians would have no purpose or life in God’s kingdom. How painfully sad and true that has become. And just like some will refer to “worship” as an entity, so many today have made truth an idol that is to be cleaned, polished, and proudly exhibited in an ecclesiastical show and tell, but yet void of the Spiritual fruits that must frame this truth by living deeds.
How do we explain a kind and humble false teacher in contrast to a proud and caustic teacher of truth? Though Jesus does reject false teachings, he also was strong in His rejection of truth served in a dirty cup. And when Christ addresses the Pharisees He observes they omit the weightier matters of truth. And surely He means some significant doctrinal truth such as the Trinity, or election, or the existance of hell.
No, Jesus names mercy, justice, and faith. Part of the church is diluting truth to be sure, but another part is immobilized by a redundant chant of a well defined set of doctrinal truths which are missing certain other truths necessary to connect all truth which, when taken as a whole, present the Person of Christ.
It is completely possible to be doctrinally orthodox and yet not present Christ, and in some cases present a different Jesus in the same way they accuse others of doing. Rick Warren may have many faults and is overly pragmatic in his PDL system, but he is a true believer and has been used in the lives of many people in spite of his shortcomings and by God’s grace alone.
Thank you Rick for your comment. I have been contemplating to stop reading and commenting on CRN.Info for the same reasons as Julie and probably Joe M, but it is balanced comments like these that convince me that I am growing spiritually through this blog.
May we all grow in the knowledge of God’s wonderful grace.
As they say, there will be no unorthodox people in hell.
Even the demons believe rightly.
peace.
Also, CD, not to insult your intelligence, but instead to remind you, the Lord’s instructions were to leave the tares with the wheat until He would separate them. He also separated the goats and sheep. He did not delegate this task to us.
Lumping the goats and tares and false professors in with children of devils and wolves, as you’ve been doing in this comment thread, is not a Biblical connection. They are separate. Let’s keep them that way.
You also said,
The problem is what some define as “sin” is nothing more than a different worldview or interpretation of scripture or another method of carrying out our Lord’s commission.
Just a few thoughts.
Shalom
I don’t believe it’s possible to “love people to hell”. We love people because it’s a natural result of Christ working in and through us. We don’t love them because of any other agenda. The only “agenda”, and I hesitate to use that word, is to show them the love that God has for people that burns with an intensity we can’t fathom.
Certainly there are different ways that love can be displayed and conveyed, but this idea that God is both loves and hates people at the same time has got to go. I also don’t believe most people think on themselves as “good people” regardless of what they tell you. I don’t even think most Christians consider themselves “good people”. In fact, much of culture, in and outside the church, continually tells people they don’t measure up because they aren’t smart enough, generous enough, thin enough, etc. The good news is that in the midst of these lies, God is calling out, and saying, “you are my beloved, and nothing you can do can change that”.
Good thoughts, Nathanael. And let us also not forget that both the sheep and the goats were suprised by the final verdict. Not only should we flee the temptation of wanting to do the separating ourselves we should also avoid the hubris of assuming we are one team and “they” are on the other. Just as Jesus said to the religious of his day – the whores, tax collectors and sinners will enter the Kingdom before you.
peace.
This is simply untrue. Any new parent holding a newborn can testify that you do not need to be confronted with the reality of bad news in order to fully appreciate the good news of new life in your arms.
What’s more, such a statement assumes that the entire, and only, purpose of salvation is to save us from some distant, disembodied future in hell. This is not the aim of the gospel at all. Rather, Jesus came to give us life – today. The Gospel announces that God is with us, Immanuel. We find in Christ that all of creation, including us, are special to God and loved deeply by their Maker and have been saved. Therefore, repent – live fully into the image you are made in – God’s.
That is Good News. You don’t need to add in the fear of hell to make that any more spectacular.
peace.
Chris P said,
Are you suggesting that libel/slander, backbiting, name calling and so forth were acceptable before the resurrection?
Forget Matth 18 Jesus had a lot to say about our use of words (Matt 5). If we all obeyed that we wouldn’t need Matt 18.
Mike Ratliff said,
I’m not sure that is correct. We are too warn people when things get too far out of hand. Requires a lot wisdom to do this and it is never easy. Paul didn’t hesitate to confront the Corinthians and he had been personally attacked by them. Looking the other way would have been neglectful on his paft.
And, this situation involves two people relating to each other in a sinful fashion not persecution and at some point, we do have a responsibility to respond.
