a response to criticism
Over at Apprising Ministries, Ken Silva responds to a letter from a reader. Here are a few excerpts that are quite telling of his attitude when it comes to his status
The following is based on an unsolicited email I received here at Apprising Ministries. Please understand that I do not think any pastor-teacher is above reproach [insert typical Emerging Church whining here], etc. [emphasis mine]
What I wish to bring out is how easy, and I’ll argue arrogant as well, it is for people to simply disregard the teaching of someone like myself who has been studying the fields of apologetics, Comparative Religion and evangelizing non-Christian cults for 21 years….You said: “I was very surprised to see your negative views on Christian meditation in the article CHRISTIAN MEDITATION WITH MANTRA: DOM JOHN MAIN.” So let me put it another way: I am very surprised to see you so quick in attempting to instruct someone like me whom Jesus has called as one of His pastor-teachers. [emphasis mine]
My dad always told me that you could tell alot about someone based on how they respond to correction or constructive criticism. This correspondence to Apprising was in no way instructional or a harsh rebuke. It sounded like an honest reader that was trying to understand where Silva was coming from. Most of the email was actually the reader asking him questions. But, Ken strikes back with his lofty credentials and how a man of his status should not be quickly instructed. How did Silva know that this reader had not spend some time looking at the Apprising articles and made an educated and simply inquisitive inquiry. On top of that, he sends such mixed statements: no pastor is above reproach, but people should not instruct someone who is a pastor-teacher in this manner.
Anyhow, this all too telling of the attitude of both Apprising and CRN:
We are educated, anointed and experienced, therefore we get to criticize whoever we want, whenever we want. And, you better not say anything about it.
June 30th, 2008 at 10:54 pm
I myself find it telling the emails that Ken chooses to respond to in this fashion. I’m sure he gets much more email than this on a daily basis, and I’m sure much of it is more pointed than this, asks more questions, is more direct, etc.
June 30th, 2008 at 11:05 pm
Funny thing is I am also a pastor/teacher at my church… we have over 100 people and growing. Yet, I take seriously someone who will take time to voice a concern about me, my teaching or ministry.
The thing that is frustrating is that Ken wields these titles as some elitist entitlement that he is above reproach, when the scripture states we are held to an even higher standard.
Which again, Ken exchanges sound biblical teachings for his high and holy opinion…
iggy
June 30th, 2008 at 11:13 pm
I will add this…
Ken states that it is negative to address another professional like a lawyer. That is a huge red herring. Often if you do not question a Dr or lawyer, you will get screwed. The point Ken is making is that we need to not question authority. In the past if I have not questioned what my Dr was doing I might have died. I am not being over dramatic, I was prescribed this “great new medicine” that about dropped me until I stopped it myself.
To me this is one of the core issues and proves what this site, myself and others state over and over… Ken and the other ODMs place themselves above reproach (though Ken states this is not true, he negates that statement with everything else he states!) and they are unaccountable. What so-called accountability there is are ?yes-men that are all of the same mind so nothing is challenged.
OK, you can now get ready for the Ken Silva whine fest coming soon!
iggy
July 1st, 2008 at 1:46 am
I am also a pastor/teacher/singer/guitar player/usher/cleaner at my church… we have over 300 people and growing. . . . . .
I had this professor at college, Dr John Howell, who would take time out of class to listen to students’ comments or stories without interrupting them. Some of those students where not very bright in my eyes. I really got irritated and one day I asked him why he allows it. What he said changed my attitude on listening to people and what I thought about their intelligence, training or background. He said that he believes that the Holy Spirit can speak through anyone He chooses and especially through born again Christians. Here was this highly trained theologian that listened to and confessed to learning from 18 year old students.
I guess if God can speak through a donkey, He can speak through anyone He chooses, even Eugene Roberts or Ken Silva.
July 1st, 2008 at 6:05 am
Ken has a unique way of putting things. This sentence had his prints all over it:
It has a little Joseph Smith quality to it.
I get e-mails too and never publish them, especially the kind like that one. The guy is just asking some questions and seemed to be genuine, it surely didn’t seem to be the kind you could describe as proof that you get attacked for standing for truth.
I got a chuckle out of this post by Ken. This sentence made me laugh as well.
We all give our opinions about everything. Even our Biblical interpretations are opinions unless God is confused. When you are a genuine man of God, you never need to remind people. As a matter of fact, the office of pastor/teacher has taken a corporate feel to it in America.
Imagine a flock of sheep moving in a certain direction, and one little sheep walks to the back of the flock and says to the shepherd, “Why are we going this way?”
The shepherd, who is supposed to love this sheep so deeply that he gives his life for him, says
“Hey, how arrogant are you to question me? I am a shepherd, called of God, and I don’t answer to you. Get back in line! I hope this helps”.
Not many real shepherds in today’s western culture. Almost every church when looking to call a pastor, provides the salary package to a prospective candidate for him to consider before he decides. What does that tell you? It tells you it is a decision of pragmatism.
Ask John and Scott over at Verum Serum about their “wonderful” experience with a pastor who considered his authority more important than the welfare of his sheep. He was blind to the fact that the welfare of the sheep WAS his authority.
Scrooge to Marley - “You always were a good man of business”.
Marley - “MANKIND WAS MY BUSINESS!!”
