Why Do I Write Here?

Posted by: Joe
in Original Articles
22
Apr

Why do I write here? It’s a fair question. My wife and I talk about it frequently. The truth is we all know that the chances of changing those we write about is somewhere between zero and never. I had a talk with a friend of mine and he asked me point blank, “Why waste your time? Those people are just out there; they’re never going to get it. Why waste your time?”

That has started a serious time of reflection for me. I can’t get around the logic of it. They post, we post, and then we go ‘round and ‘round. We can’t comment there (which is why they killed their old site and started under a new name), but they come here and call us names (just scan Chris P’s comments) fail to answer questions and in general lack logic. (Chris Rosebrough being the exception—his comments are always thoughtful and clear, even if we do disagree). They call us apostate (at least me), we would never type it but I bet everyone of us that contribute here secretly wonder about their eternal destination. They attack Godly men and some we call friends. It’s a vicious cycle.
So what’s the point? Should I just quit? Should I just take my G4 and go home? The answer would have to be yes, if I thought the purpose was to write to effect change in Ingrid, Ken, Chris P, Dwayna or whoever chooses to write over there. Before I go further let me quote the stated mission of this webpage.

It is our intent to gather articles from the blogosphere here which give background to Slice and its writers, refute its often false and malicious claims, to offer space for original post-length commentary by those who have been blocked from doing so on Slice, and to give space for those directly maligned by these modern-day Pharisees to defend themselves and to refute the pernicious lies spread about them.

That’s from the original “about us” page long before I ever came on board here. But the essence stays the same. If you want to read the mission of this webpage click on the “about us” link.
So why do I write here? The truth is, I don’t write for any of contributors over there. I don’t write for them to change. I write for the person who might go to their site and think what they write has merit. If I can keep one person from being swept up in the delusion that is that site then I consider my effort a success.

I don’t know who’s saved and who’s not. I ‘m glad I don’t have to decide who is or who isn’t. God does that. I do know I don’t see a whole lot of love coming out of that webpage, or in their comments here. Further I read the Apostle John telling us that if we claim to love God that we can’t see, but we can’ love our neighbor who we do see, we’re liars and God is not in us.

Here’s the thing, I’m going to keep writing. I’m going to keep pointing out the lies (see Nathan’s latest post). I’m going to keep writing about the lack of logic, the lack of love and the downright silliness. Not to cause them to stop (although that would be great), nor to effect some sort of change in them (although that too would be great). I’m going to write so that somebody who might see their stuff and be swayed by it has another opinion to weigh in on. That’s why I write. I imagine that’s why we all write here. As Chris so succinctly put it in the “about” page,

…a blight in the Christian Blogosphere, had reached a point where, like The Onion, ignorant folks sometimes mistook it for having well-researched stories or news of substance. It was a home to writers who referred to leaders in churches they don’t like as ‘Spiritual Pedophiles’, ‘Anti-Christs’, or (sometimes) ‘the False Prophet of Revelation’, referring to these churches as ‘whorehouses’ or worse. (And this is when they’re being nice.)

I believe with all my heart that CRN/AM/Slice 2.0 is a cancer on the body of Christ. Like any cancer it must be addressed. It must be dealt with and shown for what it is. To ignore it is to invite death.

That doesn’t mean that I don’t think my friend has some points that I need to consider. I am going to make some changes. Ken doesn’t like me (in fact he has said that my soul is damned to eternal punishment) and truth be told I don’t really like Ken. We both know it, anyone who reads our comments can see it. So the back and forth commenting stops here Fightand now. I’ll still reserve the right to enter into honest discussion with Ken, but when he’s doing his “slippery moves” I will not engage. How he and I interact with each other is not honoring to God nor is it helpful to the bride of Christ. This verbal jousting of ours is a poor representation of my Savior and LORD. If it were up to me I would ban Ken, I understand that Chris L has final say there and it’s his call. I’ll respect that. I do not have to respond to Ken simply because he can comment here.

We will no longer get into a “tit for tat” conversation. One of my favorite maxims is “You can’t push a rope.” It’s time I live by that here too.

  • Share/Bookmark
This entry was posted on Sunday, April 22nd, 2007 at 8:42 pm and is filed under Original Articles. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

 

+/- Collapse/Expand All

65 Comments(+Add)

1   Darren Sapp    http://www.vaporministries.blogspot.com/
April 22nd, 2007 at 9:28 pm

Ken’s last comment to me was, “At least you’ve made your choice there Darren. For this reveals what was in your heart even before we went through your pretence of “dialogue.” peace as “press on” into apostasy.” We exchanged e-mails a long time ago and have interacted through CWN and Slice. I have asked to dialogue with him and we certainly have disagreed. I think he is suggesting in his quote that in my heart was to deceive him and others and pretend to have honest dialogue for some nefarious purpose. If Ken reads this, I will tell him that is 100% not true. What is true is that when I first read Ken’s articles, my intention was to learn from him and learn more about the emerging church. What I found is that Ken’s bias became so evident I did not feel as though I could trust his point of view. I actually agree with a lot of what he writes, but some of it just so over the top, I feel the need to be defensive of people like Rick Warren, David Jeremiah, and Chuck Swindoll. I end all of my writings, e-mails, etc. with “Press On.” Its purpose is to make sure that what I wrote is pressing on toward the goal of the upward call and I will admit I have missed the mark on a few. Now Ken used the term that I am pressing on into apostasy.

