Watchdoggie Blogger, Mike Corley, recently wrote a post entitles Why I Have Left the SBC.  His reasons listed were everything from embracing Arminianism, accepting Purpose Driven churches into their fold and the growth of women in “ministry leadership.”  While I could not find a single disagreement that I actually agreed with, I have tremendous respect for Corley.  You see, he actually had the backbone to leave an organization that he disagrees with.

There is this guy that I went to college with who constantly complained about the Christian institution of higher learning.  He even went as far as starting an anonymous monthly newsletter that talked about everything wrong with the school.  Campus Life, Residence Life, Campus Ministries, the food… you name it, he hated it.  So one day I sat down with him and asked him one question.  Why on earth would he spend over 20,000 dollars a year to an institution he didn’t agree with?  His answer – He knew that the school’s reputation would give him some credibility in the future.

Sometimes I wonder why men like Ken Silva remain within the camp of the SBC when they say things like the SBC is filling up with dead churches and that the SBC stands for slowly becoming catholic.  Is it because the community actually validates who they are?  Maybe if they left, they would simply be self-proclaimed pastor/teachers.  And maybe they are really just apathetic to the situation.

Don’t get me wrong, I see tons of flaws with the SBC (ironically they are almost the exact opposite of Mike Corley’s).  However, I hope to be a part of the solution, or get off the ship.  Some might think that writing hateful blogs or open letters ranting to the president is helpful.  But let’s be real.  That’s not affecting any change, but is adding to the problem.  It’s not fair to the institution or yourself when you just stick around and scream in inconsiderate ways about the issues.  Maybe it’s time time get off the ship or affect some positive change.

On Mike Corley’s Blog, he is asking for people to write in five questions that they would ask emerging churches. In his radio show, he opened it up for people from the emerging side to ask the discernment ministries / traditional church five questions. Head over there and ask some thought provoking questions for people to consider!  However, please respect Mr. Corley’s wishes and just ask questions.  Hopefully this will later turn into a discussion.  Remember, they are our brothers and sisters, even if that mindset is not reciprocated .

so I have re-written this post about five times already. This may sound shallow, but all I have to say is that I really don’t like this post / video on Mike Corley’s site. I am neither calvinist nor arminian, but far too often CRN and others make this a dividing line between heresy and orthodoxy. Anyone who doesn’t subscribe to the five points of tulip is seen as attacking the doctrines of Grace. I have never understood that, as both theological systems are completely reliant on the grace of God. One system says that grace is available to all, another says that grace is given to some. But I digress.

I think this is the ugly side of doctrine. Having graduated with my M.A. in theology and continuing now with an M.T.S., I see far too many people that create huge dividing lines out of insignificant doctrinal differences. It becomes a competition of who has the superior doctrinal understanding, rather than who is putting their doctrine to work. I think we need to understand that no matter where you stand, both sides are using scripture and have strong evidence for both systems. To make this a line of heresy and orthodoxy is a mistake.

But, watch the video and let me know. Maybe it was just the fact that it was set in a submarine that weirded me out

“It seems like their entire mission in life is to listen to everything that I say, Ken Silva says, other people like Mike Ratliff, John Cardwell… and to dissect every word we say and even sometimes twist it around”

This was Mike Corley’s quote from today’s show concerning our website.  I would like to rephrase this and send it back.

“It seems like their [Mike Corley, Ken Silva, etc.] entire mission in life is to listen to everything that Bell says, Erwin McManus says, other people like Rick Warren, Dan Kimball… and to dissect every word they say and even sometimes twist it around”

He then goes on to say that the difference between his site and ours is simply that “he contends for the faith.”  Have you been on CRN.com?  I see very little of contending for the faith and heaps of “dissecting words” and “twisting them around.”

Corley then goes on to challenge us to prove him wrong with scripture and verse.  This coming from a man who in the same broadcast did a whole critique piece on Northeast Church’s methodology without using a single word from scripture.  In fact, in the whole one hour, show he had A verse.  The problem is that when someone makes a critique of someone without any biblical backing, it is hard to give a biblical rebuttal using scripture.  When someone makes blanket statements about someone or some ministry, we have to return with simple evidence that these accusations are not true, using scripture and scripture usage when possible.

I found it comical that Mike used this example:  please give me chapter and verse when you argue against me that Jesus is the only way or that Mormonism, Hinduism or Buddhism is wrong.  Does anyone remember any “mock site” having a problem with these issues?  No, we all agree on these.  It is the painting of anything that looks different than you as emergent and attacking methods rather than the message preached that we take offense.  It is when people are trying to give the message of Christ and you try to hinder it, that we take action.

