the Fruit of Their Theology
In the last post there has been a discussion comparing the writings and ministry of Reverend Ken Silva to that of Reverend Fred Phelps. Phelps leads a ministry known as God Hates America, with various splinters of this such as god hates fags, Canadians, Swedes, Jews, Catholics, etc. He and his congregation comprised mostly of his family members, picket funerals and other national events with outrageous slogans and songs. Their website will leave you either fuming mad or saddened for the reputation of Christ.
I will admit that the writers of Christian Research Network and Slice 2.0 have not gone this far in their hate blogs and divisive writings. I have held back on this post for a week, but have realized these men and women do not hold back on their divisive communication for anyone. The theology and practices that these two groups share is strikingly similar and their bitterness and hatred seem to come from the same source.
Both preach a gospel where the elect are very limited. It seems that only a few are destined to heaven and the rest are mocked by the elect as they walk into the fires of hell. Living missional and evangelistic lives seems to be looked down upon.
Both parties also believe that they know (or have heard personally from God) which Christian groups are the true elect and which are not. This is usually not based off of biblical reasoning, but simply personal preference or a twisted interpretation of the scriptures.
Both parties also believe that their mission has been given to them directly from God. It often flies in the face of biblical teaching and other believers have a hard time confirming that their purpose is from God. When confronted on their work, they often point back to the fact that God is the one giving them direction each day, or flaunt their title of pastor/teacher
Both parties speak with arrogance and pride, finding great pleasure and joy in demeaning and putting down those that they disagree with. Whether it is calling some one a fag or calling someone an apostate member of the Ecumenical Church of Deceit, both groups find great pleasure in attacking their enemies.
Both parties use shocking language to get their point across. Whether it is making outrageous claims about the Swedish, mocking Christian American Idol contestants, or simply publishing tabloid-esque captions, their shock-centered ministry leaves many with their jaws dropped.
The list goes one and one… but it all starts with a faulty theology. Hypercalvinism basically gives someone the permission to treat those who have yet to accept Christ as they please. God simply has a small elect that he is going to save, and so we might as well let the world know that they are destined for hell (God apparently finds extreme pleasure in seeing the unregenerate suffering). They are right and everyone else is wrong. It is this theology that allows the writers at CRN / Slice 2.0 to speak as they do. Again, I do not put Silva or others on the same level as Phelps, but their shared theology and mindset fuels the same hate speech. As I read through the anger and hate on CRN towards Warren, Bell, McManus and Kimball, I think they are only a stone’s throw away from picketing.
May 29th, 2007 at 10:20 am
Our church was involved in a local conference on Evangelism, and we WERE picketed, by people waving copies of John MacArthur’s “Charismatic Chaos”, and carrying signs that said “Vineyard Repent” and “An Evil & Adulterous Generation Seeks A Sign”.
They screamed at the adults, terrified our children, and did their best to disrupt the conference.
The one thing they refused to do — this will shock no-one — was actually talk to any of us about what we really believed and practiced.
We gave them free coffee and donuts.
May 29th, 2007 at 10:31 am
Heaping burning coals on their heads, eh? Sounds like just what they needed. Of course, they may resort to waving copies of “The Truth War” next time… after all, you gave them (gasp!) coffee.
May 29th, 2007 at 10:38 am
Robbymac,
Vineyard seems to be a target they used to hit often… mostly it was because of this postition paper that refuted the book.
Vineyard seems to be a target they used to hit often… mostly it was because of this postition paper that refuted the book
Blessings,
iggy
May 29th, 2007 at 10:44 am
The weird thing is that they probably called coffee and donuts “persecution” for showing you the “truth” of their love…
Truly it is a one-sided war… and it seems if they really knew He Who is “Truth” they would not be at war, but declaring peace.
Blessings,
iggy
May 29th, 2007 at 10:51 am
The elephant in the room has always been this:
A true Calvanist (in all the different forms) believes that the nonelect cannot be saved but will remain deceived because God has chosen not to enlighten him. The elect will be enlightened because God will save them without their consent.
