Ken Silva names himself GOD
In a recent post concerning Erwin McManus and his “cult community” know as Mosaic, Ken Silva actually refers to himself as the high and holy God. In classic Silva style, his post is littered with insults and name-calling, including a reference to getting sick after writing down the very name of McManus, Bell and Warren. I didn’t realize that the super power of the emergent black magic was that strong, but hey, we’ll go with it for now.
Aside from the normal horrible logic behind the arguments made in the article, there was one section that caught and held my full attention:
As a quick aside; there are those who feel by constantly using those descriptors (gleaned from McManus himself) e.g. “cultural architect†that I am mocking him. We must be very careful here so please read my keyboard: Yes, yes, absolutely I am mocking him. As it is written:
The LORD’s curse is on the house of the wicked, but He blesses the home of the righteous. He mocks proud mockers but gives grace to the humble. The wise inherit honor, but fools He holds up to shame. (Proverbs 3:33-35)
Notice that Ken uses first person “yes, yes, absolutely I am mocking him” in his blog (he doesn’t leave any room for doubt). He then references the Proverb above to justify his mocking, saying that the Lord is the one who mocks the proud. Logic would naturally follow that Ken is considering himself “the Lord” in this passage, as he uses that as his reason to make fun of those with different views than his. He doesn’t say “because the Lord can, I can.” No, he actually references himself as the Lord who mocks the proud. Ironically, he also calls himself the Lord who gives grace to the humble. That characteristic doesn’t seem to fit him as well. Oh well, I guess we shouldn’t question the character of reverend high and holy lord Silva.
March 13th, 2007 at 9:51 pm
Nathan,
This has been a well-documented habit of Silva’s - taking on authority that does not, and cannot, belong to him. Just to name a few of the articles (or comment threads) dealing with this:
Probably the best one: http://www.verumserum.com/?p=529
Along with these:
http://www.verumserum.com/?p=451
http://www.verumserum.com/?p=556
http://www.verumserum.com/?p=497
http://www.verumserum.com/?p=588
There are a number of other places as well, documented in the ‘Ken Silva’ section of this site.
Granted, when questioned directly on the topic of speaking as if he were God, he will say that it is not the case - but then he just continues blithely along, blaspheming and claiming to do the Lord’s work in a sinful manner - which can only be the work of darkness, not light.
March 14th, 2007 at 8:53 am
Just a thought - mind you…
In the Gospels Jesus speaks of those who blaspheme the Holy Spirit. Given the context of what had just happened, most take blasphemy of the Holy Spirit as attributing to Satan what is an act of the Holy Spirit.
I don’t think anyone can do the same today, but is this not a warning to be careful when ascribing works - whether or not you are ascribing them to Satan or God.
We may mock Ken (I kinds like the “lord silva” name as long as we use the lower case) and his ilk… maybe they deserve it, maybe we (or better, “I”) enjoy it a little too much.
That said, given the warnings of Jesus himself, they should be a little more careful in ascribing to Satan things that very well may be of the Holy Spirit. Or at the very least, do a much better job in discerning what is really being said.
March 14th, 2007 at 9:29 am
Neil,
I’m also reminded of a section of Steve Taylor’s “Guilty By Association” here…
So you say it’s of the devil and we’ve got no choice
because you heard a revelation from the “still small voice?”
if the Bible doesn’t back it then it seems quite clear
perhaps it was the devil who whispered in your ear
March 14th, 2007 at 9:40 am
Best concert experience of my life was front row seats in an old 1930’s style theatre for Steven Taylor and Shiela Walsh…
March 14th, 2007 at 10:25 am
How many falsehoods can a post contain that claims to be exposing false hoods? Apparently, many
Ken has never claimed to be God. This is so ridiculous that it is unworthy of further comment. Your eisegesis of his post is only excelled by your “I”segetical approach to Scripture.
One truth stands out, none of you are funny or cute, or witty, i.e. intelligent, for that matter.
Also, let’s de-construct the Scripture in song while we are at it. What can one expect from the professors at Talmud U. ?
Don’t any of you have something to do that is actually useful?
Neil
Sorry for you that the event you mentioned was the best concert experience of your life.
March 14th, 2007 at 10:39 am
Chris P.
Thank you for showing me the love of God and calling me stupid. BTW, if you want to compare IQ scores or for that matter any standarized test score I don’t normally talk about them at all but for you I’d make an exception.
Calling me stupid? Is that the best you have?
March 14th, 2007 at 10:51 am
So Chris P., shed your wisdom upon us. Is Ken Silva not saying that the phrase “he mocks the proud” (”he” being God) gives him specifically the right to mock McManus, Bell, Warren, etc? I don’t see how that is huge jump in logic.
March 14th, 2007 at 11:14 am
And how does CRN get to call itself the “remnant”? That seems awfully pretentious.
March 14th, 2007 at 11:59 am
The thing that most are missing is that God is mocking the “proud” as Ken set himself up as “The Lord” or at least equal enough with God to mock others…
So in turn that Ken equated himself with God, God in turn is now mocking Ken… pretty funny huh?
Sad really, as this is the ultimate in the chase of “selfish ambition” which the works of the flesh… and as Ken has adequetly shown, the flesh cannot discern spiritual things…
Ken has reveal himself for what he is… A petty selfish fallen man… like the rest of us… who is in no position to judge anyone as he too is only saved by Grace… (If only his fruit bore witness to that).
That is why Scripture says: “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.”
So, Ken, humble yourself before God… and do not usurp His right as THE Judge who will judge at the appointed time…
Blessings,
iggy
(A believer in the True God and Lord Jesus… and forsaker of all false gods… including Ken Silva… I refuse to call him “lord” even with a lower case!)
March 14th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
Chris P.,
Why would you be sorry that my aformentioned concert experience was my best?
Neil S.
March 14th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
Obviously Ken doesn’t think he’s God - on that I agree with Chris P. That aside, he is misappropriating Scripture in apply this said of God to himself.
But Chris P., what of the warnings against ascribing things of God to Satan? How can you/then so easily assign others to the domain of Satan?
Neil S.
March 14th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
Wow
It’s a good day when you can irritate so many at one time.
Joe
I don’t talk about my IQ or my standardized scores either but I will make this an exception as well. My last IQ score was 137 and when I took the ACT test way back when, I was told I could get into any college I wanted even if I had straight D’s, which I did not. Anyway I chose not to go to any college. It seems that you are the only one who sees the point of my comment to be calling you stupid, and that is, well, just plain stupid. Like Paul we are being forced to speak foolishly here.
As for the remnant;CRN doesn’t call itself the remnant. CRN is a blogsite. However those who contribute exist as “part” of the remnant.
The remnant does exist, as God has always worked through a remnant from Noah until today.
Sorry Iggy
Paul says that we are to judge the church. 1 Cor 5:12-13 is applicable in any and all circumstances re:believers. Tolerance of any and all viewpoints, is not one of the fruit of the Spirit I suggest reading Matthew 7:1-5, especially verse 5, again.
Neil
I simply meant that I can think of others whom I would prefer to listen to in a concert setting. I apologize for how it was put. However, you ask a good question.
