There has been a bit of discussion on the topic of Christian Yoga the past couple of days here on CRN.info, and now Ken has decided to post a “source” on Slice 2.0 to back his contention. Granted, his article does nothing more than build some straw men to burn down (which is what we’ve come to expect, anyway).

You can tell from the start of the article that almost no intellectual heavy lifting was done in researching this (kind of like with Johnnie Mac’s “Truth War”), though with less of the pomposity and polemic we’ve come to expect from Ken:

Why is there such a thing as Christian Yoga? It certainly has no scriptural or biblical basis in support of it.

Why is there such a thing as a Christian Website?  There certainly is no scriptural or biblical basis in support of it? In fact, 20% of the websites on the web are pornography sites.  [For the sarcasm/irony impaired, this is not by actual belief.] The logic is similar, and when you boild it down, what seemt to be most of the crux between the ‘externals’ focus of CRN/Slice 2.0 and the ‘internal’ (i.e. what is in the heart) focus here at CRN.info comes down to how we react where the Bible is silent.

The non-denominational church movement I belong to (which comes from the Restoration movement in the early 1800’s) has a particular saying regarding this prediciment:

Where the Bible speaks, we speak. Where the Bible is silent, we remain silent.

Additionally, where the Bible does speak (but possible differences in interpretation may create friction), we have used a similar mnemonic sometimes credited to St. Augestine:

In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty.  In all things, love.

So, where the rub tends to come is “Where the Bible is silent, are things permitted or forbidden?” and “What is essential vs. non-essential?” In the case of Christian Yoga, what it really comes down to is this: Is this Bible silent on this topic, and if so, should Christian Yoga be allowed within the church?

Let’s be clear with what “Christian Yoga” actually is and isn’t, though, first. Technically, what is referred to as “Christian Yoga” should really be called “Low-Impact Stretching and Stress Relief for Christians” (LISSRC)  and not “Yoga” because, aside from the stretches and positions, it does not incorporate Hindu mantras or teachings. However, by using “Christian” as the modifier for “Yoga”, that implies the non-incorporation of Hinduism.

[NOTE: Can you see why many prefer "Christ-Follower" to "Christian", since the former can't be used as an adjective?]

First, is the Bible silent on the topic of LISSRC? I can’t find anything that could be tied directly to such a thing, though yesterday Amy suggested that this could be similar to worshipping God in the high places in the OT. However, this is nowhere near such a parallel, because God had commanded that he could only be worshipped in the Temple, which then set the stage for Pentecost 33 A.D., and the elimination of the sacrificial system with the destruction of the Temple, one generation later, in 70 A.D. Neither Ken nor his “expert” offer any scriptural support for their position from prohibition, outside of GBA origins.

Secondly, should this be allowed within the church? I believe that since the Bible is silent on the issue, it should be up to each local church body to decide if they will allow this, but not to condemn other church bodies that do so. However, this is where the rub between neo-fundamentalism (as demonstrated by Slice 2.0) and evangelical/emerging Christianity occurs.

In general, the neo-fundamentalist crowd – which is much more concerned with externals – tends to answer the question of “what do we do where the Bible is silent, and can such things that act where the Bible is silent give honor to God?” with an answer of prohibition based on tradition. The evangelical/emerging view tends to answer the same question with an answer of permission. Neither view, at an extreme, is correct. However, in the neo-fundamental view, there is little need for discernment, because the overriding answer tends to be “no”. In the e/e view, thuogh, there is great need for discernment, because the overriding answer tends to be “yes”.

Which view holds more risk? The evangelical/emerging view.

Which view holds more opportunity for service to God? The evangelical/emerging view.

Which view will be more apt to make mistakes along the way? The evangelical/emerging view.

Which view is more apt to actually BE (rather than just talk about being) salt and light to a dying world? The evangelical/emerging view.

The key, though, is discernment.

