CRN.Info and Analysis

Came across this tonight. Wondered what you all thought of this–especially since Pastor/Teacher/Prophet Silva doesn’t permit comments from his sycophants readers detractors congregants disciples anyone at his ‘blog’:

[concerning John 10: 1 — "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter by the door into the fold of the sheep, but climbs up some other way, he is a thief and a robber."]

The sentence before us is a powerful and humbling one. That is [sic.] condemns the Jewish teachers of our Lord’s time all men can see. There was no “door” in their ministry. They taught nothing rightly about Messiah. They rejected Christ Himself when He appeared,—but all men do not see that the sentence condemns thousands of so-called Christian teachers, quite as much as the leaders and teachers of the Jews.

Thousands of ordained men in the present day know nothing whatever of Christ, except His name. They have not entered “the door” themselves, and they are unable to show it to others. Well would it be for Christendom if it were more widely known, and more seriously considered! Unconverted ministers are the dry-rot of the Church. “When the blind lead the blind” both must fall in the ditch.

If we know the value of a man’s ministry, we must never fail to ask, Where is the Lamb? Where is the door? Does he bring forth Christ, and give Him his rightful place? (Expository Thoughts on the Gospels, Vol. 3, 176)

J.C. Ryle

Thousands?

Could you please provide some statistical proof of such an assertion? I’m genuinely interested because the way I see it, it’s more like thousands of ordained men and women are actually leaving the ministry every year because people like you, who also inhabit, occupy, and wear-out the pew, have no concept of what it actually means to be and do the gospel.

So, in the interest of the Gospel, could you please provide some actual evidence to validate and support your assertion?

(PS–I think Ryle, for all his erudition, has quite missed the point of John 10:1 (2-6) and, consequently, Pastor Silva has erred too in his haste to make some larger point validating his own ‘ministry’ while running down and passing judgment upon the ministries of others. For all his talk about pointing to the Lamb, and the Door, and bringing forth Christ to his rightful place, he, Ryle, is doing exactly the opposite. The passage is, actually, demonstrating how Jesus is the expected one, Messiah; the Good Shepherd.

It is rather dangerous to extract verse 1 from its greater context of verses 1-6, indeed chapter 10 entirely. The focus of these verses is not the false teachers that are leading sheep blindly, even though they are clearly in the background (say, Ezekiel 34), but Jesus’ claim to be the True Shepherd whom the sheep recognize and follow. This passage is not pointing to ‘false teachers’ or ‘unconverted ministers’ of our day, or even in Jesus’ day, but to the True Shepherd of every day. Ryle has made a common hermeneutical mistake by attaching meaning to a verse that he has extracted from its context. Out of context, it can mean anything he wants it to mean. In it’s context it has but one meaning: The Sheep recognize the good shepherd and follow him; those same sheep reject all false shepherds, Messiahs. Turns out sheep aren’t so dumb after all. “Christ’s sheep inevitably follow him” (DA Carson, The Gospel of John, 383).

I have just a couple of points about Ryle’s application. First, Ryle says that “Thousands of ordained men in the present day know nothing whatever of Christ, except His name.” This may well be true, but that is not what Jesus says here, nor is it on his mind. Jesus says his sheep recognize him, his voice, follow him, and will not follow the voice of strangers at all. Ryle asserts a negative while Jesus is asserting a positive–and one quite opposite of Ryle’s point.

Jesus as ‘Good Shepherd’ here stands in contrast not with teachers or ministers–whether converted or un-converted, but with other shepherds, dangerous shepherds, who are rejected by those who are truly Jesus’ sheep. He, the Good Shepherd, is the one, he says, who ‘lays down his life for the sheep’; he is the Promised Davidic Shepherd: “The mingling of the foci–the promised shepherd is the Lord, or the promised shepherd is the Lord’s servant David–is peculiarly appropriate in a book where the Word is God, and the Word is God’s emissary, distinguishable from him” (DA Carson, The Gospel of John, 382). Thieves and robbers are not the Good Shepherd.