So why does a Calvinist claim God has called him to expose deception, it is God’s will these people are deceived. And in fact it is impossible to have them see their deception, God won’t enlighten them. Most Calvinists believe that the elect can not be deceived.
So what you have in Calvinist watchman is akin to mocking a blind person when he trips over a rock. If Rob Bell is non elect he is fulfilling his destiny according to God’s will. He cannot see and is incapable of hearing according to Calvin, so what’s your point? The truth is that if your watchman ministry serves no eternal purpose than it exists to make you feel important.
What is MacArthur’s point about the Charismatics? He is a Calvinist and he cannot change anything and if God wants anything to change He doesn’t need us. It is blatant fatalism that is non-biblical and intellectualism at its core.
Calvinism is somewhat cultish also. When someone gets a Calvinist epiphany they are welcomed into the club. Probably the worst of the five points of Calvin is the limited atonement. That says that Jesus did not die for everyone, that is blasphemy.
These Westboro people hold up signs that say “George Washington has now spent 10,700 days in hell”. Now guys, Ken and others have some obvious humility concerns, but if you go to the Westboro website you will see a distinct difference.
Ken posts Chambers, Tozer, MacArthur, Spurgeon, all of whom Phelps would claim are in hell except MacArthur, he’s headed there. So some of these watchman have a distinct whiff of self righteousness but Phelps would claim they are going to hell also. I do believe that Phelps is a good example of what we must watch for, but Ken and others are not in their league.
By the way, I personall don’t vote or get involved with politics or even salute the flag, do you think Phelps would consider me?
May 29th, 2007 at 11:10 am
Rick,
Great points… on the whole post.
I see though the ideologies as the same… maybe not to the tipping scale of Phelps, but the idea of the “remnant” and “separatist” view seems to undermine the Great Commission.
I was actually looking into Calvinism very seriously… I was reading and agreeing with much, yet had some reservations on certain points… then I met a few… and though many are find and loving, when we discussed (if you want to call it that) the finer details of Calvinism and I expressed my questions, their faces would literally distort and contort and (I am not exaggerating) become rather demonic! I then read James Whites debates with a non Calvinists and saw all of his mental gymnastics to would make Calvinism work and that is were I decided that it was not for me. I decided that a theology that does not allow for me to ask questions and give respectful answers, and has to jump through hoops to be proven in scriptures has some major issues and need be left alone.
Now, again, I have many great friends (aside from the ones mentioned) who hold to the Calvinist persuasion, yet I think that is because they have not really studied out other options.. IOW, one does not need be Arminian OR Calvinist… in fact at least for protestants that seems to be the only options and my be… to remain a protestant, yet I think that is the issue, some of us have moved beyond protestant thinking… we need not to protest anymore and are seeking reconciliation.
Now, I think the end result of “Calvinist” thinking is Fred Phelps… yet saying that, having been part of the AoG for many years, the rhetoric can get going in that direction also. Yet, for some reason I found that Arminians are more open to admit their own short comings and fall on Grace than those who profess Grace. At times I am more at ease with those who do not believe in eternal security than I am with those who profess it as I do…
Blessings,
iggy
May 29th, 2007 at 11:18 am
Rick,
Sorry about that I am a bit directionally challenged today. ; )
The main point is that if hate is ones base of faith or love one will see that they reflect the God they serve… and that is the similarity between the two.
Walter Martin was a great example of a discernment ministry based in love. He did not come across as hateful to anyone but was able to give the info out that would give insight and the ability to cause the other to think. There was always room for reconciliation..
There appears that no matter if I, or Rick Warren, or Rob Bell did “repent” according to AP, CRN, and SOL definition that anyone one of us would be still accepted or even forgiven… it is only “we are damned to hell and we are happy to tell you that” which comes across.
I see CRN as more like a bad Jack Chick publication than a Walter Martin Bible Answer Man type.
Can Ken turn it all around? I know with a humble heart and a true desire to bring about reconciliation, God can do anything, even help Ken turn this around to do great things… and that is what I keep saying to Ken.
