(or today’s “fish in a barrel” moment )

It wasn’t the main point of the post, but this still jumped out at me.  While dumping on Ekklesia Detroit Church regarding another issue, Ken the “editor” at C?N irrelevantly noted: “It seems they’ve also found time to interview Satan as well.”

Granted, that sentence has no explicit statement that Ken the editor thinks that the Satan interview video is a bad thing.  But given the track record at C?N (that nothing good can come out of Nazareth those that they criticize), and given the overall tone of the rest of the post, it’s very much within the realm of probability that Ken the editor thinks it’s a bad thing.

And frankly, I have to agree.  A video portraying Satan and his views on Christianity and the Church has no place in our faith.  Why, if we’re not careful, someone will write an entire book with this premise.  And then respected “Christian” actors will create plays based on the book.  And then “Christians” will claim to “learn” from these demonic resources.

It’s the beginning of the end, people.

  • Share/Bookmark
This entry was posted on Tuesday, June 23rd, 2009 at 8:01 pm and is filed under Editor, What Can You Say?, satire really. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
+/- Collapse/Expand All

72 Comments(+Add)

1   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 23rd, 2009 at 8:15 pm

I love plays and theatre that have clear gospel connection. I love the Passion of the Christ, I love Jesus of Nazareth, I love Godspell, and I love drama as well. I even love interpretive dance as long as the music has Christian words. The interview with Satan can be effective as well.

Having said that I think the video and gas subject is very stupid and crass.

2   Neil    
June 23rd, 2009 at 8:54 pm

I even love interpretive dance as long as the music has Christian words.

how ’bout dance to music w/o lyrics?

3   Joe C    
June 23rd, 2009 at 9:41 pm

I remember when that interview w/ ‘Satan’ came out. It came out here in Oklahoma. The pastor is Craig Groschel from LifeChurch.tv. I used to go there years ago, it’s actually a pretty cool Mega Church (so to speak). I’ve met Pastor Craig several times and had the honor of hearing him preach and he’s a great guy with a good purpose, and this Satan interview thing was received well in the church and it actually makes a lot of sense. Mr. Silva obviously doesn’t see the truth in the script that’s being played out in the video.

Plus, I don’t think this Ekklesia Detroit Church actually did this scene, since it’s Pastor Craig (from Oklahoma) in the video, I think the pastor of Ekklesia is just posting the video from LifeChurch.tv to aid in making a point. And if that’s the case, Mr. Silva really missed the mark.

PS Screwtape Letters is awesome.

Joe

4   Joe C    
June 23rd, 2009 at 9:47 pm

The fart video is kind of stupid though…even though I find farting hilarious, to my shame. =/

5   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 23rd, 2009 at 10:02 pm

#2 – I have nothing against it, I just find it very nebulous in communication. And if communication is not the purpose, then why perform it for people?

6   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 23rd, 2009 at 10:17 pm

You want real outrageous? I thought the Scriptures commanded us to take persecution without murmuring or complaining. I thought Peter said “Happy are you” and “rejoice” when you are reproached for your faith. But obviously I was wrong.

This article commends believers for complaining and suggests we rejoice when the government protects us from our God given right to be to be persecuted. SoL must believe in circumventing persecution by legislation and that God’s grace is never enough to see you through.

How can the lost ever see a difference in us if we do just what they do when treated unfairly? That is truly outrageous.

7   M.G.    
June 23rd, 2009 at 11:01 pm

I saw the show when it first came out in NYC. I liked it. Cozy theater. It’s in a church. That fact alone would probably cause the Christian Tabloids to freak out.

8   nc    
June 23rd, 2009 at 11:11 pm

That stuff is no where near as bad as the time my parent’s pastor did his Christmas message as a dramatic monologue of King Herod reflecting in our current day on the Christ-child….

from hell.

Seriously.

From.

Hell.

Merry Christmas….

from hell.

I was wrong about that baby….

from hell.

The sad thing is that people ate that doo-doo up because it was so “real” and “honest” about “the truth”.

Merry Christmas, indeed.

9   Brendt Waters    http://www.csaproductions.com/blog/
June 24th, 2009 at 9:01 am

Joe C (#3):

I don’t think this Ekklesia Detroit Church actually did this scene

WAIT!! WAIT!! WAIT!! WAIT!! WAIT!! WAIT!!

Joe, are you saying that C?N didn’t do their research?

My world is falling apart.

10   Brendt Waters    http://www.csaproductions.com/blog/
June 24th, 2009 at 9:06 am

Rick (#6), Jesus was a Republican and an American. His party affiliation and His heritage supersede anything He actually said. Get real.