Somewhere along the way we’ve forgotten that part of being a shpeherd. The best we can come up with is
Pitiful…
July 1st, 2008 at 6:13 am
He starts the post with:
Then completely contradicts it with his usual line of defense: “you’re criticizing me for criticizing X, so you’re just as bad as me”!
This is such a playschool level argument, and a total brick wall to any kind of questioning or discussion. The logical implication is that it is only he that has the authority to criticize. In other words, he is above reproach…
July 1st, 2008 at 6:23 am
ianmcn - I do not claim to be above reproach because I am a pstor/teacher, it’s because I am always right. Deal with it!
July 1st, 2008 at 6:37 am
Oh, thou greatest of all pastors and teachers, Rick Frueh. How fortunate are us lowly sheep that thou would even considereth us worthy to receiveth thouest greatest teaching. We feeleth the love to be over whelming coming through truth thouest doth speaketh
July 1st, 2008 at 6:57 am
OK, Gene, you have addicted me to the smile faces. Isn’t that sin?
July 1st, 2008 at 7:31 am
I will not give my own opinion on this but will only say what the Bible says.
July 1st, 2008 at 7:42 am
After having read Ken’s writings for the past several years (and in the early years agreeing which much he had to say) it became evident that Ken believes himself to be a modern day prophet along the lines of John the Baptist who hears directly from God. In the early days of Slice he began to write as if were hearing directly (literally) from God in real time. Many of his missives
started to begin with “it seemed good to the Lord and me today to . . .” for example. He was beginning to scare the children, so to speak. I even wrote an email to Ingrid expressing my concerns and she responded and recognized the problem and promised something would be done. Evidently it was, for he abandoned those types of comments on Slice and toned it down. However, if one reads carefully, you can still see signs of this perceived special relationship with God still appear from time to time in his writings.
I still agree with many of Ken’s foundational points, but his lack of mercy, grace and charity, ad homin attacks on those with whom he disagrees, and basic un-Christ like handling of the same have deeply troubled me to the point where I just don’t visit his website any more. I preceive he feels himself exempted from the New Testament scriptures dealing with kindness, mercy, grace, etc., because he believes he has been given a special prophetic commission from God with a “free hand” to rain down invectives so to speak, in these “last days” sort of like on the lines of the Two Witness in Revelation. (Again, just a preception). Obviously, I don’t believe this is the case and so I find it all rather sad.
Note: It is odd, and in many respects, uncomfortable writing about a person who, in all likelihood, will be reading your comments. So Ken this is not a personal attack, just an observation, and as you are a public figure being discussed in a public forum this is just how it plays out. Weird, but no malice intended.
July 1st, 2008 at 7:48 am
A good observation, John, and Ken is not alone.
BTW John and others, what do you think of Ray Comfort from the Way of the Master speaking at a conference of extreme health and wealth Arminians? These guys are not just some tempered Assembly of God ministers, they are rabid prosperity heretics.
http://www.inspiringexcellence.org/IE08Speakers.htm
July 1st, 2008 at 8:01 am
John H,
Very well stated and I agree… though Ken would reel from me saying this I agree with much he states also. In fact many of the point “against” Rick Warren are part of the emerging conversation, yet we are a bit more generous about it. Some of the criticism he states about the emerging church I agree with yet he will not have a civil conversation about anything becuase in his mind he is more “right”-ous than the rest of us.
When I became under his radar, I would say that he had good things to say. I stated he could do greater things than he is now… yet it seemed he has deteriorated even further into his own mega-prophetic-mania.
My main criticism of Ken has been his lack of grace mercy and love for and to those he attacks in his writings. I listen to CARM.org every once in a while and though I disagree with Matt Slick’s conclusions, I rarely feel he is attacking rather he is critiquing and giving reason for his critics with the foundation of love.
That is the difference between a true discernment ministry and the typical ODM.
Ken has just become not only a satire of discernment ministries he mocks discernment and parodies himself.
iggy
July 1st, 2008 at 9:34 am
There is, of course, a lot of discourse in between the “…” and the “…” that I left out. I just wanted to point out why it is so easy for me to disregard the teaching of someone like Ken Silva.
As has been said before, there are times when I agree with Ken, but finding those nuggets of agreement is extremely difficult when you have to wade through sewage like the ad hominem attack on a brother in Christ Richard Foster.
Calling him a Guru, calling him a cult leader, calling him a False Teacher, is not only untrue - it makes it very very easy to disregard the rest of the missive, no matter how many years the author has been delivering them.
Neil
July 1st, 2008 at 9:43 am
John - I agree wholeheartedly with your comments.
A suggestion to the keepers of CRN.Info and Analysis:
Do you think perhaps that the time has come to slightly change the focus or identity of this blog? Do you really want to continue being the site of “Did you see what Ken did today?!?” There is a lot of talk around here of ODMs “beating a dead horse”. Haven’t you somewhat exhausted this constant railing against a very select few sites, the most prominent of which (especially gauging from your blog name) is Ken’s?
Iggy commented that Ken “mocks discernment and parodies himself”. If that is indeed true, at some point isn’t he best left alone? Is it truly edifying to continue the constant picking, piling on, and preching to the choir? It seems to me that there has developed perhaps a little bit too much glee and a sort of “one-upsmanship” (is that a correct way to say that?) as to who can find and post on the next grievance commited by Ken.