To Ken: That comment may seem to you as your pastoral duty or something you think the Lord gave you, but my friend you need really consider where that come from. Remember, you call yourself pastor. Apparently my post regarding Mr. Chew offended or hurt you and I do apologize for that. If you think there is enough data in that post and other things I have written to call me apostate then you need to reconsider whether or not the enemy is using you to cause division in the body. If you feel like this dialogue should not be public, then you need to offer where the dialogue should take place. If you rather I never write to you or about you, let me know. I think the enemy is well pleased at the dialogue that has transpired over the last few days and I am asking myself if I should have any part of it. Something to pray on for sure.

Press On, Darren

2   Lin    
April 23rd, 2007 at 11:10 am

I had a very similar experience while carrying on a short lived conversation with Ingrid through email and the old Slice site. I was always polite, and when I found common ground with her on some issues, I pointed it out and voiced my appreciation. It seemed that when she couldn’t convince me completely, she decided I was trying to be sarcastic or duplicitous. In her last email to me she called me a liberal and told me she was tired of people like me. It seems that if they can’t win you over with their “logic” they cut you off by acting as if you are doing something wrong or bad.

I wonder if Ingrid and Ken get lonely because of this self-imposed alienation. I really do feel sorry for them.

3   Chris P.    
April 23rd, 2007 at 12:14 pm

The few names I have tossed out, which are nowhere near to what I’ve been called during the last several years on the blog, seem tyo be the only kind of response that you or others seem to understand.
I have yet to see you address the content of any comments. you latch on to rhetoric and sarcasm. You never adress the scriptures and I do not mean Hillel’s commentary on them.

You are a credit to the post-modern world.

” I write for the person who might go to their site and think what they write has merit.”
My aren’t we full of ourselves. Don’t ever call me or anyone else arrogant.
So CRN is a cancer another subjective judgment.
If you are not a hypocrite, you would then shut this blog down. However I don’t expect that.

No you can’t push a rope, but you can sure tie it in knots.

4   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
April 23rd, 2007 at 12:31 pm

Chris P,

You said:

I have yet to see you address the content of any comments.

I’ve yet to see any content to your comments beyond the sarcasm.

Perhaps in the comment above, you can point me to the “content” of the comment. Aside from your discussion of why you believe (wrongly, I might add) that all men are not made in God’s image, I’ve not seen much in the way of content from you – here or at CRN…

You never adress the scriptures and I do not mean Hillel’s commentary on them.

I’ve addressed plenty of scriptures along with the Judaic understanding of those scriptures prior to Jesus – and the context of his teachings in light of the culture in which they were spoken. It has nothing to do with Hillel’s commentary, but your anti-Semetic bias that leaks out (which is strange from somone who attends a Messianic church…) whenever the subject of context – ancient or modern – comes up.

As for CRN being a cancer, that is fairly obvious for those with discernment. Ezekiel 34 was written for the “pastors” on staff there, and it is the weak of the flock that are influenced by the hatred spewed forth there – who then go and cause problems for their local congregations with “what they found out about ’so-and-so’ on the internet”. Fortunately, it doesn’t take a whole lot to discredit what passes for ‘research’ on CRN.

Perhaps we don’t address your ‘content’, because – “the only cure for AIDS is death” is the depth and tenor of what you write.

5   Erica    http://joemartino.name/erica
April 23rd, 2007 at 12:54 pm

Lin,
I had a very similar conversation with Ingrid through e-mail! She is very Condescending.

6   Joe    
April 23rd, 2007 at 2:21 pm

Lin,
Are you the same “Lin” I’ve read over at Thinkerup?

7   amy    
April 23rd, 2007 at 3:19 pm

CRN is by no means a perfect site (are there any?,) and there is some harm done by it; but there is also quite a lot of truth that goes out from that site. This site also does harm to the body of Christ. At what point does a site get classified as a “cancer?”

If some of the articles on CRN are on target (and they are) and in line with the Word of God, then to call the site “a cancer” is potentially calling something that is many times in alignment with God’s Word, not of God.

“I bet everyone of us that contribute here secretly wonder about their eternal destination.” I don’t know what you mean by “contribute” here, whether you mean write articles, or just comment; just for the record, as a commenter, I do not question anyone at CRN’s eternal destination.

8   Todd    http://toddblog.net
April 23rd, 2007 at 3:55 pm

Amy, the right thing said the wrong way is wrong. CRN may be right about some things (Chris R. comes to mind) but the manner in which they bash and condemn those with whom they disagree is wrong – there is little denying that.

That said, I’m often disappointed with the tone used here, specifically in regards to Ken Silva. While there is little doubt that Ken and I disagree on practically everything, he isn’t worthy of the webspace this site has used to try to bring him down. That is, he is convinced he is right, refuses to listen to those who disagree with him and rarely (if ever) responds to valid criticisms. Why bother any more?

9   Julie    http://www.loneprairie.net/lp_blog/blog.htm
April 23rd, 2007 at 4:04 pm

I had an email exchange with Ingrid back before I was blacklisted at Slice, and I found her to be very encouraging.

Just saying.

You know, everyone has different experiences. It’s a classic example of taking in all the information before coming to a conclusion.

I gotta admit — Todd’s right. I have rather thrown up my hands regarding Ken Silva and really, that’s no way to treat a person, particularly a fellow Christian brother.

Even if he does get my goat.

Oddly enough, I don’t sit around and wonder about anyone else’s salvation, here or CRN. I admit to secretly hoping that some people have a mansion way, way, way, way “up over the hilltop” in heaven, but that’s about it.

