CRN.Info and Analysis

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.