Was Even Jesus Spiritual Enough For These People?
There’s a provocative piece over at C?N filed in “abominations by the ever mysterious editor.” You can imagine the church they are referring to is teaching heresy, perhaps, they are saying that abusing women is just part of the cultural norm? Nope. What they are doing is a series called “Super Hero Parables.” From this title the clairvoyant writer at a little self righteousness leaven says that the pastor of that church has
He traded in preaching from the Bible to preaching from comic book stories
I wonder how he knows that? Has he heard the guy preach? How many times when Jesus was asked about the Kingdom did he reply with stories? I mean even in the picture that our friend at a little self righteousness leaven has so conveniently posted for us the church gives us a definition of a parable.
“Parable”= a story with a spiritual point
Perhaps, even Jesus wouldn’t have been spiritual enough for these people? I read this in Mark,
He taught them many things by parables, and in his teaching said:…
I mean why not just use the O.T.? Isn’t that inspired? Wasn’t that good enough for this friend of sinners who hung out, eating and drinking with sinners. You know, some even said that he was a drunkard and a bastard. After all, they knew who their father was.
Abominations indeed.
July 10th, 2007 at 2:53 am
Editor,
Simply brillant piece ya got going here. I mean everyone knows that Jesus got his parables from comic books! Cmon…
July 10th, 2007 at 4:25 am
Oh powerful info editor,
If you would have taken the time to listen to the sermons for yourself you would have found that ’said pastor’ is actually preaching from comic book story lines. These are far from the ‘parables of scripture’.
Not only that, the point of the piece at a little leaven is that in the last days people in the church will abandon preaching the truth and instead preach myths.
A comic book is a myth.
If it is parables you want, then Jesus told plenty of those. But that isn’t what he was preaching on.
Furthermore, you filed this post under hypocrisy. Can you prove that a little leaven is being hypocritical here? In order to prove this you’d have to demonstrate that the folks at a little leaven actually preach from comic book stories but are hiding it from their audience.
Have you got pictures? Audio? Cave drawings? Please share what you’ve got to prove they are hypocrites.
July 10th, 2007 at 7:14 am
Chris R,
Sheesh… did you miss the point…
Have you ever used a movie or a story you heard in an illustration to point out a spiritual principal in scirpture?
That is what they are doing… only using a comic book.
I have talks weekly with my son about Superman… and how he helps people and does what is good… I use this as a way to talk about Jesus and how we too need to help people and do what is good. My son is 3.
He also thanks Jesus for his red clothes…
I think that if an illustration can help one understand the bible and it’s teachigns that is great… but I am not getting that you think this is ok by your ripping “the editor” apart here… I mean can we all take some time to look up what grace, mercy and love mean?
I use whatever I can to help others understand their faith better… from a mountain to a flower… to a story or a joke…
Be Blessed,
iggy
July 10th, 2007 at 8:15 am
Iggy,
This is not about using a movie, a joke or a word picture to help someone better understand what the Bible teaches. I listened to the sermons. Take a few minutes and listen to the one on the Green Lantern.
July 10th, 2007 at 8:56 am
Wow Chris R, you sure did a 180. First the problem was that A Little Leaven wasn’t actually hypocrites because they didn’t use comic books in teachings. Now the problem is the sermons themselves. I listened to the first 1/2 of it, and I don’t see how you can complain about the Biblical content. Once the introduction is up and he moves into the meat of the sermon you get 1) God the creator, 2) Humans created in the image of God, 3) honoring/worshiping God, and 4) Everyone has something to offer God in this area via the spiritual given to us by God. Unless the second half of the sermon goes terribly wrong, I’m not sure what your problem is with it.
July 10th, 2007 at 10:10 am
I guess we should throw away all of childrens bible story books than right? If you read some of them it is like reading a comic!
Really, I guess our kids should be able to read and comprehend the KJV at four years old right?
Because I am sure that thier are adults out there that cannot comprehend the bible. Cmon people, translating bible stories into comics or parables is another creative way to get the bible stories out, it is no different than using flannel graph or any other kind of cirriculum that has been written by man for the reader to better understand.
July 10th, 2007 at 10:54 am
I am a huge fan of comic books. I was offended by the sermons because the pastor made the people of his church out to be the hero rather than Jesus Christ.
There is no sin in using movies and comic books to illustrate a point in a sermon but the ethos and mythology of comic books is that most of them have a Christ figure.
Mo-Pastor biffs it. He puts the emphasis on the people hearing the message and trys to inspire them to use their super powers for good. But in the context of good v. evil and Christ v. Satan we are sinners and held captive in the kingdom of the devil. Jesus Christ is the one the one with the divine super powers who fights the devil rescues us.
Mo-Pastor missed the whole point.
July 10th, 2007 at 11:04 am
Do you all even know what a Christ-Centered sermon is??
1Cor. 1:21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22 Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,
The foolishness of the cross was totally missing from those sermons. The pastor at Momentum had a perfect opportunity to preach Jesus Christ as the hero in these stories but he made it sound like we’re the ones with the super powers. Jesus and the foolishness of His cross and His victory are totally missing from these sermons. I recommend a sermon review for you guys. It will show you what I mean by Christ-Centered preaching.
http://www.kfuoam.org:80/mp3/Issues7/Issues_Etc_Jul_09a.mp3
July 10th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
Chris, seriously, you’re making yourself look ridiculous. As every objection you raise gets knocked down, you come up with a new objection.
Also, how many of the sermons did you listen to? Each one runs close to 40 minutes which puts the total time on that series at 200 minutes which is about 3 hours, 20 minutes of time. Did you really listen to them?
July 10th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
Although I will guess this Pastor’s motives were pure, we must be careful about dumbing down the message. Parables or object lessons for increased understanding, yes. Other things for entertainment that may have a tendency to dulled the edge, no.
