Archive for the 'ODM Responses' Category

Source: Verum Serum

Comments: John notes that Ken has started using exchanges he’s had with John a guy, and John examines the context of these usages.
Memorable Quotes:

At the tail end of the comments to my earlier post about Ken Silva’s declaration of war on the emergent church, I stated my concerns about the wisdom of continuing the conversation. I said in part, “I believe it may be time for me to leave this matter between Ken and the Lord.”

Last night, a few hours after I posted those comments, Ken wrote a response (scroll down) to someone who had written him an e-mail about these same issues. Is it just me or is his response eerily similar to what I said to him just a few hours earlier? It also sounds quite dramatically different than his earlier comments on this site. All that to say, perhaps setting an example is working…

Regular readers are aware that Ken said those things right here, responding to me. That means I’m “one guy” and “the guy” being referred to in the statements above. Now, I understand he’s speaking extemperaneously, but it’s not like Ken doesn’t know my name at this point. He’s been exchanging comments with me — both here and at Slice — for almost a month now. But, fine, it’s not my show. I don’t expect to be named. I will note, however, that Ken once rebuked me for calling him “Rev. Ken,” (same link as above). He suggested I was belittling him in some way. Isn’t “Rev. Ken” (which is how he signs his posts at Slice) a lot better than “a guy.” I think so. But once again, Ken seems to have one yardstick for judging how others talk about him and a completely different one for judging how he talks about others.

  • Share/Bookmark

Source: Fishing the Abyss

Comments: Chris attended Rob Bell’s Everything Is Spiritual tour and then wrote about it, along with his unwelcome discovery of the Christian blogosphere’s rabid pit-bull terriers at Slice.
Memorable Quotes:

Sadly, in my searching and musings, I’ve encountered a small but rather vociferous group of legalistic folks who seem to have little more to do than paint Rob Bell as some sort of modern-day Anti-Christ, leading thousands astray, like some Satanic pied piper. The primary locus of these folks is a weblog called Slice of Laodicea, with the leader of this particular charge being ‘pastor’ Ken Silva – a gentleman who seems to spend a large amount of energy attacking Mr. Bell, reminiscent of Javert’s dogged pursuit of Jean Valjean.

  • Share/Bookmark

Source: Verum Serum

Comments: John provides some commentary on Ken’s infamous declaration of Rob Bell as a ‘Spiritual Pedophile’. The comments section of this post is fairly rich with content, including why Ken has decided to ignore Matthew 18 in his approach to Rob Bell.

Memorable Quotes:

Well, things over at Slice continue to go from bad to worse. You wouldn’t think it possible, but it is. Rev. Ken Silva — who I have had some good exchanges with — has now (and I mean this literally) declared holy war on the emergent church in general and Rob Bell in particular:

[John comments] Yes, your post refers to them as “spiritual pedophiles” (which isn’t a lot better by the way), but my reference to “approved comments” was to somethig I read at Slice almost two months ago. A commenter had compared Rick Warren to a child molester, i.e. a pedophile. It was used as a similie in that case, i.e. Rick is “like a child molester.” Both that comment and another one comparing Warren to a hit-and-run driver were approved. No one from Slice seemed bothered by them. This was actually what prompted my first ever comment at Slice.

[Ken tries to pull rank] You know this isn’t a personal thing with me, but when you say, “I’ve called Ken out on his comments both here and on Slice,” it comes across a bit presumptuous on your part. And this is especially so after you title the piece “Rev. Ken…,” which gives the appearance of belittling my ordination with the Southern Baptist Convention. Not that it in itself means anything to me but you should know that in the SBC I am considered just as much a pastor as a Charles Stanley.

[To be clear, Ken is glorified home Bible study facilitator, but expects a level of respect for himself that he is unwilling to give to others. To wit, when was the last time he wrote about 'Pastor Rob Bell'?]

[John commenting] If you want to run a blog spoofing the zanier things to come out of evangelical chruches, fine. I’m all for open discussion and even ridicule where appropriate. However, when you start presuming to know the state of these men’s souls…when you suggest that they are tools of Satan…when you suggest that you represent the last remnant of the “true faith.” That’s where I begin to think it is you who are being very presumptuous.

In all my disagreement with you, which I think you’ll agree has been quite strenuous at times, have I ever suggested you were a “demon” or a “viper?” I have not.

