try following this logic…

Posted by: Nathan
in Emergent Church, Ken Silva, Linked Articles
14
Apr

Ken’s latest rant is over Dan Kimball’s stance on Homosexuality. I think this is probably the worst article (as far as logic goes) that I have read from Ken. He begins by quoting Dan Kimball:

Because this is such a huge issue in our culture,…we can no longer just regurgitate what we have been taught about homosexuality

This is absolutely true! We cannot simply say “God hates Fags” or “It’s bad because the bible says so” anymore. People are looking for the why behind the statement that homosexuality is bad. This is all beside the point. Ken translates this as Kimball saying he is uncomfortable preaching the word. Ken’s translation:

I’m uncomfortable preaching the Word of God on this subject and don’t want to have to tell practicing homosexuals that the LORD God Almighty–their Creator–says, “If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act”

Huh? How on earth can he pull that underlying meaning from Kimball’s quote? He even uses a quote from Bell saying “That’s why I like Jesus so much because He loves us just as we are.” Yet, he gives no context at all in which that statement was said. Regardless of context, that statement is true, and in no possible way suggests a dismissal of homosexuality as a sin!

If that wasn’t enough, Ken takes this quote from Kimball and completely skews it:

“I have wrestled with the Scriptures and difficult viewpoints. I studied this issue not being afraid to reexamine all I had ever been taught before and to approach it with an open mind and heart. However, after much prayer and study of the sexual ethics and themes presented overall in Scripture, I have found that I just can’t dismiss that in the Bible homosexual practice is considered a sin.” emphasis mine

So Kimball basically says that the timeless scriptures have stood up to complete scrutiny. That even when he objectively looks at them through many lenses, it will always come up the same. Heck… he even out right said “homosexual practice is a sin.” How more black and white can you get? Here is Ken’s outrageous translation of this:

Dan tried and tried and tried…*deep breath* and tried to find away around the absolute clarity in God’s inerrant and infallible Word–the Bible–because he truly wanted to see homosexuality differently than Holy Scripture teaches. Noble perhaps, but definitely a position precipitated by Kimball’s man-love.

What!?! Is he actually suggesting that when someone closely examines scripture for its itended meaning they want to see a message “differently than the Holy Scripture teaches?” Does this mean that when MacArthur objectively studies scripture and synthesizes ideas that he is doing the same? Maybe we should all stop studying scripture and just take Ken’s word for it, eh?

I think an important thing is happening here. Some of these men labeled emergent are now coming out with their stance on doctrines that they are so often questioned about. Ken is finding that their doctrine isn’t as far off as he would think. So, rather than saying that he was wrong, and these men and women may not be “liberal cult” leaders (as he called Kimball), he attacks their intentions. He might as well say “I know what they said, but what they really mean is this….” This article for me affirms the fact that they are running out of ammo, and are now scrounging for anything to hold on to.

  • Share/Bookmark
This entry was posted on Saturday, April 14th, 2007 at 6:05 pm and is filed under Emergent Church, Ken Silva, Linked Articles. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

 

+/- Collapse/Expand All

45 Comments(+Add)

1   Dan    http://www.dankimball.com
April 14th, 2007 at 7:30 pm

hello!

thanks for this post – i went and read the article after i saw what you wrote here. your comments here represented exactly what i was doing when i shared how i wanted to be thoroughly prepared to explain the full context of passages that are generally used in isolation and the “why’s” behind it.

We have to do this today, as it is more commonplace to be asked more about the context and “why’s” and “when’s” and “to whom’s”, when we simply quote a single passage.

That is what is exciting, is that people are asking the why’s and as leaders we need to be prepared to give a reason for the hope (or the theological position) we have and do so with gentleness and respect as 1 Peter says.

The problem I have found, is that most people outside the church haven’t encountered too much “gentleness and respect” from Christians when talking about this subject. Also as I raised in the chapter, most also can only quote a verse, but not explain its context or how to answer why we aren’t also then obeying the other things written in Leviticus in surrounding chapters or verses. So we need to be more studied and prepared and understand the varying viewpoints being taught in universities today which are often in contrary to the position I personally hold.

thanks for making sense of some very strange “logic” as you put it.

Peace in Jesus,

Dan

2   another nathan    http://www.perlaetus.blogspot.com
April 14th, 2007 at 7:34 pm

This one actually makes me mad. It’s outright unfair and just looking for something to criticize.

Dan K. was clear in his statement and beliefs about the biblical view of homoeroticized sexuality.

And it’s not good enough.

I don’t know about other things because I haven’t followed every controversy, but this is outright slander, lying and mischaracterization.

This is the reason why conversation can’t happen, despite the desire for it. It’s not happening in an environment of listening and honesty. It’s trying to occur in an environment where people have their minds already made up to the point they can’t even hear clear statements, or for whatever reason need these guys to be bad so they have a windmill to tilt at.

And it’s poor Dan Kimball…the nicest of guys who is solid in his theology and practice. He actually exhibits the spirit of Christ in his attitude and tone–even when he expresses his hurt.

I’m not saying he’s perfect, but there are a lot of candidates for EC whipping boy that could be a lot better. I mean, I like Doug Pagitt, but I’m sure his chapters were rich with more fodder for criticism from these people.

A harsh, accusatory spirit is one more in line with the one whose name means “accuser” than the Christ we all profess–even the discerners.

(And I don’t want to hear about Jesus being harsh, or the harshness of the apostles in Galatians, Romans and Jude, etc. NONE of these people are Jesus or Apostles. And I don’t want to hear the litany of times when EC people have been untoward. This isn’t pre-school and the “Yeah, well you did it too” argument is just disengenuous and vapid. I’m sick of hearing justification for attitudes that are clearly contrary to the irenic Spirit of Christ. Some people have got to learn to “contend”without acting like this. Especially when they are NOT in a position of spiritual authority over those they criticize.)

