In The Interest of Openness
Posted by admin on Nov 19th, 2007
2007
Nov 19
Ken has been emailing me, and has recently stated his preference for publishing all of them. So here you go. There’s everything with nothing held back or edited. Start at the bottom and work your way forward for chronology, the bit from Chris Lyons was emailed to me by Ken, for some reason.
Edit:
The reason I posted this was because Ken let me know in his final email that he was going to post them himself and I wanted to make sure they were posted un-edited and without commentary.
November 19th, 2007 at 6:03 pm
“Pastor-client” privilege! I about fell off my chair when I saw that in Ken’s email!
First of all, I can’t say I’ve heard it put in those terms before, but anyway it’s meant to provide parishioners with an assurance of confidentiality, not a way to cover pastors’ butts. Secondly, I don’t how many times I’ve seen Ken post the content of email conversations on AM or C?N.
This just keeps on getting better and better. Maybe I’ll make some popcorn…
November 19th, 2007 at 6:18 pm
Tim, I think I might agree with Ken on this. I think you might have possibly maybe missed the point of what Ken was saying because I’m not sure that it might be the way he writes that he doesn’t even know what he’s saying. That hurt me just trying to write that.
Maybe that’s why he doesn’t get what other people are trying to communicate. Somebody should make a Babel fish type site for translating Silva speak and other watchdoggies. Maybe they could even get their own translation of the Bible. Seriously though. I’m picking up completely different wavelengths of thinking/communicating when it comes to the watchdoggies vs. most of us.
November 19th, 2007 at 7:05 pm
Yep, pastor/parishioner privilege can be forfeited by the parishioner (not the other way around). Same goes for attorney/client privilege. If the parishioner wishes to divulge, so be it. The pastor doesn’t have that right though.
November 19th, 2007 at 7:13 pm
‘The disclaimers added to the end of emails are not legally binding…
from: http://www.emaildisclaimers.com/#Whatare
In most states, the clergy-penitent privilege applies only to (1) communications (2) confidentially made (3) to a minister (4) acting in a professional capacity as a spiritual adviser.
Not that we needed this info…but I know Pastor Silva lurks here and since he doesn’t allow comments on his own site…
Enjoy that today.
November 19th, 2007 at 7:14 pm
the second quote is from:
http://www.churchlawtoday.com/newminlesson.php?146
November 19th, 2007 at 7:50 pm
All I saw in those emails were useless banter. There was nothing in there that was really useful guys. It just made me go…”uh….”. Though I think the pastor/client remark says something….something’s just not right about that. Can’t quite figure it out though…
It was kinda tabloidish to me. The whole email thing.
Just an opinion, since this has nothing to do with God lol.
Joe
November 19th, 2007 at 7:53 pm
I regret that comment I just made. It wasn’t useless to you two, but for me, I just guess I didn’t get it. Sorry
Joe
November 19th, 2007 at 8:00 pm
Joe C,
The reason I posted it was because Ken had told me he would post it and I wanted to make sure that it was posted un-edited and without commentary.
November 19th, 2007 at 8:09 pm
Oh okay Tim, yeah that’s a good idea. I didn’t mean to come across rude, that was just my gut reaction. Perhaps I was expecting ‘more’. That’s no good of me.
-dust and ashes-
Joe
November 19th, 2007 at 8:10 pm
Christian,
I’ve written in other places that watchdoggies have the inability to understand non-watchdoggies, it could extend to their writing as well.
November 19th, 2007 at 10:46 pm
I just read Ken’s article on Tim. Apparently Tim is now the emodiment of the merging of all the movements Ken speaks out against. Wow. Well, Tim, your in it now.
Also, Tim, would you have posted any part of an e-mail if Ken had humbly asked you to keep the conversation between the two of you instead of that lame, cheesy, and otherwise innapropriate disclaimer? You can tell me, I won’t tell, I promise.
November 19th, 2007 at 11:38 pm
Christian,
Probably. At the least I would have told him otherwise. But really, any emails concerning a publicly posted piece of writing isn’t exactly “private”. I just have to wonder why ken’s so obsessed with not having his conduct publicly scrutinized.
November 20th, 2007 at 7:25 am
Come on kids, this isn’t the play-ground any more! Both Tim and Ken need to grow up if this is the kind of childish games they play with each other, and don’t excusing it by saying “but Sir, he did it first!”, it doesn’t make you sound any more grown-up!
November 20th, 2007 at 8:07 am
Ian,
To a certain extent I agree with you, however, Ken has had some major problems with the truth in the past, and I wanted to keep him honest (to the extent that’s possible) by posting all of the source material.
