Source: Verum Serum

Comments: John responds to an article written by Ken about Rob Bell. Ken’s criticisms of Bell were based on an excerpt from the three-year-old interview, which was then twisted and distorted by Silva. Additionally, Ken quoted a person who attended Rob Bell’s “Everything is Spiritual” tour, mischaracterizing his comments. John contacted this person, who wrote a correction to Ken’s comments. Since this time, Ken has been much more reliant on quoting dead theologians rather than live folks who might decide to correct him.
Memorable Quotes:

After reading Ken’s revised attack on Rob Bell, I contacted the individual he quoted, Patrick Hanley. Patrick is a youth and college pastor who was not aware how his words were being used. I encouraged him to clarify his comments and he has done so below. Here is the key bit:

This Ken guy, whom I don’t find very fond, has taken my words and made them say something I did not intend. I like a lot of what Bell says. I saw him speak last week in Indy and it was pretty good. My only wish is that he would be more cross-centered. I would not call him a heretic or a wolf seeking to devour.

—

We then had a whole discussion about the proper interpretation of Acts 17, the highlight of which (for me, anyway) was when a commenter named LadyDoc argued that Paul’s preaching model was a failure:

Oh, his sermon didn’t go over too well, by the way. Only a few people really took to it; the rest mocked him. I guess that model doesn’t work very well for Mr. Bell’s purposes…you know, trying to be “culturally relevant.”

Sort of sounds like she got halfway through that sentence and realized she couldn’t say what she started out to say. Notice she starts talking about Paul (”his sermon” is the one in Acts 17) as being a failure, then shifts midway to a criticism of Rob Bell. Well, I guess she’s on record as disagreeing with Paul’s methods of evangelism. Good luck with that.

—

I had no intention of recapitulating any of this discussion here. In fact, I thought it was over, given that Ken closed the comments on his post at Slice. Then, yesterday, Ken revised and expanded his criticism of Bell (now with new accusations!) and created a new post at Slice highlighting it. Strangely, he left the bit about Bell blaming God for Yoga basically untouched. Since he recycled the same argument, I left a comment last night recycling the same reasons why he’s mistaken. I’m sad to say my comment seems to have vanished into the Slice ether. Apparently, it’s one thing for Ken to recycle the same bad argument, but it’s something else for me to recycle the response.

—

To say that heathen “seek God” is to undermine the Gospel and trivialize God’s role in salvation!

So I guess when Rob Bell said:

God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us.

He was undermining the Gospel and trivializig God’s role in salvation?

Oops, that wasn’t Rob that was Paul, Acts 17:27. Your argument needs some work.

—

Well, no one has compared him to a child molester yet. I guess Rob Bell isn’t in Rick Warren’s league.

—

Source: Lone Prairie Art Works

Comments: Someone on Slice quotes Augustine.  A Slice commenter says you shouldn’t quote him because he’s catholic.  Jim Bublitz (an ex-Slice writer, who was still writing for Ingrid at the time) says its OK, trying to have it both ways (I can quote someone from the Apostate Church of Rome and it’s OK.  Don’t you do the same with other writers, though.  These are not the ‘driods you’re looking for. Move along now…)  Julie takes issue with this and Slice’s “odd” method of accepting/rejecting comments.
Memorable Quotes:

I have no problem with the idea of finding bits of truth in the midst of errant views because I believe all truth is God’s truth whether the person who wrote or thought it wants to admit or realizes it or not. Nor did I even choke on the rather postmodern ‘in one sense it’s true and in another it’s false.’ But the author who wrote it – one of the bloggers on that site – makes it ironic. If there was ever a site where babies are regularly thrown out with the bathwater, it’s on Slice, by the people who leave comments and by Bublitz and Ken Silva*. As I wrote about earlier, many times teachers and authors I have found tremendous insight from, despite other errant views, are shredded as examples of for-sure apostasy with nothing of value to offer any real or serious Christian. In the end the only people we are supposed to be able to really read and trust are John MacArthur, John Piper**, and Charles Spurgeon – that’s my understanding after months of reading such sources.