Sorry if the strength of feeling on this puts somebody off, but it is how I feel. The world is dying and stats show NONE of our institutional churches–fundy to liberal–are doing well. There’s something wrong. This crap only adds to it.

3   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
April 14th, 2007 at 8:20 pm

The “logic” goes like this:

I am Ken, (link to missive that proves that) I am making a claim about a sentence taken way out of context and will not show you the actual context but will show you my research (link to his missive) and another link here that utterly proves my point (link to another missive he wrote) all this is to say that I can’t bear that any heretic (emergent/pdl/or anyone I disagree with) can be right. If they are then I must be wrong and that can’t be because i am god himself here is my quote (link to missive that proves that written by Ken about Ken for Ken to prove all that Ken is right and all others are wrong and god (Ken) forbid that humility actually plays a part of anyone’s faith in Christ.

In Kens name,
amen) = )

It is pretty simple really… Ken is god of all his missives which are his own reality not based on anything close to truth…

Blessings,
iggy

4   Nathan    
April 14th, 2007 at 9:29 pm

yes, I did fail to mention that every source except ONE was a Ken Silva original.

5   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
April 14th, 2007 at 9:47 pm

Nathan,
What’s funny is I was pondering a post about this when I saw that you had posted about it. Ken and TeamPyro seem to have it in for DK and I don’t know why. Good post.

6   another nathan    http://www.perlaetus.blogspot.com
April 14th, 2007 at 10:29 pm

It seems like if they can dismantle the “orthodox” emergent villager, then they can feel justified with their broad brush of anyone who has ever even considered the views of the EC.

It’s pretty sad.

7   Dan    http://www.dankimball.com
April 15th, 2007 at 4:11 am

Hello….

the full section he quoted from was:

“Because this is such a huge issue in our culture, and because all the tension and discussion on this issue is over what the Bible says about it, we can no longer just regurgitate what we have been taught about homosexuality. I think in the past, the teaching on homosexuality in many churches has been somewhat shallow, quoting a few verses and no one questions or discussion is allowed. We cannot do that any longer, out of respect for those we teach. We must approach the Bible with humility, prayer, and sensitivity, taking into consideration the original meaning of Greek and Hebrew words and looking into the historical contexts in which passages were written.”

My point was stressing that if one is at all listening to those in our culture and their questions, or what is being taught at universities – they would hear how the very passages about homosexuality are now being taught differently. It is commonly now being taught that Christians have been blind and shallow about really understanding the Bible about homosexuality and we only resort to shooting out Bible verses in isolation and out of context. We are being challenged about why we obey and follow one verse from Leviticus and say that is to be obeyed today, but will say many other verses from the same chapters are not to be followed today.

So I am trying to encourage us to be more equipped in being able to answer these questions and have an intelligent and compassionate conversation with people about this topic – which in turn will gain us more trust and respect so people will actually listen and dialogue.

I did say that I hold to a conservative theological position on this (page 137) – but obviously that isn’t enough for our friend, according to what he wrote.

I am glad that you are pointing out these things, so thank you, and as we do so, may we respond to fellow believers with grace, love, patience, kindness and the truth.

Peace in Jesus,

Dan

8   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
April 15th, 2007 at 7:18 am

I really cannot understand Kimball’s tortured research about what the Scriptures teach about homosexuality, it is one of the clearest teachings in the Bible and even nature teaches by design God’s plan. We should not feel gleeful about saying that homosexuality is a sin, we should be boldly compassionate because some are actually born with that sin front and center because of the curse.

The old “God doesn’t make a person a homosexual” is a straw man becaues we are born sinners so in that same vein one could say “God doesn’t make people sinners”. Well, if you believe God made you He somehow made you a sinner without compromising His separate holiness. How did He do this? That mystery is well above our pay scale.

But one thing that Kimball says does blurr the lines. He mentions that he didn’t feel comfortable telling homosexuals that they were in sin. Remember, we are not called to go into all the world and tell them that they are living in sin, we are called to spread the good news. All the dilineations about specific sins in the New Testament are meant to instruct the church, not the unbeliever.

Why do we pick homosexuality as a sin we must constantly address? We could go door to door and when we came upon a house of unbelievers we could tell them also that they were living in sin. We could go to bars, abortion climics, horse races, strip clubs, and many other places and tell them all they are practicing sin. But we are not sin chasers, we are soul seekers because the Word tells us some of us (me) were engaged in some of those same sins. God tells us not to be high minded about our grafted in faith, but grateful enough to go into all the world sharing Jeus the Christ.

Even a baby Christian can see the Scriptures are very clear about homosexuality. But on one side many emergents want to remove that truth through carnal and misguided compassion while many orthodox believers relish their stand against homosexuality. Both are wrong.

Just like some are born with both male and female genetalia some are born with a sinful desire for the same sex. That’s right, some are BORN like that. The power of Christ can free anyone from any sin including homosexuality and there are now thousands of former homosexuals who are walking in the light of the Lord Jesus. Praise His Name!!

So let us not be shy about what the Word teaches to the church, but let us not act as if we have some right to feel smug about our stance about the sin of homosexuality. Just because you believe what the Bible teaches is still a complete act of God’s grace, not your own “research”. Some men’s overt pride will not allow us to join in agreement even when they are correct in their Biblical assertions.