The question being; Is what Bell is doing/teaching of God? I believe that is what ken is getting at.
Finally;
John 1:
18No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, He (Jesus) has made him known.
Colossians 1:
15He (Jesus) is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
John 14:
9 Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works.11Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves. 12″Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I am going to the Father. 13Whatever you ask in my name, this I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.
Eph 2:
10For we are his (the Father’s) workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
1 John 3:
2Beloved, we are God’s children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he (Jesus) appears we shall be like him (Jesus), because we shall see him (Jesus) as he is. 3And everyone who thus hopes in him (Jesus) purifies himself, as he (Jesus) is pure.
John 5:
(Jesus speaking) 30″I can do nothing on my own. As I hear, I judge, and my judgment is just, because I seek not my own will but the will of him (the Father) who sent me.
John 17:
(Jesus’ prayer) 20″I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, 21that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me.
Eph 5:
4But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, 5even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ–by grace you have been saved– 6and raised us up with him (Jesus) and seated us with him (Jesus) in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.
Romans 12:
4For as in one body we have many members, and the members do not all have the same function, 5so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another.
Romans 8:
29For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son (Jesus), in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.
Now if God is “oneâ€, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and Jesus the Son is the express image of the Father, and we are placed in the Son by the Father, and we are being conformed into the very image of the Son so that when He returns we appear, i.e. look exactly like Him, (identical siblings?), and Jesus who was obedient, did nothing, nor said nothing, outside of the Father’s will, and what He said and did, was actually done in the Father’s authority (name), and we are His body, i.e “literally†His body, created to speak and perform all that He (Jesus) did, and is doing right now, (a pox on wwjd), in even greater quantity………..;
Then; the church, the Body of Christ, (those filled with His Holy Spirit), is not just the place where Jesus Christ is seen, but also where the Father is seen. The church is made up of sons who â€show†the Father, by doing and saying whatever the Father is doing or saying. We speak in His authority.
If we cannot speak for God, then who can? This is not arrogance, as all of this is done by God’s election, and given to us. No one can say that this comes from his own abilities and/or will, and Ken has never made such a claim. Ken is simply doing his best to be an obedient son.
Several things that Bell says are problematic at best. He needs to be confronted.
March 14th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
Chris P. Let me quote you then my friend,
“One truth stands out, none of you are funny or cute, or witty, i.e. intelligent, for that matter. ”
If none of us are intelligent, what does that make us if not stupid? I know your reasoning skills aren’t high but come on, at least own up to what you said.
March 14th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
Chris P.,
Problematic methodology is one thing - questioning his salvation, ascribing a ministry to Satan is quite another.
March 14th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
The church is made up of sons who â€show†the Father, by doing and saying whatever the Father is doing or saying. We speak in His authority.
Could Rob Bell, Rick Warren, Erwin McManus, etc. not be speaking what the Father is doing or saying? Many trusted people who live by the word trust their teachings as well. Or, are you guys the authoritative and only voice of God?
If we cannot speak for God, then who can?
Can Bell, Warren, McManus as well?
This is not arrogance, as all of this is done by God’s election, and given to us. No one can say that this comes from his own abilities and/or will, and Ken has never made such a claim. Ken is simply doing his best to be an obedient son.
So are these men. Where are we now? I guess my biggest problem with these discernment ministries is that they place themselves as THE word of God. Then they nit-pic with quotes taken out of context, become holier than thou and feel it their reformed and God Given responsibility to not spend their time evangelizing, but critiquing the work of other churches. Good thing those other guys are out there doing the work of God in the world… or we would all just be slinging mud at each other.
I find it funny that Silva makes so many stabs at Erwin, but has never even talked with the man.
March 14th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
Chris P.
The ironic thing is, sometime I agree with Ken and the other watchbloggers when they question some of the methodology and even beliefs of some emergents - but Ken and the other watchbloggers completely lack the ability to discern (ironic isn’t it?) between neutral methods they happen to disagree with and true issues of the historic orthodox faith, they lack the ability/willingness to discern between emergent theologies.
Bottom line; the broad brushed dismissal of everything emergent is either lack of ability to see the difference (that is ignorance on the subject they wish to speak) or worse, an unwillingness to discern (which is either laziness or intellectual dishonesty.
So basically, even of I were inclined to agree with you/them on a point I cannot align myself with someone who is either a) speaks form a position of ignorance, b) is too lazy to discern, or c) has discerned but speaks differently about it.
Ignorant, lazy or liar - are there any other choices?
Neil S.
March 14th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
Nathan,
I’d be willing to bet he’s never met any of the men he slams. Which, to some extent I understand…I can’t see them being too willing to actually spend time with him
March 14th, 2007 at 3:35 pm
Guys,
Ya don’t have to spend time in the pit of Hell to know it’s not the place to be —
Hey - this discernment stuff is easy if your brush is broad enough!
Neil S.
March 14th, 2007 at 7:23 pm
Nathan, whoever you are, why are you picking on Ken Silva all the time? And you think HE is unnaturally obsessed with emergents! You really need to get a life here–all of you. And Joe, I’ll bet you’ve never met Ken Silva either, yet you don’t hesitate to trash someone you’ve never met. This entire attack blog makes me queasy. People pointing fingers at others and always acting superior, as though their interpretation of the Bible is the right one. I’ve never seen such sanctimony. What’s really funny is that this entire site was started to attack a blog somebody didn’t like because they were attacking others. How is this blog any different whatsoever than what they are doing? Why don’t you get your fingers out of the air and start publishing things that truly edify. The hatred I have seen for Ken Silva on this site makes me realize that hypocrisy knows no boundaries.
March 14th, 2007 at 8:58 pm
Even if Ken Silva hasn’t met the men he has written about it does not discredit his perspective. Ken usually writes about the theology of these men which can be seen in their books, articles, and podcast. It’s funny how people who have known and worked with Erwin for many years speak out against him they are dismissed because they are said to be too emotional. Then you have a man like Ken Silva who is writing from an outside perspective and he is dismissed because he has not met Erwin. Who is qualified to speak truth? Who is left?
March 14th, 2007 at 9:44 pm
“Don’t any of you have something to do that is actually useful?”
Why is it that the people who always leave this type of comment are usually the ones commenting on every post in an ankle-biting fashion, and leaving the longest comments when it’s all said and done?
March 15th, 2007 at 1:16 am
Do you want to hear from the people that know Erwin the best, and what Erwin’s Ministry really produces? http://mosaicofpain.com/
March 15th, 2007 at 4:49 am
As for the remnant;CRN doesn’t call itself the remnant. CRN is a blogsite. However those who contribute exist as “part†of the remnant.
Turning personal preferences about clothing, music, worship style, candles and alcohol consumption into holy writ doesn’t make you a “remnant”. Legalistic, maybe, but not a remnant.
March 15th, 2007 at 7:16 am
Um Tito, go back and read what I wrote I was being a little ironic. Hey, did you know that Tito is the most made up name–for something like three years running? I’m just saying.
March 15th, 2007 at 7:17 am
Tito,
I happen to know that, in at least the case of Rob Bell, Joe has contacted Ken infinitely more times than Ken has even attempted to contact Rob (since X/0 = infinity). I have had a number of off-line (email) and on-line conversations with Mr. Silva, and his lack of Christian charity in all forms of communication has become his trademark.