For instance, I have a rather large issue with the emergent tendency to use coarse language on a regular basis (though I disagree that “suck” is always coarse language, per our earlier conversation…). I think there’s a great deal of machinations and intellectual dishonesty in trying to justify it as being something on which the Bible is silent.

However, with Christian “Yoga” (LISSRC), I would find no more wrong with this than (as was pointed out in the thread discussion) Christians celebrating Christmas (pagan origin) or Easter (pagan origin), having a Christmas tree (pagan origin), participating in the Olympic games (pantheistic pagan origin), running the marathon (pagan origin), and on and on.

What it comes down to when viewing these two worldviews and their corresponding response to the question of dealing with Biblical silence on an issue is this:

I believe this is part of what is alluded to by Jesus in the Parable of the Talents. One can choose to take the narrowest, safest path and be condemned for burying his talent in a field. Or, one can choose to take the riskier path and bring more honor and reward to the one who gave them the talent in the first place.

Jesus didn’t call us to play it safe – he called us to serve: heart, soul, mind and strength.

Suddenly prayers on rugs and meditation on scripture are heretical over at AM. Just when you thought their logic was as wacky as it could get, Ken strikes again. This time it is over a video commercial for Mike Yaconelli’s book Contemplative Youth Ministry: Practicing the presence if Jesus. Sounds pretty kosher from the title, right?

Ken prints a section from the forward

you create meaningful silence, covenant communities, and contemplative activities that allow your students recognize the presence of Jesus in their everyday lives. Lovely, teach our young people how to practice “meaningful” meditation and perform other acts of religious bondage in order to try and create an experience with God.

Here is Ken’s interpretation of the whole thing.

I will warn you that this video itself is rather dull as it’s just a voiceover by a few people set against images and pictures of icons, candles, pagan imagery, labyrinths and even someone praying as a Muslim on a prayer rug.

So suddenly praying on a rug makes it pagan because Muslims do it? Are you suggesting, Ken, that Mark Yaconelli is promoting Muslim practices by showing students praying on rugs? I continue.

This is where the Emergent Church, the cult of new post-liberal theology, is taking the mesmerized $evangelical$ community. It is taking the American Christian Church right back into the superstitions and religious bondage of the apostate Church of Rome through so-called “spiritual disciplines” such as “Christian” meditation. You’ll even hear one man say, “Their eyes are open enough to see what’s happening there to know there’s life there and are now starting to say, ‘Maybe this is a model for the rest of the Church.’”

Ken, since you say that spiritual disciplines such as Christian meditation are apostasy, you might want to read the thoughts of some other writers:

• Do not let this Book of the Law depart from your mouth; meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do everything written in it. Then you will be prosperous and successful.
• Within your temple, O God, we meditate on your unfailing love
• I meditate on your precepts and consider your ways.
• I lift up my hands to your commands, which I love, and I meditate on your decrees.
• I remember the days of long ago; I meditate on all your works and consider what your hands have done.

So, either the words of Ken are wrong, or the words of God are wrong. I will go with the former.

Lastly, in classic Ken style, he takes this quote from a youth worker and completely twists it. She says

It’s almost a sense of relief when, um, it’s hard to let go of wanting to impart your wisdom on the kids; um, but them it’s a great, ah, relief to–for instance we’re doing a prayer exercise–to watch kids in silence and pray over them going: They’re having their own encounter with God and God is doing God’s work in them, and I’m not having to do it.

Ken’s interpretation:

“I don’t have to teach because people want to have their own encounter with God and ‘experience’ Him their own way.” O sure, it plays great to a narcissistic culture but it also negates one of the gifts Christ gave to His Church–teachers. Since we’re told to grow in the knowledge of Christ (see–Colossian 3:10)–not some existential subjective experience of Him–take a wild guess just which slimy serpent would be behind this idiotic idea.

This youth worker was not saying that they never teach, or negate teaching the word for this practice. She is saying how great it is to see students connecting with God in a meaningful and personal way. It is awesome that she doesn’t have to force knowledge on these students, but they are interested in growing closer with God on their own. And, I do know one slimy serpent that may behind some of the ideas written in this post. But we won’t got there.