[Scott responding to Ken]

What makes me think that I shouldn’t be listening to you (or that, in fact, nobody should be listening to you for that matter)? That’s quite simple. I shouldn’t be listening to you because of:

1) your irresponsible, unfounded, unsubstantiated attacks against anyone who doesn’t hold to the same line that you do including myself, John, Chris (from Fishing the Abyss), Amy, Rob Bell, and many, many, many others.

2) your twisting and torturing of the Word of God including misquotes, prooftexting, unsuportable interpretations of scriptural passages, denial of basic principles of Biblical interpretation, hermenutics, Biblical harmonics, etc.

3) your refusal to actually engage in any discussion in which you have to actually demonstrate the validity of your opinion/position using solid reasoning and Christian principles rooted in and based on the ACTUAL Word of God and NOT just your SPIN on what you claim the passages “really mean” to those who are “wise” enough to understand them (”wise people” meaning you and, uh,…well…you).

4) your obvious and frightening arrogance and spiritual pride in equating your words and thoughts with God’s words and thoughts, as demonstrated by, among other things, your cryptic and ominous warnings about how we should be careful about how we deal with and address you as God’s representative -AND- your attempts to use the words of Christ to apply to you as well.

5) your unscriptural attitudes towards those who question you and challenge your interpretations, insisting that those question you as a “pastor/teacher” must be dwelling in darkness, sheep in wolves clothing, spiritually blind, etc, etc, etc.

6) your unpastorlike-unteacherlike-unreverendlike conduct that creates far mor hurt and anger and confusion than anything that comes out of the Emergent Church movement.

As a whole, Ken, your conduct on the Web, over at SLICE and APPRISING, on the various blogs that you haunt, etc has been and continues to be appauling. If the Southern Babtist church had any standing and powers of oversight on the internet, I would suggest that they consider recinding your ordination. Your words are unloving, unwise, unscriptural, unsound, and uncool.

If how you conduct yourself in the blogosphere represents how you are in real life, perhaps that is why you don’t seem to have much success as a pastor and as a guy who is trying to drum up support and money for his pet project/ministry. I have read nearly everything on your site including your “missives,” your letters, your appeals for money, your background and history, etc. Taking all the pieces of the puzzle that are available there and fitting them together into the picture that they represent, it becomes obvious that though you claim to have a “calling” for the ministry, you really don’t (at least serving in the ways that you are attempting to do now or in what you have attempted to do in the past). You alienate people and drive them away (I believe you call this “weeding” out the unfaithful). You try to make your “mark,” not through building up and through edification but instead through criticizing and tearing people down. You fancy yourself as the “watchman,” though you have demonstrated that you aren’t capable of the wisdom or discernment necesary to serve in that capacity.

As I have said before, Ken, the saddest part of this whole situation is that you might have some valid points to make. But you have so discredited yourself and turned your whole “ministry” into such a farce that whatever it is that you have to share that might be beneficial is overshadowed by the arrogance, pride, and dillusions of “spiritual grandeur.” You are like Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Baker, Pat Robertson, etc,…they may have good things to say, too, but they have lost all credibility to say them.

By the way, Ken, it ISN’T that we don’t understand what you are saying. We have NEVER misrepresented anything that you have said and have, in fact, demonstrated time and again that we have a full understanding of your position (in fact, we probably express your ideas/thoughts/opinions/arguments better than you do). What we HAVE NOT done is agree with you. You confuse “not being clear” with “not agreeing.” Your words and thoughts are clear. But in our opinion, based on the Word of God, principles of sound Biblical theology, and the words of respected Christian thinkers throughout history, you are mistaken. Your thoughts are clear, and they are CLEARLY WRONG.

Sorry, Ken, but to have respect you need to earn respect. You have to spend time building up credibility by demonstrating wisdom and discernment in the small things before you get to jump up to the next level of standing toe-to-toe with the “big boys” (like Billy Graham, Rob Bell, Chuck Swindoll, etc). You haven’t wanted to “earn” anything. You want to just jump in and then demand to be listened to. Unfortunately, by donig so you have missed out on the process of learning discernment and gaining wisdom.

Right now when you speak you just show your spiritual ignorance and immaturity. You are like a petulant child who demands to be listened to and throws a fit when they don’t get their way.