If THIS blog makes you queasy (where topics brought up on Slice 2.0 are discussed in un-censored dialogue) because “People pointing fingers at others and always acting superior, as though their interpretation of the Bible is the right one.”, I can only imagine how CRN must make you feel (since none of the authors of this blog claim infallible exegesis/interpretation). You also said “I’ve never seen such sanctimony”, which makes me wonder if you’ve ever even read one of Ken’s miss-ives. None of us even approach the level of sanctimony and prickly infallibility as Mr. Silva…
As for why this blog started, it was primarily to document Slice/CRN commentary, and to allow unfiltered discussion on the topics raised, rather than give a false impression of proof by assertion, which was the case in Slice’s commenting policy. Additionally, we do not consider ourselves above scrutiny, and welcome any well-intentioned discussion as to our interpretations, motives, etc. Additionally, I would point to a couple articles from VS which spell out the differences between CRN/Slice and those who dare to comment on their un-Christlike activities:
http://www.verumserum.com/?p=819
http://www.verumserum.com/?p=825 (this one speaks to one of Mr. Silva’s methods, specifically)
You asked:
I think if you check out the blogs each of us maintains (here’s mine, for example), you will find that we do. Additionally, I would proport that edification (i.e. to build up) of the body includes supporting Christian brothers unfairly savaged by the so-called ‘discernment’ crowd. Protecting part of the body being attacked by a spiritual form of AIDS (a protective system gone haywire), as is often found in Slice/CRN, would certainly be building the body.
OT - you said:
While Ken likes to pretend in his world that Matthew 18 doesn’t apply to any he attacks, it rightly does, and none who write here (that I know of) have not approached Mr. Silva privately before writing about him publicly.
As for Ken’s ‘perspective’, using the methods of Satan (slander, strawman mischaracterization, isogesis, contextomy, and blasphemy - unintended or not) for the “Lord’s work” - as Ken seems to do on a daily basis (for a recent example, I would include this analysis) - discredits most everything he writes.
You said:
Actually, no, he does not. Ken takes isogetical samples from those he attacks, prescribes bogus meanings to these out-of-context samples, and then proceeds to attack these false interpretations like a rabid hyena. Even when I agree with him (like in the case of the Mormon church, and the foibles of Joe Osteen), his methods disgust me as a believer in Christ. His actions make a mockery of the teaching to love your neighbor as yourself.
As for McManus, specifically, I will let Nathan speak to any questions since he actually knows the man and attends his church. Maybe I missed it, but I don’t recall Nathan calling Erwin’s critics ‘too emotional’.
Having witnessed rancor in the body in the past, I also tend to view intra-church fights as more about personality and less about theology - because people often do just try to bring God in to put a stamp of approval on their own fallen nature. Bringing in an outsider (like Ken), only makes such things worse, and only feeds the spirit of schadenfreude already apparent in Ken’s work.
March 15th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
nice try Grace.
March 15th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
Nathan,
Something I wanted to say to you before, when I first started talking to you regarding Mosaic. When I looked at the Mosaic website I saw “Erwin Mcmanus” over and over. I knew nothing about Erwin Mcmanus, other than that he has come up for criticism somewhere. I couldn’t have told you who he was or what the criticism was; I don’t think I even read the articles on him previously. But the thought I had, when I saw all the references to him, was, “Be careful of ministries that focus on one person.” (And yes, I would apply that “across the board” no matter how much I was in agreement with the person in question.)
My second point relates to my earlier question to you about just what “power” is, according to Mosaic; I asked it in the context of your explanation about creativity. I am wondering just what Mcmanus association with Jon Gordon is, because Gordon is someone who is using “positive energy” etc in a way that I understand as a power that could be originating from an ungodly source, that is, demonic. Gordon quotes Mcmanus as if he is a good friend, and if Mcmanus is keen on what he’s doing; see reference to “The Secret Behind the Secret.”
I read some of Jon Gordon’s website, and had the same feeling that I had when I read “The Quandrinity Process” after finding out about Warren’s friendship with Ken Blanchard. No Christian should be having anything to do with this kind of thing. Period. Is Mcmanus of like mind with Gordon, or is Gordon simply using Mcmanus to “Christianize” what he is doing?
Thirdly, regarding your reaction to the fact that I communicated concern to my son about the books he was having to read in college - what if my son was going to Chef’s School and came home with books that said things like “The way your grandmother cooked was horrible. No one could even grow, eating her meals. Your mother followed in her tradition, cooking with tasteless, boring ingredients which will not work in feeding the culture today. Let’s do away with all that. I have a new way. Just add a little arsenic to everything you cook, and it will be absolutely divine, what the world has been waiting for. You will grow, you will have energy, you will even be closer to God!” What if he came home with books like that, with some real live faculty backing up the books hinting that”This arsenic is good for you,”and I said nothing?
What kind of mother would I be if I didn’t at least say, “Uh, son, I have read that a little arsenic in every dish can be potentially dangerous?” You might disagree with me on what I consider “spiritual poison,” but what kind of mother would I be if I believed my son was getting some “spiritual poison” and didn’t express my concern?
My son IS way above average intelligent. But in the end what will effect his spirituality is not his intelligence, but the wisdom that he gains from God’s Word and God’s Spirit. I hope that he never sees himself as too smart or too wise in his own eyes not to listen to a heart concern of his mother. I am certainly ready to listen to him, if he wants to admonish me about anything.
March 15th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
Tito, seriously, who are you? You’ve popped up on my blog and said some things that were out of line, and misconstrued my statements.
March 15th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
Amy,
2 Things:
1. Of course you’re welcome to comment here but you said you were done. Now, you’re back. I have to ask, are you going to hit and run again?
2. Your illustration with your son more or less supports Nathan’s point. If your son can’t figure out that arsenic is bad for him, then he’s in more trouble than you can help him with. If he doesn’t know that arsenic is poison and therefore bad, he can’t be too far above average intelligence.
March 15th, 2007 at 2:03 pm
Amy,
I would really like to continue a conversation off of this blog, as both our comments have become small essays :). nathan@mosaic.org. Here is the short answer to your questions
1. I assure you that Erwin is ONE of the MANY people that make Mosaic happen. I would say that if we broke down Erwin’s part in Mosaic, it would be less than 10%… I assure you
2. Erwin is has done an interview on Gordon’s show, and I am sure that he is friends with the man. Just because you are friends with someone or do an interview doesn’t mean you agree with them. That is where most discernment ministries get it wrong. I can be friends with someone who has completely different beliefs than me. In fact, we often use our influence in the emergent and others towards the truth of Christ. If Rick Warren has been given the favor to speak into the democratic party… let’s support that! Imaging Joseph not accepting his position with pharaoh because they had different beliefs. Joseph would have missed an amazing opportunity to evangelize.
3. I agree with you about your son. However, hopefully your son would be smart enough to discern that what he has been taught was wrong. That is all that I meant.