In another hit piece on Rob Bell, Ken Silva sets the plate by writing “We begin with the most important area which concerns the view of the Bible held by Rob Bell…as you will now see like most Emergents Bell has rejected sola [sic.] Scriptura. This is an irrefutable fact.”

Of course, to do so Silva must do two things, redefine the historical usage of “Sola Scriptura” and misquote Bell.  Ken Silva does not define what he means by “Sola Scriptura” though we can discern his redefinition by his misuse of the term.  Historically, “Sola Scriptura” is the belief that “the Bible as God’s written word is self-authenticating, clear (perspicuous) to the rational reader, its own interpreter (”Scripture interprets Scripture”), and sufficient of itself to be the only source of Christian doctrine.”  It’s easy to see that Luther was contrasting Rome’s belief in the use of church tradition in determining Christian doctrine.

In his missive, Silva sights two quotes by Bell as proof.  The first is Bell’s denial that “Scripture alone” will answer all questions. Silva also takes Bell to task for saying that biblical interpretation is colored by historical context, the reader’s bias and current realities and that the more you study the Bible, the more questions it raises.  Of course, all these are true… there are questions the Bible does not bother to answer… every interpretation is colored… and the more you study, the more questions it raises.  The second quote Silva uses follows his all too often used tactic of leaving out certain parts.  Silva quotes Bells thus; “‘It is not possible to simply do what the Bible says,’ Bell writes. (Online source, emphasis added)” – ironically, Silva adds emphasis, but fails to use the whole statement.  What Bell wrote was “It is not possible to simply do what the Bible says, we must first make decisions about what it means at this time, in this place, for these people.”  This is, of course, the job of the exegete.  It’s easy to dismiss Silva’s sloppy (or devious) use of someone’s words.  But with these to partial statements, Silva weaves the conclusion that Bell denies Sola Scriptura.

Given an accurate definition of this Reformation fundamental, it’s also easy to see how Silva misappropriates the term.  Sola Scriptura means that the Bible is the final source of our doctrine and the practices that come from it.  No where. That I have seen, does Bell deny this – in fact he’s clear regarding the authority of the Scriptures.  What Bell does argue for is a careful use of the Scriptures – of course, when this is done Silva just dismissed it as an attempt to look for loopholes.

So Ken does it again. Taking quotes out of context, not looking at the bigger picture and twisting words in general seems to be his bag of tricks that he performs over and over and over again.

Yes, Erwin has gained an infinite reputation among the modern day Pharisees and scribes for his quote, “The greatest enemy to the movement of Jesus Christ is Christianity”. I have heard time and time again that Erwin is anti-Christian and anti-religion. They are probably right. Today event the word Christian has been distorted, not by the world, but by people who claim to be following the teachings of Christ. It is not the gospel that has offended people, but “Christians” who have taken the gospel as a religious weapon to cut down those they disagree with.

Ken Silva wrote a piece about Mosaic’s Barbarian Project, a 10-week summer internship. He pulls out his tricks for this one once again and gets it all wrong. He takes this explanation off of Mosaic’s website, and adds his own commentary at the end:

Ken: The “unique character-transformation process” actually sounds kind of scary:

Mosaic.org: This leadership development experience is designed for women and men who want to become ministry leaders of the future. The Barbarian Project will challenge you to become a person of character, an entrepreneurial leader, and it will envision you to see humanity as God sees it. We strive to develop your leadership skills in many facets as well as challenging you to engage a unique character-transformation process.

Ken: That’s right folks, you will “see humanity as” Erwin McManus “sees it” and he’ll teach you to be a man-lover just like he is

Does any of that sound “scary” to you? And the funny thing is, these interns will probably not get more than a few hours with Erwin over the 10 weeks they stay in Los Angeles with Mosaic. I guess you miss out on the details when you are writing commentary on a church 2,000 miles away that you have never been to. We continue.

