Do you even know what blasphemy is?

Blasphemy is generally defined as a contemptuous, irreverent, or impious word uttered or written against God.

One could make the argument that the presumption on Mr. Silva’s part in not only inaccurately inflating his own worth, but then ascribing that fable to God Himself, in fact constitutes the kind of irreverence we might associate with blasphemy.

I have a question for you, Chris, P. Why are you so contemptuous and condescending in the name of Jesus? Is Jesus pleased when we act like jerks in His name?

Peace, my friend, peace.

Chris P.

Do you even know what blasphemy is?

Hating your brothers and sisters in Christ does qualify as blasphemy… so will you stop it?

iggy

And so much for boasting only in Christ.

The last thing I ever want to be pleased about is being a critic.

“I’m pleased that I’m the top poison-dispenser in town.”

“Yay.”

“Wow.”

“Kudos to you.”

Do you even know what blasphemy is?

I’ll admit that I purposefully chose not to qualify my remarks out of a morbid curiosity to see how long it’d take one of Ken’s defenders to come out of the woodwork. 4 minutes — that’s pretty impressive!

But, since the question was directed at me (not to decry those others who already responded), I’ll play along. M.G.’s explanation is spot on, but here’s my thoughts:

Merriam-Webster’s second definition is :

the act of claiming the attributes of deity

Silva has stated definitively:

It was God’s purposeful action to make AM [sic] a “leading” critic of Rob Bell.
God is pleased by this.

Even if both statements are 100% true (and I doubt that seriously), to state that they are so definitely and so cavalierly is to claim to have intimate knowledge of the mind of God.

Considering that God has told us that His thoughts are not man’s thoughts, and contrasts the difference as comparable to the distance between the heavens and the earth, I am hard-pressed on how one can claim such an intimate knowledge of the mind of God without also claiming divinity (or at least some of its attributes).

But, hey, I’m willing to back off the charge of blasphemy, if Ken will instead state that the canon is not closed and that his “missives” are divinely inspired. Of course, then he’s got that whole nasty thing about God adding “to him the plagues that are written in this book” to deal with.

Ken’s choice — I’m not picky.

I agree with you merry, it’s what Jesus would have us do.

Bless and do not curse.

Joe

From Ken’s post: “And although I am not here recommending the ministry of Mark Driscoll, in this instance below he is correct:”

Haven’t 73% (roughly) of Ken’s posts been based upon the fact that Rob Bell, Erwin McManus and Rick Warren quote from authors who have some amount of blasphemy in their theology?

I’ve read Ken’s “article” several times and I’m very confused.
My chief complaint with this “article” is not the content (which is so twisted it’s hard to comprehend) but the title. I’m getting rather tired of the euphinisms and slang that Ken uses.

Having grown up and loving deeply the people that live in urban areas I find his verbage to be demeening to them and me.

This may seem trivial to most but let me put another spin on it. If he were to say “Risten up…Reave you rife of sin” we would find him to be demeening to Oriental people. Likewise using urban terms to denegrate and belittle those who he disagrees with disparages those who have such terms in their venacular. Additionally he uses that language to point out how off base (in his opinion) the pastors he mentions are. So it could be assumed that he disagrees with all people who use that language.

Okay. Thanks for listening.

Chris, Not to downplay your grievance, but it appears that Ken just didn’t know what he was saying (in regards to the slang.) I mean, come on, look at how he wrote it. This would be one of those instances I would encourage somebody to just laugh at the ignorant old white guy (and I use all of those terms literally and not derogatively).

Everybody else. What Ken said was absolutely rediculous and over the line. However, I am intrigued by the two views expressed by Bell and Driscoll. I had listened to that Driscoll sermon before and agreed with everything (in so far as I remember) but I don’t know what Bell says. Where are you all at with this?

Christian,

Having just attended Bell’s tour stop in Indianapolis, I would say that we’re dealing with two definitions of “angry” here.

Bell’s talk is really a large pomo-friendly way of demonstrating why we who have accepted Jesus’ sacrifice are saved by faith and not by works.

First, he examines the origins of the sacrificial systems of pagan religions (in which sacrifice always required “more of what matters most” to every person, including sacrifice of their own children) – where you never knew how you stood with the gods and constantly had to make sacrifices to appease their anger.