Homosexuality is a behavioral sin, just like pride. God hates both of them – equally. Come to think of it, just as there are groups like Exodus that are made up with delivered homosexuals whose purpose is to reach the gay community, why are there not groups made up of people who struggled with pride whose ministry is to reach the pride community? I am slowly realizing that dealing with the sin of pride is sometimes more of a challenge than dealing with homosexuality. Why? Homosexuals admit they are gay, pride by its very nature is adept at hiding behind truth and usually refuses to even admit it exists except in a doctrinal vacuum.

The real issue is that homosexuality is not generally accepted within the Christian community, but pride is welcomed and embraced as spiritual boldness. If we ever dealt with Christian pride we might have revival.

9   deborah    http://smallcorner.typepad.com
April 15th, 2007 at 7:38 am

What really struck me in Ken’s article is his issue with Kimball questioning anything. Looking at a lot of his missives, that is the heart of his problem. Ken has a problem with anyone questioning anything. (I thought we were supposed to go to scripture to back up what we are taught.)

I’ve reached the point in my life where I have concluded that there are some people who are incapable of questioning the things that they have decided are settled. It upsets their sense of balance, they need a certain stability gained by fixed points in the universe.

Then there are other people who are willing to question what is, from the world being flat to the theory of relativity. It makes me wonder what side Ken would have been on during the reformation.

10   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
April 15th, 2007 at 9:08 am

Rick,

It is not that we do not see that homosexuality is a sin… that is a given… at least to most of up… it is that so many have demonized PEOPLE that JESUS DIED FOR and instead of loving them as Jesus did… sacrificially we have created political platforms that divide us even more from doing what we are called to do… and that is to reach the lost (homosexual) with the Gospel of Christ.

The torture is in how to do this that brings one to Christ and gives glory to God… making a law is too easy and does not accomplish changing one’s heart….

I bet you still speed on the highways that are marked to not speed… yet for some reason that “sin” is not that “bad”… yet it seems even murderers have been given more grace… and gossipers and slanderers… which the last two are in the same verses as the homosexual… yet we take the homosexual as worse…. and let gossiper split churches and slanderers to run amuck as at CRN… doing damage unconfronted and often encouraged by others…

So torture is not denying the sin… but seeing it confronting it with the kindness of God that leads them to repentance and salvation…

blessings,
iggy

11   Chris P.    http://jeremiahsquestion.blogspot.com
April 15th, 2007 at 9:23 am

Since I am obviously bannd from commenting, I will publish it elsewhere.
One more thing though, your attempt to tie CRN in with the “God Hates Fags” crowd is grossly disingenuous, and hypocritical. It is worse than anything you have accused Ken of doing.

Get a clue. if you are a “moral compass” of christian blogdom, your arrow points south.

12   nathan    http://www.nathanneighbour.com
April 15th, 2007 at 9:33 am

rick,

I don’t think Dan is saying that he won’t tell someone they are in sin, he just doesn’t like to do that. I don’t like to come out and say that a whole people group are in sin. Mostly because Christians like Ken have screwed it up for those of us who wish to speak the truth in love. Now even if we speak it in love, they assume we are judgmental, homo-phobic and just evil people because of what they have experienced in the past.

But, the fact is Dan did say it was a sin! In that article he wrote “homosexual practice is considered a sin.”

Chris P.
I didn’t tie them into a crowd… specifically the website http://www.godhatesfags.com. But, they way Ken talks about homosexuals shows me that he is more interested in lampooning them than sharing the love of Christ with them.

13   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
April 15th, 2007 at 9:51 am

Iggy – I know that many emergent types do not question that homosexuality is a sin, I don’t understand how someone like Kimball can wrestle with that. His experience reveals one of the dangers of the emergent movement, the opening of all truth to a modern interpretive metamorphosis.

Many of us would feel a lot more comfortable if some within the movement would establish a set of absolutes that would define them, and from there they would create a different approach to reaching the world with these truths. If you read Spencer Burke and even MacLaren, you will find some very disturbing dialogue that seeks to unravel some truths, even salvinic truths, by accepting many points of view as legitimate.

As for the homosexual issue, let me give you an example. On the “Ooze”, Burke’s blog, he posted an article from someone who espouserd the notion that homosexuality was not a sin. Now get ready for this – the man said that the phrase that Jesus said about some being born eunichs proves that God creates homosexuals on purpose, and that when eunichs allowed other men to mount (sorry) them they were showing God like humility.

Now, my question, Iggy, is this. Where are the disiplinary voices in the emergent movement that will not only confront such lunacy/heresy, but will break fellowship with such a person no matter how nice he is. The open borders of the dialogue have contributed to a general doctrinal disarray which will continue to compromise the credibility of even the most conservative emergent voices.

Some of the issues that are raised by people like Ken are legitimate, so do not allow his metaphoric brutishness to obscure some concerns that others have about the emergent movement in general. These are serious issues that if left unchallenged will see the emergent movement morph into a non Christian cult, which in some exteme corners maybe are already. If Burke and MacLaren are teaching some extremes now, what will their grandchildren teach?

14   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
April 15th, 2007 at 10:28 am

Rick I don’t track with this statement,

If Burke and MacLaren are teaching some extremes now, what will their grandchildren teach?

Perhaps, their grandchildren will teach the same thing? Perhaps not. Some of our grandparents taught that African Americans should not be treated equally, some taught that they should. We cannot judge what is being taught today, on what might be taught tomorrow.
Aside from that I find it to be a bit of a big jump from Kimball to McClaren or Burke. If Ken’s concerns are legit, then he should use the people he’s legitimately concerned about, not miquote DK.
Peace!

15   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
April 15th, 2007 at 10:52 am

My contention is that doctrinal entropy is usually the rule. Burke’s grandchildren, raised in his theological perspective, may well teach things that will not even appear as Christian. Maybe they will rebel and retreat into espousing orthodoxy. We can only hope.

