CRN.Info and Analysis

Earlier tonight, a new poster, Marsha, commented on this thread.  I was a bit confused by her comment,

God will judge those who mock the righteous. Remember the little children who taunted Elisha.

Since she specifically used the word ‘mock’, I assumed she was referring to “Pastor” Silva’s recent self-admitted mocking of Erwin McManus, a righteous man of God and ordained minister of the Mosaic church (a direct quote from Ken, “Yes, yes, absolutely I am mocking [McManus]“).  Or possibly she was referring to Silva’s earlier mocking of SBC President, Frank Page.

Not knowing her context (and forgetting that I could follow the link on her name to her blog to look for clues), I wrote:

Marsha,

To this point, I’m not aware of anyone who writes for this site who has mocked anyone.

However, Ken Silva is a self-described ‘mocker’ of Erwin McManus and other righteous brothers and sisters in Christ, so perhaps it is he you are talking to?

Just wondering…

After this, Joe directed my attention to Marsha’s blog, which is ambitiously titled “Proclaiming Truth”, and found that it had a sum total of three articles dated back to ten days ago, with the same alarmist, affected language as Ken.

As of tonight, her ‘blog’ has a fourth article, which I include, in its entirety, below:

Go Up Thou Baldhead!

This was the cry of disrespect to God’s annointed from foolish, immature children. They were cursed and God’s Word says that a bear came and tore them. To mock or make light of the ministries of godly men brings the mockers squarely into the crosshairs of God’s wrath.

This website will make your skin crawl as you read rebellion in every word for the world to see.

To double their sin one of them derides and attacks Steve Camp for his timely warnings about the cult of Emergent. He actually defends sin! He delights in what is evil!

I pray God’s mercy on him. I pray he repents in time.

Soli Deo Gloria

Now, the ’skin crawling’ website is CRN.info (?!?).  Her only comment on this site (and the only article I can see her IP address hitting, though I’m not very good with the IP tracker) is on the recent ‘Christian’ vs. ‘Christ-Follower’ article (in which I took both sides of the debate to task, on points).

While I think that Steve Camp is way off-base in his comments, I know that none of the 5 authors on this site (me, John D., Joe, Nathan, or Neil) have attacked Mr. Camp.  The blog she links to belongs to ‘another nathan’ who posted on that thread.  Since we do not censor comments to shape our appearance of correctness like some sites *cough*Slice*cough* used to do, we do not claim responsibility for what others write, whether they be ‘another nathan’ or ‘Marsha’.

Marsha, since you have seen fit to call our salvation into question (if I read you right), could you please elucidate us with your exegetical analysis of our error.  Be specific, quoting specific articles (or comments by one of the five of us), and then rebut us either in your own words or using scripture (preferably not KJV, for the sake of readability), though your interpretation of the relevance of the scriptures used would be appreciated, as I’ve found that without this, the possibility of misunderstanding one’s exegesis compounds exponentially.

I am not mocking you, by any means, but trying to figure out why it is you have seen fit to attack your Christian brothers by questioning their salvation.

We do not mock Ken.  We strenuously despise the methods by which he lies about and slanders brothers in Christ.  These methods have been documented by numerous bloggers, and in great detail.  If you would like specific references, I will give them to you.  Despite this disagreement with Mr. Silva, though, and despite the heat generated in some of the discussions, none of us has questioned Mr. Silva’s eternal destination, which is only up to the mercy and grace of God.

Also, just to save you some time in bringing in criticism of the ‘Emergent Church’ or the ‘emerging church’, none of the five of us worship at a church that would fit within these definitions.  None of us are “emergents”, so please do not try to duck behind broad generalizations or labels.  Instead, please use specific words we have written against us (in context, if possible).

Thank you,

Chris

Ok, without attacking him, what would you do if this guy was your neighbor? Once you swallow your anger, wait until you get to #10 it will be an arrow to your heart. For some reason, I’m no good at putting video into this BLOG so I’ll have to link you to mine. Go here watch this video that is intended to prove how foolish our faith is, then come back and answer how you would handle it if he’s your neighbor.

Issue: The term ‘Christian’ vs. ‘Christ-Follower’.  Today, the mysterious ‘Editor’ has posted a link to an article which links back to some apprising.org articles on a church which created ‘Mac vs. PC’ parody ads which compared a stereotypical ‘Christian’ with a prototypical ‘Christ-follower’. 

Links to the videos in question:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RtfNdg1fQk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYdD-Qc7lbY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRiijctGcAY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIXDLUUn830

CRN/Slice Take: 

Christians, in the world but as aliens of the world - “Christ-Followers”, of the world and represent the world.

