Ahhh… beautiful irony.

Posted by Sliced on May 23rd, 2006
2006
May 23

Source: Bob Blog
Comments: Wherein Bob posts a video clip from ‘King of the Hill’, Ingrid posts it on Slice, and the sharks converge on Slice to devour it. Rinse - Lather - Repeat.
Memorable Quotes:

Slice is a group of heresy hunters who think I, and quite possibly you, are giong to hell for reading and liking a Brian McLaren book or two, or approving in some vague way of books like Richard Foster’s Celebration of Discipline.

Kind of mean spirited, really… And if that sounds mean, spend some time reading through the comment threads over there and see what you think

[comment by Iggy] Personally I have come to the point that many of those like Ingrid and the rest, do not desire anything but to make a name for themselves… no matter how they get their kudos. they are out to say they are ‘right’ and we are wrong….. But the true irony of that is they are then only proclaiming their own “righteousness” with out realizing they are lifting themselves up as the sole proprietors of truth… and miss that Truth is a Person… not a thing… or philosophy, or reasoning, or any other man made idea or principle. They miss that we do not live by doctrine… but in contrast we live by the Life of Christ. I think what is happening is people are looking for something real… and the only True Real is Jesus. Many have just not gotten that far on their journey.

The Lord’s Supper and the EC

Posted by Sliced on May 19th, 2006
2006
May 19

Source: Tall Skinny Kiwi

Comments: Slice mocks an EC Communion service documented by Andrew, who then goes back to Slice for some civilized conversation on the topic.
Memorable Quotes:

so let me get this straight. after examining the last supper of Jesus and the historical accounts of the early church, you have come up with a communion service that:
- excludes children, swaps a full meal for a sample, avoids any technology, forbids joy or laughter, happens in a hall with men on a stage, dispenses with conversation, has no wine whatsoever . . and you think that is more biblical? more godly?

Who Watches the Watchers?

Posted by Sliced on May 17th, 2006
2006
May 17

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.

Monday Misc.

Posted by Sliced on May 15th, 2006
2006
May 15

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?

Contemplating the Inner Light of the Quakers

Posted by Sliced on May 4th, 2006
2006
May 4

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?