Sorry, Tim, I havene’t listened to the sermons so maybe the comic character was a short springboard. It still seems a bit of a stretch.
July 10th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
Tim,
1. Yes I listened to them. I plan on using a few of them as object lessons for my podcast. This pastor is too much of an object lesson to let it go by.
2. Secondly I disagree. None of my points have been ‘knocked down’.
a. Comic books are myth - Pastors are to preach God’s word. (still stands)
b. You have not established that a little leaven has engaged in hypocrisy (still stands)
The real issue on this has always been that this pastor is preaching myths instead of God’s word and Christ.
The pastor at momentum is preaching man-centered, law based sermons, without preaching Christ. The reason he can preach from comic books is because he is a moralising spiritualizer. You don’t need the Bible for that.
Listen to the Issues Etc. program I linked to. Then apply the diagnostic to any one of these sermons.
July 10th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
Henry,
My biggest concern is with the cultural illiteracy of comic book characters. Most people might vaguely know who GL is, but only a bare few would know his origin story or how his powers work, or the different incarnations of the character. That means you have to explain who GL is, and how that explains scripture. While it can work its the long way around the barn.
When it comes to comic books there’s three characters that this would work with: Superman, Spiderman, and Batman. Anything other than those three, and most people are clueless.
But these concerns are rooted in practicality and effectiveness, not in the combative rhetoric of arguing who’s in the Jesus Club and who’s not.
July 10th, 2007 at 12:36 pm
“a. Comic books are myth - Pastors are to preach God’s word. (still stands)”
I doubt strongly you listened to the sermon then. As I outlined before there’s plenty of scripture in it, and plenty of points I doubt most Christians would argue about.
“b. You have not established that a little leaven has engaged in hypocrisy (still stands)”
The only way you can argue this is to so narrowly define what is being argued about is comic books, that if this had been a series called “Spurgeonmania” where illustrations from the life and teachings of Spurgeon had been used that would have been condemned as well. We know that’s crap though, by looking at the links for “sites that wake the church up” which includs sites that quote Spurgeon, hymns and other non-Biblical sources. That’s hypocrisy.
“The real issue on this has always been that this pastor is preaching myths instead of God’s word and Christ.”
Then you must be defining “God’s word” as something other than the Bible.
July 10th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
Tim,
Accusing me of engaging in lies and deception is not going to move this dialog forward.
I do not consider baptising a sermon with a couple out of context verses on the Green Lantern, Wonder Woman, Batman, Spider Man or the Flash as meeting the criteria of preaching the word.
July 10th, 2007 at 12:54 pm
First, I did not accuse you of lies and deceoption. I asked if you were sure you listened to this sermon. Because after the introduction and explanation of who GL is, beginning with his citation of Genesis 1:1 there’s a whole lot of scripture, and a whole lot of teaching from scripture.
I don’t think you lied about listening to this sermong. I do, however, think your obvious bias and prejudice has made you unable to see what’s obvious to everyone else.
July 10th, 2007 at 12:57 pm
If I am biased (and I am) then my bias is that pastor preach Christ-Centered sermons.
Mormons read and preach from our Bible too. Jews preach from the Old Testament too.
What makes our sermons different than theirs?
July 10th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
So you heard a citation from the book of Mormon? Or a quotation from the Talmud?
Seriously, your crap gets old. If someone quotes from the OT then you think they’re a Jewish Mormon, and if they dare to use a comic book as an illustration then you say they’re a secular humanist. But, for some reason, if you quote Spurgeon, a hymn, or Tozier then you’re all orthodox all the time.
July 10th, 2007 at 1:05 pm
One more recommended listen
http://www.kfuoam.org:80/mp3/Issues7/Issues_Etc_Jul_09b.mp3
this show deals with myths the story of Christ.
If the pastor at Momentum had done this. I would have not had a beef with him at all.
July 10th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
Oops, strike that last paragraph. I got you confused with Chris P for a second.
Apologies.
July 10th, 2007 at 1:10 pm
Tim,
You are trying to debate me rather than trying to understand what I am saying. I understand that the point of view I am defending is foreign to you and you think I am unfairly judging Christian brothers.
Tim - the thing that makes us different from the mormons and the Jews is Jesus Christ and him Crucified for sins.
Jesus’ righteousness not our own.
That is why Paul says that we preach Christ crucified.
Spend some time listening to the radio links I’ve provided. It will help you ‘get’ where I am coming from.
Once, you get where I am coming from let’s discuss whether or not it is unreasonable to expect a Christian Pastor to preach Christ Crucified every single week.
July 10th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
I find this intriguing.
I have nothing to say about comic books. I didn’t listen to the sermons and I couldn’t tell you a thing about the Green Lantern, anyway.
Christ-centered sermons. The value of story in our lives and how we relate to stories and myths that help us understand things differently. And what is the place of story in sermons, or is there one? Are sermons what Christ was doing when he told parables? Or was that teaching? And, is teaching different than our concept of a sermon? Stories have value. So where are they valuable?
July 10th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
CHris,
I’m imminently familiar with your position, I’m extremely familiar with the LCMS and its teachings both through experience and study.
July 10th, 2007 at 1:23 pm
I wonder if any of you comic book connoisseurs are familiar with why it is that Jesus spoke in parables, the sayings and the riddles of the wise:
July 10th, 2007 at 1:28 pm
Nothing makes some people happier than being elite, elect, and in the know.
We need Christian Member’s Only jackets, I guess. Made out of remnants.
July 10th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
Dudes,
Why not just pray for the pastor, that church and its leadership to be lead into all truth?