So if this is what they want, [removing names of Christians inserted here despite having no relevance to the topic at hand only for the purpose of innuendo] then I say good riddance. Let the world watch them go, their blood be on their own heads…

My Take:

First, I wonder why this has become an issue again.  I blogged on this subject more than three months ago when the videos were already two months old (years ago in internet-time).  It seems to be just a continuation of looking for reasons to be divisive.

As noted previously, I don’t find labels all that useful when they’re used to divide and separate people. 

In the case of these ads, I understand what the filmaker was trying to get across about dress, etc., but I think that these ads failed to hit home for me because BOTH characters were subtly putting the other one down, comparatively.  The underlying criticisms are valid ones, but rather than present them as criticisms, would it not be more helpful and edifying to talk about them from a positive stance (ex. God is not impressed with how you dress for worship, because it is your heart - not your clothes - which He desires).

In the case of CRN/Slice’s outright mockery of those who choose to be called ‘Christ-followers’, I am just thoroughly saddened.  Even if their choice of labels was wrong (and I do not believe it is so),

The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. (II Peter 3:9)

The thorough nastiness on the part of CRN/Slice is appalling coming from a site which calls itself Christian, but it has become such a regular thing there that I fear I am becoming numb to their spiritually-blind, pharasaical viciousness.

As for the label ‘Christian’ vs. ‘Christ-follower’, I stick by what I wrote previously:

the terms ‘Christian’ and ‘Christ-Follower’ - is there a difference?

First, let’s examine scripture:

Acts 11:26 “The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.”

1 Peter 4:16 “However, if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but praise God that you bear that name.

The Acts passage points out where the term ‘Christian’ was first used. Historical record seems to indicate that this was actually a derisive term. Other titles that have been found are ‘believers’ (used by early Christians as a term that did not differentiate between Jew and Gentile followers of Christ) and ‘Followers of the Way’. In neither of the passages does it appear that ‘Christian’ is a mandatory term (in fact, ‘Messianist’ would be a Hebraic equivalent just as acceptable as ‘Christian’, were we being purely legalistic here).

The key in the 1 Peter passage is to not be ashamed to be named as a follower of Christ. The term ‘Christian’ is not the focus, but the suffering in the name of Christ.

So, to choose a parallel name that still identifies one as a follower of Jesus would not be opposed by scripture. However, what is the point?

If the point is to distance yourself from the perceived message of Christ or to escape persecution, I would not see any validity in choosing that seperate label.

However

I see something very appealing about ‘Christ-follower’:

The term ‘Christian’ has become a label that can be applied to a whole slew of things, from music to plummers to internet providers to toilet paper. As Rob Bell commented in Velvet Elvis, ‘Christian is a great noun and a poor adjective.’ When applied to people, it works well. However, when used as an adjective, it gives an endorsement to certain things as being “spiritual” and others as “secular” (a modern gnostic misconception). It also denigrates Christ when ‘Christian’ is added to things that are morally or artistically deficient.

In this light, I find ‘Christ-follower’ appealing. Personally, I would accept either, but ‘Christ-follower’ seems more accurate.

That said, though, if ‘Christ-follower’ comes to take on some sort of fully liberal overtone which views Christ as a misunderstood peacenik, I wouldn’t see much usefulness in it.

Is it really so difficult for the ‘fighting fundies’ to be encouraging to their ‘emerging’ brothers in Christ?  Is it really so difficult for those brothers who are ‘emerging’ to seek God without feeling the need to harp about Christians from previous generations?

Ken recently attacked a group called Relevant Christian over a piece they wrote called Why Christians Suck. When Relevant Christian wrote a response blog to Ken’s attack, Ken fired back again.

I just thought it might give everyone a good laugh to read Ken’s last line in his rebuttal.  It is so ironic an hypocritical:

Perhaps this will teach them not to attack the Body of Christ, as it was these men who were the ones so quick to brazenly, albeit in their quiet arrogance, criticize “modern” Christians. Bad idea boys for our Defender is strong. peace youselves.

And they are the ones that are “attack[ing] the Body of Christ”?  Right?

He also makes this funny statement about their “inappropriate language” in their response.  Apparently Chris P and Ken would disagree over what “inappropriate language” is.

We have had numerous people send us emails and comments attacking us personally in regards to the statements made in this blog.

Warning: Inappropriate language ahead. Think of it; I have to warn my readers that a post from a minister allegedly sent by Christ Jesus uses language offensive to Christians. Well, the kind that they think s*#$ anyway.