I do enjoy coming to this site and find some of the content and comments here to be profitable. I do find that the hosts of this site (and most commenters) are brothers (and sisters) in Christ from whom I can learn and who have a heart for following our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. I am not suggesting that this blog be discontinued. I am suggesting that a change of name, partial change in focus, and a reduction in posts such as this one may be appropriate. Nathan - I am not picking on this post per se. I am commenting on a pattern that I have observed.
Offered in Love by your brother in Christ.
July 1st, 2008 at 9:53 am
KEN SILVA: “I am very surprised to see you so quick in attempting to instruct someone like me whom Jesus has called as one of His pastor-teachers.”
RA: This is more than a little disturbing. It is cult-like thinking if there ever was any cult-like thinking. The pastor, teacher, leader, elder, governing body, or prophet is ALWAYS above instruction/correction from those who they deem NOT called by the Lord as a pastor-teacher, prophet, spiritual adviser, or whatever. “There is nothing new under the sun,” says Ecclesiastes. Indeed.
Moreover, Ken Silva seems enamored with the idea that he is called of God as a pastor-teacher. Or as he said in one post, he is a messenger of God:
It’s seems like Silva clings to his labels as a kind of exaltation to authority, in contrast to how Christ demonstrated servanthood. Calling himself the pastor-teacher seems to give him, at least in his own eyes, divinely imparted substance among the masses of the lowly, uncalled normal people.
Listen to how he uses his pastor-teacher title when, in context, no one really cares or is even asking about it (unlike, for example, if someone were to ask me: “What do you do for a living?” or “What qualifies me to make theological observations?” I would answer because I am a professional apologist).
I believe that Ken’s whole “ministry” can be summed up in this little gem from him regarding the Ted Haggard incident: “The American Church is dying and its dying because we are rotten to the core and the sum total of these rotten parts are the Church. For me this has very little to do with Ted haggard himself but rather with Jesus telling Christians in America they had now better be hot or cold because there is more spewing coming.”
I think that Silva has actually, in his own mind, set himself up as the one to do the spewing — i.e., the one called as “pastor-teacher” and “messenger” to bring down judgment on everyone and everything that doesn’t line up with his own personal, subjective take on what God himself is saying to him as pastor-teacher Ken.
Thank God we don’t live in either Medieval Europe or on 1600s New England. Suddenly, it’s not so difficult to see how the horrors of the witch trials and executions occurred, now is it?
BTW, pastor-teacher Ken, you’ve said you’ve been “specifically involved in Comparative Religion and apologetics for over 20 years.”
This sounds impressive, but also sounds a little odd to me because I’ve been in apologetics since 1989, the year I began working at the Christian Research Institute — and I never even heard your name until you got your little website a few years ago.
Until then, I never saw you at any apologetics conferences, never heard your name mentioned by other apologists, never saw any books on apologetics by you, no discernment articles in magazines by you, no tracts produced by you, no references to you whatsoever among the whole network of legitimate apologists and discerners out there. NOTHING of Ken Silva until the Internet gave you a voice.
And here’s a word to you about your claim: “Following my mentor Dr. Walter Martin the dialogue we have had with each other has been quite frank and seasoned in love.”
YOU, SIR, were not mentored by Dr. Walter Martin. I would venture to say that your exposure to Martin to date amounts to little more than:
And these things do not make someone a mentor to you. It only makes you a fan of them. I wish to God you WOULD have been mentored by Martin, or at least SOMEONE balanced and thoughtful, who would have been able to actually teach you what apologetics and discernment is all about.
Sorry for the rant, but you are hurting the sheep, dividing the Body, and slandering/accusing the brethren in the name of God — and it is terribly grievous.
R. Abanes
July 1st, 2008 at 10:00 am
What are the real concerns with spiritual formation? I have been reading Renovation of the Heart by Dallas Willard and have nothing contradicting Scripture thus far. Instead it is a very helpful book in as far not falling for the trap of works by just changing the behaviour but rather working together with God in the formation of one’s inner man.
I have been trying to read the stuff Ken and other ODM’s write on contemplative prayer and spiritual formation, but getting about halfway through the “guru”, “cult”, “roshi”, “quasi-unversalists”, “mystic”, “neo-pagan” and other name calling makes me nauseous and I stop reading.
Perhaps I am not spiritually mature enough for the meat of name calling, so can someone give me the concerns about renovating our hearts to the image of the risen Christ in milk form please.
July 1st, 2008 at 10:03 am
Eric has a point here…
July 1st, 2008 at 10:08 am
I have a hard time understanding what the real concerns are, also. I think it just stems from a “slippery slope” mentality that thinks if we do anything like the Catholics, it means we will eventually become exactly like them.
The other thing I can think of is that most Fundametalist, Reformed Christians are cessationalists, so they have a real aversion to anything described as mystical or supernatural.
July 1st, 2008 at 10:32 am
Richard,
*applauding* Bravo! Textbook ad hominem.
July 1st, 2008 at 10:35 am
“cessationalists” Not me.
I just have an aversion to false spirituality like that of the cult growing up around Roshi Richard Foster, which is definitely not of God.
July 1st, 2008 at 10:41 am
Richard,
Ken claims he was “mentored” by Walter Marting… a yes, it was through “tapes”… LOL!
