A lying watchdawggieIn one of Ken Silva’s recent miss-ives, “The Emergent Church Hates the Light”, he once again (expectedly) lies and slanders brothers and sisters in the “emerging church” movement, presenting equal amounts of slander from Phil Johnson and Johnnie Mac.

In this article, JMac states:

One of the big issues is homosexuality in the emerging church; they don’t want to take a position on homosexuality.

This is a lie (amongst others in the article).

As we have noted in the past, this is not a product of the ‘emerging church’ – as many do not endorse participation in a homosexual lifestyle.  The EC is too diverse to say “this is what the Emerging Church believes about homosexuality”.  Why?  Because the ECM is a similar response to post-modernism coming from multiple denominations, where many of the underpinnings are those which came from the original denominations.  Do some EC churches (incorrectly) condone homosexual conduct?  Certainly.  Do other EC churches welcome homosexuals (as guests) but require an change in their lifestyle if they want to become a Christian?  Just as certainly.  In fact, most of the big-name “EC” churches fall into the latter camp than the former.

Bob Hyatt, the lead pastor of an EC church in Oregon, writes:

I think our stance would be what Stan Grenz called “Welcoming, but not affirming.” If people do not know Jesus, I don’t much care who or what they are sleeping with when they come to our community. I want to welcome them and tell them about Jesus.

When they become a follower of Jesus, however, the story changes somewhat in that there are many things that God wants to change in us, our sexual ethic included. Though our elders have decided to take an individual case-by-case approach with everyone and their situation, our general stance is that same-sex sexual behavior is not compatible with being a Christ follower and needs to be left behind.

[...]

By the way, I can name at least one well-known emerging church that has no issue with committed same sex sexual relationships… but I honestly don’t think they are representative.
However, many individuals who identify with the emerging church movement, whose background is the mainline church will share this view…

But I agree- the broad stroke “the ECM” believes this is silly. It’s a nonsensical statement most of the time it’s made, since on other issues and this one in particular, at least half of the “ECM” people you ask will express a different view.

I suppose it’s like saying finding a group of southern baptists who are KJV Only and assuming the Rev Silva must be as well. Or saying that since Mosaic and Saddleback are SBC, that Silva must be down with McManus and Rick Warren.

He snorts, but this is the type of thing he does to the emerging church all the time.

We’ve written about this topic before, refuting the slander, but Ken doesn’t care – he’s got mouths to feed, and if that requires lying about brothers in Christ, so be it…

  • Share/Bookmark
This entry was posted on Monday, April 30th, 2007 at 11:57 am and is filed under Commentary, Emergent Church, Ken Silva, ODM Responses, ODM Writers, 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

40 Comments(+Add)

1   Ken Silva    http://www.apprising.org
April 30th, 2007 at 12:24 pm

Uh-oh, slander. :-0

Ah vah Chris, I’m telling:

“Ken doesn’t care – he’s got mouths to feed, and if that requires lying about brothers in Christ,…”

2   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
April 30th, 2007 at 12:27 pm

Your continuing to post this lie about homosexuality and the ECM says loud and clear that you don’t care that it’s a lie.

3   Ken Silva    http://www.apprising.org
April 30th, 2007 at 12:28 pm

O, and by the way, “lead pastor” and background vocalist Bob Hyatt would be a hypocrite if he feels he can speak for the so very diverse emerging subversive church:

“I think our stance would be…”

Don;t you guys remember; no one can speak for this group of non-grouped rock bands – oops, churches – with their lead pastors, and background cultural architects and futurists etc., etc. ad infinitum, ad nauseaum…

4   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
April 30th, 2007 at 12:32 pm

Ken – the “our” Bob was speaking about was his own church, which is diverse, but not subversive.

5   bob    
April 30th, 2007 at 12:56 pm

“Our” as in the evergreen community’s. Not “our” as in the emerging church.