16   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
April 15th, 2007 at 11:02 am

Rick
That’s fair enough.
Peace

17   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
April 15th, 2007 at 12:29 pm

Dan – thank you very much for your follow-up. Sorry it took so long to get put up (Your first comment on the site has to be moderated (to prevent spamming), but all others will now be auto-approved.

Chris P – we’ve never banned any comments from you, or you, yourself, though we often disagree strenuously w/ your viewpoints.

Have a great Sunday!

Chris

18   Dan    http://www.dankimball.com
April 15th, 2007 at 12:55 pm

Henry (Rick) -

If you were to read the book and chapter, the reason homosexuality was one of the chapters is because of the reason that people outside the church have the impression that Christians and the church are homophobic. I just even read a report from someone at George Barna’s company and the #1 thing they discovered from surveying people in the 18-30 year old age range that they think of Christians is that they are homophobic. So the chapter was in response to the consistant impression we are giving out in the culture about this.

What is happening is that there is an increasing amount of discussion about how we are misinterpreting the Scriptures about these passages, like we did with slavery and backed up slavery with Bible passages. The same critique is being made about homosexuality and the passages we use.

We should be very open to listening to the arguments so we then can be able to respond intelligently to say why we believe differently. That isn’t a “danger” (as you put it) – it is being wise, so we know how to answer these things. There are arguments now given from a pro-gay theological perspective such as here (I disagree with them, but I want to be reading what they say so I can develop an adequate theological and loving response):

http://www.soulforce.org/pdf/whatthebiblesays.pdf

or you can read it as html at:

http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian

Questions like, if we quote Leviticus 18 and 20 and say homosexuality is an abomination, then why aren’t we also obeying and saying that other verses from the same section of Leviticus are to be obeyed also such as:

LEVITICUS 18:19
The Bible forbids a married couple from having sexual intercourse during a woman’s period. If they disobey, both shall be executed.

or in other sections with things like:

DEUTERONOMY 22:13-21
If it is discovered that a bride is not a virgin, the Bible demands that she be executed by stoning immediately.

DEUTERONOMY 22:22
If a married person has sex with someone else’s husband or wife, the Bible commands that both adulterers be stoned to death.

MARK 10:1-12
Divorce is strictly forbidden in both Testaments, as is remarriage of anyone who has been divorced.

You can read the various arguments like these at the web pages I just listed. I would read through those and then come up with specific responses to each one. Because these are the questions being raised today and we need to be able to respond to them.

One other thing, is I was wondering if you personally know any homosexuals? You also might have a little different understanding of your comments about equating homosexuality with pride. People cannot just turn on and off their sexual attractions to a certain sex, where pride is something when pointed out, can repent and make much more of a quick change of heart – it is a totally different thing and if you get to know gay Christians who are celibate you would understand that (if you don’t). From everything I know too, Exodus Ministry had about a 50% success rate. I need to verify that, but i have heard it from credible sources, multiple times. So 50% of people can’t just “change” that easily. I know godly people who pray, go to counseling, try ministries like Exodus, but their sexual orientation has not changed. So they believe the Scriptures teach homosexual practice is sin, and they choose to be celibate homosexuals. When you explore this whole issue, your heart will break and you may discover things to change what you are saying is as easy to change as “pride” in equating the two as behaviorial sins that are similar.

In the chapter I say my belief from Scripture is that the practice of homosexuality is sin – and I give examples of how I have talked to people who are gay about it. I don’t hide what I believe. But I am ashamed when I hear the horror stories from many homosexuals of how some Christians have talked to them about it – telling them to simply start being attracted to the opposite sex like it is a choice to simply stop lying or something like that, not understanding the complexity of it all. Or when homosexuals have “Bible verses shot at them like bullets” as someone told me etc.

That’s the heart of what I wrote about. I stated my belief and then shared from a missional perspective as I deal with real people, how I am finding ways to respond and be loving and accepting, but not affirming.

19   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
April 15th, 2007 at 1:36 pm

I absolutely agree with your assessment of the gay struggle. I do have homosexual friends and have known many both before I became a Christian and after and your generalization of how Christians have self righteously attacked them is correct. That was the object of my pride comments. I abhor the self righteousness that has so pervaded the evangelical community concerning this and other issues. Truth mixed with pride makes truth inedible.

My concern was that if we must wrestle with such obvious Biblical teachings, not how we approach homosexuals but with what the Bible teaches about the behavior itself, then the post modern thinking has redefined how we approach the Scriptures and their message. You will agree that there are some who have wrestled as you have and come to a different conclusion based upon their friendships within the gay community and not upon the Scriptural teachings. Isn’t that an honest concern from some like myself who try and minimize the name calling and communicate on a respectful level? Surely you can see where some in the emergent community have taken these teachings.

By the way, if the Exodus group claims 50% success rate they need to take over the evangelism in every local church for their rate is significantly lower than that.

20   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
April 15th, 2007 at 2:16 pm

Rick,
Here’s what I think you’re saying, (I’m going to reword it but tell me if I’m right or wrong), “If we agree that it is ok, indeed we should wrestle with these issues, then we’re allowing people the opportunity to come to the wrong conclusions. In essence we’re opening a potential Pandora box.”
If that is what you are saying, then I am in total disagreement. The idea that we can’t wrestle with Scripture is how we came to the idea that slavery was OK. I think it’s important that we allow all Scripture to be wrestled with. I believe the Holy Spirit is alive and well. We are told in Scripture that he will lead us into all truth, so if someone wants to wrestle with this issue or the issue of the Virgin birth I believe I have to trust that the Holy Spirit will act in their life to lead them into truth. If He doesn’t then I’ve got bigger problems.
Of course if you’re not saying what I thought this might be a moot point!
Peace

21   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
April 15th, 2007 at 2:27 pm

Slavery is a real side issue. What I am saying is that the emergent movement has gone beyond finding creative and post modern methods, they are re-examining and sometimes redefining every doctrine including salvation issues. And when some come to unorthodox conclusions, many disagree while allowing them to remain at the dialogue table.