The omitted word was “suck”.  However, just the day before Ken had no problem publishing this word as a title to his blog. But, now that he has to play the sweet and innocent martyr, the word goes back into symbols as being “inappropriate”

One of the things I love is when pastors use that title to try and end an argument. Sadly, it’s not just the “fightin’ Fundies” who do it. It’s an infection that is in most of our churches. Click here to read more of my thoughts on this problem.

Logic in the neo-fundamentalist mind follows a track illustrated thus: “The church is not here to reform society, cure disease, stop wars, or whatever. The church is here to be the ‘new creation’ something totally apart from the rest of the world. The world is dead.”

Let’s unpack this a bit and compare it to a sermon found in Matthew:

Stopping wars – “Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called sons of God” (Matt 5:9). So much for that comment.

Reforming society – “Let your light shine before men in such a way that they see your good works, and glorify your Farther who is in heaven. Do not think I came to abolish the Law and the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill” (Matt. 5:16-17).

Certainly the prophets were concerned with holiness and righteousness, no doubt. But the Law and the Prophets are also full of admonitions on how to treat the poor, how a society should provide for the helpless, and guidelines for the behavior of those in leadership. Therefore, it is the duty of the church to do the same. And when we see a society failing to do so – the church is to be salt and light. So, if a society says it’s acceptable for one race to own another - the church opposes. If a society says a widow should burn along with her deceased husband – the church opposes. If a society kills its unwanted unborns – the church opposes. If a society promotes behavior that spreads disease – the church opposes. And along the way, sometimes a society is transformed.

The church is totally apart. It is true that the church is to be totally different. We are to be separate in the sense that we do not buy into the world’s system. Yet, “[We] are the salt of the earth…” and “[We] are the light of the world…” (Matthew 5:13 & 14, respectively). This potential contradiction is easily remedied when one realizes that we are not totally apart from the world, we are thoroughly a part of it… a part others think a bit odd because we’re different – the part that shines and preserves.

The error of the neo-fundamentalists is to drink too deeply the Kool-Aide of Manichean Cosmogony. The error of a previous generation – the postmillennialists – was being overly optimistic and confident. The error of the neo-fundamentalists - mostly dispensationalists – is being overly pessimistic and confident.

So in this new article, Ken claims that Rick’s ego is much bigger than his. Maybe that makes Ken sleep better at night. Here’s the small article and the video

On occasion here at Apprising Ministries I have been accused on occasion of being prideful. But I am truly humbled the more I listen to Rick Warren because I have many, many, many miles to go before I would be in the neighborhood of this guy’s ego. Listening to Warren here in this You Tube clip I find myself wondering: Do we even need the Holy Spirit anymore when we have Rick?

The video used can be watched here

What!?! I cannot see Rick’s ego in this clip for the life of me!! The most that Rick says about himself is that he has met with several countries, and will work with anyone to cure aids. Is Ken running out of of material and resorting to blatantly empty name calling? It certainly seems that way these days. Or maybe Ken hopes that by writing this, others will not notice the fact that he puts himself at the same level as God. If anyone was trying to replace the Holy Spirit it would be the Most Holy Right Reverend Ken Silva. While Ken’s earlier blogs at least had a thread of some logic, his more recent threads seem to just be shots fired in the dark. This new trend at apprising / CRN is rediculous.

In a shocking revelation Jesus is quoted by the Apostle John as saying that all men will know who His disciples are by their love for one another. The apostle Paul takes a little further stating that we must speak the truth in love. Even the Apostle Peter (who is lovingly quoted and used as justification for a lack of honest reporting and brotherly love at some places) says we should have brotherly kindness and love. Oi Vay! Indeed!

Hey Ken, we don’t care if you call out false prophets just have a little integrity (a concept you’ll find in Scripture, too) when you do it. Don’t misquote, leave out quotes and out right lie, please! It’s wrong. It doesn’t honor God. If you really believe the Bible you say you read, you would realize that doing damage to the body of Christ through out-right deciet is the very thing the Apostle Peter is talking about in the passage you quoted.

Ken recently wrote this in his article entitled Does it Really Matter What I Believe

In this postmodern culture we live in, people will often need to be reminded that God is truly beyond our comprehension, as He transcends knowledge, time, and space by infinity. We must help people to understand that God is an all-powerful, disembodied, ultra-dimensional Spirit–Who exists outside any continuum that we can access. In other words, the Creator of the entire universe is way bigger, smarter, and more powerful than we can ever be. You may have heard the old saying: “You ain’t from around here are ya?” Well, not only is God not from around here, the fact is He’s not even anything like us at all!

This sounds alot like contemplative mysticism Ken! Have you joined the dark cult of the ECoD? As long as God “transcends knowledge, time, and space by infinity” we must at least acknowledge that He is “truly beyond our comprehension”. For a man who believes this, you certainly make alot of definitive decisions about what God thinks.