That way we can demonstrate humility and the strength of our convictions. If Christ is head of the Church, then pray for those you feel have gone astray. He will keep his flock. And it’s not for you to say they are “of the flock” or not. You’re not part of that community, you’re taking one thing (that might be broken) and then judging the whole. No local church is perfect…we all know this.
If you’re not a member of that local assembly, you can have your opinions, but you should temper it with the understanding that if you were meant to correct them, guide them, etc. you would be a member there, an elder there, etc. etc. etc.
I think a far more interesting discussion is possible from Julie’s questions. (Notice, I wrote “discussion”, not “debate”.)
but what do I know?…apparently I write “antichrist theology” according to Ken. =)
http://christianresearchnetwork.info/2007/07/08/hurting-your-own-team/#comments
July 10th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
Julie,
LOL!
Why is it that only people who wore Member’s Only jackets were/are people who seemd to be in a club that I had no interest in joining.
July 10th, 2007 at 1:34 pm
Ummm….
actually only some parables were to intended confound/obscure, others were to illuminate and reveal.
so…a blanket statement about the function of parables isn’t really accurate.
July 10th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
Ken,
While there are times Jesus used parables to obscure exactly what he’s teaching, there are times he used them to illuminate. Luke clearly demonstrates in Luke 16 where Jesus concludes with a straightforward statement and the Pharisees obviously get the point.
Not to mention in the previous chapter he directly answers the Pharisees charge that he eats with sinners with not one, but three parables.
And then there’s Matthew 21 in the parable of the tenants where again Jesus ends with a straightforward statement and again his enemies get the clue.
Pretending that parables are always a rhetorical device designed to obfuscate is either a failure to understand scripture, or a failure to read it in the first place.
July 10th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
Julie,
Why is it that only people who wore Member’s Only jackets were/are people who seemd to be in a club that I had no interest in joining.
“Made of Remnants” - LOL!
July 10th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
Says you nathan dude. Are those so anxious to embrace mystery so certain of that? They’d better be as we’re in this for keeps.
July 10th, 2007 at 1:39 pm
As you can see Ken, he’s not the only one who says that, and as I noted before the scriptures supports his assertions.
July 10th, 2007 at 1:41 pm
Tim,
Since you know my position then make your case. Show us from scripture that Christian pastors should be preaching morals every sunday without preaching the gospel and preaching Christ crucified for BELIEVERS as well as unbelievers.
Make your case.
July 10th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
So…Ken:
Are all the parables meant to confound/obscure, etc?
July 10th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
1. WHo said anything about “every sunday”?
2. You yourself said the minister of a congregation needs to dispense appropriate amounts of law and gospel based on the mindset of the congregation. You’ve effectively said “I know better than this guy what his congregation actually needs”.
July 10th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
Ken,
Parables were meant to confound those without ears to hear… Jesus explained them to the disciples…
SO your own blanket statement seems unbiblical.
Be Blessed,
iggy
July 10th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
Pastors can use object lessons, stories, and other literary forms to enhance the understanding of the Scriptural truth they are expounding. But we must be careful anbout using things that are not to be taken seriously in order to communicate things that are of infinite seriousness. It is difficult to fully explain, but using something like Spiderman is very shallow and is most times used to attract the attention of the masses rather than accurately illuminate the Scriptures. It is akin to using cotton candy to explain steak.
The pastor you refernce is probably Arminian, as am I, but these are some of the pitfalls our perspective seems prone to.
July 10th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
oh my my last comment was placed in the moderation queue… becasue i called myself iggy dude! LOL!
Interestingly I think that Chris R, your comment
“a. Comic books are myth - Pastors are to preach God’s word. (still stands)” is not still standing… I mean if you listen to the sermon… he uses the bible and talks about God creating out of His imagination… and how we are in that image… and that we need to honor God in our own creation ability.
This is all Christ centered as Jesus is the image we are being conformed to.
This is an object lesson… and you are saying on one hand, that it is unbiblical to use object lessons… and then you state you will use this sermon that you state is not Christ centered as an object lesson… and that is about as double minded as one can get… how can you use a non Christ centered object lesson to talk about Christ?
I can go on to your other points but it seems that if you are truly honest you might as well state… “I just do not like this type of preaching, it is not the style I enjoy or prefer.” and leave it at that… for that is all it comes down to in your arguments so far… preference and style. because if you do listen, Jesus in in that sermon… but you just need to listen to hear it. (I am not saying you did not listen to the sermon physically, but you did not hear it with your heart)
Be Blessed,
iggy
July 10th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
Tim - I do not know if you were quoting someone else, but no New Testament minister should be dispensing any law since the law is no deadto us. Those beggarly elements have ceased with the dead shadow the law, the substance is Christ HImself.
Hebrews 1:1
July 10th, 2007 at 2:03 pm
Rick,
You have just insulted quite a few people in calling Spiderman shallow! LOL!
Actually I am often impressed how deep some of these comics can get… many have this sub story that is straight out of the Bible… like Superman…
A father sends his son to earth to fight for justice…
Spiderman is about a boy who has to struggle with using great power for good and not evil… it is the eternal struggle of mankind…
Again, these are some of my sons favorite superheros… and I have been able to teach him about Jesus on a level he can relate.
Be Blessed,
iggy
July 10th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
A friend of mine told me a story in Bible College. She said that she believed as a little girl that Jesus could do miracles because Santa Claus could fly around the world in one night. After learning that her parents had lied to her about Santa Claus, she doubted the truth about Jesus for quite a while. She equated Santa Claus with Jesus and figured one day she would be told He was not real either.
July 10th, 2007 at 2:08 pm
hmmmm…
well.
some people say that Jesus is just Santa Claus for grown ups…
So from that perspective, she was ahead of the game.