—

I have attempted to leave comments on Slice many times. I’m wondering if anyone else has the poor comment publishing record that I have there. I will assume some were Firefox glitches – not uncommon – because I can’t see how the comments were argumentative or too long. My comments use correct grammar and punctuation (which is more than I can say for some). I don’t cop out and pretend to play nice, go for the jugular, then sign off with an overly-sanctified signature line. I sometimes don’t agree. Sometimes I’ve attempted to link to a preacher or teacher I know isn’t well-liked on the blog but has made a statement that is relevant and good; comments not published. And in a fit of frustration at wanting to join the conversation but not getting to, I simply left a comment that said something to the liking of “I’d leave a comment but my comments don’t get published.”

That one, they published.

—

So not only do my comments not get published when I can’t see why they wouldn’t be, making me think I must be on the fast track to hell and I’ve been blacklisted, but now one of the bloggers on the site says it’s OK to quote someone who had a few errant beliefs and that there can be true and false in the same thought.

As far as I’m concerned, all credibility I had in whatever Slice is, is gone and a lot of its message along with it. It’s gone, because you can’t have it both ways.

It started to slide right about the time Silva revealed on Slice that he believed God called him to the ministry he has, a statement I don’t have a problem with if it didn’t come Silva who has a unique take on what God does and doesn’t do anymore (trying to find the link to that post…). It started to slide then, and has now hit bottom. Frankly, though I’m sure she wouldn’t say much positive about me, I wish the “owner” of the blog, Ingrid, would write more***.

—

Personally, I don’t think it’s a problem. I’ve read Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Bonhoeffer, Lewis – all writers with an asterisk after their names to this crowd. I love reading a Christian book where the author constantly refers back to the Bible and also uses quotes from not only Christian teachers but all sorts of sources.

—

*I do not dislike Bublitz nor do I dislike Silva (who doesn’t allow trackbacks or comments on his own blog making conversation and discussion impossible there). I frequently read what they write and mull it over often. They, like me, are not perfect.

**Piper rocked the boat by inviting some cussing pastor to speak at one of his conferences. Oops. Watch the comments of “Alas, Piper has fallen!” and “Perhaps we were wrong about the cussing pastor” fill the blogosphere for people who have raised Piper a bit too high.

***Why? Read the 5th comment here. You can read the post about women pastors, too, but I just skimmed it in order to avoid the skirts vs. pants battle with some of the same people. And why did I just skim that “controversial” post? The genius reasoning going on there, of course. The usual listing of all the female preachers and teachers who had a wayward message are listed, by men, without the obvious realization that there are more examples of screwball male preachers because of sheer historic numbers, which would then prove the opposite point, a point for the opposing argument. I’m not commenting on my thoughts on the actual matter, but merely pointing out how stupid little proof it takes to satisfy and convince some people that women are evil when they get in power because they can come up with examples of bad women! If that’s the best you have for such an argument, just shut up. You aren’t doing your side any favors.

—

Source: Cerulean Sanctum

Comments: In probably the most in-depth, well-thought article on the subject of ‘watchbloggers’/'heretic hunters’ anywhere to date, Dan lays out all of the ills, pratfalls and pitfalls associated with this group of modern inquisitors. While he does not call Slice out by name, one cannot read this without seeing every writer at Slice, especially Ken Silva, in almost every point of the analysis.

Memorable Quotes:

But I’ve seen enough. The following are the reasons why I will no longer support those sites:

1. They’re not confronting soberly and with care.
2. They’re using dubious logic and questionable facts to assail their targets.
3. They disingenuously look the other way when their favorite sources violate their standards.
4. They often ignore the whole counsel of Scripture.
5. They operate in the same manner as the targets they criticize.
6. They overlook their own issues.
7. They utterly refuse correction when they’re clearly wrong.

I was originally going to name names, but that flies in the face of how I typically address issues at Cerulean Sanctum. I’m sure every Godblogger has been irresponsible in a couple of those above points before (including here), but not on the consistent level of the heretic hunters. Many of you will already know the sites I’m hinting at. If you’ve read them, you know those sites refuse correction anyway, so naming them will not make a difference in how they promulgate their particular brand of “righteous” ire.