In part one I outlined the need for new missions strategies to bridge the gulf between the churches in North America and the new landscape of the unchurched culture.  Part one also briefly introduced how some are trying to do just that — as well as those on the wall who oppose the translation of Christianity into a new culture.

Dan Kimball is one such translator – he describes the translation process:

“In our church setting, we began bringing back ancient religious symbols and some rituals used throughout church history. We began using some forms of liturgy and responsive readings. Instead of ‘hiding’ the fact that we were gathered to worship, we began praying more, having times of quiet, and teaching more deeply.”

 

As they became more aware of their culture – like any good missionary – Kimball and his team

“…started to add other expressions of teaching – using art and visuals, for example – as well as creating more participatory ways for people to express worship. We still preach, sometimes even 35 or 40 minutes using large sections of Scripture or going through books of the Bible. But we’ve provided more ways for people to worship, to reflect the different ways that individuals express worship and learn. We’ve added some interactive prayer stations and ways for people who may not like to sing to express praise and prayer in art.” There stated goal is to be biblical in doctrine and focus on Jesus… according to Kimball: “In our setting, there is an empty cross front and center in our worship space. The focal point is the risen Jesus, not the worship leader or preacher. When I speak, it is from off to the side or down among the congregation. The music leader and band are off to the side as well. The cross is the main thing people see and focus on during worship.”

 

Who could oppose this?  Someone for who form is more important than function. It’s easy to oppose such translation of Christianity, if your goal is to preserve how things are done and you ignore what things are believed.

In his opposition to this method, Ken Silva writes,

“…those of us who truly love Christ and His Church should educate worshippers concerning this Roman bondage of religious idolatry and these heretical practices of contemplative mysticism which originated in pagan religions and then flowered through the antibiblical monastic traditions of the apostate Church of Rome.”

 

Notice Silva gives no biblical reasons why this is “antibiblical.” He offers no reasons why these practices are “mystical,” “heretical,” or “idolatry.” What he does offer is a litany of emotionally charged terms - and the origin of the practice and its association with Rome, both logical straw men.

It’s time to deconstruct the straw men of Ken Silva. So far I showed the need for new methods of reaching a new culture, an example of these new methods, and a couple straw men thrown together by those more interested in defending the walls of their traditions than they are in rejoicing over the translation of the Gospel into yet another generation. Supposedly, the methods of Dan Kimball and his team are to be rejected on grounds of ancient historical origin and guilt by association.

Regarding the first charge, that the use of ancient symbols and some rituals is to be rejected because they “originated in pagan religions.” Silva’s case is completely lacking. Absent from Silva’s reasoning is 1) What symbols and rituals are pagan?, 2) What pagans used them and when?, 3) What connection is there between those used then and those used now?, and 4) What difference does origin make, what makes them pagan?

This silly argument raises its head several times every year in neo-fundamentalist circles; whether it’s the pagan origins of Christmas trees, the word “Easter,” or even certain styles of crosses – the argument is always the same… and usually as shallow. Because someone at some time used some thing to worship some other god (which is no god really) Christians for all time are prohibited from redeeming said things for God’s glory. The neo-fundamentalists are giving paganism (and Satan by default) much more realm and power than it/he deserves. To assign some eternal ontological meaning to symbols and rituals is to give an authority to demons, Satan, and paganism that they just do not possess. No shape is ontologically pagan - shapes and symbols have exactly the meaning to which a culture gives them. Some symbols, such as the pentagram are pretty much fixed in western culture, but this is due to our assigning them such meaning – it is not ontological. Even if a connection had been made by Silva, the fact that believers 1,500 years ago shed their paganism and redeemed some of their symbols and rituals and dedicated them to the worship of the true God negates the very premise of his objection. Let’s be sure to give Satan his due respect, as it were, this warning we heed from he Scriptures - but let’s not give him more than his due!

Silva also fails to make his case regarding the second objection, that certain symbols and ritual should be rejected because they are antibiblical monastic traditions of the apostate Church of Rome. Again Silva, as is his method, employs emotional terms with no substantive argument. That some rituals and symbols were used by Rome is no more relevant than that some were once used by pagans. And here Silva must pick and choose because neo-fundamentalists use element in their worship that were, and are still, employed by Rome. That is, of course, unless the watchers do not sing hymns of worship, recite Scripture publicly, observe various holidays, etc.

So while they see themselves as watchers on the wall, the wall they defend is not between truth and error, it is an artificially constructed cultural wall - a wall between the Good News of Jesus Christ and a new generation that desperately needs to hear.