Dear Mr. Corley,
I know that “open letters” are not the best way to communicate but despite my sending you a few connections via the “Expositor” webpage you have not responded to me. So I’ve decided to take the open approach. Now, you’ve already said that you won’t “get into a back-and-forth with them” so I’ll not ask for that. Although I find it interesting that you and CRN/Slice 2.0 ridicule Erwin McManus and others for not responding to you, you are certainly free to chose to live your life however you would like. I cannot stop you if you chose to openly live in hypocrisy.

Now, let’s get to your letter. I found it (and the subsequent show today) to be morally repugnant. Let’s just look at the post to start shall we? You said,

“One case in point is what I call the “mock site” guys. I will not call them or their “blogs” by name because I will not give them the satisfaction or the publicity, but these are folks that devote entire internet sites to analyzing people like me, Ken Silva, Steve Camp, Ingrid Schleuter and others.”

Now, why does that shock you? What makes CRN/Slice 2.0 so special that you can devote entire websites to analyzing people. For that matter what makes your radio program so special? Why is it that you can analyze people but if you are questioned those doing the questioning are “spoiled whining little child” who want to “take their ball and go home in a ‘your not the boss of me’ type attitude?”

You go on to say,

“The first time I actually visited one of these sites, my first thought was ‘do these folks have jobs?’.”

I’d like to answer that one for myself. Yes, I do have a job. In fact I have two jobs. I used to have three jobs (one of them was being a pastor). I also have a beautiful family, three small daughters and a fantastic wife. Yet, I am so appalled at your site, so scared for the Bride of Christ that I make sure I take time to point out your errors. I cannot help but analyze and refute the rantings of Ken Silva. Your consistent attacks on men of God cannot go unchallenged. If you used logic or actually backed your statement up (I suppose this applies more to Ken than you) it would be one thing but just attacking a man and not backing it up with anything other than links to one’s own page cannot be countenanced.

So then today on your radio show after being asked for what I imagine was more than a few times how your site was any different than that which you were deriding you stooped lower than low saying that your site is OK because you are “contending for the faith.” What arrogance! What absolute hogwash!
Your contention that you stand for the gospel and therefore any who might dare question you are somehow against Christ is so full of arrogance it defies explanation.
Sir, if you can’t see the hypocrisy in a man who has a radio show dedicated to questioning others deriding those who do the same to him then you are correct when you say, “there will be some who in spite of it all, will just simply refuse to believe and accept the Truth, even when it is clearly laid out before them.”
Mr. Corley there are many things I’d like to say to you but they would not honor God so I won’t say them.
I want to make this next part very clear. As long as men and women like you and your comrades continue to feast on the Bride of Christ in the name of Christ I will stand against you. I will call you out loudly and often. In the past, I have (and many contributors here) have pointed out Ken’s lack of logic and outright lies. You Sir, are a blight on person of Christ, and an embarrassment to the family that is the Church universal. In ruminating over your post and your radio show today I thought of some verses. I pray their meaning won’t be lost on you.

Proverbs 17:10 “A rebuke impresses a man of discernment
more than a hundred lashes a fool.”

Proverbs 9:7 “”Whoever corrects a mocker invites insult;
whoever rebukes a wicked man incurs abuse.”

Proverbs 9:8 “Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you;
rebuke a wise man and he will love you.”

Proverbs 19:25 “Flog a mocker, and the simple will learn prudence;
rebuke a discerning man, and he will gain knowledge.”
Mr. Corley I’ve stopped short of calling you Apostate although I myself have been called that by Ken because I exposed his lying to the world. I stopped short of a lot of things that my flesh wanted to say because of a story found in Luke, Chapter 9

 46An argument started among the disciples as to which of them would be the greatest. 47Jesus, knowing their thoughts, took a little child and had him stand beside him. 48Then he said to them, “Whoever welcomes this little child in my name welcomes me; and whoever welcomes me welcomes the one who sent me. For he who is least among you all—he is the greatest.”

 49″Master,” said John, “we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we tried to stop him, because he is not one of us.”

 50″Do not stop him,” Jesus said, “for whoever is not against you is for you.”

I wonder what we can learn about this story in whole emergent/fundamentalist rift we find ourselves in.

I am going to pray three things for you Mr. Corley. I am going to pray that either

1. You will repent of attacking the Body of Christ
2. God will shut you down and your influence will be silenced
3. God will show me that I am wrong and you are right

Blessings!

Joe

I have received alot of emails about this recent broadcast from the Mike Corley Show with Ken Silva. They basically ganged up on Erwin McManus and his recent talk at the National Religious Broadcasting Convention. I really am speechless on so many levels. Their logic behind their arguments is absolutely astounding. Ken Silva at several times begins yelling, and sounds almost psychotic (and I do not say that loosely).