Mosaic.org: The internship will consist of weekly interactions centered around the core values of Mosaic, unleashing your creative spirit, catalytic leadership, maximizing your potential, and creating momentum in spiritual communities. You’ll be challenged in areas of self-awareness, relational intelligence, character-transformation, and proactive leadership.

Ken: We do note that the Barbarians will get around to “actively sharing the Gospel with people who don’t know Jesus,” but as we have seen with Erwin McManus this is not the genuine Gospel of the Biblical Christian faith.

Wait, first Erwin and Mosaic is being accused of being to evangelistic and missional, and now they are not “actively sharing the Gospel with people who don’t know Jesus?” Which one is it Ken? For the record, evangelism the the blood that flows throughout every vain of Mosaic. It is not an event, or a class during an internship. It is a lifestyle.

Ken: So now you’ve been warned but if you’re still bound and determined to try and attend this program all you have to do is remember that, “Each Barbarian must raise $2,000 before they begin the 10 week experience.” Undoubtedly the Christian will be a much better steward of his money and time by avoiding this Barbarian Way of Erwin McManus.

Ken, if you can tell me where you can live cheaper in Los Angeles for 10 weeks and go through a full internship program, I would love to hear it! I am sure you called Mosaic and asked how the financial situation works out before commenting on it…right? I am also sure that you called Steve Saccone, the overseer, to get all the facts before making accusatory comments. Only a author who fights for the truth would do that… right?

The overarching problem that I am seeing her is someone who feels that they can make judgment calls on a church they have never even stepped foot in. CRN and other have started to do this on a national level, and it is dangerous to the body of Christ. It is one thing to attack a man. It is another to now go on witch hunts on church websites.

But while Ken seems to be the bearer of truth, I remind you, he has still failed to answer any question here.

· Why would you, a self-professing non-Calvinist publish three blogs entitled “Why I am a Calvinist”?

· Can the elect be lead astray?

· If the elect cannot be lead astray, then why have watchdoggies blogs?

Why do I write here? It’s a fair question. My wife and I talk about it frequently. The truth is we all know that the chances of changing those we write about is somewhere between zero and never. I had a talk with a friend of mine and he asked me point blank, “Why waste your time? Those people are just out there; they’re never going to get it. Why waste your time?”

That has started a serious time of reflection for me. I can’t get around the logic of it. They post, we post, and then we go ‘round and ‘round. We can’t comment there (which is why they killed their old site and started under a new name), but they come here and call us names (just scan Chris P’s comments) fail to answer questions and in general lack logic. (Chris Rosebrough being the exception—his comments are always thoughtful and clear, even if we do disagree). They call us apostate (at least me), we would never type it but I bet everyone of us that contribute here secretly wonder about their eternal destination. They attack Godly men and some we call friends. It’s a vicious cycle.
So what’s the point? Should I just quit? Should I just take my G4 and go home? The answer would have to be yes, if I thought the purpose was to write to effect change in Ingrid, Ken, Chris P, Dwayna or whoever chooses to write over there. Before I go further let me quote the stated mission of this webpage.

It is our intent to gather articles from the blogosphere here which give background to Slice and its writers, refute its often false and malicious claims, to offer space for original post-length commentary by those who have been blocked from doing so on Slice, and to give space for those directly maligned by these modern-day Pharisees to defend themselves and to refute the pernicious lies spread about them.

That’s from the original “about us” page long before I ever came on board here. But the essence stays the same. If you want to read the mission of this webpage click on the “about us” link.
So why do I write here? The truth is, I don’t write for any of contributors over there. I don’t write for them to change. I write for the person who might go to their site and think what they write has merit. If I can keep one person from being swept up in the delusion that is that site then I consider my effort a success.

I don’t know who’s saved and who’s not. I ‘m glad I don’t have to decide who is or who isn’t. God does that. I do know I don’t see a whole lot of love coming out of that webpage, or in their comments here. Further I read the Apostle John telling us that if we claim to love God that we can’t see, but we can’ love our neighbor who we do see, we’re liars and God is not in us.