Being vengeful is one option (and that is wrong) but the Scriptures do speak of other attitudes (meekness – Gal. 6:1). Maybe that hasn’t happened in this case but a non-response could be just as sinful.
Bo Diaz said,
Brilliantly put. If this happens we can believe that “brotherhood” has been served. We know whose court the ball has landed in.
Eugene R said,
I don’t think the skirmish is entirely bad. You’re not friends if you don’t fight, occasionally.
Unity is the goal but we only arrive their if we are willing to hammer out the details. The US is unified (not uniform) because representatives of the people (all of whom are very diverse) talk, dialogue, discuss and even argue acceptably until an agreement is reached.
As bad as the government is accused of being, politicians demonstrate more character in their working relationships than do Christians in theirs. The biggest sin here is the unwillingness on the part of some to dialogue (not mentioning any names). Unfortunately, everyone does seem willing to throw stones.
Chris L said, refer to comment #95.
Thank you. That was well said.
Phil Miller said,
I posed that question to Ken. Never got an answer.
Chad said, refer to comment # 109.
That was well said, well said and well said. Thanks for doing the research on that issue and it was kind of you not to assume hypocrisy on the part of CD.
CD said,
I am assuming based on other comments you have made that you think RW is tare-ish and because I happen to think RW is a really good guy I must also be tare-ish. I don’t mind you thinking that (can’t speak for RW) and I would defend your right to do so. But, it would be appreciated by those of us in the tare isle if those in your isle (not necessarily you) would stop attempting to excavate us by the roots. Jesus is actually on our side here. His teaching is (the shortened version) leave them alone until the end.
Tares are “goats” (your word) not wovles. They will happily stay out of the way of your sheep if they are not goaded.
CD said,
This blog is the answer to that question.
I really do love Jesus. I am trying hard to get along with His kids, all of them.
Well said.
Amazing. Even when using a piece of software designed to create a conversation ODMs refuse to have a conversation.
If you want to bloviate without coversing you have a blog.
Bo wins the Coolest Word of the Day Award.
Ennis,
The OP (and I feel fairly confident in saying this as I was the original author) is not about treams–it is about throwing integrity aside so that “my team can be right.” This post was about changing the rules when someone on my team has run into trouble and those pesky rules could make him look weak. There is a huge difference between those two subjects. It always amazes me how an ODM and myself can read the same post and not see the same words.
Sorry meant to address that to Coram Deo not Ennis
I’ve read through the comments – yes all of them. Some have been both reasoned and reasonable and some have been, well, maybe not so much…you know who you are.
I don’t suspect many here would be upset if I made the observation that CRN.Info definitely give off the emergent/emerging “vibe”, but then again I’ve also spoken with enough emergent/emerging folks to know that labels aren’t generally appreciated so maybe I shouldn’t “go there”.
Yet this being said and despite our myriad disagreements I do sincerely appreciate the author’s and various commenter’s willingness to both stand for and to stand against something.
Often emergent/emerging types are branded as being wishy-washy and too enamored with uncertainty and doubt to actually expound anything as being absolutely true or absolutely false since “absolute propositions seem to be such outmoded and modernist conceptualizations” (gag!). Anyway I’m personally glad and heartened to see that this isn’t always the case.
I’d also like to personally applaud Joe M. for having the honesty to flat out tell me (in another combox elsewhere) that in light of Titus 3:10-11 he believes Ken Silva is on a path towards destruction/condemnation.
This is as bold and unflinching of a doctrinal position as I’ve ever seen anyone take when commenting on the eternal trajectory of another human being’s soul. Perhaps he recognized this because he closed his thought by calling the tone of his comment “unemergent”. And while I would gently disagree with his assessment of Ken Silva’s walk with the Lord, I couldn’t agree more with Joe’s self-assessment of his own comment – it was quite unemergent – and, at least in my experience, was atypical of the language that usually emanates from Joe M.’s, uh, “camp”.
Thanks to all for the (mostly) engaging conversation.
Peace.
In Christ,
CD
CD,,
You are too hung up on emergent labels… and being the only one here that states flat out I am emerging/emergent I see that your understanding of emerging is lacking, let alone that you have any understanding of emergent.
Yet, that being stated… the bottom line is that some are causing division and strive and we are called to warn others about them… in some ways Paul spoke out harsher against these than false teachers. It was more that the “those supposedly from James” in Galatians divided the body with their false teaching that upset Paul… for he also stated some disagreement is needed so that those that have the truth can been seen.