Second, Ryle writes, “They have not entered “the door” themselves, and they are unable to show it to others.” But that is not what Jesus is talking about, is it? The one who enters through the door in verse 2 is neither ‘converted ministers’ nor ‘unconverted ministers’ nor anyone else for that matter, but the Good Shepherd. Jesus said, “But he who enters by the door is the shepherd of the sheep…I am the Good Shepherd.” Jesus is talking about himself! The contrast is not between ‘converted’ and ‘un-converted’ ministers, but rather between the True Davidic Shepherd who was promised by God and those pretenders to the position, of whom there were, and are, many. Those who are in our day, and were in Ryle’s day, ministers, have nothing to do whatsoever with John 10:1-6. The passage is about Jesus–the True Shepherd who enters through the door and is recognized and followed by his sheep.

²³ I will place over them one shepherd, my servant David, and he will tend them; he will tend them and be their shepherd. ²⁴ I the LORD will be their God, and my servant David will be prince among them. I the LORD have spoken. (Ezekiel 34)

Now this is not to say there are not ‘un-converted’ preachers or bad shepherds of the sheep. It is to say that Ryle’s and Silva’s use of John 10:1 to demonstrate it is a decidedly wrong application of the Scripture. Paul warns of false teachers in the church, as does Jesus. But not in John 10. I hope that clears up Ryle’s muddled and confused and decidedly wrong exegesis of this passage of Scripture. And I hope it helps Pastor Silva too as both he and Ryle are dangerously wrong because neither one is pointing to Christ, the Lamb, or bringing forth Christ and giving him his rightful place in their blanket condemnation of ‘thousands’.)

Just a quick update to let you know that apparently Pastor/Teacher/Theologian Silva is not without a sense of humor. He posted this at SOL: Martin Luther Says No…To Women Pastors. (You can do your own work tracing it back to Apprising ?.)

I’m glad Pastor/Teacher/Theologian/Father/Rev/Prophet is not without a sense of irony. I wonder how he will explain to his board of directors his affiliation with a certain blogger who is anything but in compliance with Martin Luther after making that post.

Seriously.

First off we are not journalists so ‘journalistic integrity’ is not really a charge that we need to hold to. Christian integrity, however, is.

Recently I’ve begun to notice a trend with ODM’s, they don’t actually do ‘research’. They claim to do research, some even have it in their URL’s. Actually I’ve known this for a while but lately it appears that the ‘chicken littles’ of the Christian family are more apt to take so and so’s word for it. They link to themselves, they link to each other, they proof text, and they rip quotes out of context. Sometimes, dare I say, they make stuff up.

For instance:

“The more I follow grace, the more I’m drawn to him [God], the more I’m willing to stand up for people being persecuted,” says Jay today. “This sounds so churchy, but I felt like God spoke to my heart and said ‘[homosexuality] is not a sin.’ ”

This quote comes from Jay Bakker (allegedly) via Apprising.org but it’s not the exact quote and I couldn’t find the direct link to this quote, nor could I find any reputable website who has the quote. What I did find was a lot of heresy hunters self linking and cross linking each other. I’m not saying that Jay didn’t say it I would just like an accurate, in context, direct link to prove he said it. But all I have is this link from Ken at Apprising.org. So much for research and integrity*.

If you have a few minutes to waste, google the quote, and visit some of the sites that purport it. I found (1) Link to Radar Online but no article, anywhere on their site about the quote, (1) Link to a portion of the full article with the incorrect quote, and (9) Links to Kens articles about Jay Bakker. I did find the cached article but it’s not exactly how Ken reports it. According to the date stamps on the comments and photos it appears the article was first published in 2006. The cached article is cobbled together with what appears to be several articles and the word ‘Homosexuality’ was inserted into a seemingly non-sequiter paragraph about growing up PTL.

I do have an email into the writer, Martin Edlund, about the interview and also an email into Radar Online. Hopefully I can find the full transcript of the article.

Don’t take my word for it though. Go and do the research.

*Yet another case of those so offended by the worldliness of the church getting their info from the world to build a case of hypocrisy against those who they claim are in the world. Integrity?????

Sometimes the headlines of the check-out line tabloids are so outlandish they become funny. You almost want to read the article to see what they are really talking about… though I never do, not wishing to fall for the obvious ploy.

In a similar vein, I did check out a post at CR?N that linked to another post at Apprising (I cannot bring myself to type the word “ministries” in connection with that site,) The headline in both cases is Contemplative Eugene Peterson Discourages Reading the Bible. In the latter site the headline reads in all caps, as if shouting out from some self-imagined wall.