July 10th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
Just to be clear:
The embrace of mystery is not, and has never been, espoused in the emerging church as a wholesale rejection of any certainty. (i.e. hard postmodernism).
the real question is why does the call to a chastened epistemology translate to such a mischaracterization and the accusations that there is an attack on Truth, the Revelation of the very Living God, etc. etc.? Besides just not listening and the tendency to find meaning in having an enemy…
July 10th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
Tim,
there was practically zero gospel in any of those sermons.
I also said you need both law and gospel every sunday.
July 10th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
Still wondering what you think, Ken…
Are all the parables meant to confound/obscure, etc?
July 10th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
iggy,
This is not a matter of taste or preference.
Scripture says to teach what is accord with sound doctrine and preach Christ Crucified.
preaching all law with no gospel and preaching moralism is not sound doctrine. The purpose of the law is to show us our sin.
Sorry but there is a standard for Christian preaching. The momentum pastor has not met that standard.
July 10th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
Henry,
Its law in the Lutheran sense of the word. Not the Mosaic sense.
Also, it should be noted that, Chris R, that sermons do not exist in a vacuum. Within that same service are prayers, songs, the Lord’s supper, offering, and scripture readings. Many, if not all, of which explicitly have gospel in them.
July 10th, 2007 at 2:21 pm
But does it say to preach Christ Crucified every week, every time?
What about the implications for discipleship from the wisdom of Holy Scripture? Those things do not always specifically require mention of Christ Crucified do they?
July 10th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
Just so it doesn’t get lost:
Ken: Are all the parables meant to confound/obscure, etc?
July 10th, 2007 at 2:23 pm
Just let us know if you need time to “research”.
July 10th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
Nathan - that was a very good and enlightening explanation from you. Not all emergents would agree, but it is concerting to some of us. Thanks.
July 10th, 2007 at 2:28 pm
Glad if some of the murk was swished away for a bit…
July 10th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
Tim,
I concur that they don’t exist in a vacuum. But evangelicals have jettisoned the liturgy. Services usually start with 30 minutes of singing 7/11 songs that have zero doctrinal content and usually are songs sung about ‘me’.
I know. i’ve been to hundreds of these services even recently.
July 10th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
Henry,
Any time you preach an ‘ought to’ sermon you have automatically slipped into preaching the law whether it be Mosaic law or ‘do this because your a Christian’.
Even a sermon that teaches you to balance to your checkbook is a law sermon.
July 10th, 2007 at 2:37 pm
You know Chris, I hear people talk trash about modern worship all the time, but virtually every song actually used in worship services that I’ve been in that fall into the category of modern is as theologically solid as the hymnal counterparts.
Hard as it may be for you to believe its possible to have a service that teaches Christ in word, symbol, song and whatever without liturgy.
July 10th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
Nathan you can save your sarcasm. My point is that parables or “stories” if you wish were also used to confound those to whom God was NOT speaking to.
So to say Jesus was a told stories does not equate to we shouldn’t preach expositorily. That He did in the synagogues Himself. But only those to whom God grants ears to hear will actually hear. I’d think about that if I were you…
July 10th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
I don’t preach those sermons. Liturgical services are a shadow of the OT law. Ceremony was even chipped away with the transition to David’s temple.
July 10th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
That was pretty pathetic Ken, and you didn’t even bother answering the question, or answering the scripture I quoted.
July 10th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
Ken - how in the world does “think about that” constitute anything if God chooses not to give a person ears to hear? The premise of Calvinism is totally incongruent with the practice.
July 10th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
It seems pretty pointless to argue over service and sermon structures to me. I don’t even see anywhere in the NT where actual “services” are mandated, at least in a formal way. I think pastors need to hear from God as to what the congregation needs to hear. Pastors will be accountable to God, which is much scarier than being accountable to Ken Silva.
July 10th, 2007 at 3:02 pm
Tim,
there are 2 possibilities here regarding modern worship music.
1. We are singing two completely sets of songs (this is possible).
2. We are singing the same songs and have different theological criteria for judging their content. (this is also possible).
BTW, I have NO BEEF with setting good theology that exalts Christ to modern music.
Here is a link to an article by a guy that I normally disagree with but on this issue I agree with him. It is also a fun read.
http://chriselrod.typepad.com/chris_elrod_dot_com/2007/03/let_me_make_two.html
July 10th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
Ummm…Ken,
1. you initially said:
“I wonder if any of you comic book connoisseurs are familiar with why it is that Jesus spoke in parables, the sayings and the riddles of the wise:
At that time Jesus, full of joy through the Holy Spirit, said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure.
“All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows who the Son is except the Father, and no one knows who the Father is except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.†(Luke 10:21-22)”
2. then I pointed out: “…actually only some parables were to intended confound/obscure, others were to illuminate and reveal.
so…a blanket statement about the function of parables isn’t really accurate.”
3. You then intimated that was only “my claim” by writing: “Says you nathan dude. Are those so anxious to embrace mystery so certain of that?”
4. So then, being careful to let you speak for yourself, I asked:
“So…Ken: Are all the parables meant to confound/obscure, etc?”
5. Now you clarify: “My point is that parables or “stories†if you wish were also used to confound those to whom God was NOT speaking to.” (emphasis mine) (So if you and I both happen to have the same interpretive understanding of any particular parable, where does that leave me and my antichrist theology? Just wondering.)
So I guess your answer to my question is: NO, the parables are not always meant to confound or obscure.
Is that a fair way to describe what your answer to the actual question is?
Regardless, we all have a lack of precision in our language sometimes. I’m just chalking this up to that…
But then again, giving grace when dealing with the ambiguities that inhere in language and the varied communication skills of human beings might just be a result of my being a relativist who doesn’t believe in absolute truth….(wink, wink, chuckle, chuckle. Sorry. I just think we all need to lighten up a bit.)