Most of us do not see Ken or others as the enemies… though Ken has called me “his Nemesis” which states the condition of his own heart and not mine. I will stand face to face as Paul against those who teach and attack and harm the body of Christ by their worldly ways… which if you look at their tactics…. their gossip, back biting, slander, even using lawyers to shut down sites then decrying one who “wished not to” go to lawyers.
They are hypocrites… yes… and we all are.. for as the Scripture states, “no one is right” and for me, often I am as wrong as the ODM, yet I see the difference is I do not hate them as they confess doing of me.
The only One that is Right and True is Jesus… and we are all in a sorry mess… some in a quagmire of self righteousness, others in other ways. Yet, it is Jesus who loved us enough to die for us while we were still enemies. How should we all respond to that? By loving our own enemies as Christ loved us. THis is my cry and hope.
Be blessed,
iggy
Busted.
It is true that people around here tend to be, for the most part, less judgmental and try to extend grace to others, whether friend or foe, because they have experienced grace from a loving God themselves. If only all Christians could give off such a “vibe.”
Grace and peace, CD.
Funny thing about being bold and unflinching on doctrines…
How many times does THAT change in someone’s life?
Since becoming Christian I’ve changed many views on many doctrines, of course all unessential to salvation (lol). I mean…it’s just natural as you learn more your views on certain things change. How can this not be, if we’re growing? And the funny thing is, I’ll still be in disagreement with so many other Christians all on the same journey as I am. It’s a funny thing. Really funny.
What I’m saying is, some Christians think that this unflinching-ness is a great thing to be held on to all the time, to be dead sure you’re 100% right on just about everything about God and Christ. I just see that as unteachability, at worst. It certainly breeds that.
What I’m also saying is that there are some things that I am very passionate and sure of, very confident in, however, even when I’ve been that sure I’ve changed my views according to what God’s taught me.
And no, I’m talking talking about things like salvation by faith in the person of Jesus, or the diety of Jesus, or what have you. So…no one ‘go there’
I agree with you 100%, Joe (at least for today)
Looking back, my views on so many things have changed. I praise God for that. I believe the Holy Spirit is at work in 2008 just as the HS was at work in the 1st century, leading us into truth. I look forward to the many new things God has yet to teach me and the many things I cling to today that God will eventually reveal to me is just one bag too many. It’s a heck of a ride.
peace.
I would hope that every once in a while we don’t give off any camp vibe, but that sometimes, surely not as much as we should, we give off a Jesus vibe (fragrance).
Isn’t it the ultimate irony that people who’ve circled the wagons and their sycophants are the ones who would criticize anyone for supposedly “circling the wagons”…
Who’d a thunk?!?!
lol…I don’t know if we’ve really had many disagreements in the first place Chad
I also believe that the Holy Spirit still leads us individually to learn deeper and deeper and as a universal Church as a whole too. Good stuff.
Joe
iggy Says:
August 14th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
CD,,
You are too hung up on emergent labels… and being the only one here that states flat out I am emerging/emergent I see that your understanding of emerging is lacking, let alone that you have any understanding of emergent.
Iggy,
To be quite honest I don’t think I’m too hung up on emergent labels. In fact I don’t spend very much time thinking about emergent/emerging things at all because to be very frank I’m firmly convinced that emergent/emerging is already going extinct – in other words I believe it’s just another passing fad headed inexorably into the dustbin of history.
Please understand that this comment isn’t intended as an insult, cheap shot, or job, it’s just my well considered opinion. I base my view on how past religious fads have sparked some interest and adherents and then fizzled out into obscurity. Certainly you’ll have your emergent/emerging “true believers” who’ll cling to the cause and maybe even retain a small fanatical cultish following years from now, who knows? At any rate, as others far more astute and learned than I have already noted, the double-edged sword of cultural relevance will prove to be the undoing of the emergent/emerging fad. The church just can’t keep up with the culture without being subsumed, corrupted and destroyed by it because it was never God’s intent for the church to be of the world, but to be in it and separate from it. A quick OT study of Israel’s repeated patterns of apostasy and idolatry with the nations surrounding her ought to be enough to convince any student of scripture of this sad fact.
But regarding your charge of “not understanding emergent”, I just had to chuckle to myself when I read that, friend.