(ok, that’s all the Ken-channeling I can do for one day)

11   Neil    
June 24th, 2009 at 9:09 am

“God is an American” – David Bowie
(although I’m not confident I understand that song)

12   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 24th, 2009 at 10:17 am

The American government should never be our source, and persecution is a wonderful fresco upon which to showcase how Christ makes a difference in the lives of His followers.

SoL spreads persecution and then complains when they feel they are being persecuted. Not being able to play Christian music at work – yea, that’s vicious persecution. “Think it NOT STRANGE” says the Word.

Which Bible are these people reading?? Read II Timothy as Paul gets ready to die for his faith and see what he says!! No mention of the unfairness of Rome or begging for his life. Paul says he is ready and and encourages his young student to preach the Word.

I want all you guys to hear what I say here. In some ways I believe that things that Sol posts are every bit as unbiblical as anything Rollins says. I am bent out shape when I hear believers complain and murmur about their circumstances, they are a disgrace. And many of these are those who give shallow doctrinal lip service to God’s grace and sovereignty.

God deliver us from their false brand of Christianity.

13   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 24th, 2009 at 10:41 am

The day we as believers think we have rights in this world is the same day we have left Christ.

Rick Frueh
circa A.D. 2009

14   Neil    
June 24th, 2009 at 10:59 am

The day we as believers think we have rights in this world is the same day we have left Christ.

Rick Frueh
circa A.D. 2009

RE this and #12: to a certain extent I agree… particularly when Christian complain about being persecuted when, in reality, the world is just reacting to them being idiots…

I am also one to argue for all the benefits to the church that have come from the secularization of our culture, the end of Christendom, and the loss of our position of privilege.

That said, while it is true that Paul was ready to die for his faith… and he did call us to rejoice in persecution… he was also a citizen of Rome and took advantage of the rights that that afforded him.

I think it naive and harmful for Christians to fight for special rights within our culture and nation – to try and maintain Christendom.

I think it fair and sometimes proper to take advantage of the system to pursue equal rights.

15   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 24th, 2009 at 11:05 am

“I think it fair and sometimes proper to take advantage of the system to pursue equal rights the furtherance of the gospel and God’s kingdom.”

I agree with using the system, but it must always be about Him and not “our rights”. Many times in history persecution has been vital to the purity and strength of the church. Whether we live or whether we die it is always for and about Him.

American Christianity is not Biblical Christianity and like Samson our strength is gone yet we know it not.

16   Paul C    http://www.themidnightcry.com
June 24th, 2009 at 11:11 am

Regarding persecution, aren’t many on this blog regularly shouting “Foul!” against the ODMs, getting up-in-arms about relatively mild commentary? That’s the odd thing.

Oftentimes we get so easily offended about the comments and words of others, whether warranted or not.

I guess it’s just a sympton of tenderfoot syndrome.

But get a taste of real persecution and I wonder how we’d really fair. Right now we’re at the equivalent of an all-inclusive, 5* resort when it comes to persecution. Make no mistake, the battle is on, but it’s more subtle as opposed to in-your-face, gun-to-the head type persecution.

17   M.G.    
June 24th, 2009 at 11:19 am

Paul:

Isn’t there a pretty basic distinction to be made between 1.) not crying foul when non-Christians act like, well, non-Christians and 2.) pointing out that the Christian tabloids should publish their materials in a manner keeping with, well, basic Christian integrity?

I don’t find the ODMs personally offensive. Just terribly misguided.

They mirror our shallow and superficial culture so well, it’s practically frightening.

18   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 24th, 2009 at 11:20 am

There is no persecution in America, except the deception that Satan employs to tell us how great we are. That is clandestine persecution, however no where are preachers or believers being murdered in front of their families as some have been in several places around the world.

This very day Christians in Darfur suffer unimagineably while Christian blogs call for freedom in Iran. American Christianity has not been Christian for decades.

You want real Christianity? George Whitefield was one of a couple of ministers bold enough to demand he be allowed to preach to the slaves. He loved them and knew they were equal in God’s sight.

A white couple who had been affected by Whitefield’s ministry went to the slave block and purchased an 8 year old African girl standing naked on the block. They raised her as their daughter and she became an educated believer who wrote amazing poems and changed the perseption of some white people about blacks.

Her name was Phillis Wheatley and her adopted parents took advantage of the wicked system to the glory of God, not to protect their rights.