I don’t see–now that you’ve clarified your intent–how we have that different of a view on the parables. Funny how theological precision can be a tough nugget for anyone…but for some it garners a smack down and declarations about their state of salvation…(but again that is another issue for another day.)
Anyway: my current question is:
“So I guess your answer to my question is: NO, the parables are not always meant to confound or obscure.
Is that a fair way to describe what your answer to the actual question is?“
July 10th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
“being accountable to Ken Silva”
Ain’t nobody accountable to me boys.
July 10th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
you’re so right…
July 10th, 2007 at 3:35 pm
Rick,
Do yourself a favor and stay out of the way. I wasn’t talking to you so this: “The premise of Calvinism is totally incongruent with the practice” is you sowing division.
I said nothing at all about Calvinism. Did you know that John Calvin wasn’t even born yet when Luke wrote his Gospel?
And Nathan, dude can’t you read? You are the guys who have it all figured out, aren’t you? And yet you can’t seem to understand simple English.
July 10th, 2007 at 3:36 pm
Right N.D. Never said anyone was.
Tim,
Um, we don’t happen to agree. But you know what; I’m not going to lose any sleep over it. I pray you will rest easy as well.
July 10th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
ouch…testy today, aren’t we?
btw, I’ve never claimed to have it all figured out.
serioulsy, where did you get that?
I’m just trying to hear your position on the role and function of the parables as clearly and simply as possible.
simple english?
I laid out mine and your “simple english”. I’m just asking for a distilled answer to the distilled question as it is put to you. Something you lambast McLaren for not doing.
What sin have I committed against you in asking this?
How is asking for clarity in a medium that can be confusing wrong? Where’s the fire?
Since you’re prone to assigning things to think about…here’s one for you:
Fruit of the Spirit…the fourth one on the list…give it a whirl.
July 10th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
Ken - contrary to your own personal perspective you hold no sway over me or this blog. I will say anything I so desire about anything or anyone. You told Nathan to think about something you claim God hasn’t given him ears to hear. I know, you still don’t get it. Maybe God will give you ears to hear.
Sowing division. This from the supreme commander of that science. By the way, I have a John Calvin dart board in my study. It comes with five darts. The only kink in the game is that you throw whichever darts you want. They are still working on that.
LOL
Sorry, I couldn’t resist…
July 10th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
seriously, dude.
I just reread this stuff again….
nobody’s hurting you. why the tantrum?
July 10th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
Henry,
when you license the game let me know if I can buy it on Amazon.
July 10th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
This thread has shown me that many are in denial over style and preference… as to how the Bible and Jesus are to be presented.
It is pretty hilarious to re-read from the beginning to where we are now….
Some people need to get real and admit that Luther used “bar tunes” (not that it was the songs in the bar, but the style and tempo of the tunes in the bar) and re worked into original pieces his hymns…. (read that carefully before you try to say I am wrong)
In that he used the style of the day… re-worked… for his hymns.
Yet, some here still criticize “modern” worship songs that take a style of music and re-work it to be used by God… or a comic book character as an object lesson on the creativity of God… using many scriptures and leading to that we are all the image of God… (which as I recall is Jesus!) so this so-called none Christ centered sermon is based on being the image of God… and that by being transformed into the image of Christ Jesus and as God is, we also be creative! LOL! and then say this is not about style and preference! LOL!
I am glad we have this blog to show others how sad some of this attack is truly lacking substance even more than what the attackers are accusing others of! LOL!
Be Blessed,
iggy
July 10th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
It’s just tantrum after seizure after conniption…
It is easier to lead men to combat, stirring up their passion, than to restrain them and direct them toward the patient labors of peace.
That’s a “ministry” vision statement if I ever saw one…
July 10th, 2007 at 4:49 pm
hmmmm….Ken wrote:
“being accountable to Ken Silvaâ€
Ain’t nobody accountable to me boys.
Here’s some other simple questions:
Since you believe you are set to do what “your Master” tells you. (A well documented, oft-repeated claim by you.)
And you have just made it clear that you don’t think anyone is accountable to you–i.e. you have no authority over anyone.
1. Why do you think Jesus has set you about this work? What purpose is there in this?
2. Why do you uphold or imply some kind of status of authority by reminding people of your “pastor-teacher” position if no one is accountable to you?
July 10th, 2007 at 4:51 pm
oh, btw…I’m still wondering about the parables:
“So I guess your answer to my question is: NO, the parables are not always meant to confound or obscure.
Is that a fair way to describe what your answer to the actual question is?“
Thanks!
July 10th, 2007 at 5:01 pm
so here’s the summary of my questions:
1. Is that a fair way to describe what your answer to the actual question is?“
2.Why do you think Jesus has set you about this work? What purpose is there in this?
3. Why do you uphold or imply some kind of status of authority by reminding people of your “pastor-teacher†position if no one is accountable to you?
Once we’re finished with these I’d be curious as to:
Why do you think I’ve claimed to figure everything out?
What was so offensive about asking you to give a bottom line answer to my initial question?
July 10th, 2007 at 5:56 pm
n.d.,
Hate to disappoint you but I’m not the least upset with anything you ask or anything you do. You only flatter yourself.
Rick,
Same thing. You chose your side a long time ago. Live with it.
July 10th, 2007 at 5:57 pm
Wow, yet another non-answer from Ken. Those are piling up quick.
July 10th, 2007 at 6:07 pm
Well Tim, I’ve been studying the masters of the non-answers like McLaren and Bell so long…agrh, maybe I’m becoming Emergent myself?!
July 10th, 2007 at 6:57 pm
You’re right, Ken, thirty two years ago I chose to be on Jesus’ side. Thanks, and I can only live with that.
July 10th, 2007 at 7:10 pm
Rick,
Ok.
