Exhibit 5,034,416: Why You Can’t Trust ODM’s…
During our discussion of Rob Bell’s The Gods Aren’t Angry tour (which I will discuss, most likely, in much more detail after attending it on Friday here in Indianapolis), I made the following comment:
God isn’t “angry†at anyone – even those who have not accepted grace through Jesus’ sacrifice.
Just as in the Exodus, God has provided a lamb, whose blood we can either accept, “placing it on the lentils of our doorwayâ€, or that we can neglect.
There is absolutely nothing we can do to “appease†His anger, because it has already been appeased in Jesus’ blood.
What remains is not anger that must be appeased – it is simply judgment which may be avoided by acceptance of grace… Bell’s point in Mars Hill sermons is consistently that there is nothing we can do to “earn†God’s love (i.e. appease his anger) – He accepts us where we are when we call on Him, and anything we do from there on out is out of love and gratitude – not appeasement…
Somehow, “Pastor” (using the term very loosely) Ken Silva decided this, in itself, warranted an article of its own. In the standard Watchdoggie/ODM fashion, though, he decided to only quote the first part of the comment, neglecting to quote the italicized portion, in an attempt to mis characterize my comment as a “disciple of Rob Bell” (whatever…).
For those new to the ODM (Online Discernment “Ministry”) scene, this is a perfectly encapsulated example of why you can’t trust ODM’s to tell you the truth – their blind hatred of anything/anyone they disagree with leads them to twist words into something less than (or completely different than) what they were trying to say.
It reminds me of a comment I made to my son the other day after watching an incredibly powerful interview of Bono by Bill Hybels. While relating a story of his journey in reacting to the AIDS crisis in Africa, Bono described how, years ago, only 6% of the church thought that AIDS was something that should be responded to. In reaction to this, Bono commented, “it is no wonder I hated the church and what it was doing”, followed by a change in heart as he was surprised by the response of evangelical churches to this epidemic in the years since.
My comment to my son was this – the sad thing about that interview is that if one of these wacko ODM sites decided to write about that interview, the only quote you would see is “It is no wonder I hated the church”, and that would be the sum total of his words…
It is sad to see so much ‘false witness’ borne by those who claim to be “watchmen”, when their only function seems to be as rabid watchdogs…
![Image of The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31Jl6fhDLxL._SL75_.jpg "The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith")
81 Comments(+Add)
The alleged pastor Silva is a liar. I don’t mean he got something wrong on accident, or he once told a lie. I mean he consistently and deliberately writes things that aren’t true about people.
John 3:36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him.â€
The greek word in this verse is “orge” it means BOTH wrath and anger.
So if we interpret God’s word rather than your opinions then we learn that God’s Wrath/Anger remains on those who currently reject Jesus.
You are correct that God’s anger is ONLY appeased through Christ’s perfect life and sacrifice. However, it is spiritual malpractice to not inform unbelievers of the wrath and anger of God.
Chris R,
This post was less about the theological position expressed and more about the alleged pastor Silva bearing false witness. Perhaps you calling him to repentance would be more on topic than a discussion of the Greek.
Chris R.
The distinction between “wrath” and “anger” – which Bell seems to dwell on in the presentation, though I will be able to better quote after Friday – is that humans must “do” something to appease “anger”, whereas “wrath” is not something to be appeased – it is the consequences of being judged guilty. If you believe that we must appease God’s anger, you are arguing for works-righteousness (which is exactly what Bell is arguing against).
Bell’s entire point is that God’s wrath has already been appeased for all who will accept that appeasment.
Do you disagree with this?
What many seem to be finding foreign in Bell’s teaching/preaching is that his concentration is holistically about the kingdom of God – the subject of almost every one of Jesus’ sermons when he walked among us. The screaming seems to be that he has not decided to whittle it down to a fire insurance sale and telling people how bad they are, but instead teaching it in the same way that Jesus did…
The ODM sites often seem to be like the people who like to watch a house burn.
“Isn’t that a tragedy?” they say to all the bystanders.
But inside they’re secretly happy there is a fire to watch, and that it’s not anything of theirs. Because here we are, arguing about the degree and extent of God’s anger and wrath.
