the new whipping boy…
I feel incredibly bad for Dan Kimball, who seems to be CRN’s new (and possibly most undeserving) whipping boy. It is amazing that the watch doggies can still say that he is “preaching a “vague and perverted†gospel.†This may be a strong effort to save face from past mishaps, but non the less it seems incredibly unmerited. However, in this latest attack, I am having a hard time following what the author really believes on the subject. First me makes the claim above
Suffice to say at this point I have spoken my opinion from my own Christian convictions that I believe Kimball is preaching a “vague and perverted†gospel. (emphasis mine)
But then goes on to say
But it is also true that I explained to him how it is not a clear message when someone outlines their views as being orthodox, which Kimball does do, but then turns around and openly aligns himself with Emergent men who clearly are not. (emphasis mine)
I guess I am confused… which is it? Is he preaching a perverted gospel, or is he being orthodox, but just aligns himself with others that these watch doggies disagree with? The writer goes on to use his own life as an example. This author is a member or the Southern Baptist Convention, but because he is very vocal that most of what they do is unbiblical, he is in the right. He says
If I see heresy and apostasy coming into the SBC then I am bound as a minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ to speak out against it, publicly oppose it, and to defend proper doctrine. And the record is very clear that this is exactly what I am doing.
But it seems to me that your orthodox doctrinal statement would naturally clash with the doctrine taught by heretical leaders and immediately speak out for truth. You see, there are two ways to preserve truth… proclaim it openly and honestly (as Kimball does) or go around and attack those who you believe are perverting it (as this author does). While the latter is sometimes necessary, it seems that the former would be the best and most profitable option. Then again, men like Kimball, McManus and Bell have already publicly disassociated themselves with the emergent movement. So the point seems null and void.
The last idea presented in the article is the belief that anything other than reformed theology is vague and unbiblical. Those familiar with the watch doggie theology will know what this is all about. I once was a 5 pointer, and made my beliefs known at any opportunity I got. Even still, I would never speak out against my non-reformed brothers and sisters, calling them vague and perverted. I saw that their theology was based in scripture and that the two schools of thought really didn’t affect our mission or our love for an almighty God.
In general the article says this
- Dan Kimball is Orthodox and not doctrinally vague, BUT
- Dan Kimball aligns himself with the Emerging movement, AND
- the emerging movement is heretical because they are not reformed, THERFORE
- Kimball is doctrinally vague because he doesn’t speak out against leaders in the emerging movement (even though he has publicly said he is not part of the movement)
You do the logic. Or could the real reason be
- Kimball made them look like a fool, SO
- Rather than apologize, the watch doggies will say anything to save face.
August 10th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
I read that missive and thought that the real reason they didn’t like Kimball was because he didn’t take a stand against Rob Bell, not because he didn’t preach the gospel. It was almost as if the critics admitted Kimball believed what they believed.
It’s kinda scary that I believe in my heart 99% of Silva’s doctrinal statement on Apprising.org. I’d change the wording of the inerrancy bit to give wiggle room to Mark 16, but other than that, I believe what Ken believes.
August 10th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
Where has Kimball said he’s not a part of the movement? He wrote Emerging Church and Emerging Worship.
All he’s said is that he doesn’t speak on behalf of all Emergent preachers. He is, however, very much Emergent (with a capital “E”).
August 10th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
we have said many time here that there is a HUGE difference between emergING and emergENT. it’s amazing that three letters do to a word.
August 10th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
I’ve often wished one of them would change their name.
August 10th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
It’s a pretty blatant case of hypocrisy. Ken can stay officially connected to and ordained by what he himself calls the “rapidly aspostasizing” SBC, but Dan has the wrong friends so he’s preaching another gospel.
Yeah, right.
August 10th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
Did the original post change? I could have sworn it said Emergent before…
I understand and respect the difference, but I was unaware Kimball had disassociated with Emergent. As far as I am aware, he is a part of the big E Emergent movement.
August 10th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
I didn’t change the post.
look… the idea is that the watch doggies have created a false definition of what the emerging movement is. They place Mcmnaus, Bell, Kimball, Jone, Driscoll, Padget, McLaren, ect. into that catagory. The obvious problem with that is they all have differing views on certain issues. I equate it with sayng “You are a fundamentalists. Fundamentalists are abortion bombers and homophobic. So, you must be wrong.” You can’t lump everyone into a catagory and say “they all do this or that!”
August 10th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
Right.
But Kimball hasn’t disassociated from the Emergent Movement. He is one of the rocks of the Emergent Movement. That’s all I’m saying homeslice.
I’m pro-emerging and mostly pro-Emergent. I’m on your side, I just want to make sure we have factual articles!
August 10th, 2007 at 4:34 pm
Todd,
My understanding for awhile has been that Dan (and Mark Driscoll) both had distanced themselves from Emergent Village - which has become synonymous with the EmergENT Church - and that EmergING (as terminology) has come about primarily by distinctions Dan and Mark (and others) have made to distinguish between a very small subset (EV) and the whole.
The whole Wiki article on the EC has changed around recently, but I recall following links from there which gave that impression, as well…
August 10th, 2007 at 4:38 pm
Also, just to note - on the AM/C?N article, itself - we’re basically dealing with a convoluted Guilt-by-Association (GBA) fallacy here, which is not surprising, since it is a bread-and-butter tactic from the ODM crowd…
August 10th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
In April 2007 Emergent Villiage released Emergent Manifesto of Hope that prominently featured Dan Kimball.
Also, he is speaking at Emergence 2007, an Emergent Village sponsored event.
August 10th, 2007 at 7:50 pm
This post was a little vague with the “wingding” font for a while… but now that I can read it… I agree.
I am planning on taking this week (while I am on vacation fishing at Flathead Lake) to pray about taking a day to fast and pray specifically for Ken Silva.
The idea so far is whether you agree with him or not, to pray that God abundantly bless him…
If he can hear Gods voice, we all will win in the end.
If not, well then we know what he really is.
So?
Let me know what you think… I have a post at my blog about this.
Be Blessed,
iggy
August 10th, 2007 at 7:56 pm
Iggy - I cannot pray that God will abundantly bless him. He is not my enemy, he is a wayward brother. The Scriptures are clear about that, so my prayer will be that God breaks him so He can use him.
I will also pray that God gives me a supernatural love for him and others like him. In my own strength I fall way short.
August 10th, 2007 at 8:54 pm
Rick,
The Scripture states: “”But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.”
I have been hated, cursed and mistreated… and I intend to bless Ken.
In that God when he blesses one, must humble them… for He resists the proud, I think that to pray a prayer of blessing on him will be the most effective.
And also, “God told me to.” ; )
Blessings,
iggy