Apology accepted :)

6   Ricky Rickard, Jr.    http://ephesians25.blogspot.com
April 30th, 2007 at 1:06 pm

Ken,

You say you are a pastor-teacher. This is what the Bible says about pastor-teachers: Have nothing to do with foolish, ignorant controversies; you know that they breed quarrels. And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will. (2 Timothy 2:23-26) You would do well to go examine yourself and your writings in light of Scripture. I have said before and will say again, you are doing more harm than good to the Body of Christ. I believe you will ignore me, or possibly tell me to examine myself by some Scripture. However, you fail to do the same. I plead with you to stop this nonsense and return to the Scriptures and to Christ before you do irrepairable damage.

In Christ,

Ricky Rickard, Jr.

7   Neil    
April 30th, 2007 at 1:36 pm

Chris L.,

I think the “mouths to feed” comment serves only to inflame the situation. “Our” position that Ken regularly misrepresents (maybe it’s lying, maybe it’s ignorance) the ECM in general and some of their positions’ on homosexuality is so easy to present and illustrate – assigning motives is unnecessary.

Besides, gross misrepresentations of motives (see Ken on Kimball’s denouncement of homosexuality) is ken’s modus operandi – not ours (sorry for the comparison, Chris)

Neil

8   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
April 30th, 2007 at 1:46 pm

Neil,

Point taken.

Ken – My apologies for ascribing a motive to your continuing to lie about the ECM as a whole.

9   Neil    
April 30th, 2007 at 1:59 pm

Kudos Chris L. –

This is one of the distinguishing differences – the willingness to acknowledge wrong and apologize,

Neil

10   iggy    http://watchingthewatchdawgforchrist.blogspot.com/index.html
April 30th, 2007 at 2:39 pm

This is one of those continuous attacks that has no real basis… it is a gross misreading and misunderstanding of a couple of “leaders”… that even they never said “homosexuality is OK with God.”

I guess I wonder why it is righteous to slander and a horrid sin to be a homosexual? If someone tries to say one is more of an abomination the consider that it is in the same lists of “sins” Paul writes…

Yet, those will go out and slander and bear false witness and justify it by their doctrine and never see that in the same verse, I Cor 6: 9-10 “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. ”

So, if one slanders they are also in the same boat and will not inherit the Kingdom of God… but they miss that… and continue to lie, and murder (hate their brother) and slander and swindle others out of their money to support doing all of this…

In that they give up the Kingdom of God for exchange of their own kingdoms… and that is all they will inherit.

Blessings,
iggy

11   Matt    
April 30th, 2007 at 2:40 pm

Iggy-

Have you just questioned Silva’s salvation? :)

12   Ken Silva    http://www.apprising.org
April 30th, 2007 at 2:56 pm

Ricky,

“You would do well to go examine yourself and your writings in light of Scripture. I have said before and will say again, you are doing more harm than good to the Body of Christ.” Thanx, and you might want to “examine yourself in light of” Romans 14:4.

No offense but I prefer to follow what my Master tells me to do.

13   Ken Silva    http://www.apprising.org
April 30th, 2007 at 2:58 pm

“Have you just questioned Silva’s salvation?

LOL, put it this way; I won;t lose any sleep over it…

14   Coop    http://whileromeburns.blogspot.com
April 30th, 2007 at 3:10 pm

Actually, by posting that verse, I think Ken just declared that you aren’t saved and he is.

15   Matt    http://matbathome.blogspot.com/
April 30th, 2007 at 3:13 pm

Funny, I listened to that sermon that was posted on CRN this morning and I passed the test. So, that means I’m saved?

By the way, I just started my own blog. I don’t think I’ll be critiquing fundies there. I’ll do that here.

http://matbathome.blogspot.com/

16   iggy    http://watchingthewatchdawgforchrist.blogspot.com/index.html
April 30th, 2007 at 4:12 pm

Matt,

If Ken has received Christ and is in the light he will at some time heed to the calling of the Holy Spirit… if not, he may be in the stage of conversion where he has yet to actually received the Love of God so that he can love others… but scripture teaches if you hate your bother, the truth is not in you… so I will not go so far as to say “Ken is not saved” but will say that as far as scripture and Ken’s words and actions… they seem to not line up.