Here’s the thing, I’m going to keep writing. I’m going to keep pointing out the lies (see Nathan’s latest post). I’m going to keep writing about the lack of logic, the lack of love and the downright silliness. Not to cause them to stop (although that would be great), nor to effect some sort of change in them (although that too would be great). I’m going to write so that somebody who might see their stuff and be swayed by it has another opinion to weigh in on. That’s why I write. I imagine that’s why we all write here. As Chris so succinctly put it in the “about” page,

…a blight in the Christian Blogosphere, had reached a point where, like The Onion, ignorant folks sometimes mistook it for having well-researched stories or news of substance. It was a home to writers who referred to leaders in churches they don’t like as ‘Spiritual Pedophiles’, ‘Anti-Christs’, or (sometimes) ‘the False Prophet of Revelation’, referring to these churches as ‘whorehouses’ or worse. (And this is when they’re being nice.)

I believe with all my heart that CRN/AM/Slice 2.0 is a cancer on the body of Christ. Like any cancer it must be addressed. It must be dealt with and shown for what it is. To ignore it is to invite death.

That doesn’t mean that I don’t think my friend has some points that I need to consider. I am going to make some changes. Ken doesn’t like me (in fact he has said that my soul is damned to eternal punishment) and truth be told I don’t really like Ken. We both know it, anyone who reads our comments can see it. So the back and forth commenting stops here and now. I’ll still reserve the right to enter into honest discussion with Ken, but when he’s doing his “slippery moves” I will not engage. How he and I interact with each other is not honoring to God nor is it helpful to the bride of Christ. This verbal jousting of ours is a poor representation of my Savior and LORD. If it were up to me I would ban Ken, I understand that Chris L has final say there and it’s his call. I’ll respect that. I do not have to respond to Ken simply because he can comment here.

We will no longer get into a “tit for tat” conversation. One of my favorite maxims is “You can’t push a rope.” It’s time I live by that here too.

Ken Silva has been posting here again.  It seems like every time  he comes around, something new pops up.  here are a few highlight from his comments:

*sigh* As I have said on many, I am not a Calvinist.

Really?  Then why did you publish three articles on your blog entitled “why I am a Calvinist“?  I am sure that was all a big mix-up.  Or, maybe God told you to just be a Calvinist for a few days…just enough time to publish a few blogs, right?

With all due respect I don’t really think it’s wise to question another’s motives.

Really?  It would have been great if you didn’t question Dan Kimball’s motives when he researched homosexuality in the scriptures.  Every day at CRN and Apprising you question the motives of hundreds of pastors and ministers around the world.

It’s nothing personal, I’m just doing my job and trusting the Lord to take care of the results. I have no responsibility about how someone else is walking with Christ.

If you “have no responsibility about how someone else is walking with Christ” then why do you take it on yourself every day to correct others’ walk?  I mean, if it isn’t your responsibility then why have a website dedicated to the walk and ministry of other people?

As a pastor-teacher I am to get alone with God, apply myself to hearing from Him and then doing my level best to deliver the particular message that I happen to have.

Wow… this sounds pretty contemplative and mystical to me.  I mean, there aren’t too many emergent pastors that would say they get personal direct messages from God himself on a regular basis.

I think this all says alot about the “pastor-teacher” Ken Silva.  And the best thing is, he said it himself!

Dwayna laughs at women’s conference

In this article, Dwayna attempts to attack feminism in the emergent church.  Unfortunately all she did was post the advertisement and laugh at it (literally).  She did highlight the fact that the women were going to be staying in a “modern day castle.”  I am sure the problem there is that Christians in Vietnam are unable to stay in a castle, and so they shouldn’t either.  The only really substantial thing that she could find wrong with the event, you ask?  The fact that is was held at the Stronghold Conference Center.  Are all the ladies at CRN running out of material these days?

Saddleback hasn’t held to its word!