10   Erica    http://joemartino.name/erica
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:15 pm

Amy,
The contributers are the writers of the sight not the commenters. I just thought I would answer that one for you.:-)
As far as Joes comment that the sight is like a cancer spreading through the body of Christ.
First let me say, I agree with you, all of us can have bad attitudes sometimes. We all screw up.
You are right in the sense that CRN has great things to say when they put up their daily verses or the stick to just quoting scripture. Here is the were they are like a spreading cancer so to speak. Have you ever noticed on your own, outside of what the writers at this site say, that a lot of what they write can be disproved by the articles they link to? I don’t know about you but I have caught them in numerous lies. Their is a huge difference, in my mind, between intinally twisting the truth, and miss quoting something but later apologizing for it. I have never seen them admit that they were wrong. Dan Kimball even takes the time to answer their accusations against him and clarify what wa mis understood and they still do not listen.
They tear men a part with little proof of their character. That kind of attitude spreads like a cancer and can destroy people. I know of one man they constantly critique who truly knows the Lord and is broken by what is said about him. It is sad.
The difference between that sight and this one is: this sight does not go behind others back and posts about them. In the internet world all those contributers know these contributer. here they simply show the truth that they fail to show over there.
I will be the first to admit, I would never question someones salvation to their face, but I have secretly wondered if some of those people know the Lord. I have talked to God about it many times. I do not see the fruit in some of their lives. The bible clearly shows us in I John what a Christian looks like
Chris R. I appreciate him. We do not agree on everything, but he and I have had many conversations. I trust his heart. I see God in him. Their is another guy over there, I do not know his name. I do not agree with all he says but I appreciate his heart, I see God in him. Unfortuntely there are more over their that do more harm than good. They spread lies and false information about people. When questioned they tear you down and never answer your question.
I know they use a lot of sarcasm on this sight but I have never known them to constantly be-little someone. I personally think sarcasm is used through out the bible so I do not find it to be sin. I think lying constantly is what gets them in trouble. Think about all those horriable things they say about men of God . Itcauses others to get dis gruntle with them and it causes a cancer in the body.
Just some thoughts. :-) I hope it makes sense. I am caring for grumpy children as I write.

11   amy    
April 23rd, 2007 at 6:01 pm

Erica,
I hope that you can take this in the right spirit:

I’ve seen enough first hand words from Bell, Mcmanus, and words/actions from Warren to seriously consider that they are all men who could lead Christians astray and lead non-Christians into thinking that they have met Christ when they haven’t. (That’s not to say that they haven’t led men to Christ.) I would caution you to be careful about getting swept away in that which seems of God to you which a number of people who love God and His Word question. Be careful even if you feel that people can’t “prove” their concern to you, or are mean to you.

The battle is not between CRN and CRN info and analysis. The battle is between God and Satan. There are false prophets in this world, and according to scripture they are not easy to recognize. There are people today who will provide just enough subtle slipping away from truth to make even bigger lies acceptable in the future. They will take scripture and twist it, sometimes without even knowing it, I believe.

I would like to copy a comment from Chris R here that was originally in the “Context, context, context” section:

” Comment from Chris Rosebrough
Time: April 19, 2007, 3:21 pm

Joe,

1. There is a spectrum of possibilities here. Here is a list (not intended to be exhaustive)

A. Rick is a Christian, He is is doctrinally sound and a victim of rogue discernment apologists who twist his words and intentions
B. Rick is a Christian, He is Doctrinally Confused and He is Confusing Others
C. Rick is a Christian and borders on apostasy
D. Rick is not a Christian and he is teaching false doctrine”

I could fill in any number of names under B-D based on what I’ve read or listened to, not what someone else thinks, but first-person speaking or writing. Some names I would include would be Bell and Mcmanus. I personally don’t believe that A is true of any of them.

12   Todd    http://toddblog.net
April 23rd, 2007 at 6:03 pm

Amy, if you had read or heard first hand from Bell or McManus you would have no problem believing A is true of any of them. Seriously.

13   amy    
April 23rd, 2007 at 6:13 pm

Todd,
That was my point – the “caution and more” that I feel towards them comes from my reading, listening to Bell firsthand, and reading interviews with Mcmanus, plus talking to Nathan. It’s fine if you all think my perception is off; I just want to make it clear that my caution isn’t based on reading someone else’s opinion of them.

14   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
April 23rd, 2007 at 6:16 pm

Todd,
The reason we “devote” the space to Ken is because often his “missives” are the most egregious. Again, as I said in the post I’m not writing to convince Ken he’s wrong, I am writing for the person who might read their stuff, and may not study it out. I am sure there are people who will study it out and come to different conclusions than I do. That’s fine, but I want to make sure both sides are getting out there.
Peace

15   Julie    http://www.loneprairie.net/lp_blog/blog.htm
April 23rd, 2007 at 6:34 pm

Mike Ratliff sometimes has interesting things to say over at CRN sometimes. I did find some of the links from his blog surprising. They led me to a musician’s web site and blog that contained a number of interesting articles that I wonder if would be found acceptable to those at CRN. Like this one, for example.

So, I think, the more I see and read and watch, is that it’s not as clear cut as it sometimes seems to be in terms of us against them and what our rules of engagement are as far as what’s in and what’s out amongst the same team. Like Amy mentioned, the battle is against satan, and not our fellow Christians.

Having said that…

There are people today who will provide just enough subtle slipping away from truth to make even bigger lies acceptable in the future. They will take scripture and twist it, sometimes without even knowing it, I believe.

That is the crux of it. Some believe they have the corner on the truth, and others disagree. What one sees as defending the truth against subtle lies another sees as the subtle lie and in need of defense in a different way. And that is why there are two CRN web sites. I suppose.