Reevaluating the teaching of the virgin birth in itself is a big problem, not just coming to the wrong conclusion (unless you are a baby Christian). But it isn’t baby Christians that are re-evaluating core doctrines, its so called mature teachers. Most of the time this new approach to established doctrines emanate from a dissatisfaction with the current state of evangelicalism. With that I agree, with their response I disagree.

22   Erica    
April 15th, 2007 at 5:13 pm

Nathan- Good Post! I am glad you bring out the truth.
Iggy- I wanted to tell you that I think you explain things so simple. (that is a complement!)
Dan- I appreciate you taking the time to expalin your prospective. You are also very kind and gentle in your responses. It is hard for someone like Mr. Silvia to keep slamming you and twisting your words when you are hear to defend what you said. I am sorry someone like him is attacking you and spreading lies about you.

23   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
April 15th, 2007 at 6:55 pm

Rick,

The truth is that these “emergents” that you claim are saying homosexuality is not a sin… is really a lie as I have heard Brian McLaren state plainly that it is… yet we need to look at human sexuality as a whole and not take it piece by piece…

I mean to say all heterosexual unions.. (legal) are ordained by God is a lie also… if a man beast his wife… he has broken covenant with her as he is to treat her as Christ loves the Church… yet many “Christian” ministries misuse passages that say she needs to say in that abusive relationship…

We plat Holy Spirit to gay couples who need to hear the word let it pierce their heart… yet we condemn or judge and push by our own human effort and most often they go to a “liberal” church (not emergent) and seek affirmation for their lifestyle instead of (as the leaders I listen to in emergent) want them to face their sin in the new light of being a New Creation…

So… first some need to stop spreading lies about the emergent leaders as to their position… and realize people are going to hell… and we need to get busy doing the work God called us to do…

As far as disciple… we have it… and we do not need ot air it out to all… but to work within OUR OWN STRUCTURE… just like the SBC do with theirs… Which incidentally have less control and disciplinary structure than we do! It is easier for us to say, “Nope not emergent.” and other in our group hear us.. than the SBC can defrock a pastor… so who really has a less system of disciple set up? And then who needs to be MORE ACCOUNTABLE?

The issue is not just homosexuality… how about pastors hooked on porno? Youth pastors having sex with their congregation of 14 year olds? 40 something year old men complaining how provocative a 13-16 year old is dressing and blaming her instead of realizing they should not be even looking at her that way in the first place… she is a child!

When will we face that we have leadership that abuse children, beat their wives, have affairs, struggle with the shame of lustful thoughts be it gay or straight and having no one to share it with and pray for them as they fear the judgement and condemnation for admitting their inner thoughts to others?

It is a much bigger issue than letting all the aids patients die… in which many are not gay and have contracted it in a way that was not sinful at all…. or making laws that say no gay marriage. (Which the only marriage that is accepted by God is a man and a woman and that came from the so called gay loving John O’Keeffe mouth who was slandered by Phil Perkins and Ken Silva in their open letter to Frank Page)

These are lies, Rick, that you have just taken part in spreading in your comments above and I wish people will actually listen to what is said and not take the words of people like Ingrid and Ken and others who seem to have no discernment or even an ability to read and comprehend English…

I have read and listened to hours and hours of teachings by many, many leaders… and have yet to find one who has said homosexuality is not a sin… in fact the last post stating Tony Campolo was part of some “ec” group Ken did not have anything connecting him and the only thing in common were that the emerging church starts with “ec” and this other ministry to gay and lesbian also used the same “ec” as their name… yet there was not connection as to them being emergent! Ken fabricated the connection and I challenged him to prove it… and he won’t…

So, lets stop the lies… starting now.

Blessings
iggy

24   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
April 15th, 2007 at 7:21 pm

Eric,

Simple is what simple does…

I found out that speaking and writing in a way that people can understand does more than trying to sound smarter than I really am.

Blessings,
iggy

25   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
April 15th, 2007 at 7:53 pm

oops that should be Erica!

and I also was trying to say… THANKS!

LOL!

26   Erica    
April 15th, 2007 at 7:58 pm

Iggy,
Not a problem! I have been called worse, trust me!

27   nathan    http://www.nathanneighbour.com
April 15th, 2007 at 11:54 pm

I am in no way saying we need to back off of condemning the practice of homosexuality. I think it is as much a sin as the next guy. But as Dan said, their are those out there who have “studied” scripture and have come up with some ideas about homosexuality that run contrary to an orthodox view. How do we respond to that? Just say “It should be obvious” or simply “you’re wrong.” No, we need to go back, look at the word and affirm the truth. If what we believe is truth, then it will stay truth no matter how many times we go thru it with a fine toothed comb.

I also think it is high time that the church is not known for what they are against, but for the love it alleges it has.

28   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
April 16th, 2007 at 6:59 am

Iggy – your comment about me participating in spreading lies is spurious and wild. There are people who consider themselves emergent who do not believe that homosexuality is a sin. And of course it is very difficult to pin some down because of the wide parameters. All those other concerns you bring up should be concerns of all of us but they do not obliterate the concerns some have about the emergent movement.

One of the observations that is obvious is that some emergent people seem to minimize some of their movement’s problems and people like Ken minimize the orthodox problems. And when someone like me raises a legitimate concern about Biblical doctrine and how we arrive at interpretation not only do you use other issues to blurr the question at hand, you call the guy (me) a liar.