I will go as far as saying Ken is in grave error… and will not be like him and judge others motives and hearts.
I am pretty sure Ken does not extend the same grace towards me… that has been made pretty clear in his threats on this blog toward me…

Blessings,
iggy

17   Ricky Rickard, Jr.    http://ephesians25.blogspot.com
April 30th, 2007 at 6:32 pm

Ken,

Thanks for proving me right. I looked at Romans 14:4
Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
Again, you are asking others to do what you seem unable to do. You continue to bring shame to the one you claim to serve.

In Christ,

Ricky Rickard, Jr.

18   another nathan    http://www.perlaetus.blogspot.com
April 30th, 2007 at 9:35 pm

oy…this is a totally tired one.
Even McLaren’s own church has a clear statement on human sexuality. Nobody seems to care about that…

and then people say that “emerging” types don’t “have ears to hear”.

Again, with the EC it just seems people have made up their minds about each other. What’s the point anymore?

19   Todd    http://toddblog.net
May 1st, 2007 at 2:35 pm

Ken’s latest missive also manages to miss the point. 90% of the article isn’t even about Bell.

20   Rob Auld    
May 2nd, 2007 at 5:53 am

ken

seek medication and treatment.

21   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
May 2nd, 2007 at 8:20 am

Todd,

I saw that, but didn’t write a post, because we’ve already covered in this thread WHY Rob doesn’t say anything about homosexuality in public. It is not because he supports active homosexual practice, but because he and his church don’t see it as something that has to be dealt with prior to someone deciding to enter a church building.

Just more slander and innuendo from Ken. A church taking a vocal public stand on active homosexuality, because of the nature of the topic on our current culture, only serves to either a) feed the Pharisees who say “God, I thank you that I am not like other men—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this homosexual.”, and/or b) to drive those who struggle with homosexuality and their friends/family away from the one place they can actually get help.

22   Ken Silva    http://www.apprising.org
May 2nd, 2007 at 9:14 am

Hey Rob *waving*

Or c) Allows the Holy Spirit to do His job and convict them of their sin. You might recall Jesus took public stands.

23   Todd    http://toddblog.net
May 2nd, 2007 at 9:25 am

“You might recall Jesus took public stands.”

Against hypocrisy and injustice, not the specific struggles of those seeking Him.

Would you grace the doors of a church that said “Those who run hate-filled websites can’t receive the grace of God”? Probably not. And yet that’s what we do every time we take a “public stand” against homosexuality. We elevate it to an unforgivable sin and alienate an entire group of people, people with as much claim to the grace of Jesus as you or me.

24   Ken Silva    http://www.apprising.org
May 2nd, 2007 at 9:30 am

“And yet that’s what we do every time we take a “public stand” against…”

New evangelical rubbish. The sin of homosexuality is no more “special” than any other sexual sin, or any other sin period.

25   Todd    http://toddblog.net
May 2nd, 2007 at 9:38 am

“The sin of homosexuality is no more “special” than any other sexual sin, or any other sin period.”

EXACTLY! We agree!

26   Ken Silva    http://www.apprising.org
May 2nd, 2007 at 9:42 am

Um, Todd, then this means you agree that we should speak out publicly against homosexuality just as we are to do against any sin. You make this too easy.

27   Matt    http://matbathome.blogspot.com/
May 2nd, 2007 at 9:46 am

I don’t think people here see Ken standing up against the sin of pride as much as homosexuality.

28   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
May 2nd, 2007 at 9:51 am

Ken,

You wrote:

c) Allows the Holy Spirit to do His job and convict them of their sin. You might recall Jesus took public stands.

They don’t have the gift of the Holy Spirit until they accept Jesus Christ as their Savior – so “c” doesn’t happen until AFTER they come to a church community…

You also wrote:

Um, Todd, then this means you agree that we should speak out publicly against homosexuality just as we are to do against any sin.

The problem is that we have so singled out “homosexuality” (the temptation, which, is NOT a sin, but only the acting upon that temptation is sinful) as a sin that it both appears that it is worse than others. In doing so, we drive away the very people we have been called to save before they will even hear the message.

29   phil    
May 2nd, 2007 at 9:54 am

Why should the Church be taking public stands against personal sins? Are we surprised when sinners act like sinners? If anything the Church should be focusing on getting it’s own house in order first. It is almost redundant for most of these issues anyway, because if anything the public is well aware of what we are against.