16   Erica    http://joemartino.name/erica
April 23rd, 2007 at 7:51 pm

Amy,
So, how do you know that Ken , Ingrid, and all the others our not false teachers?
It is scary how two different people can see things so differently.:-) I do no know much about McManus. I do know quite a bit about Rob and Rick. As much as I can without ever meeting them. I have had personal conversations with some of the fine folks at CRN.
I personally do not believe we should be quick to call anyone false teachers, however I would be quicker to call some of our friends at CRN false teachers before I would call Rob or Rick. I have been to Rob’s church and I was very impressed by what I saw. I have done some extensive research on him and fine him to be an amazing man! One of my friends from college is one of his pastors. Rick, I have been through the forty days of purpose, listened to his sermons, researched him and so on. I do not agree with all his methods or the way he goes about things. I was not a fan of the PDL. However, I agree with him doctrinal(mostly) I am talking the main doctrines taught in the church. Ken and Ingrid and them I do not agree with doctrinally and I do not trust their hearts. I would not trust them with my life any more than I would a roaring lion!
I hope this clears up what I am saying.

17   Neil    
April 23rd, 2007 at 8:37 pm

I know Chris P. would call me part of the amen chorus – but I’ll point out that Joe blog shoes more humility and confession than anything I’ve seen from CRn in general or Ken is specific.

Neil

18   nathan    http://www.nathanneighbour.com
April 23rd, 2007 at 9:05 pm

I’ll be honest, I first began writing here because I was so tired of hearing what people were saying about many of the people that I work with and have personal relationships with. I work personally with Erwin McManus on a weekly basis. He is seriously one of the most sincere, loving, biblically based and orthodox people I know. He literally cries over the lost. It is so funny how conservative he is, yet how much crap he gets for being too liberal. To see so much opposition to our ministry at Mosaic is so hard to read.

But, as I began to get more involved with the false writings at CRN, I realized that this was not an attack against just us. There are literally thousands of Christians being led to live less than Christ-like lives because of CRN.com. They are learning to be overly judgmental and have no compassion for anyone outside of the church. Their scoffing of the modernization of the methods the church uses is unacceptable. Now I write for the little guys out there that CRN are hurting. Their broad strokes and harsh words are now moving out to anyone that disagrees with them.

19   Erica    http://joemartino.name/erica
April 23rd, 2007 at 9:30 pm

Did you guys read Kens latest post on Rob Bell? It is great! He half quotes him to get his point across!
It is sad! Neil I agree with you about what you said about Joe.

20   Todd    http://toddblog.net
April 23rd, 2007 at 9:47 pm

Amy, I’m saying that I can’t believe that’s true. unless you have a very different idea of what it means to be doctrinally sound – that is a fairly broad number of doctrinal issues – then you would be unable to question their soundness of doctrine. They are incredibly solid on the essential matters of faith – Jesus and His teachings, truth, the Bible, etc. The only way to criticize them is to pull quotes out of context, distort their intention and apply guilt by association arguments.

That said, I would love to know what doctrinally unsound things you have read or seen firsthand, so I can judge whether or not I’ve misjudged you.

Joe, I understand the intention, but I question Ken Silva’s web-fluence (web influence, get it? I’m a web-genius!). His arguments are ludicrous, his responses are incoherent and I believe most reasonable individuals will be turned off by his methods. The only people who will heed his teachings are those who already agree with him and who A.) won’t visit this site or B.) won’t be swayed by what is written here.

I appreciate the need for discernment of discernment and agree with most of the things written here, but turning this blog into an anti-Ken blog seems pointless and implementing sarcastic remarks (of which I am guilty) against those who disagree with us tends to erode any kind of credibility this site had established. That’s all.

21   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
April 23rd, 2007 at 10:02 pm

Todd, I agree, that’s why I wanted to come out and say that the back and forth commenting between he and I is over.

22   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
April 24th, 2007 at 6:16 am

Amy,

You asked

At what point does a site get classified as a “cancer?”

I think this would be when a systematic chunk of the writing has been proven to be false and slanderous (just like the recycled Rob Bell slander today), and purposely for tearing down church bodies through slander and innuendo (which Ken, Chris P – and Ingrid – consistently do).

This would be when, despite gentle – and not-so-gentle – correction – Ken still dispenses sanctimonious, judgmental blather to anyone (even those who often agree with him) who dares to correct him.

Cancer is too good a word for CRN. Usually, cancer is just a small percentage of body mass which causes everything to start going haywire. If CRN is a cancer, it is in Stage IV.

Most of what passes as ‘discernment’ there can either be easily discerned or found at a reputable discernment site (of which Scott from VS has listed several). Pointing out that water is wet and the sky is blue does not make one a scientist.

I’m sorry you’ve been poisoned against good Christian men like Rob Bell, Erwin McManus and others by these purveyors of legalistic Christian pornography. I’m sure you could choose any minister who has preached for 5+ years and selectively quote them, isogete articles and twist their words to make them sound like a scoundrel. That is what Ken & Co. do. That is their “ministry”. Do they bring up good things now and then? Yes. Heck, even the ACLU falls down on the right side of the law now and then, but I wouldn’t call them a paragon of legal virtue.

One reason I write here is because of a guy who wrote to me a month or so ago about an article I wrote in response to a bit of slander from Ken on Rob Bell and Sola Scriptura (which, ironically, Ken re-treaded yesterday). This gentleman, who I will call Mark (he didn’t give me permission to use his name, so I won’t) is an elder at a decent-sized church in my own non-denominational denomination. One of the other elders at his church got a copy of one of Ken’s miss-ives about Bell denying the Bible from a member who was worried about the HS ministry using “Nooma” videos. Mark took the piece-by-piece response to Ken’s hitpiece, along with our “about Ken” page to delegitimize his spewing, and nothing changed in the youth group.

There are good things going on in Christianity today within the church, and we don’t need the fearful whack-jobs like Ken, slandering those who are actually trying to live out what Christ taught – in addition to believing what he taught – rather than just navel gazing about the 5 solas and whining about everyone else “doing it wrong”.