The only problem with the headline is the fact that in the very quote offered as proof Peterson discourages Bible reading he is promoting Bible reading. DOH! My first inclination was to say Ken Silva is lying about Peterson, but when the quote you offer negates the claim of your headline, that’s not lying, that’s something else all together. (I also think Silva uses “Contemplative” as an insult - though I don’t know why since it’s biblically encouraged.)

Headline/article alignment at Apprising ______ and CR?N - FAIL!

Apprising and CR?N understanding of a man’s simply caution about misreading the Bible - FAIL!

Silva being caught in his own egocentric cultural bondage while accusing the brethren of promoting spiritual bondage - WIN! (…technically the latter is also a failure, and probably the saddest aspect of the whole affair, but as irony it is a win)

So often I’ve tried to convince those in the blogosphere that what they are printing is false or less than accurate with no success.  But I can tell you that whenever someone sends me an email from the “source” I dismiss it out of hand because…well…that source is less than credible.

Often times we here try to point out that what is being promulgated as fact is actually skewed opinion wrapped with shreds of truth. This is done with a varying degree of success.

In lieu of the following article appearing this morning on MSN I will forgo my previous planned closing of the article.   Irish student hoaxes world’s media with fake quote.

The student Shane Fitzgerald had this to say:

“I am 100 percent convinced that if I hadn’t come forward, that quote would have gone down in history as something Maurice Jarre said, instead of something I made up,” he said. “It would have become another example where, once anything is printed enough times in the media without challenge, it becomes fact.”

My grandfather was the greatest man I’ve ever known. Truly; he was my hero. Everything good that every developed in my life can be traced directly to my relationship with Christ and the wisdom that my grandfather shared with me.

I distinctly remember my grandfather relating to me about his pride in working at the Ford plant. His job on the line was to put a pin stripe down the side of the Grand Marquis car. He would say “Every time I see one of those cars I realize that that pin stripe is my signature. Nobody knows that I was the one that put it on there but I know”. It was his way of saying that whatever you do, do it as though everyone would know that you did it.

My grandfather also would continually remind me that “if anything you do is not worthy of putting your name on it then perhaps it shouldn’t be done.” This was is way of saying if you have to hide behind a veil because of shame, guilt, embarrassment, or fear of response then you should probably not do whatever it is you are going to do.

Over the last several days, months, years, it has been asked/said “What makes you different? You’re exactly the same.” While it would be simple enough to point that we are in fact different in many ways it never truly satisfies those ask. It would also be simple enough to ask; If you have a problem with what we do then why do support what they do? But again this type of introspection never occurs with those who ask. But in one area that we are decidedly different is that we take ownership of the words that we write. We have lots of discussion about pen names, monikers, abbreviations, etc…and all of us are of the mind that if we have to resort to hiding who we are because of what we write then it’s not worth it to write.

I’m continually proud of the accountability that all of the writers here have with each other. I’m not certain that many readers realize that aspect of this blog. Additionally many of us have contact with those who comment outside of this forum which adds another layer to accountability. We work very hard to be above board in all that we do. With the good stuff and the ugly stuff.

All this to say that it truly is evidence of what you believe when you don’t allow comments, responses to emails or questions, or refuse to put your name on your work. My grandfather would say if “you can’t handle the critique of your work you probably shouldn’t be doing it”.

My grandfather didn’t know Jesus but he did understand what it meant to take ownership over your actions. Regardless of the outcome.

Following on the heels of Tim Challies, Michael ‘iMonk’ Spencer has truly outdone himself with a beautiful metaphor that I wish I could just steal and claim as my own.  Weed eaters.

Spencer writes:

There’s nothing quite as empowering to a middle school boy as to be given a weed-eater of his very own. Armed with the machine, safety glasses and an orientation, they come marching across the campus taking on weeds and untrimmed grass like Sherman’s march to the sea.

If there was ever any tentativeness in these weed-eating workers, it all vanishes when they get their first taste of the power of the weed-eater. With a squeeze of the trigger, the power to eliminate weeds replaces the fear of what might happen in using such a dangerous device. Lazy middle school boys are transformed into the scourge of weeds and untidy lawns everywhere.

As I read the article, I can remember my own days as a freshman at a Christian college, incredulous that there could even be a Young Democrats chapter at a Christian college.  What an oxymoron, right?  And the zeal with which I argued and debated friends and rivals, alike, on the evils of alcohol - because teatotalling is right next to godliness.  And the folks who believed in anything other than literal 6-day, young earth creationism?  Make way, you godless heathens, wolves in sheep’s clothing!