Next, he examined YHWH’s “breaking” of that cycle/system with Abraham, where God provided the sacrifice, and where – in the sacrificial system – you always knew that you were at peace with God – because He said you were, and you believed it, as a result of the sacrifice.

Finally, he examined God breaking this cycle/system with Jesus, where God provided the sacrifice of what mattered most to Him – His Son – as a result of your sin. Because of this sacrifice, we who have accepted it are at peace with Him. He talks about repentance, and how it is not a “repaying” (starting up a “new” sacrificial system) to God, but turning from something that bring sin and guilt and self-destruction into our lives, because that is what God wants for us.

Basically, Driscoll’s video was from the perspective of those who have not accepted Jesus’ sacrifice. Bell’s talk was about the benefits of accepting Jesus’ sacrifice, because when we do, there is no more need for us to try to appease God.

chris,

I went and read his explanation and I don’t get it… so it is OK for him (be it only sarcastically) to use certain vernacular to “sound cool”… yet if someone actually speaks that way he can judge them and their motive but no one can do that to him as he is only being sarcastic…

I seem to not get or understand even what his beef is as he is simply fulfilling Romans 2 admonition to NOT JODGE OTHER IF YOU DO IT YOURSELF… so he comes across even a bigger hypocrite (if that is possible)…

So as far as more clarification, all I see is yes it clarified he has a huge plank in his eye…

OK I am sure someone will state so do I, yet there is a difference… I AM FULLY AWARE OF MY OWN PLANK and do not judge others by MY STANDARDS. In fact I do not judge or condemn Ken but call for him to realize that we are called to rebuke in gentleness and kindness and in all humility as we also can fall into the same sin.

iggy

BTW…. all above was said with a = ) and in love…

even though I yelled a lot… I do that when I talk and yelling does not always mean I am angry… just excited!

iggy

Joe C,

The rapture theory is the narrative based on Darby who received it from a 8 year old girl who had a vision of Jesus returning to earth which is commonly now called the Rapture. After her vision Darby began to “see” this “revelation” in scripture and added it into the text.

The Rapture to me is not true, i await the Resurrection which is clearly taught in scripture.

I do not condemn those who hold to the Rapture as true, but see that it leads to an escapist mentality and in the big picture contributes to peace not being attained in the Middle East with it’s form of National Zionism. I see the true Israel is Jesus and that all men by faith live in Him. I see that He is the Tree of Life we are grafted onto by Faith be we gentile or Jew, for God has made the two men one New Man in Christ Jesus.

Rapture Theory seems to be the most “me” based for of theology as in its core it is not about the return of Jesus, but about “me” getting out of here before Jesus completely destroys this creation and make a new creation which misses that this is a continuation as it was with the Flood of Noah. The earth will be the same earth but restored but made New and Better… as I will be the same person raised at the resurrection, only clothed in the incorruptible and imperishable.

Blessings,
iggy

It seems funny to me that Ken is obsessed with bringing down Rob Bell and misses that Marianne Williamson is much more destructive… it seems that Ken passes over one that is teaching “Doctrines of demons” and wants to attack a brother in the Lord…

makes me wonder which side Ken really is on…

That is why we need to pray even more for him.

iggy

From Ken on my blog:

Ken Silva said…
“This quote reminds me of the excitement at which Ken announced the link to his ministry on Rob Bell’s Wikipedia page.”

You know I was excited, do you? How would you knwo how I felt there Darren? Answer: You wouldn’t. Might want to be careful in your car-riding convos not to ascribe motives.

And…perhaps we might repaint the following opinion this way:

I wish [Darren} would focus his efforts on...[not judging pastors, a part of] whose mission [from the Lord] is to tear down [false teachers infesting] the church.

[Darren]: PRIDE ALERT!

To quote the great cultural philosopher and “Aphrodite of the Accordion”,Judy Tenuta: “It could happen”…even to you Darren. Maybe you are just looking into a mirror.
_________________________________

Sorry Ken. Had I done my research, I would of remembered that you were flattered, not excited.

From this article (http://www.apprising.org/archives/2006/08/rob_bell_and_ap.html), Ken says: “I was flattered to see that the Lord has seen fit for Apprising Ministries to show up on the Wikipedia entry for Emergent Church Pastor Rob Bell” So flattered is how you felt.