So the dialogue which is so exalted within the movement quickly regresses to the L word which is used by some others to describe emergents. A liar is a person who intentially tells things which are known falsehoods, not a person who is engaged in a civil dialogue no matter how distasteful the perspective. And no matter how I have attempted to distance myself from Ken and Ingrid you tie me to them. Your approach needs some tweeking so that we stick to the issues in a dialogue of respect.

Claiming that I might have an inability to understand English is a condecending comment meant to degrade rather than respond to a perspective. Your anger shows through in your comments.

For the record, I never accused a named person except Spencer Burke whose blog I have read many times including excerpts from his heretic book. Even McKnight openly criticized his views. So please do not accuse me of spreading lies, I am spreading concerns which if they are unwelcomed here I will retreat to my own blog on which I allow comments from anyone.

29   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
April 16th, 2007 at 7:43 am

Speaking for myself. Rick. You’re comments are welcome here and so are Iggy’s. I mean you’re both entitled to your opinion. :)
Peace

30   another nathan    http://www.perlaetus.blogspot.com
April 16th, 2007 at 9:24 am

Well, I think a corrective voice from within the conversation is Scot McKnight. It is obvious that he is respected and he desires the best for people, not just smacking them down as bad guys, but rebuking in a way that is encouraging to those he rebukes.

So there’s a “disciplinary” voice that isn’t a jerk about it–i.e. controlling, authoritarian, power oriented, etc.

Also, on a personal level, I’ve heard that Brian McLaren has exhorted certain people that we all know of toward a more gentle, less snarky kind of demeanor.

Emergent Village is just a network of relationships, NOT a denominational structure or synod. So the “rebuking”/”discipline” is happening on a relational level–as it always has prior to any national attention to the relationships that make up Emergent (vis a vis the Emerging phenomenon). Such relational realities happen naturally, not in some systematic “book of order” approach.

That is the frame of reference those relationships are occuring in and thus they have no obligation to take each other to task publically for the satisfaction of those who are ready to lob bombs, but not actually engage in relationship with people. (and yet, Scot McKnight still is a public voice, but not in the “flame and defame” way some people seem to relish. Rick, you asked about this, but in now way am I intimating you are the kind of person who wants to flame people. Just so you know. I think you’re great.)

We’ve seen what happens when a non-relational framework drives a network of prof. relationships–J-Mac taking A-mill’s to task and then “Truly Reformed” types take him to task, or Grudem, et. al freaking out at John Piper for saying “ass” (as if that destroys everything Piper ever has done). Everything can devolve into finger pointing, “I’m more pure than you”, general ickyness. Ickyness is theologically technical term, I know. :)

This relationally driven approach to things takes the long view on people’s development, the need for them to learn from their mistakes, grow, etc.

The issues is not a discomfort with clarity and conviction, it’s a discomfort with the standard modes of communicating that conviction. Those modes have traditionally communicated a need for control. It is a doctrinal/legalistic clarity that cloaks a sinister impulse to oppress, shame, control by fear, etc. that is a feature of the institutional life of many of our churches.

I think the fact that Dan has made his position clear, as others have on many different issues, reveals that this “aversion to stand for truth” is really a weak accusation.

31   Nathan    
April 16th, 2007 at 10:40 am

I think everyone is missing the point. Dan Kimball came out and said that after and exhaustive examination of scripture, he found that the practice of homosexuality is wrong. Ken Silva outright mocked him for that. That, my friends, is the real issue here.

32   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
April 16th, 2007 at 11:52 am

Rick,

Again, I think the real issue is that some, which it seems includes you… miss what is really being said…

Yes, there are “liberals” in the emergent camp… yet the majority an bulk see homosexuality as a sin… including Brian McLaren and Dan Kimball who are the big ones that are being attacked RIGHT NOW! There are liberals in mainstream Christianity also BTW. So to declare that all emergents believe this is not a sin as Ken does is truly not honest… I even know a few Episcopalians who see homosexuality as a SIN!!!!

We do not “minimise” as you say… we do lovingly (not always lovingly but at least respectfully) talk to each other and let each other know what we do think… and we disagree and live a peace as best we can… loving the other so they will come to know the kindness of our Lord and maybe come to repentance…

It seems that even when we say it is wrong we are mocked and still criticized… and that I just do not get!

I don’t remember tying you (at least in this thread as i have seen you do distance yourself from Ingrid and Ken… so that is a bit unfair of you to say… I pointed that one thing Dan says “blurs the lines” is that he is not comfortable telling someone they are in sin… and should we? I mean if we are truly in humility wanting to restore of bring someone to Christ… do we want to always rush right in and tell them they are sinning? Most the time people tell me! And in that they are looking for forgiveness from God and a way out of it… yet if we are comfortable about that, I would wonder if one is truly humbly going to someone in love… or are they gleefully judging and condemning not thinking that someday they might also fall into a similar sin…

BTW, I would consider Spencer Burke more liberal… though saying that, I also think that him posting was not to validate the lifestyle but to generate conversation on the topic… Most tend to condemn and sweep people under the carpet or as in the case of “anti gay” Ted Haagard, who was thought of doing great things by many, cast into the gutter and spit on by many who applauded him the day before… yes maybe he deserved it… yet I pray no one “gets what we deserve” as I pray mercy and grace be given as it is from God Himself…

To keep on saying Dan Kimball has not towed the line… even after he has said it is a sin… seems to be adding more fuel to the fire… why can’t one take him at his word? Why if John MacArthur states he believes in the Blood atonement even after all pointed out he did not… does everyone on his side think it is case closed? IOW, why if it is good for the goose it not good for the gander?

