Looks like Apprising has been publicly called out by Christianity Today. This publication, which goes out internationally, has written an article entitled Attack Dogs of Christendom. It targets Ken Silva specifically saying that he is “disturbingly visible” and operates one of the “angriest websites” on the Internet. To this accusation Silva responds

Since Christ gave it to me, then I say, the Lord be praised…. Have these people ever considered that the anger coming through me as a pastor-teacher sent by the Lord just might not actually be my own?

To me, that is one of the most disturbing statements made by these watch dogs. When they begin to blame God for their offensive, unmerited and outspoken anger, you know something is up. In this same missive, Apprising makes another jab at Dan Kimball’s beliefs. All that after Dan when out of his way to let his doctrinal beliefs be known here in detail. It is sad when someone cannot admit they were wrong, but has to keep snowballing the lies. I just don’t know how much farther these guys can go.

  • Share/Bookmark
This entry was posted on Friday, August 10th, 2007 at 1:35 am and is filed under Emergent Church, Ken Silva, Linked Articles, ODM Responses, ODM Writers. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
+/- Collapse/Expand All

35 Comments(+Add)

1   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
August 10th, 2007 at 2:05 am

Interestingly again, is the phrase “semi-pelagian” as if you look John MacArthur’s “fruit inspection” theology… and that one must use certain magical words like “Lord” to be saved, it seems without realizing it JM is “semi-pelagian”. He will not acknowledge it… but it is there in his theology..

Also, Ken has yet to comment on the quote I gave about a person was ACTULLY MENTORED BY WALTER MARTIN who stated that Walther referred to himself as a “Cal-Minian” which would toss Ken’s idol into he “semi-pelagian” waters also.

Blind as can be and arrogance… it seem that turning him over to God, has let him be taken over by his god…

Hate is not a Christian virtue, or a fruit of the Spirit… and Ken feeds on hates fruit.


2   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
August 10th, 2007 at 6:15 am

This now arrives to a new height of self righteousness. What is Ken saying? I thought, when he speaks of how God gave him his ministry as if it was like God gave Moses the law, it was really pompous. But now is Ken claiming he “channels” the anger of God? So any emotions he exhibits he blames/claims on God?

I thought he claimed not to be angry, now he claims he is a conduit for God’s anger. So let’s see, Ken claims to have received his ministry directly from God in Moses – like words, he claims God directly gives him the words to say, and now he claims his emotions are really God showing angry through him.

That goes beyond subjectivity and reveals just how highly he hold himself in his own eyes. Even the Apostle Paul said he was nothing and all he had was God’s grace, but Joan of Arc claimed to be chanelling God’s anger. If I did not know better, I would think Ken was a charismatic judging by the depth of subjective authority he claims to have.

Keep watching, we might soon see “Bishop Silva”.

I just wonder why God never chooses Ken as a conduit for His love. Oh well, anger will have to suffice for now.

3   Russ N.    http://russ-ramblings.blogspot.com
August 10th, 2007 at 6:26 am

I read this and the phrase “there’s no bad publicity” comes to mind. If I were a betting man (I’m not) I would wager there’s a part of Mr. Silva totally digging this.

I’ve had to stop reading C?N, SoL2.0, pyro, and AM — the ugliness, anger, and constant name-calling in the “discernment” “ministries” has proven a significant distraction and hindrance to my relationship with God. As has been mentioned here, our war is not against flesh and blood.

I come here and read (and once in a while comment) because of the discussion that takes place. The difference of opinion on topics is good, and since “raking the sandbox” the tone is much more agreeable.

4   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
August 10th, 2007 at 6:29 am

BTW – this “truth war” metaphor seems to go against “speak the truth in love” does it not? It’s like they’ve all become little boys again and they get to play the cowboys shooting at the Indians. If indeed the emergents are as they say concerning truth, why no tears, why no calls for prayer, why no concern for the men, and why is there nothing even remotely resembling I Cor. 13?

Jesus was full of truth…oh yea, full of GRACE and truth. Let us ask God to invigorate our prayer lives for those with whom we disagree. Wouldn’t God be glorified if a revival hit across the evangelical community, and we held a nation wide conference at which the spirit of prayer fell on us all? And at that conference there was much public repenting as the Spirit opened our eyes.