I chuckled partly because even with my limited exposure to emergent apologists the “misunderstood” card seems to be among the very first in play in each and every encounter. Is it worth 50 points or something when you play it, or perhaps do you get points penalized if you get caught with it still in your hand after any discussion or haven’t played it within the first 5 exchanges? *loving attempt at humor*
But hearkening to a more recent CRN.Info post isn’t this the real bait and switch? I’m referring of course to the fact that the use of “emergent labels” is generally frowned upon because, well, the conceptualization is simply “misunderstood” – yet its form and function is by design so mercurial and fluid as to successfully avoid and escape definition hence “emergent” becomes nebulous, obscure and indefinable. Such can become an any man’s panacea of good religious feelings just so long as we’re all sharing stories and getting on swimmingly and not becoming too dogmatic about too many things.
What did Bell call it? Trampolineianity or something like that? I think that’s correct because he juxtaposed it with Brickianity, right?
Trampoline-ianity sounds springy and soft and malleable and pliable and fun, I mean trampolines are a hoot! At least they’re much more fun than bricks, at least in my opinion. Boing…boing…boing!!
I wonder how else we can describe it, Trampoline-ianity I mean?
Could we also reasonably refer to it as Nerf theology? That sounds pretty cushiony and non-threatening. No sharp edges!
Maybe Gumby-anity? Non-toxic and fun to twist and play with? Safe for children!
Just thinking out loud here, you know, “joining the conversation”. What fun!
In Christ,
CD
Talk about stating the obvious.
CD,
Interestingly that in your very comments you affirm much of emerging conversation… that things of God can come and morph and change and grow and pull back and return… in other words you affirm that emerging is a “fad” which in a sense it may be, yet if you understand it, it is deeper than a “fad”…
Yet, also in your comment there is a profound misunderstanding… yes I stated that… but that is the truth. No one I know of is saying “stay up with culture” in the sense you are representing it. In fact most that I know are not submersed in the “culture” and are very much counter cultural as we look at culture as something we must interact with, though we most likely do not agree with much that is out there.
Yet to either give culture the holy middle finger or ignore it will not change the fact that we interact in culture every day. Do you go to a job? Is is part of some sort of commerce? These things are cultural.
Now, to me Bell is not emerging… he is more mainstream. More like an Anglican version of Mark Driscoll… That does not take away from him in my mind. Personally I have not read much he has written… so really I cannot comment on him other than the things I have read are most often grossly taken out of context and misrepresented.
I think that the point though of the trampoline is that if the springs that we suppose hold up Christianity suddenly are not there… or we find that they are not needed…. (For example do I need to kneel every time I pray?) ( Or say you are RC and find that Mary is not co redemptrix?)… how will that effect one’s faith if they find the truth’s held are not necessarily…. true? Personally I think Bell did not do a very good job in presentation… but most miss the main point…
What if there is absolute proof that evolution is true? How will that effect your faith? I know it is hypothetical and most will poo-poo it as not true so why worry…
Yet, being one taught that I was to maintain my salvation… and finding God does a much better job than I do… or finding that I may be wrong in that one can lose their salvation… or that maybe I cannot add to the righteousness of Christ by adding my own works…
All of which were major crossroads for me personally sand were “springs” that fell off my personal trampoline… and yet… somehow… I still found faith and reached even deeper into Christ.
So though you poo-poo misunderstanding… I think you really do… and I am not trying to be rude or mean, but show you where you may lack in this understanding of some of the things you have written off.
Be blessed,
iggy
Iggy,
As I think you’d readily agree the definition of the word “understanding” itself can be terribly subjective so instead of splitting hairs I’ll happily admit that my “understanding” of emergent/emerging is different than yours. I think you’d also willingly affirm that the basic understanding of emergent/emerging is different among the emergent/emerging camp itself, amen?
This being said I don’t take it as an insult that you might accuse me of “poo-pooing” misunderstanding (and the no-so subtle potty humor doesn’t escape my notice either). But there remains an issue.
At issue is can we ever gain an objective understanding of emergent/emerging? In other words perhaps from your perspective (and certainly Bell’s) there can be definable and definite aspects of say, 5-Point Calvinism, that can be (and are) objected to based from an opposing viewpoint (i.e. Brickianity vs. Trampolineianity).