19   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
June 24th, 2009 at 11:22 am

Which Bible are these people reading?? Read II Timothy as Paul gets ready to die for his faith and see what he says!! No mention of the unfairness of Rome or begging for his life. Paul says he is ready and and encourages his young student to preach the Word.

I want all you guys to hear what I say here. In some ways I believe that things that Sol posts are every bit as unbiblical as anything Rollins says. I am bent out shape when I hear believers complain and murmur about their circumstances, they are a disgrace. And many of these are those who give shallow doctrinal lip service to God’s grace and sovereignty.

I do think that many American Christian spend too much time whining about things, but I don’t necessarily think we need to be doormats and just accept injustices. In Acts 22-25 when Paul ran into trouble in Jerusalem and was about to be flogged by a centurion, he actually brought up the fact that he was a Roman citizen and was entitled to certain things. He actually ended up appealing to Caesar. Now I don’t think it was out of self-preservation he was doing this, but more so he could effectively spread the Gospel. But he did take advantage of the rights he had within the system.

So I don’t necessarily think that we should always be so quick to be trampled on, but I also don’t think our priority should be defending our rights. Our priority should be advancing the Kingdom.

20   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
June 24th, 2009 at 11:26 am

Regarding persecution, aren’t many on this blog regularly shouting “Foul!” against the ODMs, getting up-in-arms about relatively mild commentary? That’s the odd thing.

First of all, I don’t know that we’ve ever written anything where we’ve been defending ourselves. Secondly, there is difference between “mild commentary’, as you put it, and out and out lies. Perhaps if the ODMs didn’t rely on the latter so much, people would actually be open to the former.

21   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 24th, 2009 at 11:26 am

You are correct, Phil, Paul did it for the sake of the gospel. BTW, sometimes we are called to be doormats, or worse yet, adornments for a literal cross. The tone that is projected from SoL is not christian and in no way resembles Jesus Christ.

When doctrines, however true, become idols you have a modern day Baal worship.

22   Paul C    http://www.themidnightcry.com
June 24th, 2009 at 11:31 am

But he did take advantage of the rights he had within the system.

With the sole goal the glory of God. His avoiding a whipping was simply a by-product. Previously he stated and demonstrated his willingness to be persecuted and even die for the gospel. This is not an example of being or not being a doormat at all.

Our priority should be advancing the Kingdom.

Correct.

MG: I don’t find the ODMs personally offensive. Just terribly misguided.

I don’t find them offensive at all and many times they have good articles or points, though they can shroud them with conjecture somewhat.

My point was that Christianity has become so sissified here in North America. It’s astounding.

That’s why a blog like this can survive. Because it responds to what it perceives as persecution when really it is not persecution at all. Perspective has been lost almost completely. We’re a product of a modern, rights-oriented, materialistic society.

23   Neil    
June 24th, 2009 at 11:32 am

Regarding persecution, aren’t many on this blog regularly shouting “Foul!” against the ODMs, getting up-in-arms about relatively mild commentary?

Paul – in the broad scheme of things the stuff the ADM’s put out is rather minor… yet, I have heard people at my fellowship site both Silva and Lighthouse Trials – YIKES!

So, as long as they spout their poison rhetoric and lies someone should offer rebuttal.

24   Paul C    http://www.themidnightcry.com
June 24th, 2009 at 11:34 am

That’s not to say there aren’t good conversations that occur here, but oftentimes a post from an ODM is conflated beyond what it should be.

The value here is that discussion can take place.

One of the most important things lacking in the church today, at all points along the spectrum, is the concept of righteous judgment. I would say this is an area that all of us – CRN.info, ODMs, commenters – really need to ask the Lord to help us with.

25   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
June 24th, 2009 at 11:35 am

I also think that sometimes American Christians tend to play a cat-and-mouse game when it comes to so-called persecution. I’ve seen some people intentionally do things that will provoke authorities, and they end up getting citations or whatever, and then they end up playing the persecution card. The fact of the matter is that they probably could have communicated whatever they were trying to communicate just as effectively without getting in trouble. It’s almost like a publicity or fundraising stunt – “look how much I’m willing to sacrifice for the Gospel! Send me money!”

26   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
June 24th, 2009 at 11:37 am

One of the most important things lacking in the church today, at all points along the spectrum, is the concept of righteous judgment.

I’m not exactly sure what you mean by this statement. You think the Church needs to render more in the way of righteous judgment?

I actually think that our problem has less to do with saying which things are right or wrong and more with focusing on the sins of other rather than our own.

There is only one righteous judge, and He doesn’t need our help.

