I work at a Mental Health Facility. Quite honestly, we take away people’s liberty. They do something (to be fair, usually a multitude of somethings) and we remove them from society. At any given time there is at least 3 locked doors between them and freedom. Their entire schedule becomes controlled by someone else.
What time they get up.
What time they eat. What they eat. Where they play. What they play.
What time they go to bed.
Now, they rant and they rave. They argue. Sometimes they punch and assault. They always talk about what is wrong with everyone else and the ever illusive system. What’s interesting to me is how often they come back after they have worked to obtain their freedom. They leave and with in a few days they’re trying to get back inside. It’s comforting there. It’s warm or cool depending on the season. They are familiar with what happens there every day. No matter how much they are willing to criticize and complain, they need the system to function. It’s easier to let someone else dictate to you what you believe, and to be critical of what someone else has set up then it is to create your own.
Take those thoughts to the blog world. What happens when the thing that you have built your entire “ministry” around no longer seems relevant? What happens when people just don’t care about what you are writing about because your writings are akin to writing about the dangers of 8 track players in cars?
You kick and scream, that’s what happens. It started out with a silly little tirade about the Tall Skinny KiWi blogger, Andrew Jones. He put up a post about how to deal with critics. Never mentioned any angry bloggers by name, but oh boy did one angry blogger in particular go a little sideways. We learned that TSK was condescending. That he was think[sic] skinned, and that he was ill advised.
Then a few days later, there was anger directed at Frank Turk, for asking what “discernment bloggers” actually believe. Apparently it is wrong to want to know what someone actually stands for, not just what he is against.
Then today, someone sent me a link to this blog post where once again a discernment blogger is not only called to task but his arguments are dismantled in the comment thread. There are too many good quotes to have a favorite but this one was particularly interesting,
I think I’ll just let Jesus lead me as to what areas I’ll be addressing.
Why is that interesting? Well because that is something that Mr. Silva and his friends have taken many a person to task for. When Rick Warren said it, there was great gnashing of teeth. When Rob Bell refused to answer their questions because he answered to God and his local church only there was a war cry.
You can read the whole post on your own, but it does bring up an interesting point. The self labeled discernment bloggers now have an opportunity. One that some of them have taken. I have my issues with Chris Rosebrough and I’m sure he has his issues with me but to his credit he has many posts up regarding what he believes. The opportunity to do the same now lies before Mr. Ken Silva and his friends.
Of course, by putting up what they believe they will be open to criticism to it. This all begs an interesting question. What happens when the **Truth War** you are fighting either ends or changes battlefields? The emergent church was and will remain to be something of an easy target because there are so many different sides inside of it, but I have said before that it is more and more becoming irrelevant to the conversation of how we are to share our faith in the years to come.
Perhaps, that will mean the end of some *ministries* that don’t seem to actually be ministering. What happens when a ministry needs there to be a boogey man?
Indeed, what happens when…
56 Comments(+Add)
Who is this “Ken Silva” you talk about?
That’s the problem with building your ministry by beating up strawmen. When the dust settles, you’re not left with anything.
Ken might as well say he defending the church from tiger attacks. No tigers have attacked my church or any church I’ve heard of, so he must be doing a bang-up job!
Well, Think skinned has been changed to thin skinned so that’s a plus I guess.
A gem from Mike Ratliff who continues to spiral:
“God still allows our enemy to touch our lives to cause us pain in an attempt to cause us to curse God. However, this test is used by God to validate our faith.”
Job is such a malleable resource for systematic theology. To whom does God validate our faith? Remember, we have no free will – and – God supposedly already knows what the guy will do (Unless you are an open theist!). I guess the sealing of the Holy Spirit doesn’t quite validate our faith; refraining from cursing God does. Hey – that’s easy!
And can we substantiate that nonsense from the last 27 books? Hmm…
The internet: A kalaidescope of goofiness.