July 10th, 2007 at 7:13 pm
Hey Nathan, now that I have mastered the bold/italics thing how can I add smiles and winks faces?
July 10th, 2007 at 7:27 pm
Ken,
no one said anything about you being upset with them.
The comment is about the substance of your statement and what it communicates. It seems you’ve made the assumptions on that one.
But again, that’s besides the point.
There’s some simple questions out there still.
1. Do you think I’ve fairly described your understanding of the parables?
2.Why do you think Jesus has set you about this work? What purpose is there in this?
3. Why do you uphold or imply some kind of status of authority by reminding people of your “pastor-teacher†position if no one is accountable to you?
Thanks.
July 10th, 2007 at 7:32 pm
“no one said anything about you being upset with them.”
Um, right.
“ouch…testy today, aren’t we?”
“It’s just tantrum after seizure after conniption…”
“What was so offensive…”
July 10th, 2007 at 7:34 pm
You guys,
Someone with a critical spirit does not have answers… they only have criticism…
They grow a little if they can move on to constructive criticism…
and more if they can just give mercy… instead.
But then they would have to believe the bible… wouldn’t they?
Be Blessed,
iggy
July 10th, 2007 at 7:41 pm
1. Do you think I’ve fairly described your understanding of the parables? (I don’t see where you have described my “understanding” of all parables.
2.Why do you think Jesus has set you about this work? (Look up in Scripture Who calls a man to pastor-teacher) What purpose is there in this?n (That you’ll have to ask Him)
3. Why do you uphold or imply some kind of status of authority by reminding people of your “pastor-teacher†position if no one is accountable to you? (Because this is what some people want to see me saying. When I say I am a “pastor-teacher” I state a fact.
So to remind someone who is rejecting what as one of Christ’s pastor-teachers is teaching of my functoin in the Body of Christ is actually an act of kindness.
Then you say: “Thanks.”
You’ll pardon me if you seems a bit less than sincere, ok…
July 10th, 2007 at 7:49 pm
“Someone with a critical spirit does not have answers… they only have criticism…”
That’s ok iggy. We already understand this is at the heart of the emerging rebellion against the Church.
July 10th, 2007 at 8:01 pm
“So to remind someone who is rejecting what as one of Christ’s pastor-teachers is teaching of my functoin in the Body of Christ is actually an act of kindness.”
It is also of significant note to remind us all that every pastor/teacher is only a human being, subject to personal perspectives, never inerrant, still having the flesh, bound by intellectual impurities, and rendered useless in the Master’s service when poisoned by pride.
He can be anointed by the Spirit, an instrument of revelation, gentle in rebuke, seeking constant brokenness, thinking less highly of himself than of others, humbly grateful that he could ever be used, and having a supernatural love for those with whom he would disagree.
Such is the pastor/teacher who not only is gifted to teach Christ’s Word, he is called to live Christ simultaneously.
July 10th, 2007 at 8:22 pm
Rick,
Thanks. I’m good with this call of mine.
July 10th, 2007 at 8:30 pm
“Rick,
Thanks. I’m good with this call of mine. ”
And again, as if on cue…voilà .
July 10th, 2007 at 8:40 pm
Ken,
Jesus loves you… I just wanted to let you know.
It is that you are not willing to be accountable and join with others of like mind that seems that you are the rebellious one.
I do have an accountability network of friends…
And there is one within the emerging church…
So before you cast stone… be accountable to your self proclaimed apostate denomination and follow your hierarchical structure whose head is Frank Page. Otherwise again you are in rebellion… not me.
I am in submission locally to my pastor.
It seems you hold accountability in disdain, and that is rebellion.
Be Blessed,
iggy
July 10th, 2007 at 8:43 pm
BTW, Ken,
You need to widen your view a bit more… as you are losing my interest day by day… Maybe it is God telling me to leave you to your own depraved mind of slander and lies against others.
I pray for you brother… and I do love you.
I pray that you learn of the great love of God that comes through Jesus…
Be blessed,
iggy
July 10th, 2007 at 8:54 pm
Somewhere there’s an evil maestro (probably the Green Lantern) thrilled at the direction this thread has taken.
So what was decided on parables/stories, then? Same? Different? For sermons? For teaching? To confuse the plebes?
July 10th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
Ken,
1. We were talking about the function of parables to obscure or illuminate. In the meta you made a claim. Tim and I pushed back on it. You made a clarifying statement and then I said:
So I guess your answer to my question is: NO, the parables are not always meant to confound or obscure.
Is that a fair way to describe what your answer?
It’s active listening, going the extra mile to be clear about what you are saying about the parables.
2. So your “discernment ministry” is an outgrowth of your local role as a pastor-teacher?
Sounds more apostolic to me since it goes beyond the local church. There’s no basis for a local pastor-teacher getting to put their hand into another flock simply because they’re a pastor. I’ve worked as a pastor…I understand it’s role within the context of a local church. eph. 4, yes? Even the pastor’s I know that would agree in principle with your perspectives would say that highlighting your position really does not give you some kind of basis for your “internet ministry”.
(That you’ll have to ask Him) “Ask Jesus why?” You mean to say you don’t have any sense of what you’re called to, the reasons for it, etc.? Or do you have some ideas that you won’t share for some reason?
3. It’s not merely a statement of fact. You wield that statement in discussions with clear implications of your authority to speak into people’s lives that have not been entrusted to your flock. And yet you say that no one is accountable to you.
Can you see why this is not logical?
Which is it?
Are you a pastor-teacher-at-large (basically an apostolic role) with the right to rebuke (i.e. exercise teaching authority over) others outside your flock, thus making them accountable to you?
or not?
Lastly, language about you being testy, having a conniption, etc. describe your actual behavior, your rants and your terse comments about people reading plain english, or describing even my own writing as “antichrist”.