Maybe you need a long spiritual time-out?!?

[Scott continues, after a second thought]

Ken,

Let me add that as I wrote my last comment, I could almost hear your voice/see you type your responses. Let me anticipate them:

1) You will make (or at least think about making) some pious sounding statement about how your suffering is nothing compared to Christ, how you have “given your all” for your Lord, how you consider it a blessing to “suffer” and/or be “persecuted” for your stand against the spreaders of iniquity that are infiltrating the Church, etc, etc, etc…

2) You will make (or at least think about making) a comment about how your small house church of 4-5 is parallel to Jesus’ small group of disciples, how large numbers equate to selling out the Gospel, how a true teacher of the Gospel would “weed out” the unfaithful by teaching the hard truths, so your little group represents a segment or “remnent” of the True Church.

3) You will claim that YOU represent the true teachings of Christ and that those who stand with you are the true “faithful” and “elect,” whereas everyone else who disagrees are representatives of Satan and/or are lost in darkness.

4) You will claim that my reference to “respected Christian thinkers and/or theologians throughout history” is evidence of my being in love with my own thoughts and the thoughts of men rather than loving the Word of God.

5) You will want to quote something from Dr. Walter Martin and/or A.W. Tozer to make yourself sound educated, well-read, and wise, though you criticize anybody else that does the same thing by quoting others who are just as widely read and respected as Martin and Tozer.

6) You will want to warn me against speaking out against a representative of the Lord who has been “called” to the ministry, as evidenced by your Southern Baptist ordination (even though you will also claim that the words and acknowledgements of men, like your SBC recognition mean nothing to you).

7) You will claim that one of the problems with my arguments is that people have been lead to believe that someone who declares the Gospel forcefully is wrong because the real manly-man Jesus stood firm and offended people constantly…and since Jesus did it, so can you.

I’m sure that if I had time, I could anticipate other arguments that you will make (or at least want to), but I have to run.

Scott

[Pastor Rod tells Ken]

There is a big difference between these two statements:

I am convinced that my position is correct, though I’m open to the possibility that I might be wrong.

I know that I am right, that God is pleased with my position and that ‘at the last day’ I will be vindicated.”

There is even more of a contrast with a statement often made by N. T. Wright, another whipping boy of the TR crowd, “I know that some of what I’m saying is wrong; I just don’t know which part.”

This does not spring from a post-modernist epistemology. It grows out of a quality known in some circles as humility.

For someone who makes it his mission to correct the perceived errors of others, you seem to be rather resistant to correction yourself.

[Chris asks a question of Ken]

Ken,

Is it possible that you are wrong in your criticisms against Rob Bell?

This is a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ question.

Is it possible that you are wrong in your criticisms against Rob Bell?

[Chris follows up on the answer at length]

Ken,

For the record, you answered my question “Is it possible that you are wrong in your criticisms against Rob Bell?”

You know of course that anything is possible

With this in mind, when you make statements like this

And those of us who hold these views will simply tell you that when we quote the Word of God on an issue, then it is not OUR opinion, but His. The results belong to Him and I cannot change your minds, which is patently obvious.

can you understand how this statement appears to be in contradiction to your answer that it is possible that you are wrong in your criticism of Bell?

In light of the discord between these two things you’ve written, I could possibly say something like the following:

It then seems as if no one is really able to definitively say what Bell’s meaning is in much of what he writes. I see what I see, you see what you see, Scott sees what he sees, etc.

How is that being a good pastor-teacher on Ken’s part? At best then what we are seeing would be a style of writing which people can make say whatever they want it to say. But the Bible says the pastor – must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it (Titus 1:9). [note: I am quoting your post from E-What with the names changed.]

However, I would not make such a statement, because that would be a poor prooftexting of scripture. Were I to make such a statement, then I could quote Peter in 2 Peter 3:16 to suggest that Paul is unqualified based upon his own criteria.

Additionally, someone (I can’t remember who, and forget where it was posted) commented that when you paraphrase someone, they ought to be able to read your paraphrase and say “yes – that’s what I meant” (note: this is different than drawing a conclusion from what they said), and if not, you’ve just created a straw man.

This is what you constantly do in your writing, which discredits your arguments, rather than supports them.