This is how he dishonestly puffs himself up to sound more authoritative than he really is. Really it speaks more of his insecurities than anything else.
At first when we came across Ken he never mentioned it was on tapes, it was only after this site busted him he acknowledged it was “tapes” and not in person…
Now, Matt Slick was mentored… if I recall… yet he states that only in passing…
Ken has no formal training or education. He is 50-ish years old who is self taught and by that meaning he read only what he agrees with instead of really looking things.
I admire Walter Martin… and if the standard of “mentor-ship” is as low as Ken’s… I too have been mentored by Walter Martin… I had hours of tapes, many books and listened to hours of the Bible Answer Man… I also was “mentored” by Hank Hanegraaff and Ron Rhoads as well as David Hockings, and John MacArthur… Chuck Swindoll, Chuck Smith, and…
Again, by Ken Silva’s standard of mentor-ship… mostly I listened to tapes and a lot of Christian radio.
I am sure that Walter Martin would rebuke Ken… and not be wanting him to dirty his name by invoking it.
iggy
July 1st, 2008 at 10:46 am
Ken,
I’ve never seen anyone follow Richard Foster blindly like he’s some cult leader. Quoting someone’s book favorably hardly means you’re blindly following that person.
July 1st, 2008 at 10:48 am
Richard Foster… must follow… he has… donuts…. yummmmmmm…. ummmm…. waahh…
July 1st, 2008 at 10:50 am
EVD & Gene,
I see that we tend to run in cycles here, and I agree that we’ve got to balance things out. The site authors converse quite a bit behind the scenes, and we try to find some balance between digging into specific theological issues (which often get touched off by reading other blogs, ODM and non-ODM, or our own personal studies and meditation).
I’ve been tied down for a few weeks now, getting ready to head off on a vacation/mission trip this week, and I know some of the other authors are at a conference this coming week, as well. We have a number of theological topics we’re looking to delve into later this month, similar to the way we looked at Atonement a few weeks back. Those things take a bit longer, and a number of our posts tend to be reactions to the news of the day (be it ODM or not…)
Blessings,
Chris
July 1st, 2008 at 10:55 am
Wait, is Ken Foster really a Roshi in Zen Buddhism?
I had no idea. That can’t be good or honoring to God for a Christian to attain such a status.
July 1st, 2008 at 10:56 am
KS: *applauding* Bravo! Textbook ad hominem.
RA: Typical misuse of fallacy, appaently unaware of what it actually means. And predictably, did not address:
The truth hurts. Please verify by documentation your claims, particularly about having been mentored by Walter Martin.
MENTOR - “A wise and trusted counselor or teacher.” “An individual who provides independent support and advice to enable the candidate to realize their full potential and help establish their career.” “The critical role and responsibility assumed by an experienced and wise educator who agrees to help, build a relationship with, and facilitate the professional growth of one or more proteges. Mentors are to be models of effective teaching and of a very visible desire to continue to grow professionally, every day, and throughout the career.” “A trusted counsellor or guide.” “Person who acts as an adviser to a learner, especially used in work-place learning environments. The activity is called mentoring.”
KEN, please explain to us now, before the world, how Walter Martin fulfilled this personal role to you as your mentor. Otherwise, repent of lying and padding your credentials to lend yourself some air of credibility.
R. abanes
RAbanes
July 1st, 2008 at 11:00 am
“he read only what he agrees with instead of really looking things.”
Uh-oh, looks like Carlos got some repentin’ to do? How could he know that? Answer: He couldn’t.
Oh M.G., you busted me…not. I have said in numerous places Foster is a “Christian” Roshi, i.e. alleged spiritual master.
Plah-eeze. Foster’s being mastered by spirits and they ain’t the Holy One.
July 1st, 2008 at 11:02 am
Excedrin might help that for ya.
July 1st, 2008 at 11:06 am
Eugene,
We had a HUGE discussion on Foster a few weeks back. I’m not going there again. Perhaps you could do a search in the archives.
July 1st, 2008 at 11:07 am
I was mentored by Charnock but I must admit I fell asleep a few times so I might have missed something.
July 1st, 2008 at 11:08 am
Iggy, I am concerned at your ODM ’satire’ website. I have told you this repeatedly. I think is is wrong and injurious to the body of Christ. I am personally offended by it. I think it is wrong that you insult Ken Silva’s church on it. Oh yeah, and your pride is seeping through on this comment.. who ever said size was a proof of God’s blessing?
Iggy, you believe that you are above reproach, justifying your slanderous website. You are also held to a higher standard, one in which your false identity will be brought to light. I pray God has mercy. Talk about being a divisive person
Richard,
As one who enjoys your writings, even though I disagree with you on Rick Warren, the PEACE plan, etc, I am sincerely disappointed with your approach towards Ken. I think it is injurious to the body of Christ.
Eric V. says it well. This blog is nothing more than an attack medium towards those people which they disagree with. It is a stench in the nostrils of God, (IMHO) This site has become nothing more than what they claim to hate. It is not the church or Christians, or Christ they are defending, just their own, precious opinions.
July 1st, 2008 at 11:12 am
….I can’t help but noticing as I read through this that those who would defend Ken on this and even Ken himself have nothing to say about the actual OP. Why is that?