Rick,
Can you think of another reason why God might allow us to suffer? Is it so he can make us bitter? So we can grow? Because he likes to watch us writhe in torment and anguish?
Seriously, Rick. Why does God allow the enemy to touch our lives? You seem to have a better answer so I am curious. Thanks.
jerry
Why does there have to be a reason for suffering? We suffer because we’re human and we live in a war zone. Trying to find meaning in specific trials isn’t something we’re told we should do. In fact, that’s kind of the point of Job. God never gives Job a reason for his suffering. In the New Testament, when Jesus encountered the type of thinking that correlated suffering, disease, etc., with some greater reason, He rebuked it.
We live in a world where much that happens is random and has no specific purpose behind it. In a world of truly free agents, those free agents can use their freedom to adversely impact other people. This creates a web of events that make very hard to discern specific reasons behind every event. This isn’t to say that nothing has a specific purpose, but it’s just saying that we shouldn’t look for one in everything.
Well, Phil, I don’t disagree that we are free agents or that we live in a war zone or that life sucks. But if our suffering has no meaning behind it (and I know you are not absolutely saying that), then all of life is, in the words of the teacher, utterly meaningless.
God didn’t give Job an answer to his suffering because there was no answer. We know different. There was a reason for Job’s suffering and we learn about it in chapters 1-2. His suffering was, in fact, designed to make Job curse God. That was the bargain.
But God never told Job this because Job was learning to live by faith. Faith is living without specific answers to our specific questions.
There was a reason for Job’s suffering and we learn about it in chapters 1-2. His suffering was, in fact, designed to make Job curse God. That was the bargain.
Well, I think there’s a difference between a purpose and a reason. I probably should have used the word purpose instead of reason in my earlier reply. We are told the reason for Job’s suffering, but not the purpose. Yes, from Satan’s perspective, he wanted to test Job beyond his breaking point, but God never says, “hey that sounds like a great idea! It will make Job a better person!”
Suffering may indeed make us stronger and teach us certain things, as we’re told in Hebrews, but it doesn’t always do that. Sometimes suffering literally destroys people. I can’t say that when a mother watches soldiers rape her daughter or dismember her son that there is purpose behind those things. They are simply acts of pure evil that are part of the world. Our hope in Christ is that one day they will be vanquished.
I will also add, Jerry, that even though I believe evil and suffering can be meaningless, it doesn’t have to be. God is able to take the ashes and ruins and turn them into something beautiful. That is what’s amazing about the Gospel. It gives meaning and purpose to what otherwise would be completely meaningless, random acts of violence and evil. But, that, of course is different than saying that God purposed those acts in the first place.
Hmmmmm….I’ll give it some thought, but I don’t know if I’m buying all of what you are selling.
Let me think on it.
I certainly don’t want to come off as if I’m claiming to have all the answers. That’s actually one of the things that pushed me away from a Calvinistic understanding of the problem of evil. It claims to have all the answers, and in fact, it kind of boils everything down to one answer – “God is sovereign…”. Well, OK, but that’s doesn’t really answer anything.
I can only speak from my experience, but when you always approach suffering from the point of “God is sovereign”, it tends to come out in the question of, “why are you letting this happen to me, Lord?” It kind of creates an introversion and introspection that’s crippling after a while. I’ve found that when I see suffering from the perspective of not something that God is doing to me or putting me through, but rather as simply something God is enduring with me and walking through me with, it changes my perspective from one of introversion and despair to one of gratitude for God’s unending faithfulness to me. Does that make sense?
Interesting, Joe.
It seems like time change and the names change, but human behavior does not. Gone are Sanballats, Tobiahs and the prophetess’ Noadiah, and come are the Silvas, Ratliffs and Schlueters. Even though they may be attractive at first, for their “willingness to take a stand”, it quickly becomes apparent that their only purpose is to hinder the building of the Kingdom of God and to heckle & threaten its workers…
Phil,
Any thought on the comment Jesus made after he was told that Lazarus was sick? Jesus claimed that his (Lazarus’) sickness was for the glory of God, that the Son of God might be glorified. Is this the reason or the purpose? Was this just to prove the power of the Christ? Just curious of your thoughts.