27   Paul C    http://www.themidnightcry.com
June 24th, 2009 at 11:40 am

So, as long as they spout their poison rhetoric and lies someone should offer rebuttal.

Is that necessarily a Christian response, I guess, is my question? I have been in situations where people constantly slandered me, gossiped my name and so on, even threatened my life with a machete. Looking back, I wonder what the outcome would have been if I launched a campaign against these transgressors.

Interestingly, one of my biggest detractors got sick. I was informed about it and sent some funds to help him. When he found out where the money came from he broke down and couldn’t believe it. The next week he got up in the church and gave a wonderful testimony and gave thanks (I wasn’t there).

I’m not saying this to display my works, but simply to say that allowing our flesh a vent (which is what the blogosphere does, believe me, I know :) ) is not always the most godly response. See what I mean?

28   Paul C    http://www.themidnightcry.com
June 24th, 2009 at 11:44 am

Righteous judgment

I’m not exactly sure what you mean by this statement.

Phil, what I mean is the Christ (Is 11) does not judge according to what He hears or sees, but He judges righteously. We are to develop this mind of Christ (Phil 2) by asking the Lord to fill us with a spirit of humility. With humility, I believe, we will weigh matters more righteously (in ALL aspects of life) according to the mind of Christ rather than our own poor judgment.

Righteous judgment will adjust how we view the worst sinner, the man or woman who slips into deep sin, our enemies and, most importantly, ourselves.

29   Nathanael    http://www.borrowedbreath.com/
June 24th, 2009 at 11:45 am

Paul,
You have a point.
But the authors of this site rarely (if ever) write articles in their own defense.
They are pointing out lies and slander and gossip regarding others within the body of Christ who, like you, choose not to defend themselves.

I’ve heard Rob Bell say several times that he does not Google his own name. He does not even want to know what others are writing about him.
But he did speak to his congregation regarding some of the accusations because they involved the congregation, his flock.
He defended them, but not himself.

That being said, you bring up some very good points.

Shalom

30   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
June 24th, 2009 at 11:46 am

Is that necessarily a Christian response, I guess, is my question? I have been in situations where people constantly slandered me, gossiped my name and so on, even threatened my life with a machete.

I’m kind of confused as to why responding to lies about a Christian brother or sister (or even yourself sometimes) is anything but Christian. It seems that Paul spent considerable time in his epistles refuting different lies. In Galations 1, he felt it necessary to set the record straight about who he was because there were rumors flying around about him.

I just don’t see why it would be considered a bad thing to present a rebuttal to a lie with the truth.

31   Paul C    http://www.themidnightcry.com
June 24th, 2009 at 11:57 am

I just don’t see why it would be considered a bad thing to present a rebuttal to a lie with the truth.

Phil, it’s something to weigh out – every case on its own merit. But the constant up-in-arms, faux-shock can get a little tiring.

It seems that Paul spent considerable time in his epistles refuting different lies.

Yes, lies about the gospel. Though he defended himself, considering how much he was persecuted, it was relatively minor. Sometimes, he “boasted” to make a point (ie: when churches were entertaining false preachers and moving off the foundation).

My point is that the ODMs often have good points, but they shroud these points in conjecture sometimes.

Christianity in North America is in no way persecuted, and as a result we have become slothful. We have given up little, therefore cast away the depth of our hope and the promises of Christ much easier. We are so self-indulgent that any hint of opposition is considered a platform for screeching.

32   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 24th, 2009 at 12:00 pm

There is nothing wrong with confronting others on their description of someone’s doctrinal stand. I find nothing offensive in addressing Ken’s or Ingrid’s posts about Bell or others. There is nothing wrong with confronting Ingrid on her castigation of sinners et. al..

There is something wrong with making light of the size of Ken’s church or refusing to call him a pastor and making sure everyone knows about it.

33   Paul C    http://www.themidnightcry.com
June 24th, 2009 at 12:02 pm

Another interesting point.

Matt 26: when the Sanhedrin was plotting Christ’s demise, lining up false witnesses and planning to accuse Him, what was He doing?

Carrying on business-as-usual, sharing a meal in the house of Simon the leper.

ALSO, the ODMs bring up legitimate points a lot of the time. In its efforts to cater to a North American appetite, the church is heading further into the world. Israel was often rebuked about its desire to be like the other nations round about. Today, the church is in the exact same boat.

Did Israel recognize its sin and departure from God? Nope. Read Isaiah 1 - now we know why he was sawed in half. Rulers of Sodom? Comparing people to an ass – no, worse than an ass? A bunch of whores?