Perhaps all of this bickering makes God angry. And that we should just all shut up and stop trying to define his work.
Chris R.,
In that specific passage you cite in John, that is actually John the Baptist speaking about Jesus. John was a prophet sent to the Jews, and he is saying that if the Jews don’t accept Jesus, they will face God’s wrath.
I agree with Chris L., that we need to separate judgement from wrath. It seems to me that the vast majority of the time the Bible talks about God’s wrath, it’s in reference to His relationship with with His people. Wrath seems like a corrective or purifying measure for people who already have a relationship with God.
I’m not saying the people who refuse grace will not face judgement of some sort, just that it will not be because of God’s anger. I see it more as God giving them over to their own wills once and for all.
Yay!!!!
The thread’s been hijacked back to the anger issue!!!!
That’s.
AWESOME!
The issue of this post is lying.
take the anger talk back to the “god’s are…” thread.
Good grief.
nc,
Pastors lying generally makes God angry, so they are related.
Point taken, though.
to contribute to the devolution of this thread and letting Mr. Rosebrough surface here without having to face the real issues…
The ancient Church did not understand God’s wrath/judgement/etc. to be a descriptor of God’s disposition. (i.e. God’s ticked off).
It was the full weight of consequences that result when God’s providence is suspended intentionally for the purpose of remediation.
it is a later medieval development, carried by the reformers as well, that would bring “penal” language into the dynamics of God’s “disposition”. The reformational language in regard to God’s attitudinal stance is derived from Anselm. It affirms some good and right things about justification, but takes the “judicial” lens of understanding it all too far by making it the “only” stance. (And spare the steamy pile of crap about “Paul then took things too far…)
It creates problems about the dynamics of God’s internal world that would be foreign to the birth reality of our theology
Tim,
“their blind hatred of anything/anyone they disagree with leads them to twist words into something less than (or completely different than) what they were trying to say.”
Does this odm’s or your hatred of odm’s?
You said…”This post was less about the theological position expressed and more about the alleged pastor Silva bearing false witness.”
Would you say that
“Just as in the Exodus, God has provided a lamb, whose blood we can either accept, “placing it on the lentils of our doorwayâ€, or that we can neglect.
There is absolutely nothing we can do to “appease†His anger, because it has already been appeased in Jesus’ blood.
What remains is not anger that must be appeased – it is simply judgment which may be avoided by acceptance of grace”
is theological in its premise and thought?
So, does “Perhaps you calling him to repentance would be more on topic than a discussion of the Greek”
Is everything (with aberrant teachers and ministries) going to be ok if Ken repents?
DT
The only way that question has any meaning is to justify the alleged pastor Silva’s lying.
Are you trying to justify his lies?
Tim,
That is not what I asked you.
I am not aware of his “lies” (and I use this term loosely).
DT
Wrath occurs as a direct consequence of disobedience while we are alive…judgement occurs after our death. To convey the notion that it is a non-issue for believers and unbelievers alike is irresponsible.
1 Timothy 1:8-10
8 Now we know that the law is good, provided one uses it legitimately. 9 We know that the law is not meant for a righteous person, but for the lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinful, for the unholy and irreverent, for those who kill their fathers and mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral and homosexuals, for kidnappers, liars, perjurers, and for whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching
Romans 1:18
[ The Guilt of the Gentile World ] For God’s wrath is revealed from heaven against all godlessness and unrighteousness of people who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth,
Romans 2:5
But because of your hardness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath, when God’s righteous judgment is revealed.
Romans 2:8
but wrath and indignation to those who are self-seeking and disobey the truth, but are obeying unrighteousness;
Romans 3:5
But if our unrighteousness highlights God’s righteousness, what are we to say? I use a human argument: Is God unrighteous to inflict wrath?
Romans 4:15
For the law produces wrath; but where there is no law, there is no transgression.
Romans 5:9
Much more then, since we have now been declared righteous by His blood, we will be saved through Him from wrath.
Romans 8:2
because the Spirit’s law of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death.
Romans 9:22
And what if God, desiring to display His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience objects of wrath ready for destruction?