There is, unfortunately, a not so charming side effect of this transformation. In the ensuing attack on weeds and sidewalk scruffiness of all kinds, most of the other flora and fauna of the campus is put at some risk from overenthusiastic weed warriors.

So in addition to a tidy campus and well attended faculty and staff lawns, there are frequent attacks on flower beds, gardens and much loved decorative hedges and bushes. Small fences are no obstacle to a boy convinced that some stray sprig of wayward grass is attempting to survive the Day of the Weed-eater.

Flowers and other decorative plants are at real risk when the power of a gang of boys go out into the neighborhood to do good. They are armed and dangerous. The neighborhood will be improved.

Zealousness is not at issue, which I believe sometimes I (and other writers at CRN.Info) am mistaken to be against.  We are called to have zeal for the Lord and to do His work with all of our heart, soul, mind and strength.  Where that becomes a problem is when we start assuming the place of God, in judging the hearts of others, or the Holy Spirit, in convicting them.  We may effectively ‘whack some weeds’, but who knows how many beneficial plants we damage in the process.

Spencer acknowledges this dark side of ‘zeal’ -

So as I get older, I see many of my zealous brothers and sisters armed with the Bible, heading out into the church to do what they believe is a good work of killing weeds.

The results are predictably predictable.

Be less enthralled with your ability to trim the grass brothers, friends. Be less certain that you are qualified to tell the difference between a weed and a flower that has yet to bloom. Learn to use your power equipment carefully. You can do a lot of damage. All does not depend on you cutting down every unknown and out of place plant. You are not saving us from the arrival of the jungle.

And this is where I often find myself.  Reminded of Jesus’ admonition to serve and to love his bride - even the parts I may not personally like.  In a place of a concerned steward protecting gardens and flower beds from undiscerning, yet possibly well-intentioned youths, armed with their shiny new weed-eaters.

iMonk concludes:

It was the Pharisees that Jesus criticized for their weed-eater mentality. They were obsessed with separation. They were tithing their spices. They were experts in staying on the case until the weeds were revealed.

Jesus wants us to be gardeners, but we do have to deal with weeds. Did any gardener ever say “Let the weeds grow” except for Jesus?

Some of us have set our sights (sites) on being full-time weed eaters and we’re having a very good time. The body of Christ needs a few. But only a few. And be careful, please. Very careful.

And I would wholeheartedly agree.  This is why we support true, professional discernment ministries like Reasons to Believe, Christian Research Institute, and Ravi Zacharias International Ministries.  While we recognize that these ministries may not always agree with one another, nor always we with them, they are managed by Christians who understand that there’s a place for weed eaters, and there’s a place for more careful trimming.

This post amused me:

After hearing an interview with Bono recently in which 1/3rd of it was bleeped due to his fondness for the F-word, I’m sure that this album will make a deep and lasting Christ-honoring impression on the world.

As a U2 aficionado (ah, who am I kidding; I love U2!), I think I can confidently say that our dear friend at Slice is far too worried about U2. Actually, I’m rather surprised because recently, our dear sick friend (who needs our prayers for his back and money for his ‘ministry’ by the way), Pastor/Teacher/Prophet/Reformer Ken Silva posted this, which is a collection of music he himself has written.

I listened to the song ‘Eye of a Hurricane’ and I specifically heard Kenne drop the ‘d’ bomb several times in the song. Yet, no sarcastic calls from Slice about the ‘deep and lasting Christ-honoring impression’ that Kenne will leave on the world.  Then Kenne defended his decidedly ’secular’ music this way in a terribly verbose and rambling missive of which I will quote but two sentences:

At the same time apparently there was also some confusion as to the recent posting of some of the many songs I’ve written. I was pretty clear that they were not worship songs, though I have written some of those as well, but were instead geared primarily to a secular audience.

Two thoughts.

1. To the author of Slice, can you please provide a link or some substantiation of your remark that a recent interview with Bono had to be 1/3 deleted because of the ‘f’ word? I’m interested in seeing if you counted correctly.

2. To the author of Slice, and in the interest of fairness, can you please rebuke Pastor/Teacher/Prophet/Songster/Poet/Reformer Kenne for his absolutely appalling use of the word ‘damn’ in the song ‘Eye of the Hurricane’? I am offended and I feel like Kenne might be leading some people down a path towards damnation with his ‘music geared towards a secular audience.’