—

But just as God takes no delight in the downfall of the wicked, rather hoping that they would repent, no Christian blogger should do a “Ha! Ha!” a la The Simpsons‘ Nelson Muntz when they see a perceived enemy stumble. Nor should we joke about error or make fun of our enemies. And while it is fine for the Apostle Paul to “wish they’d go emasculate themselves,” none of us is Paul, or even a pale copy of him.

—

In those cases where the bloggers are available, confrontation is stemmed by having comments deleted or being disallowed from a site. I firmly acknowledge a blogger’s right to manage his or her own site, but still. An unwillingness to connect directly speaks volumes about the folks behind the blogs—and none of it in keeping with true Christlikeness. None of us should be afraid to reason together with fellow believers.

—

That sort of guilt by association is the primary means by which many of these sites denigrate individuals, too. Christian A endorsed the book by Speaker B who on a single occasion spoke at a church lead by Pastor C who knew Worship Leader D who once led worship in the church of Reverend E who in passing said something nice about supposed Heretic F. Therefore, Christian A is a false prophet and teacher because the chain leads to Heretic F. And how do we know Heretic F is a heretic? Well, in the heretic hunter’s blog posts from last week, he/she used that same six degrees of separation method with a different set of conspirators to prove that case.

—

And is doctrinal impurity in others any more harmful than being personally unloving, prideful, spiteful, and unwilling to be disciplined as needed? Yet so many of the heretic hunters, by the very words they write on their blogs and sites, show an abundance of those unwelcome traits.

—

Source: Bob Blog
Comments: Bob notes that Ken might not appreciate what would happen if he looked into a mirror…
Memorable Quotes:

Got a letter from the Rev Ken Silva from Slice of Laodicea. He feels as though I misunderstand and perhaps mischaracterize him. I said I was sorry for his hurt feelings, but that perhaps now he knew how men like Brian McLaren and Richard Foster feel when reading Silva’s diatribes.

—

[starla commenting] Ken does recall that he called me a heretic after one post, right?

—

Source: Bob Blog

Comments: Bob posts a link to Ken Silva’s article on Quakers, wherein Ken proves that he knows about as much about Quakers as he does about nuclear physics.
Memorable Quotes:

[comment from starla] Wow. Oh, my gosh! He’s right! Who knew I was pantheistic! Why didn’t my inner light illuminate that!

Think someone should tell him that nonevangelical quakers are a touch different that evangelical quakers, aka, Friends?

—

Source: Cerulean Sanctum
Comments: Dan takes to task a number of (unnamed) Christian bloggers who call out who the heretics are and consign them to hell – maybe even taking perverse pleasure in doing so.
Memorable Quotes:

The Christian blogosphere talks about hell far more than you’ll hear from any pulpit. I’ve read just about every take on hell you can imagine in just the last few weeks. But every one of those theological treatises has ignored one kind of hell, the hell that most people experience: hell on earth.

It doesn’t take much for us Christians to castigate anyone we deem to be unworthy sinners. You don’t have to look very far to find such horrid heathens. The Christian blogosphere is brimming over with posts that name names and point fingers. The names of the enemies change, but the general collection of them remains the same. You’re likely to find homosexuals, evolutionists, atheists, and the ACLU in that category. Karl Rove seems to occupy that spot for Sojourners types, while the hardcore conservatives still get mileage out of Bill Clinton. And then there’s whatever preacher or teacher we love to hate. Benny Hinn, Rick Warren, Joyce Meyer, Ken Copeland—maybe even your own pastor will show up on that list, who knows. The important thing here is that hell needs to be invoked whenever we think about them.

More and more I believe that we truly want to see some people burn in hell. It used to be the Hitlers, Pol Pots, and Stalins of the world, but increasingly it’s the people we disagree with—you know, The Enemies of Christ. And from the dialog I see occurring on an increasing number of Christian Web sites, I believe that there are a few too many Christians who would get no more glee than to have a front row seat in Abraham’s bosom so they can stare out over the chasm that separates heaven from hell and lob a few jeers at the prisoners of hell. Because we all know that nothing hurts worse than to be in hell and have to suffer the receiving end of cat-calls from The People Who Got It Right.

—