Romans 12:19
Friends, do not avenge yourselves; instead, leave room for His wrath. For it is written: Vengeance belongs to Me; I will repay, says the Lord.
Romans 13:4
For government is God’s servant to you for good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, because it does not carry the sword for no reason. For government is God’s servant, an avenger that brings wrath on the one who does wrong.
Romans 13:5
Therefore, you must submit, not only because of wrath, but also because of your conscience.
Ephesians 2:3
We too all previously lived among them in our fleshly desires, carrying out the inclinations of our flesh and thoughts, and by nature we were children under wrath, as the others were also.
Ephesians 4:31
All bitterness, anger and wrath, insult and slander must be removed from you, along with all wickedness.
Ephesians 5:6
[ Light versus Darkness ] Let no one deceive you with empty arguments, for because of these things God’s wrath is coming on the disobedient.
Colossians 3:6
Because of these, God’s wrath comes on the disobedient,
Colossians 3:8
But now you must also put away all the following: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and filthy language from your mouth.
1 Thessalonians 1:10
and to wait for His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead —Jesus, who rescues us from the coming wrath.
1 Thessalonians 2:16
hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved. As a result, they are always adding to the number of their sins, and wrath has overtaken them completely.
DT –
I think part of what you wrote was addressed to me (not Tim), as the author of the article:
DT & Jim
1) As of yet, I’m not sure we’ve “twisted” anything from the ODM’s to mean something other than its spoken/written intent – and if we have been confronted with this possibility (particularly, by the author, him/her self), we have corrected it, in order to accurately reflect their true intent. The same cannot be said of CRN/AM/SOL/TP/etc.
2) In the context used by bell in the GAA tour, God is not “angry” (i.e. He does not demand that we appease him via our works – whether expressed in works-righteousness theology or the health/wealth “gospel”) – every that can be paid to appease His anger has been paid in the form of Jesus’ blood.
3) God rescued the Hebrews from enslavement in Egypt – completely by His grace, without any ability of their own by which to accomplish this feat. After He rescued them, He gave them guidance on how to act in gratitude for His redemption. He did this so that they would be blessed, and in turn that they would bless others so that the world would know He is the One and only God.
In the same way, God rescued us from enslavement – completely by His grace, without any ability of our own by which to accomplish this feat (Romans 5:8), and, once saved, He has given us the means by which to serve Him – so that we will be light to give light to others so that the world will know that He is the One and only God.
This is at the heart of the teaching of the kingdom of God, as taught by Jesus, and as repeated by Rob at Mars Hill Bible church, and on the GAA tour. The focus of the gospel and of the kingdom is not one of earning heaven or avoiding hell – it is on service out of gratitude, because when God sees us, we are “in Christ” (He sees Christ), so there is no need to appease His anger.
Those who choose not to accept Jesus’ sacrifice, who choose to be seen on their own (or in Mohammed, Joseph Smith, etc.) will be subject to judgment – wrath – which springs not from God’s anger, but His justice. All of the the verses you have cited, Jim, cite wrath (a noun) and not anger (an adjective describing an attitude). Rob’s point – which you, Ken and others miss (possibly on purpose) – is this:
God is not “angry” with us in the way that other religions’ gods are “angry” – He does not demand appeasement via cause/effect. He does not tell us that we will be saved by our good works. He does not have a sense of “karma” in which He rewards us when we do good and punishes us when we do evil.
Chris L.
Getting back to the original – do you have a link to the article Ken wrote where he misrepresented what you said through selective editing?
Neil
Chris L.
You cannot prove Ken lied, in the sense that you cannot prove intent. But if he read your whole comment and only quoted part of it, thus changing the meaning he either did so out of deceit or accident – that is “liar” or “idiot.”
Do you have a link to the article Ken wrote where he misrepresented what you said through selective editing?
Neil
…not sure how that ended up twice…
Neil
Chris L. has it correct, God’s wrath emanates from His justice. When God judged the world He poured out His wrath in the form of a flood while protecting the recepients of His grace. When God closes the door to His grace all inside Christ will be protected but all standing in theirown sin will suffer the wrath of God, at that moment and forever.