July 1st, 2008 at 11:14 am
Ken,
Friend, not everything is a fight and not everything is a bust. Regardless of what you have written elsewhere, here you used a specific Buddhist title, without clarification. I therefore sought clarification. End of story.
As for using imprecise titles that, at least in one instance led to some confusion, I leave that to you.
July 1st, 2008 at 11:14 am
Thank you for your opinion, PB - it’s not at all surprising, nor is it all that accurate, either.
July 1st, 2008 at 11:16 am
“nor is it all that accurate, either.”
Well, of course not. It is a dissenting opinion from that of CRN.Info. By default it is immediately dismissed as not factual here, we get it.
July 1st, 2008 at 11:17 am
pb,
then advocate for the shutting down of the “stench” of the ODM sites and then this site won’t have any purpose.
help CRN.info help you.
July 1st, 2008 at 11:18 am
By my above question what I mean to say is this: If someone were to publish something from my blog like this that demonstrates something about what I have written and concludes something about my intentions or character I would hope to do one of two things:
1. Recognize the truth in it and apologize, thanking a fellow brother or sister in Christ for pointing out a blindspot in my walk.
2. Expound on what I had said in such a way to clarify, so that the conclusion previously drawn might be refuted.
I see none of this. All I see is the person and those who defend him attacking the people for their bringing it up. Where I live that is nothing more than an admission to the truth of the OP.
July 1st, 2008 at 11:20 am
Does Emerging Eddie ring a bell, John???
July 1st, 2008 at 11:23 am
Chad,
I tried doing that several weeks ago. As a result, I got insulted, had my integrity questioned, and had the honor of Carlos aka Iggy aka Itodyaso making an insulting piece about me. So, when a Christian apologizes on this site, the people apologized to use it as a invitation to insult and ridicule. Thats okay, it just make them look bad. Where I live, that is just proof that the OP’s mean nothing when the authors do not live out the grace and love they claim to promote.
July 1st, 2008 at 11:24 am
John…Emerging Eddie…satirical emergent website slandering emergent leaders??? Sound familiar???
July 1st, 2008 at 11:25 am
pastorboy: I am sincerely disappointed with your approach towards Ken. I think it is injurious to the body of Christ.
RA: I have sought to reason with Ken, appeal to Ken, plead with Ken, correct Ken - to no avail. He is the one who began attacking others in the Body of Christ - not me. Everything I have stated has been a response.
Now, in this thread I call to the forefront several issues regarding Ken and his claims that relate to his place a pastor-teacher, apologist, and discerner suppoeldy mentored by the late Dr. Walter Martin. I have asked very clearly for him to substantiate his claims. I am still waiting for a real answer instead of just sniping, nasty, little barbs.
RAbanes
July 1st, 2008 at 11:25 am
Corey,
Please note the last date anything was written there. I don’t even know if that site is up any more!
Anyhow, people pointed out to me that it was disengenuous and offensive and would not allow me to do what the intent was because of it…so ,,,, I stopped posting.
Thanks for reminding me though.
July 1st, 2008 at 11:25 am
“Where I live that is nothing more than an admission to the truth of the OP.”
Then I would suggest you enter the real world.
July 1st, 2008 at 11:26 am
PB,
I suppose you’d advocate what you do, which would be for everyone to tell Ken to stick it and then to publish an article full of lies.
July 1st, 2008 at 11:27 am
Just suggesting that you for a period of time did the exact same thing that you’re accusing Iggy of…
July 1st, 2008 at 11:27 am
Eric - I have to say, regarding your comment #15: thank you for your maturity and being a voice of reason. I agree with you wholeheartedly.
July 1st, 2008 at 11:28 am
You make this too easy Richard. I have sought to reason with Richard, appeal to Richard, plead with Richard, correct Richard - to no avail. And so have others.
July 1st, 2008 at 11:30 am
Corey,
Yes I did, and I repented and stopped doing it.
July 1st, 2008 at 11:32 am
This is what happens when you apologize to these folks, Chad. Months of insults. No forgiveness, receiving of a brother who has admitted his error.
True colors are shining through.
July 1st, 2008 at 11:36 am
I knew Dr. Martin. Dr. Martin was a friend of mine. You guys are no Walter Martin!
July 1st, 2008 at 11:36 am
PB,
As far as I know you never apologized for your lies or for tellign me to stick it. You apologized for suggesting that I wasn’t part of the kingdom, but maintained your lies about what I teach and preach, in fact you even wrote that it represents the whole of my ministry. Additionally you have continued to justified telling me to stick it as “satire” despite the fact that you explicitly wrote that it wasn’t satire. And then you turn around and criticize iggy for employing satire.
July 1st, 2008 at 11:39 am
I still believe Ray Comforst particpation at a health and wealth conference is a much more serious issue than Ken’s e-mail post. Scott over at VS is on the trail!
July 1st, 2008 at 11:49 am
Ken,
Help me understand how you think. I have been trying for years now and am failing miserably.
A person can not question you because you are a pastor/teacher called by God with all these credentials………
but you and your friends have blogs set up to tear a part and question other pastor/teachers. So please, show me from scripture where it is ok for you to question whomever you want but you can not be questioned yourself.
I have to be missing something otherwise it seems like you are a hypocrite.