There is no assumption about your being upset with people personally and thus me “flattering myself”. Those ARE mere statements of fact in how you comport yourself.
And even if someone believes you are upset with them, then it’s understandable. When people are non-responsive the way you’ve been, that communicates certain things. Just consider this: if you made those same comments to your wife when talking about the plain english of the grocery list, would she be flattering herself if she believed you upset with her? The derisive comments about “flattery” are just unnecessary and distracts from the real issues.
I’m just asking questions here and you’re non-responsive. That’s called being “testy”, etc. because that’s what that behavior is.
The question about “what is so offensive” is in response to your unwillingness to respond to simple questions.
Again, what’s wrong with distilling an issue to a simple question and wanting a simple answer. If there’s nothing wrong with it, just answer it and explain yourself.
I’m going to the source here, Ken. Not writing about you, but talking directly to you. Despite the confrontational nature of this, I’m trying to be fair and get some information so I can understand. That’s why I’m getting back to the main questions and saying “Thanks” beforehand–giving you the benefit of the doubt that you’ll answer me.
There are separate issues here:
First,
your understanding of the role/function of parables.
I.E. Is it fair to say that you do not believe that all parables are for the purpose of confounding the unbeliever or obscuring the kingdom? Yes or No.
(Simple question, asked multiple times, that if simply answered would have ended the whole conversation. Again, I’m just asking for info.)
Second, your understanding of your role as a pastor-teacher, the scope of its authority/ministry, etc. and how it all specifically relates to you and your “discernment ministry”.
i.e. Since you’re a Pastor-teacher do you have spiritual authority over people other than your own flock at Conn. River. Bapt. Church? Why or why not?
Again, simple questions. From one pastor to another.
Thanks.
July 10th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
Julie,
I think some confuse, some illuminate…
Purely from a pragmatic standpoint: stories really do help truth come alive, move from data/facts, etc. to realities that we can relate to and thus grasp for our own lives.
Also, I don’t think there is anything wrong with asking people to clarify their statements, own their positions, etc. Hence my pressing Ken on these issues.
July 10th, 2007 at 9:08 pm
Lets lay odds on Ken giving a straightforward answer to those three questions.
50:1 - Straightforward, clear answer.
3:1 - An uninsulting non-answer.
2:1 - Smarmy insult.
July 10th, 2007 at 9:15 pm
Don’t expect an answer… as this was what was going on with Phil Johnson and Dan Kimball… except that every answer Dan gave was not good enough… and here though Ken may demand answers from others and that they change their views… no give and take is on Ken’s side… he simply wants as Ken want… (with the accusation God is backing him up).
Yet, in the Kingdom, that would be partiality and that is taught against in James… so Ken promotes this un-biblical view of partiality stating he is some sort of Blues Brother with a mission from God and we need to all bow before him… not God, but Ken and his “calling”.
God has not called Ken to my life to change me… God is doing that and I have no need for Ken. Yet I do see that there are brothers and sisters that are instruments of Grace as god uses them in my life…. Ken seems to not care to be that… but an instrument of wrath who sees himself Gods messenger to dispense “hate” to sinners.
It is a bizarro world he lives in…
Be blessed,
iggy
July 10th, 2007 at 9:31 pm
Ken, be honest. CRBC called you to be a pastor. Maybe that even includes pastor-teacher. But having a position in a church doesn’t mean that you automatically have God’s approval and authority to speak on His behalf. Being appointed a pastor by a church, whether large or small, cannot be equated with God giving you the title “pastor-teacher”, or the authority which you want to wield by using such a title.
John Sandford once prophesied to me that I have the “office” of evangelist, and another American pastor recently called me an “apostle”. I don’t lay claim to either as a “title”, and frankly, I don’t agree with their particular “five-fold” theology, but even if I did… does that give me authority over others? Last time I checked, Ephesians 4 seems to indicate that pastors, teachers, evangelists, prophets and apostles exist to serve the Body, not to have the Body serve them.
Titles mean nothing. Ideally, they should reflect the Body recognizing a spiritual gift being used with a servant attitude. They should never be equated with authoritarian control over people; Jesus called it “lording it over” people in Matthew 20, and He forebade it among His followers.
I prefer to be known as a Servant of Jesus, and follow His example in being a Friend of Sinners. When I was much younger, I used to describe myself as “comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable”, but realized that is sounded (and probably was) arrogant and offensive. The title of Servant is all that I need.
July 10th, 2007 at 9:37 pm
iggy,
“I do have an accountability network of friends…”
So do I. Includes four other pastors as well.
July 10th, 2007 at 9:38 pm
Tim,
*tsk tsk* Ya’ll encouraging gamblin’ like that. On the other hand maybe you’d a made some money.
July 10th, 2007 at 9:46 pm
iggy,
ironically, I don’t want Ken to change his views.
Just explain them–without spiritualizing or name calling, etc.
Tim,
apparently, the 3:1 was the best bet.
Ken,
That’s great you have some ministerial friends. It’s important.
My last queries still await…
First,
your understanding of the role/function of parables.
I.E. Is it fair to say that you do not believe that all parables are for the purpose of confounding the unbeliever or obscuring the kingdom? Yes or No.
(Simple question, asked multiple times, that if simply answered would have ended the whole conversation. Again, I’m just asking for info.)
Second, your understanding of your role as a pastor-teacher, the scope of its authority/ministry, etc. and how it all specifically relates to you and your “discernment ministryâ€.
i.e. Since you’re a Pastor-teacher do you have spiritual authority over people other than your own flock at Conn. River. Bapt. Church? Why or why not?
Thanks
July 10th, 2007 at 9:46 pm
n.d.,
*Sincere answer alert* I really don’t have time to answer such a long response. And I truly believe we won’t see eye to eye. You’re not about to change my view, nor am I likely to change yours.
