Dr. StrangeKen or: How I learned to stop worrying and love the dirty dirty hippies
For those that have followed the various conversations I’ve been involved in here, it may come as a surprise that everything I’ve written on my blog about emergents have been less than overwhelmingly positive.
What happened? Why have I been forced to defend Rob Bell, Tony Jones and even Brian McLaren? How did I end up in Bizarro World?
The short answer to that is Ken Silva, the slightly longer answer is the arrogant, unloving, deceitful people like Ken Silva who have seen fit to vent their spleens and their terribly mistaken theology on the web. You see, while they are right, that doctrine matters, and it should be guarded carefully they’ve never learned that the way we go about doing that is just as much a matter of doctrine as the gospel itself.
Paul commands in Colossians 3:12: “Therefore, as God’s chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience.†Contrast that command with the various posts we’ve seen condemning Perry Noble, Rick Warren, Rob Bell, Tony Jones and others. For example, here Ken Silva, in reference to Brian McLaren says, “Frankly I am astonished that evangelical leaders even listen to this fool and accept him as brother in Christ.†Or consider this post in which Ingrid takes a story in which a church is opening an outreach center and uses that as a jumping off point to accuse this church in particular and emergents in general of being confused as to what the gospel is. Check out this line, “But with so many emerging churches denying the existence of hell, what sort of message do they bring?†Other than the guy she reported earlier who was run out of his church for saying hell doesn’t exist (which kind of gives you an indication how well this teaching is tolerated) how many emerging churches do you think Ingrid is familiar with, much less “many†emerging churches that teach hell doesn’t exist? As usual when these kinds of accusations are made no specific examples are cited.
But, let’s get back to the weaknesses seen in many emergent voices today. As much I like Rob Bell, and enjoy reading and listening to him, there are weaknesses in either his theology or the way he presents his theology. Ironically enough Ken links to an excellent breakdown of those weaknesses by Ben Witherington (BW3). If you read through that post you’ll notice a marked difference in the style of BW3 and the people we discussed earlier. Notice there’s no condescending tone, there’s no name calling, and perhaps most importantly, there’s no questioning of motives or salvation. Instead it is simply a gracious critique of Bell.
And, that, ladies and gentlemen makes BW3 a far more effective counterweight to Bell’s teachings. Because when Silva, Ingrid, and the rest of the folks at the “Christian†“Research†Network show up, it makes the dirty, dirty hippies of the emergent/emerging church look like the best thing going. It’s kind of like trying to pick up carnie chicks: sure the Lobster Woman may not be the one you actually want to ask out, but when the bearded lady shows up suddenly those lobster claws seem more quirky than disgusting (my apologies to carnies, lobster women, and bearded ladies).
I don’t want to sink to an extreme level of self-promotion, but my recent sermon covered this topic (not in response to these people, this series had been planned for several months) and there’s movie clips from Employee of the Month that accompany it. If you’re interested its right here.
July 9th, 2007 at 5:47 pm
Tim,
You are so right that there are some really good discernment ministries out there… And I am not opposed to someone not agreeing with “my favorite people”.
I see that someone can be fair and even friendly in their critique which may actually gain more influence than slander and name calling as SoL and CRN seem to thinks works.
I have had many conversations with people who love me and disagree with me and have pointed out where I may not have seen or thought through on something… In that it is often also that these can also learn from me and others.
To set up a fortress and declare oneself as the sole purveyor of truth… and then gun down all that disagree… seems so immature and childish. It lacks maturity to respect someone and actually talk to them as a person.
It also shows a lack of maturity in that is seems to show that some think themselves greater than others… and forget we are all equal as we all die… and we all need a savior. To miss that point seems to me to miss the very heart of the Gospel… and to see SoL and CRN do as they do, all I see is the heart ripped out of the Gospel and all that is left is an angry God who hates mankind and will judge them….. No grace, mercy or love… just a very narrow view of justice.