Your statements led me to believe you did not believe Dan Kimball at his word… and still held him is suspect… that is not Grace nor mercy…

If Ken apologized and asked for forgiveness, I for one would delete my blog and say “case closed”…

blessings,
iggy

33   another nathan    http://www.perlaetus.blogspot.com
April 16th, 2007 at 1:34 pm

A couple things:

“a few Episcopalians…”

There’s actually a lot who don’t like the direction of the church, hence the controversy. The conservatives within the ECUSA want to remain in the communion which is largely theologically sound.

“The main point of this post…”
Again, this comment thread demonstrates what happens when people stir up the family of God and are divisive. A kernel of truth plus the ambiguities of human communication and we have a situation that demands we read, listen, react carefully.

Have you noticed the discerners who threw the bomb and then sat back while chaos and discord ensued. It is clear they relish the turmoil–they’ve said so in statements speaking of joy at the “war” on the internet, etc. Despite over estimating the import of a recent book with an overwrought title, it shows more about the heart behind these ‘ministries’, IMVHO.

34   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
April 16th, 2007 at 2:22 pm

“These are lies, Rick, that you have just taken part in spreading in your comments above and I wish people will actually listen to what is said and not take the words of people like Ingrid and Ken and others who seem to have no discernment or even an ability to read and comprehend English…”

That is implying I take their words.

I never said Kinball did not believe homosexuality was a sin, I said it bothers me that such a distinct teaching has to be revisited. I have no problem with trying to tear down the concept that gay people have of the church due to our caustic rhetoric, I wonder why Kinball had to wrestle with it. I did not call him a heretic, I did not say he wasn’t a brother, I did not say he wasn’t sincere, I was bothered by the revisiting of the sinful nature of the issue itself.

His response to me seem to imply that I did not have gay friends and that I would feel different if I did. That was unfair, and long ago I posted this on my blog to speak correction to the orthodox group about the issue. Notice the date – 6/2006.

http://judahslion.blogspot.com/2006/06/reaching-gays.html

35   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
April 16th, 2007 at 2:26 pm

By the way, notice there were no comments, apparently it wasn’t a big hit.

36   nathan    http://www.nathanneighbour.com
April 16th, 2007 at 3:04 pm

“I never said Kimball did not believe homosexuality was a sin, I said it bothers me that such a distinct teaching has to be revisited.”

The problem with this is that there are organizations now (such as the one Dan listed) who have developed a quite good biblical argument to prove homosexuality is biblical. Unless you are fluent in the biblical languages, their arguments make alot of sense. I will admit, the first time I read thru it, I felt like everything I had been taught might be untrue.

So, rather than just saying “you’re wrong, I am right”, Dan revisited the text, looked at the facts and the word stood strong and true. It would be one thing for him to have an attitude of disbelief, so he was trying to prove it wrong. Or that he was revisiting it just for the sake of revisiting it. He was addressing the postmodern response to the biblical stance on homosexuality

I have no problem with trying to tear down the concept that gay people have of the church due to our caustic rhetoric, I wonder why Kimball had to wrestle with it.”

37   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
April 16th, 2007 at 3:44 pm

“Unless you are fluent in the biblical languages, their arguments make alot of sense.”

It is absolutely shocking that you would say that, Nathan. I’ve read those sites and I cannot find anything that makes any Biblical sense, it is all an attempt to wrest and change the clear teaching of the Scriptures. Who gave them the right to change God’s Word? And if someone said to me visit these sites because they make some good points about disproving the virgin birth – would I visit those sites because as Kimball asserts I must be ready to confront their arguments? I have a Bible, I already can confront their so called arguments.

And this is at the very core of what people see in the emergent movement, not a rethinking of the approach and tenor of the presentation of God’s Word, but, as one of Kimball’s (not his personal) sites declares, we must be open to new interpretations of the Scriptures. What part of the Scriptures can we automatically reject any notion of “new” interpretations? None? You say,

“I will admit, the first time I read thru it, I felt like everything I had been taught might be untrue. ”

And right there you have identified the insidious nature of opening your mind to the false teachings of others. There is enough truth to study, enough Scripture that still begs for obedience, without all of us reading peoples false teachings about unbelievably clear teachings of both the New Testament and the Old and then wondering if they may be correct. Let me ask you this, Nathan, you probably are more Biblically literate than the average pew dweller, how open to deception do you think he might be? Especially when the shepherds are encouraging, I said encouraging, new thought about the very nature of Scripture and what it teaches?

What part of “men with men, working that which is unseemly and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet” do readers not get? What part of “God gave them over to a reprobate mind” doesn’t make plain sense? What part of “nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind” cannot be interpreted?

And Jude says that Sodom and Gomorrah “givng themselves over to fornication and going after strange flesh are set forth for an example suffering the vengeance of eternal fire”. Any new thoughts? Kimball is a learned and respected Bible teacher, so by his example he is advocating reading blsphemous sites and making up your own mind. And just saying we trust the Spirit to lead a person does not exonerate us from guiding fellow believers. As you can see from those sites, the spirit of evil can and does deceive. Be simple concerning concerning evil and wise concerning that which is good.

A shepherd is supposed to protect and lead the sheep to the green pastures of Christ and His Word, not the sites of liberal mailgners of God’s Word. As you peruse the internet you will find many who believe as you do, but you will find many who have taken your same path and have not only thought that the liberal teachings might be true, they now embrace them. Someone will have to answer for them.

So today we have people wrestling with what the Scriptures teach concerning homosexuality, the virgin birth, the nature of the Scriptures, the incarnation, the scope of salvation, and the existance of hell. Some have barely held on to what they once believed, others by the millions are abandoning their faith about some of these truths and with leaders encouraging open mindedness and the reading all perspectives, that number will continue to grow, just as Paul said it would.