March 15th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
Tito’s comment is in classic Slice style. Basically: “How dare you criticize us! We are the only ones called by god to criticize Christians! That’s exactly what you dirty emergents do! Don’t you have anything better to do that criticize us who are god’s voice of criticism?”
Tito, who has the right to “discern”?
March 15th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
Joe,
Of course my son knows that arsenic is poison. That wasn’t my point. Maybe I should have used some food additive that people have only just begun to believe is poisonous, that my son wouldn’t know about. But I don’t know any.
The fact is, though, that people can be convinced that something like spiritual arsenic is okay. It only takes a person with the right kind of charisma and support from others to make them a big name.
Why is it that thousands of very intelligent people in seminary seem to loose their faith? Because they don’t recognize poison for poison. Satan is an angel of light and he can deceive people with the IQ of Einstein.
My children will always be my children, no matter how old they are. Often I do and will choose not to speak up about things. I gave my son 5-10 minutes of my time to share my burden with him - and you and Nathan criticize me. I hope that when your daugher is 19 or 20 and she brings home a book that you know all about, and you know that hundreds of people have been led astray by it, that you will have enough of a father’s heart to say, “Honey, that book may sound good, but it’s incredibly deceptive.” If you can’t do that, then something is wrong between you and your daughter.
Joe, I left commenting here because I was spiritually overwhelmed. I didn’t know that I gave the impression that I would never comment again. If I did, then I apologize for coming back. No, I probably don’t plan to stick around. There is something very, very disturbing about how you all look at discernment.
For me, if one person reads my concern about Rob Bell’s breathing video or my concern over Mcmanus possibly believing like Gordon, and gives a second thought to becoming involved with a “divine” that is not “divine;” then any apparent “humbling” that you all seem to want me to experience is worth it.
March 15th, 2007 at 2:46 pm
Often Satan decieves people at Seminary because they become Jaded. They have a form of Godliness but not God. Sadly, this is for people on both sides of the conservative/liberal or fundie/emergent debate. Although, in my experience (which has been greater than some and less than others) ussually people who are in the CRN/slice camp are at greater risk.
I’m not sure I understand completely what you are saying about how we view discernment ministries. Of course you can and should talk to your son about whatever you want. It’s your privilege as a parent, but I get concernced when you start saying young(er) people can’t discern on their own. The Holy Spirit is alive and well, and lives in the heart of everyone who has been redeemed by God. He can counsel us, comfort us, convict us, and discern for us.
Could you unpackage what is “disturbing” for you? and would you explain what you mean by “spiritually overwhelmed.”?
March 15th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
Joe,
I know that young people can discern. I have never intended to put down young people. Middle age people, old people, can discern. Sometimes children can see the evil or good in something before adults do. We ALL need each other. I spoke to my son because he brought the books home; if I brought such books home from the library, I would have been happy for him to talk to me about them. My son probably came to the same conclusions he would have re the books even if I hadn’t talked to him; I had a burden to talk to him and felt that I needed to be obedient to God and do it, no matter whether he needed it or not.
No, I can’t unpackage what is disturbing me - to unpackage it would mean to listen to Bell’s spirit audio again and explain point by point what bothers me. I knew then that I could not listen to that audio again and try to analyze it point by point for you; neither could I not say anything about it. I sat there after listening to it and knew that I was absolutely spiritually drained. As I said before, maybe in the future I can try to analyze it - not now. Before I would do such a thing, I would need to be very sure that it was a God-appointed task, because I would absolutely need to be relying on Him for strength and protection as I wrote it.
The article in which Jon Gordon talks about Erwin Mcmanus and “The Secret behind the Secret” has in it the same type of thing that bothers me about Bell’s talk. If Mcmanus “friendship” with Gordon allows Gordon to “Christianize” his teaching, and Mcmanus isn’t doing anything about it, then Mcmanus is guilty of aiding in false teaching - what Gordon is teaching is clearly false, and can lead people into a relationship with demons.
My guess is that if I could delve into the specifics of both of these topics, the theme would be, “For the Christian there can be no “divinity,” no “spirit,” no “power” no “energy” that sets itself as equal to or “chumming up” with the Spirit of God.
March 15th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
Amy,
I wish I knew more about your background to understand you better so that I knew better how to communicate to you. I was asking if you would unpackage what was disturbing about how I view discernment. You said that it was very very disturbing. I don’t understand why you need to go listen to Bell’s message again to tell me what is disturbing about me. Am I missing something here?
March 15th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
Amy,
I would second Joe’s comments. I believe there is a place for discernment - both individually via the Holy Spirit, and via reputable discernment ministries (a number listed by Scott of VS) - of which Slice/CRN is decidedly NOT.
Do they get some things right? Well, yes - but most of these are of the variety of me claiming to be an earth scientist because I can tell you that water is wet (or the Mormonism is a cult). When it actually requires discernment, do they get things right? Not with enough accuracy that I couldn’t call a weatherman to get just as good an answer.
I’d be really interested with what your problems were with Bell’s ‘breathing’ sermon. I understand how the GBA folks freak out that he quoted a Christian Yoga instructor (I know a local church in Indianapolis which used to have a Yoga class, but later changed it to “Christian Stretching and Exercise” to avoid the “discernment” whining going on. Were they teaching astral projection, mysticism, etc.? No - they were dealing with stretches and breathing techniques). I know that Phil Johnson took exception to the arminian view that people in hell were forgiven, but are in hell because they did not accept the grace and forgiveness offered to them.
With that said, though, I find Bell’s teaching and Mars Hills belief and practice to be far more spot-on with what Jesus taught than what I listen to (on occasion) from Johnnie Mac’s church in CA which is 95% faith and 5% practice (of which 30% of the ‘faith’ is condemnation of broad groups of other Christians who do such sinful things as worship with drums and guitars and hymns written after 1900).
However, I don’t write long articles condemning Johnnie Mac and his church for failure of orthopraxy, because it’s really none of my business, and it is up to that church community.
Last night on the treadmill, I listened to the podcast “The Theology of Plastic Surgery” from Mars Hill from a couple years ago (one I had missed), and it was probably one of the best messages I had ever heard on the topic of finances, stewardship and the church - one that was highly expositional in scripture and also highly practical in application.
I have had a HUGE number of folks thank me for pointing them to Bell’s materials, and an equally large number thanking me for defending Rob and others from the misguided wolves of Slice/CRN and the like.
What they’re doing isn’t discernment - it’s character assassination.
March 15th, 2007 at 3:46 pm
Nathan,
Why does it seem like you think because you go to mosaic that you’re perspective is more valuable? Is that the game we’re playing?
March 15th, 2007 at 3:50 pm
OT,
Why don’t you give us your name. It would seem you’re the only one playing a game.
March 15th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
OT,
We are talking about my local church. I attend there on a weekly basis. I think that my knowledge of how mosaic is run and their theology is a little more educated than a guy running a website on the other coast. Especially when this man has never met my pastor, talked with him, has had ANYTHING complimentary to find about him or has even stepped foot in Mosaic. My perspective is not more valuable, it is just more informed (unless you too are a part of Mosaic).