23   Erica    http://joemartino.name/erica
April 24th, 2007 at 6:54 am

Wow, Chris that was a great explanation!

24   amy    
April 24th, 2007 at 11:54 am

Chris,
“I’m sorry you’ve been poisoned against good Christian men like Rob Bell, Erwin McManus and others by these purveyors of legalistic Christian pornography.”

It’s alright by me if you want to accuse some people of poisoning other people’s minds, but please don’t assume that my mind has been “poisoned” by anyone. I came to the conclusions that I did about Rick Warren on my own, prior to hearing about how controversial he was. With Bell and Mcmanus I have tried to be careful about looking at things in context. Surely you don’t think that my whole discussion with you on Bell’s sermon was copied from someone else? The “breath sermon” was mentioned as a sort of addendum on the general subject of “contemplation” on someone’s blog. Carla Rolfe’s perhaps. I listened to it and was burdened by it, not because of reading someone’s negative evaluation about it, but because of the very nature of it.

I believe that the sense of warning that I have comes from my knowledge of the Word of God and from the Holy Spirit. You may not agree, but what if I’m right, and you’re wrong? Then you are in essence calling the Holy Spirit a “Purveyor of legalistic Christian pornography.” I wouldn’t want to be held accountable for saying such a thing.

25   Ken Silva    http://www.apprising.org
April 24th, 2007 at 12:38 pm

Ouch. But after all, the Bible does say the righteous hate what is false. There’s nothing in Yoga for the Christian.

26   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
April 24th, 2007 at 12:44 pm

Amy,

You said:

I believe that the sense of warning that I have comes from my knowledge of the Word of God and from the Holy Spirit. You may not agree, but what if I’m right, and you’re wrong? Then you are in essence calling the Holy Spirit a “Purveyor of legalistic Christian pornography.” I wouldn’t want to be held accountable for saying such a thing.

If you are saying that the Memorial Day weekend meditation (on breathing) is the sum total of what Rob Bell is, and what he teaches, then I would have to say you have been misinformed and biased.

I don’t believe I called the Holy Spirit a “purveyor of Christian pornography”. I called CRN/Slice 2.0 that. If you happen to find a pearl in a cow patty, that doesn’t mean that the means to getting rich is do excavate a farmer’s manure pit.

27   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
April 24th, 2007 at 12:46 pm

Ken,

You wrote:

There’s nothing in Yoga for the Christian.

Then I suppose we could just draw that out to say that Christian’s shouldn’t play sports, jog, swim or be involved in other physical activity for the purpose of staying physically fit – which is what many Christians I know do in non-impact exercise classes (which are often referred to as “yoga” classes, despite having nothing to do with Hindu mysticism)…

28   Ken Silva    http://www.apprising.org
April 24th, 2007 at 12:59 pm

Hmm, well now Chris, I suppose you could do that. But I’m sorry, did those other activities you mention also originate in the polytheistic world religion of Hnduism? Guess I missed that.

29   Matt    
April 24th, 2007 at 1:11 pm

Where did Christmas trees come from? Pagan Germans. This is from wikipedia:

“In Germany and northern Europe, the practice of decorating coniferous trees originated in pagan times, when the trees were seen as phallic symbols representing the fertility of the nature gods. The practice was associated with the Winter Solstice (around December 21) which was seen as the date of the rebirth of the Sun God. Tree decoration was later adopted into Christian practice after the Church set December 25th as the birth of Christ, thereby supplanting the pagan celebration of the solstice.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_trees

So, Ken and Ingrid most likely have phallic symbols in their living room around Christmas.

30   amy    
April 24th, 2007 at 1:19 pm

Chris,
I was actually referring to the “Peter walking on the water” sermon the first time I mentioned “sermon,” above. I never said that the breathing sermon was the sum total of what Rob Bell is, believes, or anything. I was just trying to give a couple examples that show that I’ve been thinking through these things on my own, instead of being “poisoned” by someone else’s ideas.

You said, “I don’t believe I called the Holy Spirit a “purveyor of Christian pornography”. I called CRN/Slice 2.0 that.” If the Word of God, the Holy Spirit, are the source of my warning instead of the “purveyors of Christian pornography,” then you are in essence calling the Holy Spirit a “purveyor of Christian pornography.”

In my first comment on this, I did get distracted from my first thought regarding that comment, and that was along the lines of the following:

Who gives you the authority to call CRN writers “purveyors of legalistic Christian pornagraphy?

That’s one of the worst statements I’ve heard, ever. The writers are Steve Camp, Dwayna Litz, Chris Pajak, Chris Rosebrough, Ingrid Schlueter, Paul Tautges, Mike Corley,Pastor Jon Cardwell, Tony Rose, Mike Ratliff, Pastor Paul Walker. Men and women of God who are trying to obey God’s calling on their life. Imperfect. Unfinished. Having a very different viewpoint on many things than you do. But “pornographers?”

Some of the work they do is of the Holy Spirit. Who gives you the authority to call such work “pornography?”

I wouldn’t want to be in your shoes.

31   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
April 24th, 2007 at 1:32 pm

Matt, excellent point. I actually had a Professor in college who refused to celebrate Christmas with trees and such because of their pagan origins. He also did not have bridesmaids at his wedding. They too have origins in Pagan culture.

32   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
April 24th, 2007 at 1:34 pm

Ken,

You asked:

Hmm, well now Chris, I suppose you could do that. But I’m sorry, did those other activities you mention also originate in the polytheistic world religion of Hnduism? Guess I missed that.