Blessings,
iggy
May 29th, 2007 at 12:36 pm
“But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.” - Gal. 5:22-23
This verse is the basis for my main question for Fred Phelps. What is the fruitfulness of your ministry? I cannot see these things exhibited in their ministry and I think we should look closely at our own ministries to see which of these we are exhibiting.
May 29th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
I want Ken Silva off the moderation list or I will start picketing.
Free Ken Silva NOW!
May 29th, 2007 at 12:54 pm
Rick,
I would not say that Ken and Fred are on the same level. I would say that their outlook, methods and ideologies are strikingly similar. Their hate stems from the same source.
May 29th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
David,
He’s not been moderated again (just given warning)
May 29th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
go here:
http://purgatorio1.blogspot.com/2005/12/help-im-going-hyper.html
I laughed really hard.
May 29th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
Glad to hear. Thanks.
Ken Silva is my Tinky Winky
May 29th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
Iggy,
That position paper is quite good. I haven’t read through all of it yet, but it pretty much knocks it out of the park within the first few pages. I especially like this paragraph:
“By arguing with the weakest of your opponents, one proves absolutely nothing. One may appear to win, but the victory is false and hollow. The already convinced will applaud MacArthur and thank him for his thoughtful analysis (p. 13), but more objective observers watching the battle can rightly conclude that MacArthur either did not understand his opponents’ better arguments or did not have the ammunition to defeat them.”
It’s amazing that this was written 14 years ago, but it’s still so true today. The more things change…
May 29th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
Phil,
the sad thing is one could almost exchange “emergent” for “charismatic” and we have refuted “Truth Wars”… lol!
I see that instead of warnings JM’s two books have placed a huge barrier… i am often told to read his other books, but why would I? If Jonny Mac’s research and understanding is poor on these books, my question then is how much worse will he be in books of theology and of eternal importance? If Jonny Mac thinks being divisive unites, then I see that there is no need to read him further as his very foundation is slanted and crumbling. Grace or no Grace to you, it is a misrepresentation of God’s Grace and His Character.
Blessings,
iggy
May 29th, 2007 at 6:25 pm
14 For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 15 But if you bite and devour one another, watch out that you are not consumed by one another.
Galatians 5:14-15 (ESV)
May 29th, 2007 at 9:12 pm
Rick,
The Calvinist would argue that by exposing deception they are INCREASING the culpability of the un-Elect. The un-Elect won’t repent — they can’t. However by hearing said truth their guilt will be greater, thereby incurring even more wrath than they would have if they had not been warned. All this ultimately resulting in an increase in God’s glory, of course, in that He punishes the wicked.
May 29th, 2007 at 9:32 pm
The Arminian on the other hand would appeal to Paul:
2Co 5:10-11 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad. Therefore, knowing the fear of the Lord, WE PERSUADE MEN, but we are made manifest to God; and I hope that we are made manifest also in your consciences. (emphasis added).
The Holy Spirit is also intimately involved here, of course, as He woos men and enlightens their conscience but leaving a choice to still be made. It is interesting that for the Calvinist the Holy Spirit can be resisted (i.e. grieved) post-Salvation, but not prior. He’s not so irrestible after conversion it seems.
May 30th, 2007 at 8:41 am
Houston John - The Calvinist point is…well…goofy. That means illogical in the Greek.
May 30th, 2007 at 11:46 am
I am not a calvinist and I have never been a member of e Reformed church of any kind.
However I am not arminian either.
Phelps is not a calvinist, btw. At least not in any real sense.
The Bible does not teach limited atonment nor does it teach prevenient grace. It also does not teach pentecostal holiness, nor Wesleyan holiness.
Calvin was right about two things, God’s sovreignty is pre-eminent, as is His complete omniscience which includes complete prescience, and so is the authority of the Word over the church.
Without these you have the RCC, open theism, and all the other neo-pelagian(read unbiblical) claptrap that exists.
No one knows who will come to the Lord by grace, through faith, which comes by the hearing of the Word, (it’s a gift folks ,and a divinely given one),on a day to day basis. So the method, whether one adheres to calviniism or arminianism, remains the same; preach the Word, and let God add daily to the church. This is what the much aspired to Acts 2 church did.