As deborah wrote on E-What:

Please do not put words in my mouth, please do not try to add your interpretation to what I say. It serves no purpose. Next time please try asking why someone said something instead of trying to guess.

A perfect example is in your post #75 when you say

Seriously, your whole diatribe is summed up here:

“Why must it be YOUR way”

and then attempt to dismantly your paraphrase of Scott. I seriously doubt Scott would agree with your paraphrase, because it does not address ANY of his primary points,

I shouldn’t be listening to you because of:

1) your irresponsible, unfounded, unsubstantiated attacks against anyone who doesn’t hold to the same line that you do including myself, John, Chris (from Fishing the Abyss), Amy, Rob Bell, and many, many, many others.

2) your twisting and torturing of the Word of God including misquotes, prooftexting, unsuportable interpretations of scriptural passages, denial of basic principles of Biblical interpretation, hermenutics, Biblical harmonics, etc.

3) your refusal to actually engage in any discussion in which you have to actually demonstrate the validity of your opinion/position using solid reasoning and Christian principles rooted in and based on the ACTUAL Word of God and NOT just your SPIN on what you claim the passages “really mean” to those who are “wise” enough to understand them (”wise people” meaning you and, uh,…well…you).

4) your obvious and frightening arrogance and spiritual pride in equating your words and thoughts with God’s words and thoughts, as demonstrated by, among other things, your cryptic and ominous warnings about how we should be careful about how we deal with and address you as God’s representative -AND- your attempts to use the words of Christ to apply to you as well.

5) your unscriptural attitudes towards those who question you and challenge your interpretations, insisting that those question you as a “pastor/teacher” must be dwelling in darkness, sheep in wolves clothing, spiritually blind, etc, etc, etc.

6) your unpastorlike-unteacherlike-unreverendlike conduct that creates far mor hurt and anger and confusion than anything that comes out of the Emergent Church movement.

Mighht I suggest that you address each of these issues directly (which requires no paraphrase), or at the very least, use one of his summations, like this one:

Notice that the problem people have is not necessarily with your ideas but also ( and I think far more forecefully) with your presentation and with your seeming arrogance and judgemental/pharisaical attitude with which you refuse to engage in discussion and only engage in condemnation.

or this one

Remember, ALL of this drama in the blogosphere that you are a part of has taken place, not because you disagree with Rob Bell or because people disagree with you. It is because YOU have placed yourself in the seat of judgement and have deemed it right for YOU to declare the motivations and spiritual well-being of men like Rob Bell and people like John and me. YOU have passed open judgement on many, many people as though you were the Grand Inquisitor of the blososphere

Neither of these summations (nor his initial post yesterday) could be summed up as

Why must it be YOUR way?

Thus, the argument you make in #75 is a straw man. In this particular case, since your answer is such that a simple reading of it leads one to the conclusion that you believe your words are God’s words, with no possibility of error – in direct contradition to your later admission of the possibility of error – one could even declare victory for the straw man.

It is one thing to criticize someone else’s ideas. It is a completely different thing to quote someone’s ideas, give them a completely different meaning (i.e. what they’re “really teaching”) and then extrapolate from this different meaning to an ill conclusion (i.e. “where he is heading”), and to then pronounce judgement that he is a “tool of Satan”. That is a straw-man argument. That is defamatory. That is slander.

Do you understand this? If so, why do you continue to do it?

When you are quoting scripture to disagree with someone, do you understand that quoting things like:

You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. (Matt 22:29)

or

Stop judging by mere appearances, and make a right judgment. (John 7:24)

Do you understand that this type of quotation does nothing to answer the person you’ve directed it to, but it actually
1) gives you the appearance of taking on Christ’s authority
2) at the very least says nothing more than “I believe I’m right”
3) conveys the air of “and Jesus thinks I’m right too”
4) In all of the above, creates an impression of hubris on your part.

Do you understand this? If so, why do you continue to do it?

It is totally fine if you choose to disagree with Bell, McLaren and others. That is your perogative. It is completely different to say that

the Lord Jesus has sent me specifically to teach against these men at this time. I know God’s pleased with my work, and I also know that He hates what they are doing.

or things like

I caution you this doesn’t mean the Lord is taking lightly your obsessive unwarranted misrepresenting of me, and you’re speaking about things you simply do not understand.

Or ominous quotes like

You do realize you accuse me here, right?