Troy,
Well, I’d note a few things. First Jesus is contrasting the sickness ending in death with it ending in God being glorified. I don’t really think He’s saying anything about that actual purpose or reason of Lazarus’ sickness. He’s speaking of the end result of the sickness. The end result will be God being glorified, not Lazarus dying.
I’d also note that even if you do take that passage to say that Jesus is offering commentary on the purpose behind that specific incident, I don’t think we can extrapolate that to a commentary about the purpose behind all sickness.
Why would Jesus wait until Lazarus was dead and stinking before he went to him? I would think he waited so that God might be glorified through the resurrection.
Are you saying that Jesus was just making a “matter-of-fact” statement about the end results of an unfortunate circumstance?
I’m not saying it was a matter-of-fact statement. Actually, it was a statement that appeared to go against the facts as they appeared at that time. I’m saying that Jesus stating the sickness would serve the purpose of giving God glory, not simply ending in death. This isn’t the same as saying, however, that God purposed the sickness in advance for His glory.
It really gets down to whether or not we think God purposes these things for us or not. I don’t believe He does. He can use anything for His purposes – He is infinitely resourceful, after all. But that is not that the same thing that everything is according to His purpose.
Gottcha. Thanks for clearing up your POV for me.
Everything is for the glory of God. And suffering comes with the earth terrain, and only God knows how He might use it in our lives.
To suggest that God allows suffering to see whether we curse Him or not ignores His omnipotence, and if the only result of suffering is that we don’t curse Him, well, that seems like an odd “victory”.
I do not believe not cursing God is part of the image of Christ. It’s like saying not worshiping Satan is the purpose for suffering.
I still haven’t seen New Testament teaching that amplifies Job’s suffering as a “if he curses God he is a fake – if he doesn’t he is a great servant”. (as in an ODM)
Yeah, but that’s because poor Job wasn’t in the front lines of the *truth war*.
And isn’t that Paul’s observations in Romans 8:28? It is not God that caused the brokenness in the world, or the sins and misfortunes of individuals, but He can use all of them for good, according to His purposes…
#19 – Exactly. But only God knows the details. I objected to Mike projecting a “I didn’t curse God” arrogance, and in fact, according to Calvin, the elect won’t curse God and the non-elect will.
Yea, a real big test. That’s nothing but divine three card monte with God knowing where the Ace already is. Deep.
Question: If God knew Job was going to curse Him would He have allowed the devil to make him suffer? See, a spiral staircase that seems to lead to doctrinal arrogance and personal hubris.
BTW – I am elect – I have not cursed God. What nonsense.
Joe,
What position do you want Ken to clarify? That he believes that your co-pastors are dangerous wolves in sheeps clothing? That the emergent/church growth movement is not in large part a christian rather a business/pragmatic model? That contemplative prayer, lectio divina, yoga, and other of mans’ macinations are not in fact true Christianity but a manufactured spirituality?
If you do not think Ken and others have made that abundantly clear from scripture, you must not be working at a mental hospital, you must be one of those guys who thinks and pretends like he works there. Delusional.
PS the only real reason talking about the EC is irrelevant is because of their clear departure from anything (but the name evangelical or christian) Christian is quite clear.
I think God allowed Job to suffer precisely to demonstrate that Job would *not* curse God’s name. Satan thought it would cause Job to curse God; God did not.
Sometimes I think we are so afraid of God’s sovereignty that we think suffering is only because of our free will…as if God never touches the earth.
Sometimes I think our suffering is self-inflicted.
If that’s Ken’s statement of belief, then it is just a sad, sad commentary at how far he has missed the message of Christ.
John,
When you write things like #21 you demonstrate not an ounce of wisdom.