“HEY! We’re offering sacrifices, we’re going to church! We’re attending all the symposiums and conventions! We’re furthering God’s kingdom!”

Not according to God.

34   M.G.    
June 24th, 2009 at 12:14 pm

Re:33

But what I find so ironic about the ODMs is that in their style of combatting the perceived worldliness of the church, they themselves perfectly reflect the world.

There is a great deal of chatter nowadays about the death of real journalism, the absence of serious thinking, and the ever increasing prevalence of snarkiness in 21st century American culture.

And then we have Christian blogs who 1.) engage in shoddy journalism 2.) publish shallow and poorly reasoned hit-pieces and 3.) write in a snarky and sarcastic manner that even 25 years ago would have been considered improper by the world at large.

There is a better way than the Christian Tabloids.

35   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 24th, 2009 at 1:44 pm

Outrageous??

Here is a female blogger calling the president of the SBC to repent. She also judges the worship services of the entire denomination based upon “what she’s seen”. And she culminates her screeching with reminding us that worship is not to please goats.

She is so deep it’s mindboggling.

36   Neil    
June 24th, 2009 at 1:48 pm

Paul C.,

I agree that we can get carries away from time to time – particularly when going for the laugh…

I see nothing in conflict with being Christian, or nothing that is not the Christian way, in pointing out when ADM’s say things that are false and/or deceptive.

Take my most recent post on Silva’s comments about Eugene Peterson – what ken Silva said was patently false, he is spreading false accusations and false stories about a brother in Christ… yet some unsuspecting babe-in-the-faith may happen upon Ken’s poison and think it safe to consume.

37   Brendt Waters    http://www.csaproductions.com/blog/
June 24th, 2009 at 1:52 pm

MG (#17):

Isn’t there a pretty basic distinction to be made between ….

No, there’s no basic distinction of that nature.

There is, however, a gaping chasm in logic the approximate size of Utah. ;-)

38   Neil    
June 24th, 2009 at 1:53 pm

There is something wrong with making light of the size of Ken’s church or refusing to call him a pastor and making sure everyone knows about it.

And for the most part we’ve taken the higher ground of not allowing such things. In fact, I believe that is why one prominent commentator stopped commenting here because he was confronted about being too personal against Ingrid.

39   Neil    
June 24th, 2009 at 1:55 pm

In its efforts to cater to a North American appetite, the church is heading further into the world.

This claim is as tired as it is subjective. I contend that your run-of-the-mill ADM is as worldly, if not more so, because they preach a modernist Gospel mired in their own ethnocentricism.

40   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 24th, 2009 at 1:56 pm

“prominent commentator”

I never knew Edward R. Murrow commented here.

41   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
June 24th, 2009 at 1:58 pm

I never knew Edward R. Murrow commented here.

I’m actually Paul Harvey…

42   Neil    
June 24th, 2009 at 2:04 pm

ALSO, the ODMs bring up legitimate points a lot of the time.

They make legitimate point – occasionally.

Problem is, its often lost in their arrogance and condescencion, lost in the shallowness of their thinking, lost in the MO of GBA…

It amazes me how some sites condemn every church, school, etc… who offers anything titled “spiritual development” and/or uses the word “contemplation” – basically they just GBA anyone using certain words regardless of the context – i.e. – laziness.

43   Neil    
June 24th, 2009 at 2:05 pm

“prominent commentator”

Well I typed “commentor” but spell-check like “Commentator” better.

44   Neil    
June 24th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
I never knew Edward R. Murrow commented here.

I’m actually Paul Harvey…

This, for example, might be enough for some ADM to create a story about us channeling spirits…

45   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 24th, 2009 at 2:08 pm

“They make legitimate point – occasionally.”

Ken does. Ingrid’s site is still a nickel hunt.

46   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
June 24th, 2009 at 2:30 pm

That’s why a blog like this can survive. Because it responds to what it perceives as persecution when really it is not persecution at all.

Persecution? Maybe not – particularly since it comes from within the church. Outright lies, slander, misdirection, smears, etc. – that’s what we prefer to dispel…

so, as long as they spout their poison rhetoric and lies someone should offer rebuttal.

Is that necessarily a Christian response, I guess, is my question?

Since it comes from within the church, from supposed Christians, then yes, it does deserve a Christian response to counter lies offered in his name…

47   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
June 24th, 2009 at 2:43 pm

Matt 26: when the Sanhedrin was plotting Christ’s demise, lining up false witnesses and planning to accuse Him, what was He doing?

Carrying on business-as-usual, sharing a meal in the house of Simon the leper.

