Issue: Use (or, should we say, overuse) of terms like cult, heretic, and apostate, in particular, along with over-the-top usage of neo-(fill-in-the-blank), vipers, and other incindiary dialog. Additionally, the overuse of esoteric, cooked-up, derogatory labelling (i.e. Ecumenical Church of Deceit, Apostate Church of Rome, Spell of Bell, blah, blah, blah) seems to be rampant.

CRN’s Take: Go for it! Today’s Christians won’t wake up unless you slap them in the face to wake them up! Case in point, today’s article on The Emergent Cult of Rob Bell (Even Though He Isn’t Emergent).

My Take: Stop it, already. Just because you disagree with someone on a particular topic doesn’t make them a heretic. Just because you generally disagree with them doesn’t make them apostate. Just because other people agree with them doesn’t make it a cult. Using these words in such a unwarranted manner makes criticism of actual heretical teaching (like replacement theology), apostate religions and cults (like Mormonism, JW’s, Scientology, etc.) less effective.

The overuse of your own “cute” inflammatory labels only detracts from whatever message you are trying to send, and demonizing your opponents (typically by making straw men of their position(s), as is typically the case with this particular writer) does nothing to bolster whatever arguments you may have to make.

Let’s look at today’s example:

Most of the articles, like the one above, offer little to nothing in the way of content. Basically, it is about someone who wrote to Ken Silva about his criticism of Rob Bell.

The writer isn’t a member of Rob’s church (he’s 2,000 miles away from Grand Rapids), nor an associate of Rob’s – just someone who wrote to defend him. The letter to Mr. Silva is pretty bland, but is characterized by Mr. Silva as “enraged” and then mocked for the concern shown. (NOTE: As of late Mr. Silva seems to be exhibiting a not-so-subtle streak of anti-semetism which is also troubling in its usage in Ken’s rant…)

Within the article, we have 12 uses of the word ‘cult’, but no evidence given to support such a charge. It then goes on to give Ken’s supposed “credentials” for his rants (which always seem to run suspiciously long, comprising a significant percentage of most articles, but most of which originate with himself or other watchbloggers.)

The rest of the article is spent condescendingly ripping apart the writer of the letter and continuing to tie him back to Rob Bell (who, maybe I didn’t point out before, is not his pastor nor a personal friend), combining an attempt at guilt-by-association, straw man argument, ad hominem argument and other general misuses of logic along the way.

In the end, what is Ken’s basic message?

“I hate Rob Bell, and he’s leading people to hell.” What’s new, Ken?

However, I would think that mocking “Rabbi Jesus” (which, I might add, is what Jesus’ followers called him), as Ken closes, is far more disrespectful of God and His Son, and Ken’s wanton attacks bring about far more hell on earth than Bell’s teaching has any chance of leading folks to an eternal hell.

Personally, I’d follow my Rabbi Yeshuah any day before I followed Ken’s teaching, and I’d only follow Bell’s teaching so long as it was in line with that of my Rabbi.