Actually, no, Ken – those other activities originated in the polytheistic cesspool of Hellenism – a culture directly opposed by Jesus…

33   Erica    http://joemartino.name/erica
April 24th, 2007 at 1:39 pm

Ken,
‘The righteous hate what is false” That is so true. That is why we have such a problem with your site.
I do have a question. I was reading your “donation” part of your AP site. I was wondering, is your goal to stop pastoring a church in order to research and write and false information on other christians? I am seriously asking. That is what you seemed to apply. I could be wrong.

34   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
April 24th, 2007 at 1:39 pm

Amy –

I would not include all of those you listed under the heading of “Christian pornography” (which is figuratively to say – base titillation gained from the exploitation of the fears/desires of legalistic Christians).

What gives me the authority? I am calling writing – not people – into question – and I am using a basic yardstick which would see gross gossip and slander as “legalistic Christian pornography”. Since CRN is at least 1/3 gossip and slander… well, if the shoe fits…

35   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
April 24th, 2007 at 1:42 pm

You also wrote –

Some of the work they do is of the Holy Spirit. Who gives you the authority to call such work “pornography?”

I wouldn’t want to be in your shoes.

I don’t call any of the work of the Holy Spirit “pornography” – I call the vileness spewed forth by Ken, Ingrid and Chris – the gossip, slander and half-truths veiled as “discernment” such.

I wouldn’t want to be in their shoes.

36   Ken Silva    http://www.apprising.org
April 24th, 2007 at 2:07 pm

Erica,

“I could be wrong.” Indeed, you are.

37   Ken Silva    http://www.apprising.org
April 24th, 2007 at 2:13 pm

“those other activities originated in the polytheistic cesspool of Hellenism.”

Chris L., your ignorance is deep. “Sports, jogging, swimming” are as old as man himself, the Hindu practice of Yoga is not. It’d be a good idea for you to pay attention to what actual Yoga Masters (not Rob’s wannabes) say about their own religion.

They’ll tell you Yoga cannot be separated from its root in Hinduism. And this is also how God feels about borrowing customs from pagan religions. See Israel in the OT, long before your precious rabbis.

38   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
April 24th, 2007 at 2:21 pm

Well, Ken will you please explain to Erica how she is wrong? What did you mean then when you wrote that page?

39   nathan    http://www.nathanneighbour.com
April 24th, 2007 at 2:34 pm

The internet is financially driven by the porn industry. If the porn industry were to drop off the internet, the whole thing would take a huge dive. Should you not remove yourself from this pagan institution known as the world wide web? Or, in the spirit of Jake’s article, it’s ok to use the internet and create websites if the intent is correct, in other words. if you are a Christian and have no intent of doing it to display porn.

40   Ken Silva    http://www.apprising.org
April 24th, 2007 at 3:09 pm

Nathan,

“Should you not remove yourself from this pagan institution known as the world wide web?” If this is how you feel then by all means remove this blight on the American Christian Church from the internet. This way you can stop bothering those of us trying to do God’s work.

41   Ken Silva    http://www.apprising.org
April 24th, 2007 at 3:10 pm

Joe,

You aren’t going to go back and forth with me anymore, remember? It’s a bad idea for you to do so anyway.

42   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
April 24th, 2007 at 3:16 pm

Competitive sports have a root in Hellenism and the celebration of human (physical) achievement.

I’m sure some Hindus say that Hunduism can’t be removed from Yoga exercises. That doesn’t make it true.

43   Ken Silva    http://www.apprising.org
April 24th, 2007 at 3:27 pm

Some competitive sports may but sports are as old as mankind. This has nothing to do with the religious origin of Yoga.

And you say: “I’m sure some Hindus say that Hunduism can’t be removed from Yoga exercises. That doesn’t make it true.”

Right Chris, and it doesn’t make it not true either.

44   Joe    
April 24th, 2007 at 3:28 pm

Ken, I’m not sure asking a question is going back and forth. Certainly, you and I have covered that line before, however this time I am asking for a point of clarification.

45   amy    
April 24th, 2007 at 3:47 pm

Chris,
The following two ideas don’t match:

You said, “I’m sorry you’ve been poisoned against good Christian men like Rob Bell, Erwin McManus and others by these purveyors of legalistic Christian pornography. I’m sure you could choose any minister who has preached for 5+ years and selectively quote them, isogete articles and twist their words to make them sound like a scoundrel. That is what Ken & Co. do. That is their “ministry”.”

and you said,

” I am calling writing – not people – into question ”

The two don’t match.

“these purveyors of legalistic Christian pornography,” “Ken & Co.” sounds like people, not writing.

Regarding the yoga question, as well as issues of cultural relevance, and separation, I find it interesting that the OT is looked to as a source for supporting “social justice,” but somehow much of the OT principles about being separated from pagan ways and practices is ignored or talked around or re-defined.

46   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
April 24th, 2007 at 4:19 pm

Ken:

And you say: “I’m sure some Hindus say that Hunduism can’t be removed from Yoga exercises. That doesn’t make it true.”

Right Chris, and it doesn’t make it not true either.

Uhm, in this particular case, though, the burden of proof would be on you – proving the positive. I can give you a number of Christian physical fitness professionals who say that Yoga exercises, as practiced by Christians, need have nothing to do with Hinduism.

It is only closed-minded/busybodied “weaker sisters” who try to add an 11th commandment that seem to have a problem with this…

47   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
April 24th, 2007 at 4:26 pm

Amy,

Social Justice is definied in both the New and Old Testaments. Pagan practices (as used in the Old Testament and New) typically referred to ways that one relied on “the gods” and ritualistically appeased them via different means.

As I was alluding to Ken, above, many of our sports derived from Hellenism – pulled together in Olympic and Gladiator games. Our modern Olympics are patterned off of the old ones – which existed first to glorify the gods, and later to glorify Caesar (a “god”). The Olympics we pattern the modern games after are directly patterned off of the ancient games, but we don’t protest them, as Christians, because they, themselves, aren’t pagan practices, but the USE of them to bring favor from the gods were the pagan practices – which we no longer hold to.