The difference is between defending oneself and defending a brother or sister…

ALSO, the ODMs bring up legitimate points a lot of the time.

Not sure what parallel universe you’re living in, unless you’re “legitimate points” are of the stopped-watch-is-correct-twice-a-day variety…

For example, Ratliff’s stuff is just pure arrogance & condescending tripe that is an apologetic for Calvinism, not the gospel. And Ken? Let’s not even go there… Yes, there is water in a toilet bowl, but if you’re thirsty there are better places than Apprising “Ministries” a toilet to drink from…

There is something wrong with making light of the size of Ken’s church or refusing to call him a pastor and making sure everyone knows about it.

True, for the most part (aside from demonstrating his bonafides when someone IRL quotes Ken Silva – I’ve debunked Apprising numerous times in real life, and often pointing out that the guy is a crackpot who drove a church of 125 down to 10 and whose “ordination” is not claimed by the organization he says it is from (the SBC)) However, when someone is citing an article written by the guy, a little bit of truth in advertising is in order…

Also, I do think it’s fair game to point out when, for instance, Ken writes about the sin of female pastors, yet whose supposed “accountability structure” includes a pastor whose associate pastor is female…

48   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 24th, 2009 at 2:53 pm

“whose “ordination” is not claimed by the organization he says it is from (the SBC)”

And there are some organizational ordinations that God would not claim as well. I pastor no church, does that mean my opinions are less valid than those who pastor mega-churches? You are not a pastor, does that mean your thoughts are subservient?

I do not think anything about Ken personally is relevant as it pertains to Biblical issues. I also think the invective “crackpot” is unfortunate and counter-productive.

49   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 24th, 2009 at 2:59 pm

I believe Ken’s relationship with Ingrid is a compromise with his complementarian perspective. I have told him so.

50   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
June 24th, 2009 at 3:18 pm

Rick -

I pastor no church, does that mean my opinions are less valid than those who pastor mega-churches?

No – but you’re not using your title as a way of trying to garner additional credibility as does pastor/teacher/president/pooh-bah Silva. Debunking the “credential” is simply letting the air out of a tire specifically used to prop up a falsehood.

You are not a pastor, does that mean your thoughts are subservient?

No – but I don’t recall that I try to use any titles to confer specific expertise (apart from noting my Engineering degree when using statistics).

I do not think anything about Ken personally is relevant as it pertains to Biblical issues.

I don’t think Ken is relevant as it pertains to Biblical issues, either. But that’s beside the point.

I was conveying how I handle RL issues when someone brings up Pastor Silva as an authority on something (Rob Bell, The Shack, PSA, Andy Stanley, etc., etc.) by pointing out that he’s little more than a glorified small group leader with a blog and too much time on his hand, and that you can’t believe everything you read on the ‘net – sadly especially if it comes from a source of “Christian” “discernment”…

Kind of like this exchange in the talk page of Bell’s article on Wikipedia where another editor commented:

I was reading a blog a couple of days ago and he was arguing with everyone in the comments section. He seems unbalanced to put it nicely.

And that’s the thing, it’s far quicker and more economical in effort to just point out that Ken had is firmly made of tinfoil, at which point whatever work of Silva’s was being quoted is tossed and we reenter the world of reality (rather than ODM-inspired ignorance and fear)…

51   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 24th, 2009 at 3:26 pm

I will admit, Chris, that Ken’s commenting persona seems much more arrogant than speaking with him personally. I have never used my ordination to leverage weight in my perspectives, however my intellect seems to be quite adequate in that regard. :cool:

52   Nathanael    http://www.borrowedbreath.com/
June 24th, 2009 at 3:46 pm

Rick,
If your verbiage ever catches up with your intellect, we’re all in trouble.

:P

53   Paul C    http://www.themidnightcry.com
June 24th, 2009 at 3:48 pm

Chris L: to be honest, just reading your comments here and in other exchanges, you appear every bit as vitriolic and angry as those you condemn. Not sure if you realize that in the tone of your comments.

It doesn’t bother me, but that much should be acknowledged before we start throwing around adjectives describing others.

Chris L – Persecution? Maybe not – particularly since it comes from within the church. Outright lies, slander, misdirection, smears, etc. – that’s what we prefer to dispel…

And are sometimes guilty of as well… Chris, one of your favorite tactics is to try and label someone (ie: LB proponent) and instead of dismantling the actual argument, just rely on the GBA.

All I saying is that there is something powerful and full of grace – as Christ exhibited – about a person who doesn’t fight fire with fire. Justice is rarely demonstrated in this life, but remember their is a Just Judge.