38   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
April 16th, 2007 at 3:53 pm

One last observation, you said-

“Dan revisited the text, looked at the facts and the word stood strong and true. ”

So we are supposed to applaud him for sticking with the Scriptures? How about the people he has encouraged to “take a look” and read the arguments of liberals and the Word was stolen from them, does he bear any responsibility? I say he and others will have to answer, they may continue to believe the truth but they have encouraged others to take another look. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. How shall they hear without a preacher??

I will tell you this, the writers of the sites he posted do not encourage their readers to read orthodox books and sites and make up their own minds, oh no, they encourage people to avoid them. The devil is sometimes wiser than God’s people.

39   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
April 16th, 2007 at 4:02 pm

Rick,

As I read what Dan wrote – it wasn’t encouraging someone to read arguments being made (in this case for leniency on homosexual practice) to “make up your own mind” – but to see what the arguments are in order to prepare to refute them.

Having participated in organized debate years ago, “competitive intelligence” (the polite business phrase for knowing what the enemy is doing) is a must if you are to be effective in refuting bad teaching.

to repeat, Dan does not encourage reading contra-scriptural viewpoints to “make up your own mind”. What he says is:

I disagree with them, but I want to be reading what they say so I can develop an adequate theological and loving response

BIG difference.

40   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
April 16th, 2007 at 4:32 pm

I completely disagree with competitive intelligence and “reading what they say so I can develop an adequate theological and loving response”. I agree with a theological and loving response, I don’t agree that I have to read them to respond.

Now if someone teaches a mid trib eschatological view I can see us digesting his view and responding, but homosexuality? I will state openly and I invite someone to show me from Scripture, where is there any wiggle room about homosexuality being a sin? And when the dialogue is opened that wide then truth is compromised.

Maybe because some verses were misused to promote slavery, maybe some verses are wrongly used to disparage homosexuality? Wow, you talk about apples and oranges. I will say this, the verses about slavery dealt with the situation but never condoned it. But can you find me a New Testament teaching that says it is OK to kill people to free slaves? How about verses that say God wants people to take up arms and kill people if they don’t agree with the way the government is taxing them?

And yet Christians will glorify the Revolutionary war as if God wanted it because he demands his people have taxation with representation or else! If Jesus tarries for another fifty years the overwhelming majority of the evangelical world will believe that homosexuality is not a sin. Why? Because the post modern way of looking at Scripture will be along the lines of the sites Kimball posted. They will be guides with a wide range of interpretation but without any absolutes.

And actually contributing to the deception will be the caustic and prideful approach of people like Ken and the soft, loving approach of people like MacLaren. The scenario unfolds before our very eyes.

41   nathan    http://www.nathanneighbour.com
April 16th, 2007 at 5:21 pm

Rick,

First off, SoulForce was only one place that I looked at. There are SO many other sites that look at both the Hebrew and Greek when dealing with passages concerning homosexuality. They also have people who are experts in the cultural context that are pretty convincing with their arguments. Encouraging people to understand what is being said against biblical doctrine is important so we know how to contend for the faith. Simply plugging our ears and saying “la-la-la-la” will not stop what is taking place in postmodern society. Nor will it provide a helpful answer.

I think Chris answered your question well… Dan never encouraged people to read liberal theologians for the sake of reading them. It was always so they could provide a good and acceptable answer in line with scripture.

42   another nathan    http://www.perlaetus.blogspot.com
April 16th, 2007 at 6:33 pm

ummm…what’s wrong with reading another view–if you do so intentionally, deliberately, etc?

I get shudders of horror when I think of the countless bible colleges that teach only about theologians with whom they disagree by highlighting the problems with certain areas of their theology, how it is wrong and how you should never read anything else by them–I’ve seen this with Karl Barth.

Surely, this is an intellectually dishonest approach to theological discourse. You don’t have the right to judge a whole body of work simply because someone may have incorrect positions within their views in a whole corpus of thought. Karl Barth isn’t right about everything, but he is hugely influential and must be reckoned with.

I see this as intelligently engaging another’s position, especially with complex, nuanced and dense conceptual topics that some theologians deal with.

Isn’t it better to equip people to think critically, instead of an all or nothing approach? This seems like a fear driven approach. If we’re so right, then why run from voices that we disagree with. That’s what it ends up feeling like to me.

I don’t say this to attack you, Rick. I ask because I’ve seen this for a long time and I don’t understand the “why” behind it. Is there any other concern to you than the possibility of vulnerable “sheep” being led astray? I understand that, but what about training pastors/theologians?

43   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
April 16th, 2007 at 6:41 pm

Rick,

the lie that was implied was in this statement:

“But one thing that Kimball says does blurr the lines. He mentions that he didn’t feel comfortable telling homosexuals that they were in sin. Remember, we are not called to go into all the world and tell them that they are living in sin, we are called to spread the good news. All the dilineations about specific sins in the New Testament are meant to instruct the church, not the unbeliever.”

How has Dan blurred the lines if he has called homosexuality a sin? it implies he has but hasn’t really…

that is what I gleaned from your statement and to which I responded to.

Blessings
iggy

44   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
April 16th, 2007 at 6:43 pm

Another Nathan…

the Episcopalian statement was truly tongue in cheek…

Blessings,
iggy

45   another nathan    http://www.perlaetus.blogspot.com
April 16th, 2007 at 7:32 pm

iggy,

got it.
:)

One Trackback/Ping

  1. CRN.Info and Analysis    Jul 27 2007 / 4pm:

    [...] Just to note, we’ve discussed this a couple of times previously, so please check these articles/threads for a more thorough discussion up to this point. [...]

Back to top