Well, kinda something like that.  According to the “editor” at CRN, Saddleback has failed to accomplish two of the goals set forth in the 20/20 Vision Plan.  Gasp!  They even called them to make sure this was true.  Saddleback has yet to start a believer’s mid-week service, nor have they developed 250 gifted teachers of the word!  Unfortunately, what CRN failed to mention is that they have met most of their goals and have 13 YEARS to complete these two.  Can we say nit-picking?

Love… or Charity

In risk of becoming equally nit-picking (and attempting satire), I will not emphasize this last headline.  But they decided to post I Corinthians 13:1-8 as their daily scripture.  The love chapter right?  This might show that CRN actually does show love in all they do.  Well their translation of the bible uses charity in place of love.  So, the verses read:

Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.  And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.        

 Maybe that’s where they are getting mixed up.  They don’t realize that without LOVE we are nothing.

… and that was all written before lunch today people!

Kudos to our bother, Chris Rosebrough for his piece at CRN entitled Kudos for Saddlebak’s Daily Podcast.  As we continue to sed light on the ugly truth at CRN, it is always important to acknowledge the good.  We see time and time again that these writers are tainted by their own biases.  Rob Bell can never do anything right.  Erwin McManus will always be a crazed cultural guru.  But, it seems that Rosebrough breaks the mold.

He praises Saddleback for their daily podcast entitled Drive Time.  In it, Pastor Tom goes through an entilre book of the bible in ten minutes.  This somewhat shows that the Purpose Driven Ministry called Saddleback may not be as “watered-down” as they think.  While other CRN writers may have twisted this as a lame attempt to preach some of the word of God, Chris acknowledges their efforts. 

Maybe Warren isn’t so one sided after all.

  

I ran across a quote today that reaffirmed for me something I’ve been thinking for a long time. I’m afraid that as a church we are sitting on one of two extremes. The one is obviously wrong, the other I am afraid has a false pretension to holiness and it could not be further from the truth. The idea that all sex is OK, sleep with whomever and do whatever outside the context of marriage is obviously wrong. But there is another idea that is just as dangerous. The idea that sex itself is wrong. In fact I came across a quote today that said, “Let’s be clear on something! Only Carnal Godless men constantly think about Sex. Godly men do not constantly think about sex.” (Emphasis mine)

That statement sounds spiritual, but really it is as dangerous as the “do anything you want to do” statement. To keep reading this post go here.

Ingrid continues on her nit-picking campaign. This one is just as outrageous as the last. She begins her post with the following statement,

If you wonder why the church is such a carnal mess these days, looking at the pastors will provide some clues.

What is the carnality that these men have brought into the church you ask!?! Is it sexual misconduct? Is it heresy? Is it new age practices? No, it’s Superman!

Thant’s right these men have been accused of answering the following question on their church website: Who would win in a fight, Superman and Batman. Senior pastor Lance Hahn answers, “Hands down Superman because he really has powers. Batman’s a regular dude. Although in my book, Batman’s way more interesting.”

Their other big offense that proves why the church is a carnal mess? The executive Pastor’s favorite movie is Snatch. Which he acknowledges is a “Great film if you can get past the 493 F-bombs! (This film is rated R and neither endorsed nor sanctioned by Bridgeway Christian Church or its corporate officers).” This doesn’t exactly sound like a carnal mess to me, especially when they are speaking out against profanity.

My bigger problem? In my early one on one discussions with several members of CRN and other watchdog sites, they stressed the fact that they were exposing these men and women because they were influencing people on a national / global level. That it was no longer a local church issue because it has now come to their front door. But, has anyone heard of Bridgeway Christian Church in Rockin, CA? How bout Late Night Healing Place? Maybe South Hills Church in Corona, CA rings a bell… anyone?

>

anyone?

The fact is that this site has now become a doctrinal Gestapo, roaming through the internet looking for any picture, blog or comment on a church’s site that they disagree with. They are no longer just going after the big guys, but are attacking even the small unknown ministries in America. Either Ingrid has just gone crazy, or she is running out of material.