I heard Ravi Zacharias say it like this, “Jesus didn’t die so that we could simply be moral people, he died to set us free.” When we are truly free, I believe that a changed life should be a testimony of the power of God’s grace. We don’t need go around telling people they are wrong, we need to show them that way of Jesus is the way. The HOly Spirit will convict them of their sins.

It also seems odd to me that the people who are the loudest about “taking stands” are the ones who also argue the most for Divine Election. It seems to me that the Elect shouldn’t need to worry that much about what the non-Elect are doing.

30   Matt    http://matbathome.blogspot.com/
May 2nd, 2007 at 9:59 am

Does the HS convict and moves in and then people accept Christ, or do people feel guilty, thanks to a Christian who rips them a new one, they repent, and then the HS comes into them?

One of my issues with fundamentalists preaching is that it does use techniques and is as pragmatic as a seeker sensitive church. The technique is Guilt. I heard a Paul Washer sermon and that was what I was left thinking. I didn’t feel guilty. But man, if you had had an abortion, you would have wanted to blow your brains out after it.

31   Ken Silva    http://www.apprising.org
May 2nd, 2007 at 10:00 am

“I don’t think people here see…”

I agree. :-)

32   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
May 2nd, 2007 at 10:03 am

“This is why it is so toxic for the gospel when Christians picket and boycott and complain about how bad the world is…It isn’t the kind of voice Jesus wants his followers to have in the world. Why blame the dark for being dark? It is far more helpful to ask why the light isn’t as bright as it could be.” – Rob Bell

33   Ken Silva    http://www.apprising.org
May 2nd, 2007 at 10:03 am

Chris L,

Wow, are you really this spiirtually obtuse: “They don’t have the gift of the Holy Spirit until they accept Jesus Christ as their Savior – so ‘c’ doesn’t happen until AFTER they come to a church community…”

So a person can’t be convicted of their sin until after they go to church!?

34   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
May 2nd, 2007 at 10:09 am

Acts 2:38
“Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

- the first (repentence) precedes the second (the gift of the Holy Spirit)

35   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
May 2nd, 2007 at 10:12 am

Which comes first, Ken?

1) Love your neighbor
2) Tell your neighor he’s a sinner

36   Ken Silva    http://www.apprising.org
May 2nd, 2007 at 10:17 am

Now whose avoiding the issue Chris my man? What has that to do with your foolish assertion that one needs to be in a “church community” for the Holy Spirit to convict their sins? Then you make yourself look even worse by quoting a passage where people were obviously not in a church. Nice.

37   Todd    http://toddblog.net
May 2nd, 2007 at 10:19 am

In a church is not in a building. It is in a people.

Everybody knows that. You make this too easy!

38   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
May 2nd, 2007 at 10:25 am

And here I thought that God drew men unto Him, and then they believed, and then they repented, and then they received the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Belief precedes repentence, Ken – and from whom do you learn what Jesus is like and who he is to believe in him? The church community.

39   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
May 2nd, 2007 at 10:34 am

The problem with the way the church – and society – have handled the issue of homosexuality is that, unlike other sins, it is the temptation preceding the sin, iteself, that labels the sinner. Because of this our language is very poor at making this distinction in a meaningful way that will adequately separate the sin from the temptation and the temptation from the sinner.

If John is tempted to steal, but does not do so, we do not call him a thief.

However, if John is tempted with an attraction to other men, but does not act on it, we still call him a homosexual.

Homosexuality – the temptation/attraction to members of the same sex – is not a sin. Acting upon the temptation IS a sin, in the same way that acting upon heterosexual temptation outside of marriage is a sin.

We, the church, do not communicate this distinction effectively – if at all. Society in general, and those who struggle with homosexual temptation, as a result, understand it even less so.

THAT is why this is a topic better discussed in small groups or one-on-one rather than as a public pronouncement.

40   Matt    http://matbathome.blogspot.com/
May 2nd, 2007 at 10:42 am

And Silva still doesn’t pastors like Driscoll, who have made public pronouncements against homosexuality. Basically, no one can do anything right unless they love McArthur.