After all the back and forth with the watchdoggies over language issues I learned at least three things about them.

Their culture is their ultimate authority
Oh, I know they’ll say different, and they’ll tell anyone who will listen that scripture is their ultimate authority, but it’s simply not true. Their culture absolutely and totally dictates everything about their worldview, including their view of scripture. The hermeneutic they use to interpret scripture is their culture. Instead of using scripture to shape their culture, their culture shapes their interpretation of scripture, which is why you get such goofy “Biblical” teachings as pews are Godly, and chairs are not, and it’s also why you get such obvious contradictions such as condemning a song that uses PG-13 language while canonizing Luther who used much worse than PG-13 language.
What makes this so tragic is not just the abuse scripture suffers, but that there’s absolutely no chance of reform, after all, if your culture is handed down to you by God Himself, what could possibly need reformed?

Agreement is the only thing that matters
When it comes right down to it they don’t care what scripture says, they don’t care about unity in Christ, ultimately the only thing that matters is that you agree with them. If you agree with them you’re in and they’ll say good things about you and allow you to comment on their blogs (so long as you nod yes like a bobblehead). But the second a point of disagreement is reached you get the boot. Forget about commenting on blogs, emailing, or communicating in any way at all. In fact, forget about being addressed as anything less than dirt on the bottom of their shoe, which is directly related to the next lesson I learned about watchdoggies.

They value status over truth
Ever wonder why so many of their posts, comments, and miss-ives are peppered with “as a pastor and a teacher…”? It’s because they value status over truth. The question isn’t whether or not a position is true, the question is what is the status of the two sides. This is a great example:

The Nathan who works with Erwin McManus authored even Hitler has his tactics comparing CRN contributor Steve Camp, a fine upstanding Christian, to Hitler

See, the emphasis isn’t on whether or not the comparison is true, it’s on Camp’s status. We’ve commented before on the guilt by association tactics that are in almost constant use by watchdoggies, this is probably why. The point isn’t to get to the truth of the matter, it’s really an argument about the status of the individuals involved.

I think I’ve just been threatened by Ken Silva. I just received an email that says:

A polite admonition to be careful about running with the big dogs there Tim, you could get yourself hurt.


  • Share/Bookmark
This entry was posted on Monday, November 19th, 2007 at 3:15 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
+/- Collapse/Expand All

28 Comments(+Add)

1   nate    
November 19th, 2007 at 3:46 pm

What’s funny is, on Mike’s blog I believe, one of his commenters actually said that Luther wouldn’t qualify to be a pastor because of the language he used.

Go figure.

Their culture is their ultimate authority

True on some things. The way church should be is dictated by a desire to be “unlike the world”, the way their speech should be is dictated by what the culture deems crude, etc. But as far as other things, they do in fact look to scripture as their guide, misquoted and mistranslated as it may be.

Agreement is the only thing that matters

True, indeed. It’s almost as if they wield the Bible and the church (little c) as a means by which to hold authority over people. That kinda sounds a little like what Luther was fighting against during the Reformation.


For the most part, aside from the slight hyperbole, this post is spot-on.

2   nate    
November 19th, 2007 at 3:50 pm

Oh, I might add …

It’s funny how their willing to be unlike the world in the chairs they sit in, the words they use, and the way they dress, but it doesn’t bother them that they drive the same brand of automobile, the same brand of clothes, and speak the same language as their culture.

The same goes for in the church. Lighting systems, theater seats, and guitars … all wrong … but microphones, florescent lights, and pianos (all of which are used by the world every day) are ay-OK ;-P

What gives?

3   nc    
November 19th, 2007 at 4:21 pm

This article points out the brilliant tactics of these people.

They accuse others of what they themselves actually are guilty of.

Happy Turkey Day to all!
Even to culturally compromised hypocrites, status worshipping hypocrites who bash people with status they just don’t like, christian celebrity has-beens turned “theologians”, and those who desire to dominate others and bring them into unity regardless of the truth.


And by the way…

My wife is HOT!!!!

Eat more spam….
while urinating on the blood of the reformers…
except for Luther who isn’t qualified to be a pastor…


4   nc    
November 19th, 2007 at 4:31 pm

“the big dogs”?

“get hurt”?

5   Phil Miller
November 19th, 2007 at 4:36 pm

Wow, sounds like Ken might make you an offer you can’t refuse next.