In the same way, Yoga CAN BE a Hindu practice, but it need not be – it is (as I understand it from friends, since I’m not all that limber) a low-impact form of exercise that need not honor Vishnu. (The same way I can practice Karate in a dojo without paying homage to Shinto).

There is no inconsistency here – just keeping what’s in the Bible in the Bible and keeping the book of Second Opinions and Commandments 11-X out of it.

48   Matt    
April 24th, 2007 at 4:39 pm

One can’t run a marathon, since it’s tied into ancient pagan Greek culture. Pheidippides was the runner who ran to Sparta. Here’s a story about his return to Athens.

“According to the account he gave the Athenians on his return, Pheidippides met the god Pan on Mount Parthenium, above Tegea. Pan, he said, called him by name and told him to ask the Athenians why they paid him no attention, in spite of his friendliness towards them and the fact that he had often been useful to them in the past, and would be so again in the future. The Athenians believed Pheidippides’s story, and when their affairs were once more in a prosperous state, they built a shrine to Pan under the Acropolis, and from the time his message was received they held an annual ceremony, with a torch-race and sacrifices, to court his protection.”

49   amy    
April 24th, 2007 at 5:18 pm

Jews in the Old Testament who worshipped in “the high places” could have been intending to worship the true God, or appease a Canaanite God. Whatever the case, God wanted the high places torn down.

There is absolutely no guarantee that God will protect a believer who participates in practices in which people sometimes meet spirits through those practices.

Some people are concerned about Christians becoming involved in such practices not because they are busybodies, but because they realize how Satan is so ready and willing to work in such an environment.

I can’t remember the exact words on the Rob Bell sermon in reference to Yoga, but he wasn’t talking about it like it was a sport, was he? Wasn’t he speaking of coming into contact with the Divine?

50   Neil    
April 24th, 2007 at 5:23 pm

This has strayed a bit from the original post – Joe’s humble admission… I would have hoped that Ken’s first post would have acknowledged Joe, commended his attitude, and provide similar expressions of his own.

Neil

51   nathan    http://www.nathanneighbour.com
April 24th, 2007 at 5:45 pm

“‘Should you not remove yourself from this pagan institution known as the world wide web?’ If this is how you feel then by all means remove this blight on the American Christian Church from the internet. This way you can stop bothering those of us trying to do God’s work.”

There is a symbol in English writing called a question mark. When this comes at the end of a sentence, it doesn’t mean that I am making a statement. It means that I am asking for your response. The natural flow would be you giving an answer to the question. It is not appropriate (in the rules of English) to treat a question as a statement.

You probably wouldn’t misquote or misinterpret others as much if you knew these basic rules.

The question stands… is it ok to use the internet for godly purposes when it’s main purpose is for pornography (1 in five sites is an adult website)? Remember the ? after the sentence makes it a question.

52   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
April 24th, 2007 at 5:50 pm

Neil,

I’m not surprised – it’s par for the course.

Amy –

The high places were torn down because God instructed that He was only to be worshipped in the tabernacle and, later, the Temple.

This changed on the Day of Pentecost 33 A.D. when God’s “address” changed from the Temple made of stone to the Temple made of flesh. No comparison to be made. This is a “busybody” issue, simply, where people are trying to give “God’s opinion” on something that He’s not given one on… Satan works in any environment, and when we become all “superstitious” about neutral things like music, exercise, etc, etc., we just give him an additional foothold.

I honestly believe that I have been led by the Spirit in many things, and in others, I’ve had a gut feeling/uneasiness that wasn’t the Spirit, but that it was more likely my first time in an unfamiliar situation (or just indigestion). Too often, Christians see unfamiliar situations as “footholds for the devil”…

The reference Rob Bell made – a passing one at that – was at the end of the breathing lesson, and it had nothing to do with “contacting the Divine”… (except maybe in Ken’s mind, somewhere…)

53   amy    
April 24th, 2007 at 5:59 pm

Chris,
No comparison? Yoga is used to “worship” other gods.
The “high places” were used by Canaanites to worship other gods. The high places were to be destroyed and worship in the “high places” was forbidden. See I Kings 3, Nu 33:52, Dt 7:5, Deut 12:3 -7.

54   nathan    http://www.nathanneighbour.com
April 24th, 2007 at 6:03 pm

Amy,

yoga is not / was never used to worship other gods.

55   Erica    http://joemartino.name/erica
April 24th, 2007 at 6:17 pm

Ken,
Well, Ken will you please explain to ME how I am wrong? What did you mean then when you wrote that page?

56   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
April 24th, 2007 at 6:39 pm

Amy – there is no comparison.

God instructed that 1) No other gods were to be worshipped, and 2) He was only to be worshipped in the Temple. This changed in 33 A.D. on Pentecost with the coming of the Holy Spirit.

As Nathan pointed out, Yoga was not a form of “worship”, and (as earlier pointed out) a number of our “traditions” from the marathon, to the olympics to Christmas Trees would be ruled just as bad by this twisted, legalistic logic.

57   james    
April 24th, 2007 at 7:32 pm

Early christians would not eat meat that had been offered to other gods because the pagans believed that the gods would enter the meat during the sacrifice and when you would eat the meat the god would possess you. Paul said not to be involved in these kinds of sacrifices, but if the meat was on sale in the market, buy it and eat it in good conscience. If a weaker brother is at the market with you then dont buy it so that your brother is not ofended.

there is nothing wrong with the meat (yoga, a real form of exercise) but dont be involved with the sacrifices(Hinduism). Of course, let’s be careful not to offend our weaker brothers and sisters. : )

58   Ken Silva    http://www.apprising.org
April 24th, 2007 at 7:46 pm

* The word “YOGA” (and other associated words) is Sanskrit. Sanskrit is the prayer language of Hinduism and is to Hinduism what Latin is to Christianity, or Hebrew to Judaism or Arabic to the religion of Islam.