The purpose/seeker leaders repented of watering down the message in a well meaning attempt to reach people. The emergent people repented of going too far on some levels in a well meaning attempt to fill some holes in the church. And the orthodox people repented of their pride in their well meaning attempt to remain faithful to the truth.

Wow. Wouldn’t that be a prayer meeting at which you would want to be? Oh well, it’s kind of like imagining that congress would get something done.

5   Tim Reed    
August 10th, 2007 at 7:38 am

Turns out the watchdawggie version of the “the devil made me do it” is “God made me do it”.

6   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
August 10th, 2007 at 7:57 am

Hmmm…. Blessed are the peacemakers…

Guess Jesus was just kidding… huh Ken.

BTW, Channelling is not a Christian practice it definitely has its origins in “spiritism”. So, now we know Ken is a self loathing man-loving, semi pelagian loving (Walter Martin) spiritist who claims that when he speaks that God speaks through him….

So, it seems that for all his accusations against all those “mystics” Ken just bypasses that and channels God direct…

Good Grief! LOL!

Actually it seems that Ken is an angry person and has finally admitted it!


7   Tim Reed    
August 10th, 2007 at 8:03 am

BTW, now that Ken has claimed to be a prophet do the other watchdawggies have to stone him according to the Law of Moses since he’s gotten so much wrong? I’m really unclear on this, because normally I’d say we’re under grace, but with their demonstrable lack of grace, and ample quoting of the Law (well, at least the 10 Commandments, and the bit about tattoos) I’m not really sure where they stand on false prophets.

8   Matt B    http://matbathome.blogspot.com/
August 10th, 2007 at 8:09 am

Ken’s claim is eerily similar to the cliche, “The devil made me do it”. Perhaps this is Ken’s real inspiration.

9   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
August 10th, 2007 at 8:12 am

Matt – I would rather say the flesh.

10   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
August 10th, 2007 at 8:21 am


Actually, Ken should be admonished by Phil Johnson and crew that he claims to be a prophet as they are mostly cessationists and prophecy ended (according to them) when we received the bible…

So, Ken would instantly be a false prophet… as Hebrews states…

In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe…

and… oh yeah Ken Silva will channel God in the last daze! And not even rebuked by the MacArthur crowd for it…


11   chris o    
August 10th, 2007 at 8:50 am

Deeellllluuusional. Seriously, he thinks he’s Elijah. This is why he completely ignores any attempts at rational discussion. He knows THE truth and his job isn’t to listen to anybody else, it is solely to proclaim the truth he believes he has. It’s a combination of being absolutly certain he’s right and everyone who disagrees with him is wrong, and delusions of grandeur. He’s just not all there.

12   Todd    http://toddblog.net
August 10th, 2007 at 9:10 am

I propose a moratorium on Ken Silva. More than anything else, this latest post from AM makes me sad. Ken is not well. I think we should all be praying for him rather than posting about him. Seriously.

13   chris o    
August 10th, 2007 at 9:31 am

Yeah, I agree. And I’m not trying to be mean with my comment, I’m just stating what I see. For the most part I just lurk when it comes to this blog, but lately I’ve been wondering at what the point is in even acknowledging this guy. I think most people who come acrossed his stuff knows he’s gone off the deep end. And I have a feeling that some of the people who, for the most part, agree with him know that also.
If I were a moderator on this site I would not allow him to post his one-liners. And as for posting about his “missives,” I really don’t see much point as they refute themselves.

14   chris o    
August 10th, 2007 at 9:34 am

P.S. I’d be much more interested in a Way of the Master analysis site.

15   Todd    http://toddblog.net
August 10th, 2007 at 9:42 am

I think that a majority people who go to Silva’s site either:
1. Agree with him and nothing will sway them
2. Already are predisposed against him and are going for ammo to use against him

A Way of the Master analysis would be equally as frustrating, but probably more beneficial as it is possible that the dialog will likely be less vitriolic.

16   nathan    http://www.nathanneighbour.com
August 10th, 2007 at 11:30 am

I completely agree with you… and leaders all over the country are agreeing. Ken Silva is not well. His latest missives, this one especially, have become very disturbing. I think two things are going on.