One more thought.

1. I suspect that U2’s influence in and around the world and the church will, despite Bono’s ‘fondness for the ‘f’ word’, will be judged by the fruit it produces. At least Bono understands grace. And has a recording deal.

Do you people really have nothing better to do with your time? Why don’t you buy a U2 CD and listen to it? You will learn more about grace in one U2 song (say, Daddy’s Gonna Pay for Your Crashed Car or Grace) than you will in 10 pages of Slice or Apprising posts.

The utter hypocrisy of the Slice post (and a similar post at Apprising) sickens me.

Recently a friend of mine  who doesn’t blog shared these thoughts with me: I felt it was worthy of some discussion here.

Joe,

Ken Silva posts this little tidbit:

You miss my point: We [Ken and Ingrid Schleuter] are led by the Lord to write what we write. In that sense we are together.

Wow. This just leads to so many issues. Such as…

Emotionalism
We’ve seen both Ken and Ingrid condemn modern worship practices, writers, and speakers as worthless due to their emotional nature. They’ve gone so far as to state that emotions are manipulated in order to over ride what the Word of God says. I happen to agree with them. In this case emotionalism has trumped the word of God as these two believe they are “lead by the Lord” to write what they write. Pretending that statements like “we are lead by the Lord to write…” is anything but emotion is delusion.

Two popes walk into western europe…
At one point in time two popes existed. They ended up disagreeing and ex communicating each other.

So what happens when Ken and Ingrid disagree with each other? Is God leading in two different directions? Which brings us to another issue that’s problematic to say the least. Ken is an SBC pastor (what? you hadn’t heard?) and Ingrid identifies as Lutheran.

This presents some difficulties, because if God is “leading” them to write, why hasn’t he lead one or the other of them into truth? The differences between Lutherans and Southern Baptists are so profound that they can’t even worship together. Just to list a few: infant baptism, the real presence, baptismal regeneration, liturgical worship, and the function of clergy.

Do they really expect us to believe that God is far more concerned with wearing flip flops in church, and showing film clips before sermons than he is on these issues which the Scriptures specifically address? Apparently what really concerns God isn’t in the Bible.

What about when they’re wrong?
Both Ken and Ingrid have published writings that are factually wrong. What happened? Was God just out on this one? Did He drop the ball on these posts? Or is it far more reasonable to assume that Ken and Ingrid aren’t being lead by God to write anything?

This doesn’t even begin to scratch the surface of how God is leading them into writing in a way that is unBiblical. We’ve pointed out in multiple instances where their tone is so far from what we are commanded to be. So is God leading them in a way that is contrary to the scriptures? Or should we just assume there’s no truth to the claim that God is leading them to do anything?

As noted above, this is just another example of emotionalism overriding the Word of God.

~Dave

Now, my friend believes that God does call us, but he also believes (as I do) that calling will lead to fruit that looks like fruit of the Spirit.

Just because something was written in 1923 doesn’t mean it is of value, nor does it mean it is right. Just because the title of the book has the words ‘Christianity’ and ‘liberalism’ in the title, doesn’t mean the author, in 1923, was speaking to same issues we are confronted with in 2009. It doesn’t mean the quote is bad or wrong either. Machen was an outstanding scholar and preacher.

That said, here is the thesis of my short post: Machen was addressing a different issue altogether than the one Pastor-Teacher Silva thinks he was addressing; therefore, Silva is, in my opinion, wrong and his case is not substantiated by the quote he provides.

The title of the post is ‘The Emergence Gospel of Good Deeds.’ The post goes on to spout off a quote written by J Gresham Machen. It is sad to me that Machen’s legacy has been tarnished by the opening sentence of Pastor-Teacher Silva’s post:

If you still think that this reimagined and repainted inclusive squishy social gospel of good deeds preached by postliberals like Rob Bell is something new; you’d better think again.

Actuallllly…..the ‘Gospel of Good Deeds’ didn’t arise with Rob Bell (Oh, by the way. I watched my first ever Nooma video the other day; ‘Rain.’ The woman at the book store told me, “I have a friend who bought [a particular Nooma video] and showed it to a unbeliever and ‘won him to the Lord.’” I also showed it to the FCA group I help lead at the middle school. It led us into a time of prayer. Amazing. One of the other adult leaders commented how it moved her because her family had gone through almost the same situation recently and her husband was feeling badly about it.) But I digress. The so-called ‘Gospel of Good Deeds’ didn’t arise from any so-called ‘emergent’ theologian. This is just bad, bad misrepresentation of Bell among others as I’ll show in a minute.