Or (when you’ve been corrected in misuse of scripture)

I sincerely do pray that one day the Lord will help you to be able to see yourself more clearly that you might recognize what you are actually doing.

When you make statements like these, you have gone beyond stating your opinion. Whan you make statements like these it appears that you have given yourself an authority above anyone who disagrees with you – an authority that just isn’t yours to claim.

I could go on, but I’ve got things to do today – please seriously think on these things – none were meant in anything but truly wondering how you do not see the disconnect between the way you present yourself and the way you seem to believe you actually are.

It’s not about disagreement over Bell, the EC, etc. Brotherly disagreement is OK. It is about disagreement over your methods, which lie in stark contrast to those of ‘pastor-teachers’. It is not about Bell, the EC, etc. In this case, it is truly about you.

[Chris follows up with the same question MANY times on a couple of forums, trying to get an answer]

Ken,

On one hand, you admitted last night that you might be in error re: Bell. Today you said:

have made mistakes before, and every human teacher will, but I am not wrong re. Bell.

Which is it? A straight answer, not a rebounded identical question (because I believe it is possible that I could be wrong about Bell).

Which is it:

A) You could be wrong about Bell
B) You are not wrong about Bell

Which is it – A or B?

[Ken finally answers - indirectly and ironically with a Brian MacLaren quote]

To be clear…as you are fond of saying in this inquisition…I posted this (with an additional “k”) at E-What:

You know, as I look at it I guess this does come across as rather pomo and McLarenesque as robby mac pointed out re. nailing jello.

So let me leave it then with a quote from Brian M.: “So wherever you think I’m wrong, you could be right. If, in the process of determining that I’m wrong, you are stimulated to think more deeply and broadly, I hope that will have somehow served you anyway.” (AGO, 20)

There’s a lot more in the comments – check it all out.

  • Share/Bookmark

Source: Musings from Two-Sheds Gomer

Comments: After John Piper was demoted from the Halls of the Saints (for inviting Mark Driscoll to Desiring God ‘06, among other things), Brendt has a throw-back to Sesame Street that will make you think a little bit…
Memorable Quotes:

Not only was I masochistic enough to go to that blog, but I even commented on one of the entries, in which the author and one of the commenters essentially stated (though, not in so many words) that man was more powerful than God.  Went back there later today to check on the comment moderation.  My comment was dis-approved.  Big surprise.

  • Share/Bookmark

Source: Verum Serum – Part OnePart Two
Comments: John responds to a question from Ken on who it is that can ’seek God’, particularly in light of a few prooftexted scriptures.
Memorable Quotes:

Without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him. (Heb. 11:6b)

  • Share/Bookmark

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.

  • Share/Bookmark

Source: Verum Serum

Comments: John dissects the Slice view on the only way one can ‘do church’, eschewing laughter, music written while anyone currently living was around, and personal stories by pastors.  He uses two articles by Ingrid contrasting a ‘God-centered’ and a ‘man-centered’ (in her view) church.
Memorable Quotes:

I’ve written about that divide before using some definitions of those terms I found on another site. As I said then, the terms themselves are loaded. In fact, it seems to me that they are little more than code words for a type of church or a particular way of doing church that the Slice authors don’t like. This includes churches that use rock music or praise hymns, pastors who tell jokes, etc.

She mentions “hand shaking, back slapping, and occasional loud shrieks of laughter” as if these are out of place at church. Later, she mentions a series of jokes by the pastor. She obviously feels these are out of place as well. Again, I’m fine with her holding that opinion. My problem is when she crosses the line and suggests that God holds it too.

To invalidate personal anectdotes as teaching tools is to invalidate most of the Bible itself.

  • Share/Bookmark

Source: Verum Serum

Comments: Part of the hue and cry at Slice is that modern theology is “Man-Centered Theology”, and that anything that brings pleasure or laughter has no part in the church.  John dissects this idead and puts it to rest as only being “wishful thinking” of these modern acetics.
Memorable Quotes:

First off, these are loaded terms. Man-Centered Theology is an oxymoron. So you immediately get the sense that, if both terms were to appear on an exam, it would be unwise to choose the one that sounds sketchy and self-defeating.