March 15th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
OT, actually it was me that suggested nathan answer the questions on Mosaic, since (drum roll please) he’s the only one on this board (at least identified) who goes there. You know - first-hand information, and all…
March 15th, 2007 at 4:05 pm
FYI - OT is posting from the same IP address as “Grace”:
69.106.104.222
SBC Internet Services SBCIS-SIS80
IRVNCA ADSL Rback5
March 15th, 2007 at 4:38 pm
Amy,
WOW, now that’s a new one… you call something spiritually oppressive - which I assume is a bad thing - you question it… but when you are asked to expound on why — you refuse… saying it’s too hard to listen to again?
The more I read from you the more I think you are only posing as someone interested in investigating and then discerning.
From everything you’ve said, your mind is made up, and in the name of needing more information you just go from one issue of condemnation to the next without really discussing any one point… ’cause as soon as someone brings up a counterpoint, or asks a question… you break off to another complaint.
Neil S.
March 15th, 2007 at 4:44 pm
…and on mosaic’s front page I saw two, all of two references to McManus: a link to his own site and a reference to the current sermon series.
Neil S.
March 15th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
Joe,
I don’t think my background has anything to do with my not knowing that you meant “Could you unpackage what is “disturbing” for you regarding my discernment?” when you asked, “Could you unpackage what is “disturbing†for you? and would you explain what you mean by “spiritually overwhelmed.â€?
Apparently you were looking at my comment “There is something very, very disturbing about how you all look at discernment.” from 2:20 when you wrote that question at 2:46. I answered it at 3:12. Perhaps next time you could simply say, “You said, ‘There is something very, very disturbing about how you all look at discernment.’ Could you explain that?” As it was, since the question seemed to be connected with “spiritually overwhelming” I immediately assumed you were talking about what disturbed me before, after I listened to the Bell video.
Also, note that I was not speaking of your discernment in particular. I did not say “you,” I said “you all.”
To your question regarding what is disturbing about how you view discernment, I would answer that you don’t seem to be willing to get past Ken Silva to acually consider whether or not anything he says is of concern. Perhaps you can find some exceptions; I am speaking generally of what my impression is. Also, you have castigated a number of people who’ve come on here disagreeing with you, even though they may have valid things to say. No, they haven’t always been nice - but as a host of this site (I guess you are?) it seems like you could show a listening ear to people who have a different opinion than you.
As far as how “you all” view discernment - there seems to be somewhat of a general consensus that it is okay for teachers to spread their teaching throughout churches other than local ones, but it is not okay for people to speak out and warn others when they see the teaching as potentially destructive.
March 15th, 2007 at 5:01 pm
Personally, I think it’s fine when people speak out against teaching that is potentially, or actually, destructive.
But, said speaking out should:
and not condemn the work of fellow Christians as Satanic.
1) deal with actual issues not straw men
2) be able to distinguish between methods and doctrine
3) be willing to learn
4) distinguish differences and not use broad brush categories
5) quote people accurately and honestly in context
6) avoid hyperbole
7) believe people when they make orthodox doctrinal statements
Neil S.
March 15th, 2007 at 5:04 pm
Neil,
I think your mind is made up as well, isn’t it?
Neil, I’m not going to go into my educational background, but I am perfectly capable of analyzing things. But I happen to believe in a spiritual world, and I believe that there are some things that are so much “DARKNESS pretending to be light” that I know I can’t “analyze” them without having God as my strength, without Him giving me the will to do it. I’m not going to push ahead of him, no matter how much you goad me.
I suspect that if I were to analyze Bell’s talk, what I ended up saying might be very short. But I know that I could sit here for hours in front of my computer and not be able to listen to that talk again, much less write something about it. I’m just trying to obey God, okay? You can keep assuming the worst, but nothing you say is going to make me try to attempt something that I don’t believe God wants me to do right now.
And as for bringing up issues and dropping them, I challenge you to find anyone on this site who has discussed anything to the length that Chris and I have - see the whole discussion on Bell’s sermon on Peter and the calling of the disciples, and the Oneness Trinity discussion. For that matter, look at my past “discussions” trying to understand Ken Silva. I also would have been happy to continue discussing the problems with Warren and Obama - but apparently nobody wanted to discuss them.
Look at the substance of your own comments - what could you say about them?
March 15th, 2007 at 5:05 pm
…on Mosaic’s faq page there are nine questions - two of them are in reference to McManus - how many would an acceptable church have?
So far I have not found anything on their site that makes me think they are questionable…
BTW - I assume the US Center for World Missions scoped them out before allowing them to gather on their campus.
March 15th, 2007 at 5:05 pm
NEWSFLASH:
If you haven’t heard Mike Corley’s latest broadcast with ken Silva, you must! (www.mikecorlely.org). Ken Silva makes this statement:
“They want to attack me, that’s fine. They will just find themselves fighting against God.”
This guy officially has a complex now.
March 15th, 2007 at 5:15 pm
Amy,
My mine is made up regarding what? As I said, when a person makes an orthodox statement of doctrine, I assume they mean it. Mosaic’s doctrinal statement, mission statement, visions statement - are all thoroughly orthodox.
So, my starting point is to assume they mean what they say.
From this starting point I’ve looked - and so far I have found nothing contrary to biblical/historical Christianity.
Neil S.
March 15th, 2007 at 5:15 pm
Amy,
I think you lived overseas, so I am going to assume for the sake of discussion that you were/are a missionary. If I’m wrong it’s OK, because this argument will still prove valid.
Suppose I said, “There is just something wrong with the way all you missionaries make everything so melodramatic.”
Wouldn’t you if you were in that group take that a little personal? So when you said, “there is something very very disturbing about how ‘you all’ view discernment” I admit I took that to mean me.
March 15th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
Amy,
I did not mean to question your ability to discern - only your willingness… and in a greater sense Ken’s
As for Bell’s breathing talk - I for the life of me cannot find anything so offensive.
And Nathan has met you point for point - yet you constantly jump on to yet another issue…
Read the Mosaic doctrinal statement, read their faq page, read their missions statement and overview - and tell what is inconsistent with biblical teaching and historic Christan orthodoxy?
Neil S.
Neil S.
March 15th, 2007 at 5:28 pm
This whole thing makes me so sad. I just thought I would throw that out there. I know we are not without fault. After listening to Mike Corley’s broadcast, Ken Silva seems think that he is.
March 15th, 2007 at 5:55 pm
It seems to me that Slice 2.0 is forming its own echo-chamber. Ken is on Mike C’s show and Mike is a contributing author to CRN. Ingrid has Dwayna on her show, and both Ingrid and Dwayna are contributing authors on CRN….
March 15th, 2007 at 6:41 pm
Neil,
Sorry, I simply meant, made your mind up about me. You’ve said things several times regarding me that I know to be untrue.
A general statement: People can have orthodox doctrinal statements and be teaching something that contradicts them. Perhaps dynamic leaders can do this even more easily than laymen in the church, especially if there is no one in place to hold them accountable.
As for Mosaic, mostly what I’ve done is ask questions, including the one I asked on here, regarding “The Secret within a Secret.” http://www.jongordon.com/newsletter-070219-thesecret.htm Notice that I did not automatically condemn Mcmanus, but rather asked Nathan if Jon Gordon is simply using him to Christianize his teaching. Notice that I said that this article related to my other questions about what was meant by creativity and power.