July 1st, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Erica - are you on prescription medication?
July 1st, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Rick,
Not that I no of…….. Why?
July 1st, 2008 at 12:05 pm
Does allergy meds count? It is not prescribed?;-)
July 1st, 2008 at 12:09 pm
I’m just kidding you, Erica. You did make a good point, though.
July 1st, 2008 at 12:22 pm
I wrote ***Satire at the end of it. I apologize if you did not see it.
July 1st, 2008 at 12:23 pm
KEN: You make this too easy Richard. I have sought to reason with Richard, appeal to Richard, plead with Richard, correct Richard - to no avail. And so have others.
RA: STILL….no answers from you. Why am I not surprised?
EXPLAIN how you were mentored by Dr. Walter Martin.
EXPLAIN how you’ve been in apologetics/comparative religions for 20 years and I’ve never heard your name mentioned by anyone or seen you appear anywhere in apologetic circles as far back as 1989.
RAbanes
July 1st, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Ken: I have sought to reason with Richard, appeal to Richard, plead with Richard, correct Richard - to no avail.
RA: lying slander, and bearing false witness does not fall under reasoning, appealing, pleading, or correcting. That might be where you are confused.
RAbanes
July 1st, 2008 at 12:26 pm
“EXPLAIN”…
Your mind is in darkness, non-beloved, un-elect RA.
It wouldn’t do any good…
July 1st, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Ken:
You prove my point.
PB:
I am not aware of reading you apologize about anything. If you have, and you got treated badly for a sincere apology, than I am sorry. However, that does not excuse you from ceasing to be apologetic or humble. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
July 1st, 2008 at 12:36 pm
“Help me understand how you think.”
Ah, you should know that I can’t do that. I don’t know how to think; just ask my dear brother Richard.
July 1st, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Chad,
Well of course I did. You’ll see what you want to see anyway so no matter what was said the result would be the same. Have at it.
July 1st, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Well, there you go. Obviously no one could be doing something unless Richard Abanes has heard of him. Yeah, it’s my ego that’s inflated.
July 1st, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Unless we’re using said tactics on one of them there evil ODMs.
July 1st, 2008 at 12:41 pm
“EXPLAIN how you’ve been in apologetics/comparative religions for 20 years and I’ve never heard your name mentioned by anyone or seen you appear anywhere in apologetic circles as far back as 1989.”
Ken that is a very good question. I would love to know the answer to it myself.
July 1st, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Let me first state that I do not agree with everything Ken writes. I’m not a dispensationalist nor do I believe God has any further dealings with the (Khazarian) Jews other than that they may be saved the same way as Gentiles do, through Jesus Christ.
That said, I’ll state that I believe that Ken’s meaning behind his words in the noted article was lost. He said, “I do not think any pastor-teacher is above reproach.” I believe everyone here would agree with him on that.
But Ken doesn’t necessarily negate that statement by saying ” I am very surprised to see you so quick in attempting to instruct someone like me whom Jesus has called as one of His pastor-teachers.” He was responding to a not-quite-innocent statement, “I was very suprised to see your [Ken's] negative views on Christian meditation in the article…….I am confused to see Christain views such as these as they read as being very narrow minded and judgemental.”
Ken was reponding, I believe, to the LACK OF RESPECT shown by the writer to Ken’s position as a pastor and writer as if Ken had not done any studying and scholarship in that area. Hence, later Ken asks, “Is this something you’d also do with someone, e.g. in the legal profession?”
So no one should be above reproach BUT show some respect to the person’s position/ experience/ scholarship/ etc., you get the idea. So I do not believe Ken is contradicting himself in those two phrases.
You can discuss Ken’s “supposed” scholarship and how he himself show or doesn’t show respect to others. But “Disgruntled with AM”, the writer to Ken, didn’t respectfully address Ken’s points in the Christian Meditation article and why he disagrees with them.
July 1st, 2008 at 12:54 pm
TB,
Surely, ye jest…
Ken’s whole response was basically in the vein of “who dares to challenge the great and wonderful Oz?” I mean, I’ve never in my whole life seen anyone call themself a “pastor-teacher”, and I’ve never seen anyone make such a big deal out of titles.
In the academic world, people’s ideas are challenged all the time. Challenging someone’s idea isn’t disrespecting them, it’s just a way of assuring the truth comes out. If someone’s reaction to being questioned is, “who are you to ask me”, it’s a signal to me they haven’t done their homework.
July 1st, 2008 at 12:57 pm
I have for the most part stopped reading the lengthy posts by Richard Abanes due to… well, their length, but also their tendency to become too vitriolic and escalating .
Comments like this, however are just un-Christ-like… Ken, please do not defame a brother in Christ by claiming his ministry is not of God, nor by giving him a title used by another religion.
It is not helpful.
It is not honest.
It is not befitting a minister of the Gospel.
Neil
July 1st, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Phil,
That is an excellent point!! Never thought of it that way but you right.
July 1st, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Phil’s response to say I was responding basically in the vein of “who dares to challenge the great and wonderful Oz?” is basically in the vein of “I know what someone’s motivation is and therefore am next in line for the job of the Holy Spirit aka Vicar of Christ–Who even searches the Mind of God–after Pope Benedict is through with it.”