I’ll give what I can one at a time: 1. We were talking about the function of parables to obscure or illuminate. In the meta you made a claim. Tim and I pushed back on it. [Maybe we see the "meta" differently. If I state an opinion and you "push back" I may answer if I have time but I'm not in "the conversation."]
You made a clarifying statement and then I said: So I guess your answer to my question is: NO, the parables are not always meant to confound or obscure. [I think that's obvious]
Is that a fair way to describe what your answer? [Sure]
It’s active listening, going the extra mile to be clear about what you are saying about the parables. [I understand.]
July 10th, 2007 at 9:48 pm
And the answers are…?
Your understanding of the role/function of parables.
I.E. Is it fair to say that you do not believe that all parables are for the purpose of confounding the unbeliever or obscuring the kingdom? Yes or No.
(Simple question, asked multiple times, that if simply answered would have ended the whole conversation. Again, I’m just asking for info.)
Second, your understanding of your role as a pastor-teacher, the scope of its authority/ministry, etc. and how it all specifically relates to you and your “discernment ministryâ€.
i.e. Since you’re a Pastor-teacher do you have spiritual authority over people other than your own flock at Conn. River. Bapt. Church? Why or why not?
btw, that’s great you have ministerial friends. It’s important for your well being.
July 10th, 2007 at 9:50 pm
ooooops….
we missed each other in the meta.
Thanks for your initial answers about the parables.
Still interested in your understanding of your role.
Again, thanks for your answers on the parables.
July 10th, 2007 at 9:56 pm
Ken,
that is great to hear… do you have anyone that does not agree that can challenge you in your circle? agreement does not always mean God is in it.
be blessed,
iggy
July 10th, 2007 at 9:58 pm
If parables aren’t always meant to obfuscate your initial claim concerning Momentum teaching in a parable form doesn’t make much sense.
July 10th, 2007 at 10:00 pm
Also, gambling rules, its how we got Judas’ replacement.
July 10th, 2007 at 10:04 pm
Re: Judas’ replacement…
that is toooo funny.
July 10th, 2007 at 10:14 pm
I don’t have a problem with being determined to get an answer, Nathan Dude. I was just wondering where things were. I was a little lost, mainly because I determined that I’d ignore Ken. It’s the only tool left.
Sometimes I wish there was a forum connected with this blog so there would posts and comments, but the subjects that get hashed out rather repeatedly could happen there. I think it’d be easier to follow.
July 10th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
2. So your “discernment ministry†is an outgrowth of your local role as a pastor-teacher? [In a sense.]
Sounds more apostolic to me since it goes beyond the local church. [I'm not an apostle.] There’s no basis for a local pastor-teacher getting to put their hand into another flock simply because they’re a pastor. [I'm not after other flocks.]
I’ve worked as a pastor…I understand it’s role within the context of a local church. eph. 4, yes? [Ephesians 4 is about the Church.] Even the pastor’s I know that would agree in principle with your perspectives would say that highlighting your position really does not give you some kind of basis for your “internet ministryâ€. [With all due respect, I don't recall reading about Internet in the Bible.]
(That you’ll have to ask Him) “Ask Jesus why?†You mean to say you don’t have any sense of what you’re called to, the reasons for it, etc.? [I am comfortable I know enough.] Or do you have some ideas that you won’t share for some reason? [I've shared enough as far as I'm concerned.]
3. It’s not merely a statement of fact. You wield that statement in discussions with clear implications of your authority to speak into people’s lives that have not been entrusted to your flock. [We disagree.]
And yet you say that no one is accountable to you. [That's God's call.] Can you see why this is not logical? [I see why you see it that way.]
Are you a pastor-teacher-at-large (basically an apostolic role) with the right to rebuke (i.e. exercise teaching authority over) others outside your flock, thus making them accountable to you? [I am a pastor-teacher at Connecticut River Baptist Church.]
Lastly, language about you being testy, having a conniption, etc. describe your actual behavior, your rants and your terse comments about people reading plain english, or describing even my own writing as “antichristâ€. [Ok.]
There is no assumption about your being upset with people personally and thus me “flattering myselfâ€. Those ARE mere statements of fact in how you comport yourself. [They ARE mere statements of fact in how someone else perceives how I comport myself. I happen to disagree.]
And even if someone believes you are upset with them, then it’s understandable. When people are non-responsive the way you’ve been, that communicates certain things. Just consider this: if you made those same comments to your wife when talking about the plain english of the grocery list, would she be flattering herself if she believed you upset with her? The derisive comments about “flattery†are just unnecessary and distracts from the real issues. [I'm not talking to my wife.]
I’m just asking questions here and you’re non-responsive. That’s called being “testyâ€, etc. because that’s what that behavior is. [I'd say I respond but you don't care for how I respond.]
The question about “what is so offensive†is in response to your unwillingness to respond to simple questions. [As I said, maybe you just don't like my methodology.]
Again, what’s wrong with distilling an issue to a simple question and wanting a simple answer. If there’s nothing wrong with it, just answer it and explain yourself. [Nothing, and I have.]
I’m going to the source here, Ken. Not writing about you, but talking directly to you. Despite the confrontational nature of this, I’m trying to be fair and get some information so I can understand. That’s why I’m getting back to the main questions and saying “Thanks†beforehand–giving you the benefit of the doubt that you’ll answer me. [Ok.]
July 10th, 2007 at 10:25 pm
Nathan,
I did my best to catch up. We simply aren’t going to agree.
July 10th, 2007 at 10:29 pm
“If parables aren’t always meant to obfuscate your initial claim concerning Momentum teaching in a parable form doesn’t make much sense.”
I understand your point. Maybe my claim was obfuscated…