I know it’s attractive to claim to take the ‘high road’ (ie: we’re not defending ourselves, we’re defending others) but a lot of the time, condescension and anger shine through in the defense. I’m wondering if that’s the best route. Fight vitriol with vitriol, sarcasm with sarcasm, GBA with GBA…

54   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 24th, 2009 at 3:51 pm

I am not sure I have ever loved anyone with the full love of God. I have loved myself much more often than I ever should have.

55   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
June 24th, 2009 at 3:58 pm

Chris L: to be honest, just reading your comments here and in other exchanges, you appear every bit as vitriolic and angry as those you condemn. Not sure if you realize that in the tone of your comments.

I would actually like to see an example of Chris actually condemning someone, personally. I can’t say I’ve read anything where someone has been condemned.

I will say this, just speaking for myself. It is very hard not to get angry at some of the lies thrown around in the blogosphere. It simply seems that for whatever reason there are some who enjoy believing and propagating the lie rather than simply believing the truth. I really can’t understand it, personally. I’m an engineer in real life, and as they say, the numbers don’t lie. When it’s very clear when something isn’t true, I just can’t understand why people still want to believe it. Like I said, that’s just me, though…

56   Nathanael    http://www.borrowedbreath.com/
June 24th, 2009 at 4:05 pm

Outright lies, slander, misdirection, smears,

Paul,
Not to be a wise-guy, but those are not adjectives.
You quoted Chris L just after you said he uses adjectives to describe others.

Chris was pointing out a few proven things that have come from some of the ODM’s.
He was not describing them.

Just my $.02.

57   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 24th, 2009 at 4:05 pm

“It is very hard not to get angry at some of the lies thrown around in the blogosphere.”

I agree, however I have seen anger when someone like me just forcefully projects a position or attempts an interchange about something.

58   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
June 24th, 2009 at 4:29 pm

I agree, however I have seen anger when someone like me just forcefully projects a position or attempts an interchange about something.

Well, I’d say we’re all human, and, yes, we may have gotten angry or frustrated. And I may not be as patience as I should sometimes. I admit that. Even if we have gotten a bit frustrated with some of your views, Rick, none of use have written a scathing exposé on you (yet… :-) )

59   Neil    
June 24th, 2009 at 4:43 pm

Hmmm… you are just like them –

I don’t think we’ve ever declared someone was not in Christ.

I don’t think we have ever twisted comments, selectively quoted, or manipulated text to try and prove a false accusation.

I don’t think we’ve every refused to dialogue on a topic.

I don’t think we’ve assumed everyone using a particular word (e.g. “contemplative” or “spiritual development” or etc.) is guilty based on its use.

I don’t think we’ve ever promoted our own culturally ethnocentric version of Christianity as the standard by which all others are judged faithful.

60   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 24th, 2009 at 4:58 pm

“scathing exposé”

Until a person is completely disemboweled and utterly eviscerated, any exposé lacks the doctrinal teeth to accomplish God’s will.

8o|

61   nc    
June 24th, 2009 at 5:23 pm

I would generally agree that “personal” stuff shouldn’t be in play…

However, when someone uses “the personal” as their source of cred–as Chris L pointed out–then it becomes a point of contention.

It’s not being mean to debunk what someone has expressly claimed as the basis for their “authority”…

It’s kinda like Sarah Palin saying “Leave my family alone. You’re never allowed to scrutinize my family, but I’m still allowed to trot them out for clear political points when it’s advantageous to me.”

You can’t have it both ways…and that’s exactly what KS (and the High Priestess) try to do.

62   nc    
June 24th, 2009 at 5:25 pm

Paul C,

I see your point about tit for tat…

But do you think things should be left completely unaddressed?

In my experience, simply criticizing the ODM’s gets met with charges of “attack”.

Especially that Ingrid…someone disagrees with her and she says you’re filled with “rage”.

63   Paul C    http://www.themidnightcry.com
June 24th, 2009 at 5:38 pm

Hmmm… you are just like them -

I’m not saying that – not sure if that was directed at me. Actually, I don’t see the ODMs all that bad in the grand scheme of things. Guys, this – at the end of the day – is a big world, but we do have the ability to make it very small.

But do you think things should be left completely unaddressed?

No, I don’t, but the more I think about it, to have 2 immature believers (the one pointing the accusation in a gleeful tone and the other defending it) going head to head is fairly fertile ground for the enemy. That’s why I mentioned ‘righteous judgment’ being so important.