Guess what, Tim was right (and I ain’t dispensationalist either) and Phil actually has zero idea what was in my heart. Sorry about that chief.
July 1st, 2008 at 1:01 pm
In his opening remarks, Ken presents that benign e-mail as an example of “arrogance” and “foolish pride” because he asked a question. The whole thing is a Kenism and it isn’t isolated.
Let’s move to Ray Comfort who actuall did something that was compromise in his world - and mine!
July 1st, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Thanks for the concern but as far as I know I haven’t defamed any brother in Christ.
July 1st, 2008 at 1:06 pm
What did Comfort do? Is there a news article we can discuss? Sorry if you listed it before, I know you’ve been trying to start that conversation for a while now..lol
July 1st, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Rick,
I will try and contact Ray and ask him.
I am making the assumption that he is speaking on his favorite subject, and that would be Evangelism. I would suspect that he would take advantage of this conference by doing a giant open-air meeting and presenting the Gospel to all in attendance.
That would be my guess.
July 1st, 2008 at 1:08 pm
This cuts both ways. I’ve defended Amy and what I got for it was a “But it’s not enough…”
I tried to engage you on the issue of Imago Dei and what I got was a “You think the Bible is as inspired as Mein Kampf…” - and no explanation why…
I even defend Ken and ask him not to belittle and disparage a brother in Christ… no response.
I agree PB that some who comment on this site have the habit of escalation - but you no better than to say that this site will not acknowledge an apology, or use it as ammunition… shoot when Ingrid posted her retraction we gave her all the kudos she deserved.
July 1st, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Neil,
You got the wrong guy on Imago Dei
July 1st, 2008 at 1:15 pm
I’m not claiming to know what’s in your heart, Ken, other than the fact that what’s in your heart is revealed by what you write. I’m just responding to your own words. In your response you said:
It sure sounds like you’re saying your position makes you unassailable. Who’s the one who wants to be Pope, exactly?
July 1st, 2008 at 1:18 pm
John - I would assume that as well, but let’s be honest, that wouldn’t hold water from the other side. Those guys are way out in left - WAY OUT! I think the only one I’ve ever heard give the gospel ,is Rod Parsley and he’s in left field as well.
To be consistent, we must speak out against this compromise.
July 1st, 2008 at 1:23 pm
There certainly was no assumption of gospel sharing given to Rob Bell or Doug Pagitt at the Seeds of Compassion event.
July 1st, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Corey,
Sure there was. And it was a massive disappointment.
July 1st, 2008 at 1:28 pm
From your site:
“All together now, our friend Doug Pagitt and his friend Rob Bell, are going to get together with guys like Dave Matthews (who is very emergent in that he commits to no religious faith) and the Dalai Lama (who is called his holiness by those who believe that a man can be holy) for the Seeds of Compassion and take part in an ‘interspiritual dialogue’ with people who believe that they can attain holiness and wholeness outside of Jesus Christ. Whoops-I guess I’m not surprised. That is exactly what they preach! I guess I have wasted my time. ”
Where’s the assumption of gospel preaching there??
July 1st, 2008 at 1:28 pm
John - The Seeds conference and the one Comfort will speak at were very different, however the principal is the same. The TV promo for the event talks about getting rich. These people use Jesus as a cash cow.
Blasphemy.
July 1st, 2008 at 1:29 pm
And Verum Serum gets the prize!
http://www.verumserum.com/?p=2013
July 1st, 2008 at 1:55 pm
This is ok by me. You are certainly free to assume you know “the fact that what’s in [someone's] heart is revealed by what [they] write.
So plug up all the whining then when one like me uses this exact same methodology in “responding to [their] own words.” What sauce for the ADM is also sauce for the ODM.
July 1st, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Sorry ’bout that… I posted then left my office, THEN relaized my error. I was hoping to make the fix before it was noticed.
That comment should have been directed at Chris P.
Neil
July 1st, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Ray Comfort has a 36 year history of consistently presenting a biblical gospel everywhere that he goes.
Rob Bell and Doug Pagitt were invited to Seeds of Compassion because the promoters KNEW they would not present a Biblical Gospel where Jesus was presented as THE way THE truth and THE life, based upon their VERY well documented history.
See the difference?
And I was proved right, by the way.
July 1st, 2008 at 2:31 pm
whatever…your only consistency is your inconsistency
July 1st, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Transation: Ray Comfort is on our team, Bell and Pagitt aren’t.
July 1st, 2008 at 2:35 pm
PB - I see the difference, but I also see two compromises. Billy Graham has a track record for many years but that hasn’t given him a free pass when he compromises.
Comfort’s participation in this conference is astounding. This isn’t some conservative Assembly of God church, these guys are the who’s who of the prosperity heresy and he should be called on it.
July 1st, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Rick,
so call him on it!
http://www.wayofthemaster.com
http://www.livingwaters.com
http://www. wayofthemasterradio.com
July 1st, 2008 at 2:42 pm
PB - I already have, but I will write a post on JDL on the partiality of the ODMs when they refuse to take a stand on someone from their own camp as Ken has just told me he doesn’t know or care about Comfort and yet he has posted Friel’s stuff occasionally.
I really do not care what Comfort does, its the hypocrisy of the discernemnt world. I will now call them the Ostrich Discernment Ministries.