I think it is best summed up by NT Wright when he writes, “What are we waiting for? And what are we going to do about it in the meantime?” (Surprised By Hope, xi) What would they have us do, sit around doing nothing? Are we supposed to eschew good deeds? Are we supposed to sit back in our comfortable faith, clutching the pews, while we wait, staring at the sky? No. The angel confronted the disciples, in Acts 1, and said, ‘Why are standing here staring at the sky? He’ll come back. But you: Get busy!’ (I’m paraphrasing just a bit since Jesus had just told them they would be witnesses and there they stood.) He doesn’t mean for us to be do nothings–and I would say that merely sitting around the ‘ministry office’ collecting receipts is not a ‘good deed’ as Christ defined it. I like how Bell has said it, “Jesus wants to save our church from thinking that the priests are somebody else.” (Jesus Wants to Save Christians, 178) Amen.

Would the good Rev Silva have us to do nothing because someone in 1923 seemed to be saying do nothing? Or was Machen fighting another battle? Bell, as far I understand him, is not saying we should ‘abandon historic doctrines of Christ (which are found only in Scripture; not in the creeds or theologies formulated by the church) in order to promoted a new social agenda’. He is saying, I believe echoing Wright, ‘the fact of the resurrection changed everything and we have no reason to sit around doing nothing. While we wait, he has work for us to do.’ I can hear the angel now, “Why do you sit there, staring at a computer screen, doing nothing, complaining about folks like Bell, Wright and Warren who are out living a resurrection driven life? Oh. I see. You disagree with their methods. You disagree with their different types of thought and life. Oh. OK. You’re justified.” Angelic aside: *Right.*

To be sure, Machen was warring against something entirely different in 1923 than what our esteemed colleague and friend Pastor-Teacher Silva says because folks like Wright, Warren, Bell and others have not denied or thwarted cardinal doctrines of historic Christian faith. No doubt some today have and no one denies it. Those Machen argued against in his book had done so since he was warring against a particular liberal version of modernism that had ransacked the church; Machen was right. As Machen himself wrote, “There is much interlocking of the branches, but the two tendencies, Modernism and supernaturalism, or (otherwise designated) non-doctrinal religion and historic Christianity, spring from different roots.” (see previous link.)

This is exactly where Machen’s war and Silva’s war are different: The roots are not different in our day. In fact, I might go so far as to say that many, like Bell and Warren, would actually agree with Machen because they too would reject such a liberal modernism as he warred against. (I could be wrong.)

Getting back to that idea of ‘good deeds’ and where its origins are found. Here’s what I remember from Scripture:

“You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. 15Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. 16In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven. (Matthew 5:14-16)

Then I also remembered this:

The sins of some men are obvious, reaching the place of judgment ahead of them; the sins of others trail behind them. 25In the same way, good deeds are obvious, and even those that are not cannot be hidden. (1 Timothy 5:24-25)

And then there’s this:

Let us hold unswervingly to the hope we profess, for he who promised is faithful. 24And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds. 25Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching. (Hebrews 10:23-25)

And oh, don’t forget about this doozy:

Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. 18Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share. 19In this way they will lay up treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for the coming age, so that they may take hold of the life that is truly life. (1 Timothy 6:17-19)

And finally:

“Be careful not to do your ‘acts of righteousness’ before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven. 2“So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 3But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. (Matthew 6:1-4)

If good deeds is a part of the so-called ‘emergent’ theology heralded and promoted by preachers such as Rob Bell, then I guess Jesus was emergent and so was Paul because they both seemed to think that good deeds should be a part of our continual practice as we Christians wait.

In conclusion: I don’t think the out of context quote provided by the Rev. Pastor-Teacher Silva today proves his point in any way. The roots may have been different in Machen’s day, but they are not (at least in the case of Bell, Warren, Wright, and many others that ADM’s hate) in our day. Pastor-Teacher Silva needs to go back and regroup. His condemnation is unjust and unfounded. His quote is meaningless to his cause.

*I used Bell as the example here since that is who P-T (Barnum) Silva used in his article.