The scripture is replete with events in which God supernaturally intervened. Therefore if He does not intervene in a life, though He has complete foreknowledge of that life and its “choices”, what does that tell you?
There are also the problematic passages like 2 Thess 2:8-12;Romans 1:24-32;Romans 9:14-24
John 6:63-64 also v.70,44-45 and 65 etc.
The love of God is not the all tolerant hunmanism that is oft professed on “christian” blogs.
June 1st, 2007 at 10:31 am
[...] This story was a very gutsy, yet interestingly accurate assessment of the tabloid-esque, destructive criticisms from the shadows of the Christian blogosphere. [...]
June 1st, 2007 at 11:50 am
On a Slice post entitled “Rome Has Not Changed on Justification”, stamped as: Posted by Rev. Ken Silva on September 16, 2006 @ 12:29 AM
A comment was posted by Walt Schulte, asking Ken Silva “Ken, Are you a Calvinist?”. Ken responds by saying “Walt, Respectfully, no I’m not a Calvinist.”
As a Calvinist myself, I see many of Ken’s (and Phelps’) theological views as being inconsistent with Calvinism. If you want to make a deduction that this theology produces a sub-standard Christian or one that is “less loving”, there are plenty of examples from church history to suggest the opposite, including Jonathan Edwards, Jeremiah Burroughs, David Brainerd (who’s journal while working with the American indians launched an entire missionary movement), and George Mueller who prayed for thousands of orphans under his care while never compromising one bit of the doctrines that you are attempting to make a case against here. I could give you some modern examples as well, but you probably wouldn’t recognize their names.
I suppose we could also point out some of the non-Calvinist “bad guys” out there and try to construct a corelation between their human autonomy and some poor behavior of theirs. But that wouldn’t likely be any more fair or accurate than what’s being done here.
Also, those of you who think this belief system is “goofy” should try to realize that some of the best and brightest minds in church history have held these same beliefs. For example, if John Owen were around today, you probably wouldn’t want to debate him on the “goofiness” of his beliefs.
June 1st, 2007 at 1:13 pm
Christian,
If you peruse a number of the posts, you’ll see that most of the writers here (from multiple viewpoints of these issues) see themselves as neither Calvinist nor Arminian. Intelligence has nothing to do with acceptance/non-acceptance of belief. Both viewpoints have strong points and weak ones (particular when examined at their logical extremes) and are flawed because they are human-derived ’systems’ to explain how God works (i.e. systematic theologies). Most of us embrace that God is sovereign and omniscient AND that He gave men free will (a seeming contradiction to some). Additionally, I tend to view it from a scientific frame, as well, via string/dimensional theory which gives credence to our inability to understand the nature of God (because His very existence is beyond our 3.5-dimensional existence) and how both God can ‘foreknow’ and man can have the ability to choose without a conflict between one and the other.
Both Calvinism and Arminianism ARE ‘goofy’ when taken to their logical conclusions, and both have to perform mental gymnastics to esacpe their ‘goofyness’. This is in the same way that Newtonian physics is ‘goofy’ when viewed in macro- and micro-scale.
June 1st, 2007 at 1:21 pm
Christian,
Thank you, as well, for pointing out that Ken was using the ‘Rev’ moniker months ago, while he has recently decided to deflect criticism by complaining about someone else using the same title for him…
June 1st, 2007 at 1:47 pm
Chris:
You missed my main emphasis, which was not about the matter of ‘intelligence’ (as you mentioned above), but over the flawed thesis of this post, as seen even in the title “the Fruit of Their Theology”. In other words:
Fruit = bad behavior
Their Theology = some election-based belief relating to Calvinism.
That is simply wrong to make that kind of correlation, and as I pointed out - there are plenty of examples to the contrary. Likewise, I demonstrated that Ken is not even a Calvinist to begin with.