6   nc    
November 19th, 2007 at 4:38 pm


Call me if you get any fish wrapped in newspaper, or horsehead shows up in your bed.

I’ve got a mean recipe for parchment steamed fish.
the horsehead? we’ll mount it.

7   Tim Reed
November 19th, 2007 at 4:38 pm

That’s hilarious you said that, because I almost made a mafia joke.

8   nate    
November 19th, 2007 at 4:46 pm

methinks Ken needs to keep his browser and email client closed.

It seems as if, after all the ridiculous accusations that people here are “angry”, Ken might be getting a bit ruffled himself.

If he is indicating some sort of retaliation, he should really be aware that the Bible’s not too keen on that. But of course, God may have given him a new “mission” that supersedes Scripture. Whispered it in his ear, ya know.

Looks like Ken reads this blog a little more than he’d like to admit, eh?

9   nc    
November 19th, 2007 at 4:46 pm

I’m going to name my first born son, Kensilva.
One word: Kensilva.

He’s persistent.
A Pastor-Teacher.
A Big Dog.
He’s friends with Steve Camp and advisor to Ingrid Schlueter.

What more could I ask for?
My child named for True Christian royalty.

10   Bruce Gerencser
November 19th, 2007 at 5:03 pm


Was that a “real” email from Ken Silva? It is hard to believe but I am sure it is. All I can say is Wow.

Unless, they are going to beat you up how are they going to hurt you? Call you bad names? (worse than Hitler) Do they have secrets on you that they are going to expose (like you are really a cross dressing pastor of a Metropolitan Church) Maybe those big dogs will fire up their blog programs and eat you alive.(sticks and stones may break your bones but names will never hurt you)

Or maybe the big dog is really God and this is a subtle, or not so subtle way of telling you “God is gonna git you”

Bruce, who is still shaking his head…

11   nc    
November 19th, 2007 at 5:07 pm


Did you respond?

12   Tim Reed
November 19th, 2007 at 5:08 pm

No, he sent me another email afterwards threatening me with another miss-ive about the Christian ethic of posting emails. I did respond to that one by quoting himself back to him.

13   Tim Reed
November 19th, 2007 at 5:11 pm

It is pretty amazing. The really funny part is he really expected that threat to intimidate me. Oh, also along with his disclaimer at the bottom of his email:

The information herein is protected by the pastor-client privilege and is therefore is to remain strictly confidential. It is intended for review and private use only by the designated recipient named above. This email and its contents may not be reproduced in any manner without the expressed written permission of Ken Silva and Apprising Ministries.

I find it interesting that he refers to anyone he pastors as his “client”, which considering his earlier pleas for money tells us what he thinks being a pastor is all about.

14   nc    
November 19th, 2007 at 5:18 pm

The wild and wooly world of Pastor Silva!
That wacky boy!

It’s set up like he’s a state-licensed therapist…he must have picked up from his own.

15   Neil S    
November 19th, 2007 at 5:26 pm

OK – I’ve been gone quite a while and decided to stop in and see what’s up…

Did someone really make a judgment call on the preferred seating of someone else?

No is that petty are they?

Neil S.

16   Christian    
November 19th, 2007 at 5:36 pm


When did you start seeing Ken as your Pastor? I wonder if he did that because he followed you to your presonal blog and read up all about you and how you despise the copyright bruhaha going on these days. I hope so. Because otherwise that is just really, really, really sad. And illogical. And inapropriate. And…

Now, is that the information within the fine print, or the information within the whole letter? Because you could argue either way.

17   Christian    
November 19th, 2007 at 5:39 pm

Actually, shouldn’t that info be at the top of the e-mail? Or maybe you should have to click “I agree” before you can open the e-mail.

Oh my. I just realized how blatantly cultural his disglaimer is and how he totally (not just partially) proved your post by sending it.

18   Tim Reed
November 19th, 2007 at 5:40 pm

I thought the same thing.

Also, he became my pastor about the same time I felt bound by ridiculous disclaimers in the bottom of emails.

19   nc    
November 19th, 2007 at 5:43 pm

The man has no standing to assert any kind of “privilege” with Tim.

Pastor Silva is the poster boy for a needed reassessment of “free church” ordination procedures.

I just wish he would worry about his own flock. Not some fake internet “flock”.