Now Bell tells us that “Brickianity” is basically a bad thing because he (as I understand him) argues that when one begins pulling out bricks – questioning the “rigid” theological structure of Brickianity – through some process such as, using your example, coming to believe that evolution is factually true then the brick wall is necessarily weakened or perhaps comes tumbling down. Don’t get me wrong here, I’ve seen cognitive dissonance and it’s a sad thing. In fact I’ve witnessed more just recently than I care to discuss here, but that’s a different subject entirely.
I think Bell is guilty of using poor allusions and a pitifully inadequate analogy since Christianity is a totally and completely organic and living system, not an inorganic and lifeless thing like a brick wall, and this includes its Biblically based doctrines, creeds and doctrinal systems (i.e. theology).
But if on the whole we (all of us both on the “outside” and on the “inside”) are continually disallowed or dissuaded from defining emergent/emerging and instead its nebulous, fluid, mercurial substance is always allowed to slip and morph away into the distance not unlike a child chasing a rainbow, then we can (theoretically) have this “conversation” forever and never arrive at conclusive truth. Is this the intent of “the conversation”? I should certainly hope not.
Christ was pretty clear about truth and He wasn’t shy about absolutes. Paul claimed that he ran his race with certainty, not uncertainty. In my mind this is among the most spiritually dangerous aspects of emergent/emerging in that it often seems that those engaged within the conversation are hesitant, reluctant, or unwilling to say, “Hey buddy, that’s out of bounds, you’re simply going too far with that!”, but they’re perfectly comfortable (dare I say eager?) in telling those without to “mind their own business and stop criticizing because they don’t understand and they’re not part of the conversation anyway so they’re not allowed to even talk about what they obviously know nothing about so just shut your pie hole you self-righteous hypocritical Pharisee!” It’s sad, you see? *grin*
Again this is not to say that this NEVER happens, and some emerging/emergent types have taken up theological positions along the way. And while good open dialogue is often helpful, and even needful, when there are few if any parameters to “the conversation” and if there’s no purpose or end result intended then it can easily degenerate into, well, babble. It’s the spiritual equivalent of a God-talk filibuster.
In closing, with respect to my comment about emergent/emerging being a passing fad you reading that into an affirmation of the things of God always morphing, changing, growing, pulling back and returning I neither said nor intended any such meaning. You read that meaning into my post and projected your worldview onto mine. Please refrain from doing that to me as I return the same generosity to you.
Though unstated in the language of my comment I was contrasting the emergent/emerging fad with the Biblical, historical, orthodox, fundamentalist Christian faith that has always been and always will be ’til Christ returns.
The true Christian conversation is a stream, the River of Life as it were, that unwaveringly and unfailingly if followed scripturally, faithfully, and honestly to its spiritual fountainhead arrives at pure Biblical Christian fundamentalism.
In my well considered view of scripture to arrive at any other conclusion/origin, or to arrive at any other ancient/future reality apart from Biblical Christian fundamentalism (I believe) is to find that one has traveled the broad path that leads unto destruction. Am I saying that ONLY self-proclaimed “fundamentalists” are REALLY Christians and everyone else will burn in hell forever and ever? NO I DIDN’T SAY THAT! What I mean to say is that the outworking of a true, Biblical worldview that’s under the influence of the Holy Spirit will work towards a complete and undiluted reliance upon the Word of God and such will be manifested in the life of the true believer by an ever increasing embrace of fundamental Biblical Christianity.
There’s only one real Way.
There’s only one real Truth.
There’s only one real Life.
There’s only one real Savior.
There’s only one real Jesus Christ.
There’s only one real True and Living God.
There’s only one hope.
There’s only one Spirit.
There’s only one church.
There’s only one Bride.
There’s only one Body.
But there are many, many imposters, doctrines of demons, wolves in sheep’s clothing, deceivers, tares, goats, apostates, and children of Satan who attempt to destroy from within the broader professing church. This is no marvel because Satan himself is an angel of light and it’s no surprise when his ministers come disguised in the same way. They don’t show up ordering people to worship the devil, they show up with seemingly great ideas, broad smiles, warm personalities, and kind words and mix just enough truth with their error to mask the spiritual poison that they’re peddling. People need to know the truth about them because the scriptures command us to test the spirits and to expose, rebuke and if necessarily discipline the unrepentant heretic in order to maintain the purity of Christ’s church to the praise of His glory alone. This is one of our jobs and privileges so we ought to do it with all joy and not leave the other jobs and privileges undone.
In Christ,
CD