I’m sorry, I know we have been down this road before, but you should stop before you get going or you will just end up suffering more indignity for a cause that has *only* been created in the ‘minds of men’, a ‘machination of man’ as it were.
jerry
(See also: Ratliff, Mike; Silva, Ken; Chisham, John; Schlueter, Ingrid; etc.)
I wouldn’t disagree with anything you said there, Jerry.
I would say suffering can be brought on any number of ways – our own stupidity or stubbornness, the hurtful actions of others, through just being human, etc.
I guess I just don’t get as hung up as I used to as to why God allows certain things to happen. I’d say His decision to create a universe in which bad things can happen was made long ago. I guess we could ask why doesn’t He intervene more often than He does, or why does it seem that some people really do get the short end of the stick, but those questions won’t get us very far.
As far as God being involved, I’d say I see Him as being intimately involved with us. But that doesn’t mean He does everything we think He should do. Getting back to the story of Lazarus from above, I’d say the most profound part of the story to me is the little phrase, “Jesus wept”.
Why did He weep? He knew He was going to raise Lazarus. He knew that the sorrow his friends was going through would soon turn to joy. But yet He wept with them. I believe He wept because He was honestly moved to tears to see the ones He loved suffer like they were.
So, we have the double blessing of not only having the promise of rescue and resurrection, but the promise that Jesus is beside us, even crying and suffering with us in a real way, while we are suffering.
#24
It is not Ken’s statement of belief in its entirety, it is a statement about the EC, Rob Bell, and Joe’s other co-Pastor Shane Hipps. The message of Christ is simple: You can be changed, indeed you can come to the Son if the Father draws you (John 6:44) and then you have the Holy Spirit, and you do not need all the macinations of Man to be spiritual, it is just who you are in truth.
#25 No more than the snarky remarks Joe and those he quoted put down about Ken.
#27 I agree with Phil…Almost! (sorry phil if this hurts your rep)
I believe Jesus wept because He knew the sorrow of a man losing a friend, and of God that saw through human eyes the result of the fall and sin and death on mankind.
#28:
1) Hint: If your statement of Christian belief contains a list of those you disagree with, then you’ve already missed the boat.
2) Oddly enough, I suspect the folks you baselessly slander in the first sentence would likely agree with the second sentence…
PB – I have noticed that Ken allows political commentary on CRN now. He used to avoid such nonsense.
Announcement!
From now on anyone who disagrees with me on anything will be ill advised to do so.
You have been warned.
And just so you know, I will be letting Jesus lead me in what comments I will be making; so you will be arguing with Him, not me. Sorry.
Does having your friend, who is a pastor of a Mennonite church in Arizona, preach periodically at your church make him your “co-pastor”?
That was a confusing sentence. Shane Hipps is Rob’s friend. He is a pastor of a Mennonite church in Arizona.
Actually, Shane Hipps is on staff at Mars Hill now. I believe it was announced last Fall.
Here’s Hipp’s blog post about moving.
Thanks, Phil.
You know, Phil, DA Carson says nearly the exact same thing in his interpretation of that pericope.
John Chisham,
I’m sorry I missed you today. RL called. Your snarkiness doesn’t even need a response.
BTW, John Chisham I will say thank you for proving my point. All of those beliefs you listed are about what Ken is against. But what does he actually stand for?
I mean you guys can’t even get your nomenclature right. Rob and Shane are my co-pastors alone. There’s quite a few different pastors.
Your not really suggesting that Frank Turk (who I quoted) was slandering poor Ken are you?
Just because I have some serious concerns about what I consider alterations to the gospel I cannot and I will not make that my focus. ODM sites offer little real devotional food except the perfunctory scrap of Spurgeon once in a great while.
We do not worship doctrine; we worship Jesus. He must have all the preeminence and He must be magnified. I grow weary of all the wrangling and constant verbal tug-of-war over anything and everything. It does not edify.