If anyone under the age of 40, was affiliated with emergent and launched an online faith community, he would eat them alive for being a false church.

but…if you have ministry “your master” gave you, then you’ll just have to bow to any claim “in the Lord”, O Beloved Children.

But God Bless him this Thanksgiving!

20   inquisitor    
November 19th, 2007 at 5:50 pm

Maybe instead of wasting time talking bad about him we could pray for him. But then, how would we get our kicks? Right guys???

Maybe we could be like Christ and not give our attention and time to the “haters” and simply do the work of the Father.

But again, that’s not as fun as ganging up on some guy that we don’t like.

21   inquisitor    
November 19th, 2007 at 5:53 pm

I guess that’s why the post about God’s love only received 2 comments and all the watchdog posts get all the attention. Seriously go look at the post about God’s love that would have given all of us a great opportunity to give God the glory that He’s due. See how much attention was given to God. Why does Silva get more of our attention than God??? Strange huh?

22   Tim Reed
November 19th, 2007 at 5:54 pm

Maybe instead of wasting time talking bad about him we could pray for him. But then, how would we get our kicks? Right guys???

Iggy managed an entire day devoted to praying for Silva.

23   nate    
November 19th, 2007 at 6:01 pm

Funny, I don’t hear you saying that to CRN? Why do they get a forum to criticize, but are immune to it themselves?

24   Chris L
November 19th, 2007 at 6:18 pm

A polite admonition to be careful about running with the big dogs there Tim, you could get yourself hurt.

Maybe he means that Satan’s upset with you?

25   Chris L
November 19th, 2007 at 6:22 pm


I think I would add a fourth lesson:

Never Admit You’re Wrong.

While it’s OK, and faux-humble to admit to fallacy in the abstract, never admit you’re wrong or publish anything to that affect. Either ignore your error, or arrogantly run with it and compound it. If, however, your error is too obvious, it is better to pull an article and pretend it never existed than to leave it out there as a target for criticism that even your staunchest supporters might recognize…

Just an idea for additions…

26   inquisitor    
November 19th, 2007 at 6:28 pm

nate, I’m not talking to CRN right now I’m talking to you.
Tim, that’s great that Iggy spent a day praying for Ken. I guess that’s all he’s worth huh? Maybe we could pray for him 2 days?

I remember a little bunny that said, “if you can’t say anything nice, don’t say anything at all”

It’s not okay to bash anyone simply because you prayed for him for a day. In fact, if you prayed for him 1,000 days, you don’t ever earn the right to bash him.

Secondly, why does he get more attention than God?

Why do you spend so much time deconstructing Ken and others while the post about God’s love goes unnoticed? Why do you like to say negative things about Ken more so than you like to say good things about God?
God only gets 2 comments, 1 of them mine. The other one consisting of one word. “wow”

The proof is in the pudding, or in this case the lack thereof.

27   nate    
November 19th, 2007 at 6:55 pm

I’ve actually struggled with this myself in the past … what to do when people openly and publicly propagate either untrue, unloving, or unkind articles and or sentiments about Christians.

Truth is, I thought it was a good idea to just remain quiet and hope they go away, pray for them, etc. But there’s a time to pray, and a time to take action. This I have realized, and this site has helped me do so.

Fact is, with this issue, keep in mind that Mike Ratliff posted the first article that criticized the song in question. In doing so, he and his commenters made some pretty hefty accusations. As a result, I, as well as many others I’m sure, felt it necessary to rebut those accusations. They were untrue, and not founded in either scripture or sound logic.

The topic is controversial, so it gets lots of opinions. When a person has an opinion about a controversial topic, they usually voice it, as is the custom around this blog (and the purpose). Plus, writing a comment on a story you agree with can be a bit redundant.

Make sense?

28   nc    
November 19th, 2007 at 6:58 pm

Inquisitor, good questions…for EVERYONE.

I think looking at God’s love is key.

But this site is about “injustice” acted in the Name of God.

It does seem a little disengenuous to make an issue here–A place that would have no need to exist if people like yourself turned their questions on the likes of CRN, et. al.

Please don’t attribute motives to this forum that can not be born out.

Proof in the pudding?

Try that over there with Ken, Ingrid and the such.

Do you think it is ok for people to be able to straight out lie about people in the name of God with impunity?

This site exists because of it…