I have way more experience with people who are Christians harnessing “energy,” putting themselves in a place where they could be open to “visions” from Satan, than I care to expound on. As I have mentioned before, I have in a sense lived “in the middle of the occult.” I believe that God has allowed me to have some of the experiences I’ve had so that I can help people be aware that it’s not okay to put oneself in a position where one could come in contact with the “divine” that is not the divine.
So I’m sorry if I come across as someone who gets some kind of thrill out of finding deception. The fact is, deception is simply out there, and I would like to be aware of where it is so I can help other people from being deceived by it.
March 16th, 2007 at 12:16 am
Amy,
Let me speak from my heart off the subject. I think you are right to be on this quest for truth. Testing doctrine is a good thing. I DO think that you think for yourself (in a good way) and are able to make educated decisions from scripture. I would suggest this. Don’t make Silva your informant. Simply allow the scripture to be your guide when issues arise.
I completely respect people who are on a quest for truth in a postmodern world littered with lies. Search for truth, and when you find it, be confident in it. People who are insecure with what is truth find it necessary to start attacking (rather than educating). I personally think that a website teaching sound doctrine is ten times more valuable than a site attacking “bad doctrine”. Always remaining teachable and humble is what is needed. I think that a gentle spirit is what God can use and work through.
Notice that you don’t see the Bell and McManus and Warren fighting back. That is because they are confident in the mission that God has them on. I can only speak in my experience with McManus, but these men are totally open to correction, rebuke and questions when they are brought to them personally. They just value biblical truth so much that they don’t sit around defending it… they spend their time sharing it.
Peace be with you,
Nathan
March 16th, 2007 at 9:47 am
[...] According to our friends at the CRN.Info and Analysis website Ken Silva, of Christian Research Network fame has declared himself to be God. [...]
March 16th, 2007 at 10:34 am
Silva thinks he is God???? I hoope he remembers one particular person who made that same claim, that Cornish hen dude that got fried in Waco……..
March 16th, 2007 at 11:52 am
Chris P.
“Sorry Iggy
Paul says that we are to judge the church. 1 Cor 5:12-13 is applicable in any and all circumstances re:believers. Tolerance of any and all viewpoints, is not one of the fruit of the Spirit I suggest reading Matthew 7:1-5, especially verse 5, again.”
I do not preach tolerance… I preach that tolerance is a lie… for it assumes one is better (the tolerant one) than the one being tolerated… i preach LOVE… Love assumes the other is better than you.
We are not to judge another’s eternal destiny… also there is a big difference between discernment (which is often translated as “judge”) yet are not to judge others… as we are all saved by Grace… no one has “earned” salvation. To be able to judge another implies we have attained salvation by our own merit and not by the Blood of Jesus.
The Word of God is very clear… we are not to judge before the appointed time…
the bible speaks of two times this happens… once was the Cross… where sin was judged… the second is at the resurrection when all are judged… according to their works… those whose names are in the Lamb’s Book of Life go on to eternal Life… which is the Life of Christ Jesus Himself… the one’s not in the Book of Life go in to the Lake of Fire… along with death and Hell the false prophet and Satan…
Jesus said let the wheat and weeds grow together and not to pull the weeds as it may hurt the wheat… and as Ken Silva goes and pulls weeds he hurts his brothers and sisters and goes against the very words of Jesus…
Jesus will judge at the appointed time… if we judge now we usurp His authority and sit on His throne declaring we are god and are worthy to open the scroll and write our own names in the Lambs Book of Life and declare ourselves God…
and that is what Ken Silva is doing… and you are defending.
Blessings,
iggy
March 16th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
Chris P,
Let me prove all I said the way Ken Silva proves all his points.
Link # 1 here
Link # 2 Here
I could add more but I think you get my drift…
He is his own authority on all things…
Peace,
iggy
March 16th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
Chris P,
For the record, I don’t think that ANYONE here has a problem with the fact that people judge the church. That is fine. But what happens when those judging are are making false accusations, mocking the men as well as the doctrine, and their lives or words to not reflect that of jesus’? Are we who diagree with Ken just supposed to be tolerant? Are we, who are painted with with broad brush strokes, supposed to lay aside our convictions and let the “judges” move on?
Chris, how is what we are doing here any different from what Ken is doing on CRN? We are discerning that Ken is wrong, biblical and often heretical, and are warning the church. I guarantee you that I have just as much conviction about that as Ken. So now what? Where do we go from here?
March 16th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
Nathan,
Thanks for your kind remarks. I can assure you that Ken Silva is not my guide. If he were I simply wouldn’t be wasting any of my time trying to look into things on my own.
However, I have said before that it may be that if I worked through some of the issues he brings up on my own, I may end up having some of the same concerns that he does. I still believe that.
I’ve been wondering, do you have a problem with Jon Gordon’s teaching? Do you have a problem with Mcmanus’ name/teaching being used on his site in the way it is? Does Mcmanus think that it is okay?
If you don’t want to answer these questions, it’s fine - I know I’ve already taken a lot of your time. Just so you know where I’m coming from - if my pastor had a friendship that allowed his name to be coupled with Gordon’s teaching, I would first talk to him - and if he thought that Gordon’s teaching was “a little off, but not that bad” or if he thought that by letting Gordon use his name, message he could “get the gospel out” - I would very likely end up leaving that church.
A friendship with an unbeliever can be a good thing - but when an unbeliever and believer’s friendship allows them to work together for “religious enlightment” that is an unequal yoke; and the believer’s scriptural message is compromised by that of an unbeliever. There are few worse messages than having non-believers think that the “divine higher power” they can contact through various practices is something that is good, divine. If they manage to contact some higher power they may think that it is good, divine, and never see the need for salvation through Jesus Christ. They may even have visions of a “false Jesus” and think that they know Jesus Christ, without ever having confessed their sins or come to the understanding that He died in their place; without ever even knowing that He is God. They will, either on this earth or after they die, discover that the “divine higher power” that they have contacted is a power from the pit of hell.
In my understanding of Scripture, God is not willing to share his “glory” with anyone else. I regard teaching such as Gordon’s as being possibly demonic at the root. I take the strong warnings in both the Old and New Testament about staying away from magic, etc, as applicable to such things.
March 16th, 2007 at 5:00 pm
Amy, Well Done!
March 16th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
Amy,
Let me get this straight - now, when Slice/CRN attacks someone, we need not only defend the person unfairly attacked, but we have to go out and find any heretic who quotes the person being attacked and prove a lack of Guilt-by-Association?
“Have you now, or have you ever been…”
Please.
The onus is on the attacker to prove his/her case, not the one being unfairly attacked…
Â
Anything less is to confirm ‘proof by assertion’
March 16th, 2007 at 5:43 pm
“I’ve been wondering, do you have a problem with Jon Gordon’s teaching? Do you have a problem with Mcmanus’ name/teaching being used on his site in the way it is? Does Mcmanus think that it is okay?”