1. Ken has been picking a fight for the last few years, and people are now stepping up to face him. I think he realizes how much he has hurt and done wrong

2. He realizes that this emerging movement is much bigger than him (because IMO God is behind much of it). If that is the truth, then in a matter of months he will become very drowned out (and possibly financially sunk).

17   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
August 10th, 2007 at 12:08 pm

I would be into a day of fasting and praying for Ken…

I think that it would break the religious spirit that binds him.

I am serious…

Any takers?


18   Zachary Forrest y Salazar    http://www.johnnybeloved.com
August 10th, 2007 at 1:42 pm

Iggy. I’m in.

19   Matt B    http://matbathome.blogspot.com/
August 10th, 2007 at 1:46 pm

It sounds kinda weird to do, but I’m in too.

20   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
August 10th, 2007 at 1:51 pm


21   Todd    http://toddblog.net
August 10th, 2007 at 1:58 pm

Sign me up.

22   robbymac    http://www.robbymac.org
August 10th, 2007 at 2:48 pm

Yeah, I’m all for seeing people set free. When?

23   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
August 10th, 2007 at 2:51 pm

Our motives must be purified by the Spirit so we pray in humility. Remember, before God changed us we were infinitely more distateful to God than Ken is sometimes to us. And Jesus loved Him all the way to the cross, so God can use this time to help us empty ourselves of ourselves.

24   amy    
August 10th, 2007 at 9:49 pm

Is the “lunacy” referred to this: “Well, whoever told Aikman that we shouldn’t be angry about this Emergent rebellion against the Bible and the pseudo-Christianity of the apostate new evangelicalism, which I refer to as lunacy in the Lord’s name? Have these people ever considered that the anger coming through me as a pastor-teacher sent by the Lord just might not actually be my own? After all what is to me, this murky mystic mess these seducing spirits with their doctrines of demons have made in Christ’s Church with their contemplative spirituality siphoned from apostate Roman Catholicism? I didn’t create any people who hung Me on a cross.”

Or something in the CT article (which I haven’t been able to access?)

25   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
August 10th, 2007 at 9:54 pm

What you quote, Amy, will do just fine.

26   jimmy    http://www.relevantchristian.com
August 10th, 2007 at 11:23 pm


Sign me up too…let me know.

Having spoken to Ken, I am convinced that he is a good man…perhaps a bit misguided…but a good man nonetheless.

27   Tim Wirth    http://simplyagape.blogspot.com/
August 11th, 2007 at 8:58 am

Where is this article at?
The link here takes me to Kens site.
The links on Kens site takes me to CT but not to the article.
When I do a search on the title of the article it shows links here and to Kens site.
Does anyone have a direct link to the CT article.
If so could you send me the link via email or post it here.
Thanks so much.
Tim Wirth

28   amy    
August 11th, 2007 at 10:11 am

If there were men or women who fit the qualifications of II Peter 3:3-7 and/or Jude 3-19 do you see some scriptural reason why God would not express anger through a servant of his towards those people and their actions?

I’m just wondering if you see a theological problem with 1) the idea of God expressing anger through a person towards “wolves” or 2)you only have a problem with Ken saying that the anger he is expressing is coming from God because a) you think Ken is proud, etc and/or b)you don’t think the men he is “calling out” are wolves.

29   Tim Reed    
August 11th, 2007 at 10:15 am

I think it was a print-only article from CT.

30   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
August 11th, 2007 at 10:58 am

Amy – if Ken held the opposite view than the one he does about orthodox theology would you feel the same way? If he was emergent leaning you would not only feel he was wrong, but you would see that his shrill approach is inconsistent with the qualifications you just quoted.

Read also the qualification as outline by Paul. Where is the longsuffering? Where is the gentleness? Where is the humility? Ken does not envision himself as a pastor/teacher, he acts like an OT prophet. His demeaning “tit for tat” comments are not even adult, to say nothing of Christian.

Read the teachings of Paul, did he spend all his time attacking those “wolves”? Did he even name most of them and did he constantly call them names? Did he say “come and get me” or taunt them with other childish invectives? And who are wolves? Rick Warren waters down the message, is he a wolf? I believe that Calvinism is completely wrong, so are all Calvinists wolves to me?

And when a person claims to be channeling God’s anger through his words then he has elevated himself above just being a servant, he now has been self described as a direct mouthpiece. Ask MacArthur if he would say that. Read Spurgeon and see if he ever made that claim.