Or consider fellowship. God clearly establishes the church for the purpose of believers gathering to edify one another. But this begs an obvious question. If theology is ideally God-Centered, why do we need fellowship at all? Why can’t we just focus on God at home? Wouldn’t we be more efficient without all the distractions presented by other people? And here again, I don’t believe fellowship is simply a “work-around” in light of our sinful nature. Had man not sinned, there still would have been fellowship among men and women. It was part of the design. It was good and also enjoyable.

I believe the core problem with GCT proponents is that they often seem to see our existence as a somewhat grim, zero-sum game. Under this view, anything which is not God-Centered, anything which is merely human, is in effect a moment stolen from God. I find this wrongheaded. Worse than that, I find it dehumanizing.

  • Share/Bookmark

Source: Lone Prairie Art Works

Comments: Julie finds herself accused of malfeasance by ex-Slice-writer Jim Bublitz, who responds to her with a message (a la Ken) ending with a smiley face.  Julie responds sans the smiling face, so as not to be hypocritical.
Memorable Quotes:

Did you know I have been running a nefarious campaign against a blog I’m no longer allowed to comment on? Did you know that? Did you know I’ve been spending much time finding other sites that are slamming this blog so that I might chime in? That I have nothing better to do in my busy real-life days than huddle over the computer and spread the infectious disease of malcontent?

Why do people sign off with a smiley face or a “God Bless You” when they are thinking anything but God’s blessing upon you or their words communicate anything but kindness and smiles? That’s lying. It is.

I don’t know which spiritual gift it is that Bublitz has. Which of the spiritual gifts requires arguing people into the ground on a regular basis, or requires the collection of debating ammunition by spending time scouring the web for seeming inconsistencies with which to blast them with and sign off with a smiley face? We needn’t be weak and spineless, but there ought to be control and thought on who and what we lash out against. Knowledge and discernment are one thing, but mixing that with pride and self-assuredness of being “right” creates what I like to call a pompous ass.

Yes, I used a naughty word. This will be taken as a sure sign that I am fallen, vile and vulgar, another symptom of the ills of the modern church that doesn’t think; a person who settles for crass pragmatism, who only uses The Message for serious discussion; a person of no serious literate level with little knowledge, a classic example of why women should just shut up and wear a bonnet. Anyone who knows me, either through my own church or just via blogging or through the Nicaragua stuff or work or my own parents KNOWS – I am sure of this – that I am not such a person. And if they do not know this? Then I have surely failed and Bublitz, who knows me only via bits and bytes on a few blogs was able to, in all his “godly” knowledge and discernment, read me right. I don’t think that’s the case.

  • Share/Bookmark

Source: The Jollyblogger HT to SmartChristian, which has some great comments on the article

Comments: David Wayne, the Jollyblogger, who has both criticized and praised Rick Warren, this time writes in support of his coverage in a Newsweek article.  Despite an endnote to the ‘haters’ (i.e. Slice), a number of the comment sharks from Slice show up to put blood in the water…
Memorable Quotes:

Yet, as I mentioned in my post on polemics and the great commission, merely criticizing such things is not enough.  Where Warren errs, we ought to offer loving correction, but where he does well, we ought to offer loving commendation.

In the case of the Newsweek article I have to admit to getting a case of the warm fuzzies toward Warren simply because he is an evangelical who is listed by a secular magazine as someone who makes America great.

Stop and think about that for a moment – who else in the evangelical world does our secular world look at in a positive light?  How many evangelicals does the world look at and say “he is a friend of sinners?” With all of his failings, Warren has got that part right.

And what Rick Warren post would be complete without a note to the haters.  I realize that just mentioning his name in a blog post will bring people out of the woodwork, and that now that I have said some nice things about him, the volume of haters will double or triple.  So, for those of you who will leave multiple comments, each of them longer than this original post, please understand that I and most of us will be ignoring you. I’ve heard it all before – I know that Rick Warren is an arminian, an atheist and the anti-Christ.  I know that he is in league with the illiuminati, the tri-lateral commission, the Bilderbergers, George Bush, Bill and Hillary Clinton, and your kooky neighbors across the street.  I realize that, because I said something nice about Warren I am unqualified to be a pastor, am probably not even saved, my blog should be immediately shut down and I should be taken out and shot at dawn.  Constructive criticism is always welcome, but save the vitriol for some other blog.  Thank you and good night.

  • Share/Bookmark