Amy,
I cannot speak FOR McManus, only what I have heard in discussions as talks. Erwin obviously does not have the same beliefs as Gordon. Gordon has asked Erwin to be interviewed on his show, and Erwin has accepted. I can tell you that Erwin has developed a relationship with Gordon “off the air” and that he is helping lead Gordon towards Christ.
Amy, I think this is a huge distinction between the Silvas and the McManuses off the world. Silva makes enemies with his approach to correcting false doctrine, while Erwin makes friends. It isn’t that Erwin backs down from his stance on the truth, but he invites people into a relationship with him, and influences them towards Christ. Silva simply slams people before they can talk about it together.
I go back to my illustration of Joseph. Could you imagine Joseph telling Pharaoh that he could work with him because they had differences in religion? No. God places people in strategic places to influence the influencers.
So, to answer your question in short: Erwin has publicly said before that they believe different things. Erwin is in Gordon’s life and influencing him for Christ. However, Erwin doesn’t feel like he needs to create a web blog attacking Gordon.
March 16th, 2007 at 7:31 pm
Chris L,
Have you read this? http://www.jongordon.com/newsletter-070219-thesecret.htm
If I were a pastor and a friend of mine ran a site that I considered new age/demonic and quoted me in this way, I hope that God would give me the strength to:
1)Ask God for forgiveness for anything I had done in my relationship with that friend that seemingly gave them permission to do such a thing.
2)Apologize to my friend if I had not shared with him how dangerous his teaching was, to himself and others.
3) Ask that my name and my teaching be removed from the site so that
a) Christians would not be confused into thinking that what Gordon is teaching must be okay since he is quoting me. I would not want any Christian practicing anything that would give Satan an open door to their mind.
b)Non-Christians would not be misled into thinking that the power that they may contact by following my New Age friends teaching had anything to do with Christ. They might even think that they have become Christians, when they have never met the Christ of scriptures.
I would then write something that could be read by the public so that there was no confusion, not to protect myself from GBA nitpickers but to protect Christians from falling into demonic practices and to keep non-Christians from possibly believing they have come into a relationship with the Lord Jesus in a way that TRAMPLES ON THE BLOOD OF CHRIST.
Chris I have been in a situation a little bit like this. A couple of young married women came up to me after a women’s bible study overseas and were chatting. One of them asked about my wedding ring. She said she has always wanted one. She asked me if she could do a trick with it. I thought that she was going to do a “magic trick” in the way that we normally think of “magic” as in “slight of hand.” I gave it to her - and I don’t want to go into details, but basically, she told my future. Somewhere in the middle or right after this, I realized that this was no slight of hand. I walked home, overwhelmed by what I had let happen, in church no less, with the whole women’s group looking on. A few days later, on Sunday, I found the two women after church and said, “Did you really believe that what you found out about my future was true? Were you not just playing a game?” They affirmed, without shame, that yes they believed it was true; no they weren’t playing a game.
Sometime shortly after that, I think with in a week or two, I was scheduled to speak at the women’s meeting. I explained to all the women there, including the women who had done the magic trick, that I felt that what I had participated in was very wrong and that I needed to apologize. I shared several scriptures about divination, etc, and told them that I realize that these kinds of things have been a part of their culture for a long time - but that the Bible says that they are sin. I told them that I realized that they may have never even read these passages because they don’t have them in their language. I explained that God talks about them so seriously because they aren’t just superstitions, but that there can be demonic power behind them.
March 16th, 2007 at 7:31 pm
Chris P,
Thanks for the encouragement.
March 16th, 2007 at 7:56 pm
Amy,
First off, that was not a direct quote from Erwin. It was paraphrasing what Jon took away from whatever conversation they had. I have told you that Erwin obviously doesn’t see eye to eye with Gordon. But here’s a dissection of the article.
I don’t see how this is an issue. When we move towards Christ, we do move towards amazing possibilities. Did Paul not say “I can do all things through Christ� Did Peter not walk on water? Did those at Pentecost not preach in unknown languages? If you disagree that when we are submitted to Christ he molds us to look more and more like the character he had in mind for us, then we might need to go back to scripture.
This statement looks different from a reformed and non-reformed perspective. If you believe that we have free will, then our decisions affect our life. If we choose to sin, that effects our life with God. At the same time, God is calling us to him, and trying to shape us to look like him. So, we are both creating and being created at the same time. Notice that it doesn’t say we are co-creators of life. We are co-creators of our life with God.
I think this is probably the most misunderstood part of it. Is God not constantly working to draw people to himself (again depends on how reformed your theology is). If God is working towards us becoming more like him, then I would say that his desire is to create something “heavenly†inside of us (our hearts). God wants to use us to help make this world obey and honor HIM.
Again, this was not a quote from Erwin, and it definitely doesn’t sound like his words. I wouldn’t hold Erwin responsible for them. Also, we have NO idea how many conversations Erwin has had with Gordon on this issue. For sll we know, he may be very close to coming to Christ. Also Amy, what church did you go to that tried to tell your fortune from you wedding ring. I have never heard of that practice before.
March 17th, 2007 at 11:16 am
Nathan,
My concern about Mcmanus being quoted on Gordon’s site is that Gordon believes in a higher power, and the things that he is promoting can bring people into contact with that higher power, whether it be Christ or not. It really wouldn’t matter to me what “biblical things” Gordon may quote from Mcmanus. I fear that his doing so will create confusion or worse as I’ve already explained.
But are the ideas that are being quoted, discussed, even biblical? You seem to think so. Gordon says, to whoever is reading his site, “We become a vessel God can use to mold into the people we were born to be… who share the love we were meant to share.” How? “In choosing to have faith and believing in a brighter and better future, cultivating a grateful and appreciative heart, and practicing forgiveness we open ourselves up to amazing possibilities.”
For Christians, this sound like “possibility thinking.” To teach this to a non-Christian is to teach them that they can have a wonderful, purpose-filled life apart from salvation.
As a Christian, I believe that I simply need to be obedient to God’s Word and to be sensitive to the Holy Spirit in day-to-day details of obedience, not “believe in a better and brighter future.” Many of my life experiences that I have chosen because of a need to be obedient are not one that most people would interpret as “better” or “brighter.” Certainly non-Christians wouldn’t see it that way.
If, as you say, “When we move towards Christ, we do move towards amazing possibilities. Did Paul not say “I can do all things through Christâ€? Did Peter not walk on water? Did those at Pentecost not preach in unknown languages?” includes non-Christians, I say, absolutely NO to this. If you’re simply talking to Christians, I say that “amazing possibilities” includes only what is God’s will: God’s will may include endurance in spite of sickness. It may include NOT speaking in unknown languages. It may include working at Walmart 8-5, and being joyful while you’re doing it. It may mean living in another culture for 10 years and having people constantly shun you. It may mean moving around so much in foreign countries that you are viewed as a “toddler” in terms of language ability. It may mean being a loving and faithful spouse toward your drooling, uncommunicative spouse who has Alzheimer’s and hasn’t recognized you for 10 years. Moving towards Christ involves accepting his will for us and it may mean being humdrum, mediocre, untalented, but faithful, joyful, and loving.