Just as the ODMs resort to their favorite pinatas, sarcasm, and the like, I see that we easily descend to that here in our interactions.

My comments on this particular thread are just some thoughts I’m considering, especially in light of Christ, the early church, those who suffered during the dark ages and even in our day. There is something powerful in their harmlessness and ability to suffer wrong, trusting that the Righteous Judge would prevail, that has the ability to overcome darkness (maybe only after they’re dead and gone).

Stephen is a bright example to me. He declared the truth and left no stone unturned. He died well. I can only imagine the impact this had on Paul, who turned out to perhaps be the brightest light in his time.

I don’t think the ODMs do a disservice to the church. You guys sometimes operate (at least here) with a somewhat myopic view, as do we all, about the impact certain things have.

64   Neil    
June 24th, 2009 at 6:05 pm

you appear every bit as vitriolic and angry as those you condemn

Hmmm… you are just like them -

I’m not saying that

65   Neil    
June 24th, 2009 at 6:18 pm

I don’t think the ODMs do a disservice to the church.

False accusations about brothers and sisters in Christ is not a disservice to the church?

Gleefully pointing out the sins of fallen brothers and sisters in Christ is not a disservice to the church?

Pointing out that those outside of Christ sin is not a disservice to the church?

Stifling the Spirit by raising your own ethnocentric brand of how the faith must be practices is not a disservice to the church?

Calling pastors goat-herders, declaring who is and is not an actual brother or sister in Christ is not a disservice to the church?

Twisting quotes, using partial quotes, ignoring context so you can fortify you witch-hunt is not a disservice to the church?

Raising issue of methodology and preference to absolutes of the faith is not a disservice to the church?

Attacking the motives, the character, the lives of brothers and sisters in Christ is not a disservice to the church?

Ignoring large swathes of the Lord’s work throughout history is not a disservice to the church?

Poisoning the mind of the weaker brother is not a disservice to the church?

66   Paul C    http://www.themidnightcry.com
June 24th, 2009 at 6:26 pm

#64: I was speaking specifically of some of Chris L’s comments in general.

67   Neil    
June 24th, 2009 at 6:32 pm

#64: I was speaking specifically of some of Chris L’s comments in general.

OK – I stand corrected…

68   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
June 24th, 2009 at 8:29 pm

Nc-

Exactly my point. In the scientific world, if you use your credentials as part backing a claim, your credentials are then fair game as far evaluating that claim goes. If you don’t use them, they’re not part of the discussion (though their absence may be, in some circumstances).

In Ken Silva’s case, it’s undeniable that his title(s) are part of his schtick in the “credibility” of his articles lies, so pointing out his “ordination” and the size/history of his “church” is not out-of-bounds…

(Via crackberry in Colorado… Heading out of cell coverage…)

69   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
June 25th, 2009 at 6:54 am

On Mike Ratliff’s blog he offers this curious paragraph:

“The Atonement is unlimited in sufficiency; however, Penal Substitution tells us that His death is applied to the elect alone. His atoning death, His shed blood, is sufficient to cover the guilt of all the sins of the entire population of the world for all time so God commands us to offer it to all by preaching the Gospel to all people, however, only the elect will respond and be saved according to God’s eternal purpose as He draws them to the Saviour.”

How do you get your doctrinal cake and eat it too? Calvinism is the labrynth that keeps us all guessing. Here are some questions about that paragraph:

* How is the atonement unlimited in the Calvinist perspective?

* How does the Penal view tell us that His death is only applied to the elect?

* How does the last sentence mesh with Calvinism?

70   Chris    http://agendalesslove.wordpress.com
June 25th, 2009 at 10:26 am

* How is the atonement unlimited in the Calvinist perspective?

* How does the Penal view tell us that His death is only applied to the elect?

* How does the last sentence mesh with Calvinism?

Rick I would simply state that Mike Ratliff doesn’t truly understand Calvinism. Not only does the statement you highlighted not mesh with itself it doesn’t mesh (in entirety) with Calvin’s views on the atonement or any of the confessionals.

71   Aaron    
June 26th, 2009 at 3:39 am

I find it quite humorous that even Calvin himself would most likely disagree with “Calvinism” as defined by the bastardized version found in TULIP. Calvin laid down great works for others to discover, too bad most of his followers eat the McDonald’s version in TULIP.

72   nc    
June 26th, 2009 at 9:38 am

There’s a reason why Calvin buried “limited atonement” in his doctrine of the Holy Spirit…

probably because he didn’t intend for it to become a cardinal point in the dogma of those that worship him.