July 1st, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Corey,
It is disengenuous for you to demand that I or anyone else believe that Pagitt or Bell are going to change their stripes for one conference. They are going to talk about what they talk about consistently. And they did not disappoint.
I challenge anybody to show where Ray has EVER changed his message wherever he went.
Rick:
I called the ministry, and their response was the same as mine: Can you imagine a better place to present a Biblical Gospel than in a place where it won’t otherwise be presented? That what Ray is doing there. If he went to the Seeds of Compassion, the same message he presents every time to every audience.
July 1st, 2008 at 2:55 pm
Rick,
It makes as much sense for Ray to go there as what he does every week at Huntington Beach: It is the place on that day where he knows where there will be thousands of people who have a wrong understanding of God. It is the same as going to a PRIDE march, or the same as the real Christians who showed up to the seeds of compassion, to open air preach. (To show how compassionate they are to the Bible message, those preachers were removed!)
July 1st, 2008 at 2:56 pm
Of course thatis what they will say. That is what Rick Warren claims he is doing when he speaks with Catholics. Where is the difference?
This is a blatant compromise and we will see if Comfort addresses the errors in the prosperity gospel. That si waht we would say about Warren if he was speaking. I see definite partiality. I will write about it soon. You’ll love it.
July 1st, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Rick Warren does not say to Catholics that they are caught in a false system. I am sure Ray will not address the prosperity gospel.
I am sure that Ray will address sin, judgement, the wrath of God, the need for justification found in Christ alone
The difference is that Rick would not see a need for a Catholic to be saved. He believes they are Christians already. Huge difference.
And of course, I will love what you write, I always do. I do not always agree, but I appreciate the effort.
July 1st, 2008 at 3:00 pm
“they refuse to take a stand on someone from their own camp as Ken has just told me he doesn’t know or care about Comfort and yet he has posted Friel’s stuff occasionally.”
Friel = Comfort?! I’m not that big fan of Friel either. And as we often say of dear brother Rob: Because I recommend something by someone does not mean I endorse all that the someone says and does. And last time I checked Comfort was a different guy than Friel.
Time to grow up Rick.
July 1st, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Pastorboy,
You wrote:
Why are you concerned with this blog? Don’t you know that we are on your side? We have learned only from the best of the best ODM’s in the industry. I’m actually a little hurt that you think this about the OD Mafia. We are the real deal!
BTW, did you see that great piece about the risky moves of Michael Horton? He’s one we need to watch out for! He’s dangerous.
sincerely, and a little hurt,
struggle4laodicea
July 1st, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Ken, still counting the minutes ….. no answer:
EXPLAIN how you were mentored by Dr. Walter Martin.
EXPLAIN how you’ve been in apologetics/comparative religions for 20 years and I’ve never heard your name mentioned by anyone or seen you appear anywhere in apologetic circles as far back as 1989.
RAbanes
July 1st, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Asked and answered. Already dealt with in a few of my articles.
Meaningless question. Assumes that for one to actually have been doing work in apologetics/Comparative Religion Richard Abanes must have heard of them.
Good night Richard.
July 1st, 2008 at 4:21 pm
It’s okay guys, concerning everything, (and we should really take this seriously…), God knows the truth of all matters. That’s pretty scary, considering how often we fool ourselves in to thinking otherwise.
July 1st, 2008 at 4:26 pm
KEN: Meaningless question. Assumes that for one to actually have been doing work in apologetics/Comparative Religion Richard Abanes must have heard of them.
RA: A non-answer — yet again. And yes, i WOULD have heard of you because unlike you, I really was in comparative religion and apologetics. And I have the documentation, witnesses, and credentials to prove it. Where are yours? Answer: You have no such evidence to back your claim.
R. Abanes
July 1st, 2008 at 4:35 pm
Richard Abanes:
Where do you get such credentials? Is it like a drivers license? Is it the AAA (American Association of Apologetics)? Do you need continuing education to keep your credentials? Is it required that you take classes from other accredited apologists? Do you have a mailing list?
I really want to know how to be part of the club. Is it enough that I study to show myself approved, or is there a educational requirement where I have to go to an accredited school and sit under teachers in the classroom? Or can I use tapes, read books, and learn for myself.
I really need to know. I want to be an apologist.
July 1st, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Probably the same place you went for your evangelism training!
July 1st, 2008 at 4:46 pm
Richard,
Ready. Follow along now: I have never claimed, unlike you, to have been of note in said fields.
The fact is: I have been involved in the fields of apologetices, Comparative Religion and evangelizing non-Christian cults for 21 years.
Whether you personally have heard of me means nothing toward the truth of that fact. That you have no respect for me means nothing toward the truth that fact. Can you see the progression now Richard?
In simpler terms: I couldn’t care less what you think of me either. The fact is I really don’t respect you as I’ve come to know you through your initial attack on me in 2005, k. So get over it.
July 1st, 2008 at 4:52 pm
pastorboy: Where do you get such credentials? Is it like a drivers license? Is it the AAA (American Association of Apologetics)? Do you need continuing education to keep your credentials? Is it required that you take classes from other accredited apologists? Do you have a mailing list? I really want to know how to be part of the club. Is it enough that I study to show myself approved, or is there a educational requirement where I have to go to an accredited school and sit under teachers in the classroom? Or can I use tapes, read