“The Secret does not exist to satisfy your every wish but to help us become the kind of people God can use to make His ultimate wish come true - Heaven on Earth and inside each one of us” You support this quote by saying ” If God is working towards us becoming more like him, then I would say that his desire is to create something “heavenly†inside of us (our hearts). God wants to use us to help make this world obey and honor HIM.”
WOW. Nathan, where in scripture does God ever create something good inside of an unredeemed heart? (Yes, sometimes he used people, like Darius, but I don’t think that’s what your talking about.) Where does he ever talk about the heart of unredeemed man being good? Where did God ever command the disciples, “Go into all the world and make the unredeemed world obey and honor Him.” Peter and Paul did not go to Pagan temples and try to get people to dance for God - they preached Jesus, and the fact that sinners (meaning all people on earth) are responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus. They preached repentance. The apostles were “the smell of death” to those who were perishing (II Corinthians 2:16) - rejection of the gospel means a life apart from God. They made that clear. Rejection of the gospel is not a life where “the kingdom is within,” causing people to obey and honor God. (Study “the kingdom is within” passage in context, and consider whether or not Jesus could have possibly been telling the Pharisees that he thought that Christ was creating something heavenly inside of them..)
Look at Titus 3:3-5. Unbelievers are - foolish, disobedient, deceived, enslaved by all kinds of passions and pleasures, full of malice, envy, hate. Only through salvation which came about because of the love of God our Saviour are people saved - not because of their righteousness, but because of his mercy. Those who are saved are reborn, renewed by the Holy Spirit - so that they can have eternal life. In verse 8 Paul instructs Titus to stress these things in his ministry.
No one can come to God unless He is drawn by the Holy Spirit. He doesn’t create anything “heavenly” in us, apart from our “accepting” his sacrifice. Once we were “alienated from God,” not “heavenly” - we (who have received salvation) have been reconciled by Christ’s death. It’s his death, his blood covering our sins, and our resulting salvation that makes us completely “heavenly” in the sense of “holy in his sight, without blemish, free from accusation” (See Colossians 1:19-22.) We are justified by his blood, and will be saved from God’s wrath through him. Before that happens, we are “God’s enemies.” (Romans 5:8-11.)
“We are co-creators of our life with God.” I don’t really understand what all is meant by this. I do believe in free will - but over the last 10 years or so I have changed from a person who tries to do a, b, and c, - creative, Christian things that fit my gifts and seemed like things that would honor him - in the Christian life to honor God, to a person who tries to submit to God and let Him work through me. What he did through me in the last culture I was in went way beyond anything I could have “created” through my will. In fact, he let me break down physically, and come to the complete end of myself - and I learned something of what it the verse “Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit, says the Lord.”
Frankly, if some of the things you have said accurately represent Mcmanus and/or Mosaic, then I think you should take down the SBC doctrinal statement. There’s a mismatch there. I say, with great concern, that I think you are being deceived.
As for the denomination with the ring - the country I worked in is about 100 years away from being completely pagan. Those kinds of things are in all the churches, some more than others. I have to admit I didn’t expect it in the church I was in, because there was a Bible school connected with that church and I would have thought that they would have taught against such things. Sadly, the expat leader’s wife of the Bible school/church where this happened was very upset by my teaching that the future-foretelling was wrong. She had also been participating in it. The nationals were quite receptive, at least on the surface. Pagan practices are deeply ingrained in cultures in ways that people inside the culture don’t even recognize. And because there is often a real power behind the practices, they can be very difficult to break away from.
March 17th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
Nathan,
Here’s on more response toyour quote: “If God is working towards us becoming more like him, then I would say that his desire is to create something “heavenly†inside of us (our hearts). God wants to use us to help make this world obey and honor HIM.”
Jesus says, “When he (the Holy Spirit) comes, he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgement: in regard to sin, because men do not believe in me; in regard to righteousness, because I am going to the Father, where you can see me no longer; and in regard to judgment, because the prince of this world now stands condemned.” (John 16:8-11, NIV)
God wants men to feel convicted because of their unbelief, not believe that he is in them, helping them to obey and honor him, in spite of their unbelief. There is no “kingdom of God” on this earth without the personal acknowledgement, confession, and repentance of sin.
Satan would love to have people feel that they have the “kingdom within” without personal salvation.
March 17th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
amy,
again, this is not the place to converse via essays in a comment section. I have some trouble with your theology as well. I apparently seem to think that God is some evil war lord, looking to smite down his people with sickness, temptation and trials. I see those as part of a “better and brighter future” for the world. You apparently would disagree with the verse that says God works all things together for good for those who love him and keep his commands. If you think that God doesn’t have a brighter and more hopeful future, then I think you need to re-look at your faith.
Second, like I said, THIS IS NOT A QUOTE from McManus! I know for a fact that Erwin is talking about the regenerate here. Which is why Gordon (a non-follower) simply interprets that as being connected to God. Erwin has probably had conversation about this with him.
WHOEVER SAID HERE THAT THERE IS NO KINGDOM OF GOD WITHOUT REPENTANCE OF SIN!?! You are reading way too much into things. If you don’t believe that God wants to draw all men unto himself and change their hearts, please do so. ERWIN has never said that there is a “kingdom within without personal salvation.” In fact, I have personally heard him preach salvation messages through Jesus Christ (last week at Mosaic being one of them)! Amy, you have to stop looking into this! If I say “God has a plan for your life” it doesn’t mean that I don’t believe you don’t need salvation to experience that!
Amy, if you are like Ken, then you think the SBC is full of it. But, NAMB, IMB, and the SBC all work closely with Erwin and Mosaic. They invest countless resources into helping people get to Mosaic events to experience what God is doing here. He speaks for countless numbers of their conventions. Do you think they would permit him to do this if his theology was wacky?
I am done with this conversation (at least via comment postings). If you want to email me, great. nathan@mosaic.org. If you want to find more questions about the theology of Mosaic, I turn you to our executive pastor, Eric Bryant. eric@mosaic.org. IF you do want answers, you will pursue.
March 17th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
Nathan,
I don’t believe that God is an evil war lord.
Essays are the only way I know how to try to deal with such a complex topic.
I know from a few things I read in the last few days that I am not the only one who is struggling with “the kingdom within” and “creativity” and “changing cultures” as taught by Mcmanus; and it appears that some of the people who are struggling with this are people who have been in Mosaic. Yes maybe we’re all misunderstanding; but what if even one of the things that people are concerned or baffled about are legitimate concerns?
No matter how much I’m understanding or misunderstanding, I believe that Gordon’s quoting Mcmanus on his website has great potential for doing a lot of harm to a lot of people. You apparently don’t see it that way. I wish, for the sake of a) a Christian who may meet a spirit guide through following Gordon’s teaching or b) a non-Christian who may think he has met Jesus through Gordon’s now “Christianized” teaching, that you agreed with my concern and were willing to bring it up to your church.
Do I think that SBC would permit and support Mosaic events if Mcmanus’ theology was wacky? I don’t believe any denomination has leadership that is incapable of making errors in discernment.
Anyway, end of essays, end of conversation.
March 17th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
amy, I again encourage you to contact mosaic about your concerns. I too do not put it past denominational leadership to make errors in discernment. However, I just think the sheer number or people who have approved McManus (and credible people at that) speaks volumes.