* The word “YOGA” translates into “Spiritual Union” which is the identical meaning of the word “RELIGION.” (Therefore it is an “obvious” fallacy that “yoga” is not “religion.”)

http://www.classicalyoga.org/Page31.html

59   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
April 24th, 2007 at 8:35 pm

Wow, Ken – thanks for the linguistics lesson. That doesn’t make a Christian practicing these exercises a practitioner of Yoga.

Thank you, James, for the apt comparison…

60   james    
April 24th, 2007 at 8:36 pm

ken,
Are you against the exercises or just the prayer part? Would you be happy if we did the exercises but called them by a different name?

61   nathan    http://www.nathanneighbour.com
April 24th, 2007 at 10:41 pm

James,

You hit it right on the head… if we did the exercises and called it something else, Ken probably wouldn’t have a problem with it. I dunno though, he might actually be suggesting that putting your body in a certain stretch opens your soul to Hinduism. With his logic, anything goes.

62   iggy    http://watchingthewatchdawgforchrist.blogspot.com/index.html
April 24th, 2007 at 11:33 pm

I know let’s call it “Christian stretching”…

Yawn…

Most intelligent Christians know the difference between the stretching and the “religion” and most do not practice the “religion” or they at least adapt it to a “christian version” meaning, they pray to God, in Jesus Name as the “breathe” and “stretch”.

It seems people who address this as others are integrating the “religion” with the exercise miss that others are smarter than they give them credit for…

Blessings,
iggy

63   Neil    
April 25th, 2007 at 9:15 am

RE:

* The word “YOGA” (and other associated words) is Sanskrit. Sanskrit is the prayer language of Hinduism and is to Hinduism what Latin is to Christianity, or Hebrew to Judaism or Arabic to the religion of Islam.

* The word “YOGA” translates into “Spiritual Union” which is the identical meaning of the word “RELIGION.” (Therefore it is an “obvious” fallacy that “yoga” is not “religion.”)

Let’s apply this logic to another scenario. In Arabic “Muslim” means “submission to Allah.” “Allah” is not only the proper noun for the name of the Islamic god, but also the generic word for God/god. Therefore, a believer in the Trinitarian God of the Scriptures could call themselves a “Muslim” since that would fit all the technical definitions of the words.

Of course, to do so would require ignoring connotations and context – but, hey, let’s not quibble about details…

Neil

64   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
April 25th, 2007 at 9:37 am

Neil,

If we’re going to use Ken & amy’s measuring stick here, perhaps we should no longer celebrate Easter, either:

The English name, “Easter”, and the German, “Ostern”, derive from the name of a putative Germanic Goddess of the Dawn (thus, of spring, as the dawn of the year) — called Ä’aster, Ä’astre, and Ä’ostre in various dialects of Old English. In England, the annual festive time in her honor was in the “Month of Easter” or Ä’ostur-monath, equivalent to April/Aprilis. The Venerable Bede, an 8th Century English Christian monk wrote in Latin:

“Eostur-monath, qui nunc paschalis mensis interpretatur, quondam a dea illorum quae Eostre vocabatur et cui in illo festa celebrabant nomen habuit.”

Translates as: “Eostur-month, which is now interpreted as the paschal month, was formerly named after the goddess Eostre, and has given its name to the festival.”

65   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
April 25th, 2007 at 11:16 am

Perhaps we should eliminate Christmas, as well…

The Romans held a festival on December 25 called Dies Natalis Solis Invicti, “the birthday of the unconquered sun.” The use of the title Sol Invictus allowed several solar deities to be worshipped collectively, including Elah-Gabal, a Syrian sun god; Sol, the god of Emperor Aurelian (AD 270-274); and Mithras, a soldiers’ god of Persian origin. Emperor Elagabalus (218-222) introduced the festival, and it reached the height of its popularity under Aurelian, who promoted it as an empire-wide holiday.

December 25 was also considered to be the date of the winter solstice, which the Romans called bruma. It was therefore the day the Sun proved itself to be “unconquered” despite the shortening of daylight hours. (When Julius Caesar introduced the Julian Calendar in 45 BC, December 25 was approximately the date of the solstice. In modern times, the solstice falls on December 21 or 22.)

Pagan Scandinavia and England celebrated a winter festival called Yule in the late December to early January period on a date determined by a lunar calendar. With the coming of Christianity and the adoption of the Julian calendar, Christmas was placed on December 25 in order to correspond with Yule. Christmas, a minor Christian festival in the Early Middle Ages, owes much of its popularity and character to Yule. The twelve-day celebration characteristic of Medieval Christmas may have originated with the twelve-day Yule celebration. Pagan Yule traditions survive in the form of the Yule log. In England, Yule was the common name for Christmas in Medieval times. Jul is still the common name for the holiday in Scandinavia.

Maybe we’re just better off cloistering ourselves off from the world, but making sure that we’re not silent (because that could lead to contemplative prayer, you know)…

One Trackback/Ping

  1. CRN.Info and Analysis    Apr 25 2007 / 1pm:

    [...] There has been a bit of discussion on the topic of Christian Yoga the past couple of days here on CRN.info, and now Ken has decided to post a “source” on Slice 2.0 to back his contention.  Granted, his article does nothing more than build some straw men to burn down (which is what we’ve come to expect, anyway). [...]

Back to top