November 20th, 2007 at 6:09 pm
Not to beat a dead horse…well shoot….ok…here goes…
Why would someone who claims to be doing the work of the Lord, who claims that Jesus himself tells him what to say, need to hide behind a ‘Pastor-Client privilege disclaimer?
Not trying to be difficult…just wondering.
Color me puzzled
November 20th, 2007 at 6:23 pm
Because I am purposefully pretending that Mr. Silva does not exist, I cannot go view the emails.
Because they don’t exist.
You know, postmodern reality and all that.
November 20th, 2007 at 6:32 pm
I am putting this disclaimer on all my e-mails:
Having received and read this e-mail you are now bound to represent me to others as the most spiritual person you have ever corresponded with. Any departure from this policy will result in me verbally disemboweling you in public.
Agree ( )
Disagree (This is not an option.)
November 20th, 2007 at 6:48 pm
Another thing about “privilege” according to the actual law:
only the “clergy” is bound by the privilege.
If the “penitent” desires to break it they are free to, but privilege is designed to protect the “clergy” from being forced to testify in courts of law.
That’s the point of privilege.
Now “confidentiality” that’s something else…
But to this whole debacle with Pastor-Teacher Silva:
1. Tim is not seeking spiritual advice from him.
2. Pastor Silva is not his “pastor”
3. Clergy-penitent is not some absolute category.
4. Pastor Silva gave no opposition to making statments public
5. Statements to the contrary came in the form of a lame “disclaimer” half way through the exchange.
6. You can’t unring a bell
7. He knows his side of the exchange makes him look pretty silly
8. Eat spam
9. My wife HOT!!!
10. DUDES!!!
11. Happy Turkey Day!
November 20th, 2007 at 6:52 pm
Anyone who says things in an e-mail that they would not want others to read doesn’t have the brains God gave a goose.
November 20th, 2007 at 8:42 pm
Wow, you go away for a few days and I’m not even sure what to say. Ken really needs a refresher on Pastor/Congregant law. You can’t bind someone in an unsolicted email. This is a new low for him. I mean how does that logic work? The other thing about this little law is that it is the pastor that cannot break the confidence. The person being counseled can say whatever he/she wants. Technically, if this were covered under pastor/client or conselor/client privelige Ken is the one who has broken trust adn confidence and would be the one who is legally responsible. And yes, Ken or Jim Burblitz whoever is reading these comments I can show you the law that Tim could sue you under if you so desire.
Happy Thanksgiving.
November 20th, 2007 at 8:44 pm
P.S. Tim, I can also show you those laws and give you the phone number of a good friend of mine who is a lawyer.
Happy Festivus!
November 20th, 2007 at 10:42 pm
Speaking of penitent people…
In Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, only the penitent man could pass.
The others lost their heads.
November 20th, 2007 at 11:23 pm
It’s a festivus for the rest of us!
Happy Festivus!
November 21st, 2007 at 12:20 am
Ken is psychotic!…
There I said it! I feel so free now…
OK, but I am still praying for him to come out of his kingdom of Id and return to The Kingdom of God. And that is not meant as a put-down.
iggy
This post is subject to the legal copyrights and legalities that legal copyrights and legalities apply in the commenter/poster and pastor/dog protection law of Ca. that states “It’s illegal for dogs to “get it on†within 500 yards of a church.” In that this is used in an improper way and appears somewhere deemed improper then the core of the planet will implode and cause a big poof in the cosmos which might make those in other galaxies to go… “oh my”.
November 21st, 2007 at 12:29 am
Iggy…
You slay me.
In Oklahoma we have a law that says you can’t hunt whales.
In Oklahoma.
I am protected under that law, under the Joe/Whale relational clause of non disclosure/killing of the whale.
I am not “Joe”, he is a doppleganger, I am “Joe C”.
November 21st, 2007 at 4:13 pm
As I am the accused in question what the heck is a “doppleganger?”
November 22nd, 2007 at 10:35 am
So come on now Joe C. what is a doppleganger?
November 22nd, 2007 at 12:01 pm
Well I saw someone post as “Joe”, and I didn’t want them to think that was me, as I am Joe too. But Joe C.
So I called you my doppelganger in jest, to be funny.
Doppelganger: “n. A ghostly double of a living person, especially one that haunts its fleshly counterpart.”
I was saying you’re my evil ghostly twin, and not actually me. LoL….it was supposed to be funny. Oh well.
Have a great thanksgiving!!!
JOe
November 22nd, 2007 at 1:17 pm
LOL, After I posted the second time I thought about googleing the term. I would like to point out that I was here first.
Now, I’m being funny.
November 22nd, 2007 at 1:24 pm
Joe (both) The first shall be last!