One of my good friends went to be with Jesus only hours after I wrote this post. It kinda puts things in perspective, no?
Spend some time with the Redeemer, today.
To say that Ken or myself or anyone else do not have a clear statement of faith is disengenuas at best and blatantly dishonest at worst. Rob Bell has a statement of faith, as well as books, recordings, and videos that makes it clear that he has departed from the orthodox faith handed down to us from Jesus and the apostles.
It’s perfectly true, because you don’t. So I’ll go with Option (C).
Y’all pretend to be die-hard Calvinists one day, with moaning and gnashing of teeth about whichever sola has been irreparably damaged by the whipping-boy-of-the-day, and then deny that you bow to Calvin the next, when called on it. Ken’ll hammer someone for their stance on a theological position in one breath, but have no problems with folks on his own “team” with contrary positions.
We have a pretty good idea of what you hate – about 99% of Christendom – the Body of Christ
We also have a pretty good idea of what you worship – “right” doctrine.
What exactly that doctrinal statement is? Yeah, that’s hard to pin down, because you’d become your own targets at that point, or you’d have to recognize that the targets of your slander believe pretty much the same things.
Bullcrap. If anything, it’s a whole lot close to what was taught in the first century than what Calvin codified 1500 years later, and what you worship today.
#43.
Could you direct me to Ken’s clear statement of faith? Maybe a sermon or two that he has preached?
Also, would you please answer the question about Frank Turk?
You know funny thing, there is a huge group of “Emergent” churches out there who lean heavily Calvinist and agree with most of the “Sola”s. I attend one of them. I agree with most of the doctrine that my pastor follows, but we disagree on certain points.
However, I refuse to talk bad about him because he doesn’t believe the same things I do, in fact I refuse to make the differences the FOCUS of our relationship.
PB, no offense, but when you whip out your broad brush and begin painting, you just underscore the fact that you really have no idea what the emergent church is.
It’s sad really, because I think you would get along with most of the emergent church members individually, if you could just see past your hatred for their “label” in general.
This has a squiggly red line under it. Are you inventing words again Chris?
Are you being a nudnik, Jerry?
CRN takes exception to Jim Wallis supporting governmental help to the poor. The article quoted makes this statement:
“However, you will look in vain in the pages of New Testament for a single command to government to look after the poor. Expecting the government to do what God has entrusted to us is the ultimate copout.”
That is a copout; however the ultimate copout is rightly identifying God’s call to the church, using it to confront the government, and then not doing what God has instructed us to do. That is the ultimate copout.
It all stems from an obession/diversion about the “oh my, look what they are doing now” governmental distraction. When the church criticizes the government it’s kinda like a baseball player criticizing a football referee – it’s a totally different game.
I sure hope things get straightened out in Washington before the country goes down the tubes. Doesn’t that sound like the ODMs when they claim the world is coming to an end if we don’t stomp out the emergent church?
#44
address the apology to the same name you slandered. This is on my web site for all to see.
Wow, John. That’s impressive. Did you leave any room for grace to save you or are you counting entirely on your doctrinal statement to do that?
John Chisham,
You still have not answered the questions found in #45.
#51 I think grace permeates that statement. It is by the grace of God that a man can come to repentance, faith, be filled with the Holy Spirit, be healed, be part of a church, be resurrected.
#45 Ken’s statement of faith can be fiound on his site. It is very clear and excellent. Do your own research. I have no idea who Ken Turk is and what I am supposed to do with him. So…
Well, the good news I don’t know who Ken Turk is either, but I linked to an interview by Frank Turk and you said the people I linked to were slandering Ken. I’m curious if you could show me the slander.
Well, you all here at PPP should ask that same question. After all, all you do is sit around and strawman what Ken Silva, Ingrid Schleuter, Mike Ratliff, et.al have to say…
We rarely address them anymore, and there is no need to “strawman” them, when their paranoia and shrillness needs no embellishment.