Ken has, along with many of us, some important questions about where the church is going, but because he envisions himself as a fire breathing crusader he has lost the most important ingredient, love. Any impartial believer who reads his “missives” can plainly see his self promoting style of name calling attacks, multiple self links, and when you read how he interacts with others in comment sections it becomes clear he displays a disdain and scorn for others.

And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all [men], apt to teach, patient,
2Ti 2:25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;
2Ti 2:26 And [that] they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.

We all do well to daily check our pride at the door, for we all have a tendency to think more highly of ourselves when indeed we are nothing.

31   amy    
August 11th, 2007 at 5:45 pm

What I see, for example in II Peter 2 as well as in Jude, Galatians, especially 1:9 is harshness and no hesitation to mince words about those who were false prophets. Not different in tone than the OT prophets, just shorter.

Generally speaking, I believe that the Holy Spirit is in no way an inanimate object just sitting inside of believers. He is the Spirit of God and knows the Father’s thoughts. I believe that a believer can experience God’s compassion, grief, love, and yes even anger.

Generally speaking.

I also believe that what some might believe interpret as “God’s anger” can be coming from themselves. Likewise, what some might think is “God’s love” showing itself through them can be something else entirely.

In the end however one feels like God is working in them is something that needs to be supported by the Word of God.

32   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
August 11th, 2007 at 7:19 pm

Jesus is our template. He was angry sometimes and he was compassionate sometimes. It was Joan of Arc that claimed she was channeling God’s anger.

And of course God’s love is bandied about and misrepresented. If you believe Ken shows God’s love or any humility than so be it. We all have a tendency to accuse and excuse according to our own perspectives. I reiterate, if Kimball spoke the way Ken does you would accuse him of being abrasive.

33   amy    
August 11th, 2007 at 9:41 pm

It would be easier to have this discussion if it wasn’t Ken-personalized. Is abrasiveness okay according to scripture IF one is actually talking about false prophets? I think it is, according to the scriptures I’ve cited, and others as well.

There were certainly people in scripture who were used to communicate God’s wrath – not just in words, but in actions. Both his followers, and those who were his enemies.

34   chris    http://agendalesslove.wordpress.com
August 13th, 2007 at 10:20 am

It’s seems to me that their is a huge difference between what Ken, Ingrid, and others are doing to the evangelical church, (they attack everyone who isn’t their particular bent of orthodoxy not just emergent) and what Paul said and did in the New Testament. Paul personally established each and everyone of the churches he wrote to. He had an obligation to call them out and keep them on track. Equally Paul lived and wrote with a transparency and humility. Ken has not established the churches he lobs attacks against nor does he live with humility or transparency.

Additionally Ken repeadetly states that he is a “pastor/teacher annointed by God” which means he is called to a higher standard…Titus anyone?

Finally Ken uses the standard of the Law to judge others, and well, scripture is pretty clear he is obligated to keep the whole law then. Not just the pieces he finds convenient for bolstering his stance and argumentation.

I’m in for fasting as well. Just let me know

35   Alex Jordan    http://jordansview.blogspot.com
August 17th, 2007 at 12:21 pm

Having read the recent editorial in CT by Aikman on “Attack Dogs of Christendom” (a pretty harsh title and implied characterization) and also being familiar with Ken Silva at the Apprising Ministries website, I believe both have some valid points.

No doubt that civility, courtesy, graciousness and love all ought to mark the speech of Christian communicators. At the same time, I can understand the urgency and even the frustration of those who feel it is their duty as Christians to point out what they see as error in the theological understanding of particular ministries, errors which may lead those under the care of those ministries into gross error.

I think that defending sound doctrine is biblical, legitimate and important, and particularly in these days of political correctness and tolerance, when taking a vocal, public stand on principle is often seen as someone being “hateful”.

Now can our tone be respectful and gentle, even as we are pointing out errors? I believe so. But can there are be a place for righteous anger against those who mislead through error, or even for sarcasm that underscores how wrong some errors may be? I think this is true as well.

For anyone interested, I have written a piece on my blog Jordan’s View, titled The Age of Tolerance Calls for Bold Proclamation of Truth, which speaks on these same issues in more detail.