After listening to this radio show I wonder if there really is any hope for these men. Not in the salvation sense, but in the sense that they will stop tearing down the body of Christ. My heart is so burdened for the churches out there that are speaking and sharing the truth in a postmodern world.

After listening to this, I am interested in your thoughts and ideas. For now I am interceding for the future of the Bride of Christ as it exists among wolves that would desire to see her diminished and ultimately destroyed.

I would like to say “good work” to the many people that contribute to this site.  We have been receiving alot of response on many of these discernment blogs.  This should only be seen as our voices being heard and at least processed in their minds.  Pray that it would now move within their hearts to stop tearing down the church and building up believers to find and grow in Christ.

This article speak for itself.  I could hardly believe what I was reading when I found this today on The Expositor website.  Mike criticizes CRN info and Analysis for “devot[ing] entire internet sites to analyzing people.”  Well Mike, could you please explain the what exactly Apprising Ministries, Christian Research Network and World View Network are doing?   Why, even your own website has tags dedicated to criticizing Erwin McManus, Rob Bell, Rick Warren.  How, pray tell, is that that any different from what others are doing?

Here is an excerpt from his article:

One case in point is what I call the “mock site” guys. I will not call them or their “blogs” by name because I will not give them the satisfaction or the publicity, but these are folks that devote entire internet sites to analyzing people like me, Ken Silva, Steve Camp, Ingrid Schleuter and others.

The first time I actually visited one of these sites, my first thought was ‘do these folks have jobs?’. I guess I should be flattered to mentioned on the same pages as the names listed above, but to be honest with you I am not flattered.  Frankly I am neither impressed or intimidated by their rantings and rhetoric. I have come to expect it quite frankly, even though most of these mock sites have the same four or five contributors who are constantly commenting on whether Ken Silva is too sarcastic, I am just plain ignorant, or Steve Camp is too forward. And they really have it out for Dr. John MacArthur who they flippantly refer to as “Johnnie Mac”.

I don’t know how Mike Corley can attack sites like this for devoting themselves to the “criticism” of other ministries, when most of his radio show is almost solely dedicated to the public attack of other ministries!  This to me is the epitome of hypocrisy.  The ministries of Mike, Ken, Ingrid are dedicated to the tearing down of churches and ministries that they feel are out of line.  What goes on here is exposing the falsehoods behind these men and women, and continuing to build up those churches who are actively drawing people to our lord and savior, Jesus Christ.

In response to your question about jobs.  We do have jobs.  We don’t simply plead for money or ask for speaking engagements to further the destruction of the kingdom of God.  Our lives, not simply our careers are dedicated to exposing the truth where it is distorted, building up the saints and drawing others into a relationship with a living God.

Lastly on John MacArthur.  Most of us here do not have a huge problem with John MacArthur.  In fact, most of us respect what he does.  What we react against is the fact that “discernment ministries” such as Corley, Silva and Schleuter often use more of MacArthur’s material  to prove their points than scripture.  This is often because there is no scripture that backs up their point of view.  We use Jonnie Mac or J-Mac because it is comical how much he is quoted among the discernment camp.

I think this quote from Corley’s interview with MacArthur sums up and affirms this

“I came to the conclusion, or at least the thought… that God almost didn’t call anyone else to preach the gospel but John MacArthur”

You really need to listen to Mike Corley’s latest program here.  He addresses the issue of how we can get people back into the church.  This is the epitome of the arrogance within the more fundamental community.  First he says that we need not get into a debate over style.  However, he goes on a long rant over how today people come to church dressed like “bums”, the church has smoke machines and disco lights, and makes the statement “we can’t pack the pews because we don’t have pews.  We have cushy chairs.”  He only mentions the “lack of the gospel” once, and gives no rationale behind his statement.  And this isn’t an argument about style?

Change is the issue here.  The discernment camp hates that word.  Change means that we give up outdated and irrelevant methods that many have come to love.  The sad thing is that people like Corley would rather hold on to their pews for their own comfort than create an environment where people are comfortable enough to relax and hear from God.  He makes the statement that “what is relevant today, won’t be relevant tomorrow”.  Exactly!  Then why on earth are we using methods suggested by the Sunday School Board circa 1950?

Mike’s answer to getting people back into church?  The gospel.

I say that what we DO with the gospel is going to get people into church.  It’s not enough today to say “God did it, the bible says it, I believe it.”  Yes, that works for many of us who are believers, but to a postmodern world that is nonsense.  We must continually hear the voice of God and create new roads to the His message to the people

Anyhow, I recommend listening specifically to 20:00 – 35:00 in the broadcast.  I am very interested in your take on this.