As far as being in “neither” camp, perhaps you don’t share all of the dogmas of either one, but make no mistake - either God is the one who ultimately determines whether someone is heavenbound, or man does. If you drill down deep enough, one of those two realities is true and the other is false. You can claim that there is something in the middle if you want, but you won’t find much support from church history. This has always been a polarized issue, and the real goofiness would be in going against the greatest scholars in church history (from both camps) by essentially saying “all of you are wrong and I am right”. It’s possible that you *are* right and they are wrong, but it’s not very likely.
Thanks for posting my comment.
June 1st, 2007 at 2:16 pm
Christian,
If you read our previous posts dealing with this topic, I think it is evident that the ‘fruit’ (orthopraxy, behavior) that is the logical endpoint of election is truly ‘bad fruit’ - which renders prayer, missions and evangelism irrelevant, at best. There is no good orthopraxy that accompanies fatalism/determinism that comes with the Calvinist view of election.
You asked ‘either God is the one who ultimately determines whether someone is heavenbound, or man does’. While I can only speak for myself, I don’t know that the other writers here would disagree with me. Please forgive me for not citing chapter and verse with the following, though given time, I could:
1) God is sovereign.
2) He gives each person permission to choose to accept His gift of grace and to follow Him, or not.
3) If that person exercises that choice given by God to accept His grace, then God will save them. If that person rejects God’s grace, then God will not save them.
SO - did God determine this or did man? Well, if God had not given man the choice (which became available through Christ’s sacrifice) in the first place, then man would be doomed. However, since God did give man that choice, it is his decision with that choice which is deterministic.
So, God first gave man the choice, so He would be the ultimate determining power. However, since He allowed man to make the choice, once that choice was given, man had the determining power at that point.
You wrote:
Actually, I would, since there are a number of figures in church history who have fallen somewhere in the middle - including those in the history of the 19th century ‘Great Awakening’ and the Reformation movement. We have historically rejected systematic theology as man’s attempt to put God in a box. When we create ’systems’ that He has to fit into , it ultimately leads to poor ‘fruit’ via poor orthopraxy - whether it be Calvinist or Arminian or something entirely different…
June 1st, 2007 at 4:14 pm
“Ken was using the ‘Rev’ moniker months ago”
No, he wasn’t. Ingrid had that as my user name, I had nothing to do with that.
June 1st, 2007 at 4:37 pm
Yet you never said anything contrary nor admonished her for calling you that as you did in a couple of other places…
In fact this was used very often of/by you without comment in the past…
http://www.emergentno.com/author/rev-ken-silva/
So, I think you need to let your friends who revere you so to take notice not to revere you any more.
In other words dearest Ken, I think it appears that you were in fact trying to divert the subject and change it to something not even mentioned in the post.
Blessings,
iggy
June 1st, 2007 at 4:49 pm
iggy,
Friend, it’s a non-issue to me.
June 1st, 2007 at 5:12 pm
Ken,
Here is a quote on how much this is a “non-issue” to you…
1) “Rev. Ken Silva calls on Rick Warren to boycott Zondervan.” You might notice I don’t use the title “Reverend.”
It seemed it was # 1 on your list… of “non-issues”.
I think that this is once again a case of redirection and trying to get out of saying sorry…
Blessings,
iggy
June 1st, 2007 at 6:46 pm
iggy,
Just because I point out I don’t use the title of “Rev” does not mean I was rebuking Dan. I simply said: “You might notice I don’t the title Reverend.” Maybe you ought not try and read into what you think it “seems” I mean. The truth is you’re really not very good at it.
And this is hardly making an “issue” out of it. Man, it was a mere statement of fact. You can do better than to attack me on what is obviously a non-issue, can’t you?
June 1st, 2007 at 8:05 pm
Ken,
You made an issue of it because you brought it up.. .if it was not an issue you would not have brought it up… shhhesh… now you are having more issue with it as we pointed out you had no issue with it in the past when your “friends” referred to you as “Rev” until that post and you had issue with it…
(anyone else’s head spinning over the spin of Ken the not so revered former reverend/teacher/pastor?)
Be Blessed,
iggy