Be Blessed,
iggy
July 9th, 2007 at 6:23 pm
I’m actually reading “The Problem With Evangelical Theology” by Dr. Witherington, and it seems he is quite good at disagreeing with people without being hostile. The amazing thing is that man is a genuine NT scholar, but he seems to treat people with genuine respect. You can even see it in how he responds to the comments on his blog.
July 9th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
I still contend that while Arminianism that goes awry brings shallowness, Calvinism to the extreme brings judgmental pride. I hope all the modern day Puritans realize that the real Puritans would consider them hedonistic apostates.
There is no New Tesatment office or calling named as a watchman, and certainly not a watchwoman. That is a contrivance of man to elevate himself as a doctrinal warrior, slashing and burning his way through the body of Christ like Sherman heading for Atlanta.
And if you will notice there is never a discussion of disagreement among themselves, and someone like me is a traitor in their eyes. And they talk of Jesus as a doctrinal pawn, a Biblical character that they dress up and make His head constantly nodding in approval over His valiant soldiers.
It is impossible to verbally reveal the love and grace and mercy of Christ, but many do not even try. And true enough it is impossible to reveal the coming wrath of God also. But our conversation must be seasoned with salt and full of grace. Humility must be our credibility and our revelation of grace such that we would be accused of condoning sin, as Paul said.
Where did the true love for the brethren go, and where did the axehead of love sink. It is possible to contend for the faith while bathed in demonstrable love, it is just that so many today have envisioned a carnal battle instead of overcoming evil with good.
The Lord of Justice, with every right to judge us all, infinitely condescended to reach the most rebellious of us all, we who had gleefully trampled upon His law, and He offered us grace. And now, those of us who have partaken of that grace have none for others. I sincerely believe that one principle at the core of some of this visciouness is that many do not believe Christ died for everyone.
It is very sad, because, He did.
July 9th, 2007 at 6:36 pm
Amen and amen. One for Henry’s words, and one for Phil’s.
July 9th, 2007 at 7:59 pm
One of my favourite prof’s in seminary was/is Terrence Tieseen (author of Who Can Be Saved?). He is a staunch Calvinist, but I have rarely seen such a gracious attitude towards Wesleyans, Mennonites, and even Open Theists. He had some hard questions for everybody, but he never lowered himself to name-calling, sarcastic use of straw men, or speaking in a condescending way towards anyone — whether a student in the class, or even an author he disasgreed strongly with.
He remains one of my favourite Calvinists, along with emerging/missional/post-charismatic/Calvinist blogger Brother Maynard.
July 10th, 2007 at 3:10 am
In fairness to the Dr. Witherington point, Ben doesn’t really have a problem with anything that Rob is teaching besides the fact that he is relying heavily upon an outdated source for much of his research on rabbis, 1st century Judaism, etc.
You criticize Ken for personal attacks — and then I read a blog post of yours from your blog — I see you calling him “Kenno” and such. Slightly condescending at best I may add.
I can’t see this discussion going anywhere positive…
July 10th, 2007 at 7:25 am
Clearly…
“You criticize Ken for personal attacks — and then I read a blog post of yours from your blog — I see you calling him “Kenno†and such. Slightly condescending at best I may add. ”
I believe the big difference is that for some of us, there is a bit of affection for Ken… we love him in spite of his views… which I seem to sense from how he treats me… is not reciprocated…
Be Blessed,
iggy
July 10th, 2007 at 8:17 am
Clearly,
I have several posts that are extremely condescending towards Ken. All of them are riffing on his love for titles. They may have been a bit over the line, but hardly on the level of the bombastic nastiness for which Ken has been known.
July 15th, 2007 at 2:23 am
“But to deviate from the truth for the sake of some prospect of hope of our own can never be wise, however slight that deviation may be. It is not our judgment of the situation which can show us what is wise, but only the truth of the Word of God. Here alone lies the promise of God’s faithfulness and help. It will always be true that the wisest course for the disciple is always to abide solely by the Word of God in all simplicity.” -Dietrich Bonhoeffer