Neil – when someone quotes you (as Ken did me) and purposely leaves out a part of your words so that it makes it either look much worse or even changes your position altogether, what do you call that?
Neil, DT,
Ken has consistently done this. He’s done it to me twice now, Rick at least once, and national figures dozens of times. If you give a 1/2 crap about truth denying Ken is lying is not the way to go.
Neil,
It’s linked in the article: Here and then here. I understand the difference you’re making with lying and intent – which is why I characterized it as dishonesty rather than explicitly as lying…
Maybe instead of anger only we should also focus on God’s acute sense of justice. As Christians we won’t suffer God’s wrath but we will be judged this way:
“10By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as an expert builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should be careful how he builds. 11For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man’s work. 14If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. 15If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames.” -1 Corinthians 3:10-15
Random passage, but I think it could apply to the discussion here of dishonesty/anger/wrath/whatever you guys are talking about. We should focus on what our ministries are built of and straighten out our priorities.
Rick,
The operative word there is “purposefully” – we don’t know it was on purpose. That’s why I left the door open for him being just sloppy… but we can all assume he most likely did it on purpose.
Neil
Chris,
Thanks for the link, sorry I missed the quote the first time followed them – WOW you even made “disciple of Bell” status.
Dishonest/deceitful – good characterizations of this kinda thing…
I wonder if it ever enters his mind that using such tactics just weakens his point… if it can’t stand without such tactics and all…
Neil
Neil
Tim and Chris L.
At what point does all of this become character assassination?
DT
DT,
Silva entered that arena a long time ago, I’m surprised you had to ask.
DT – I agree tht Ken is a character but I don’t want to assassinate him!
DT,
I believe it becomes character assassination when we make straw men of Ken’s positions or quote him out of context to “prove a point”. With Ken, though, it is often completely sufficient to simply link to the offending article and to let him assassinate himself…
DT,
Wow.
Are you for real?
The whole lot of them assassinate their own rep’s and character whenever they write posts that smear, mischaracterize, LIE, about others…
These kinds of questions are raised by people who, wittingly or unwittingly, are distracting from the point.
Point being: PEOPLE WHO SET UP WHOLE INTERNET “MINISTRIES” TO WHINE, ATTACK, AND TEAR DOWN under the guise of responsible discernment and wrestling through incorrect doctrine.
If they really had a heart for the Truth they claim to value, they would be open to critique, unmoderated comments, etc. as a means of demonstrating their own humility, and commitment to APPLYING THEIR OWN STANDARDS TO THEMSELVES!
Instead, they assert “positional” authority in lieu of any relational credibility or demonstrated gravitas…and NO! Sitting in front of a microphone bashing people, handwringing and shrieking paranoid fundamentalist dreck is not experience.
Gimme a break, DT.
Really.
Seriously.
C’mon, man!
Any “word” that diminish the actions of the ODM’s or brings them on par with people who see their damaging effects on the Body, witness and mission…is a false, distracting, offering.
And as far as “purposefully” goes, Neil…
It’s up there. The whole self-proclaimed purpose of those posts is clear and on the record.
If by “purposefully” you mean malevolent, as opposed to sincere expression of commitments, who cares?
Based on post after post after post…the ODM’s demonstrate only two options: malevolence OR inhibited cognition with regards to issues they just don’t understand.
Both leave you with a lose-lose for them
I can’t believe anybody would come by here and, on the face of their “ministerial” actions, even try to soften what they are doing….
again:
Gimme a break.
Seriously.
For real!
C’mon!!!
what.
ever.
DT,
Ken Silva assasinates his own character.
Rev. iggy
NC,
I understand the difference that Neil is trying to point out – and while I try to give Ken the benefit of the doubt much of the time, there are numerous occasions where he incompletely quotes people that it is hard to come to any conclusion other than malevolence…
I see we also have a new drive by commenter…
Welcome! Chris Rosebrough! Baptismal Regeneration Driveby!
Vroooooooooooooooooooom!!
I wonder when ChrisP will come by with a purpose driven version!
Tim,
“Silva entered that arena a long time ago, I’m surprised you had to ask.”
Does that justify what crn.info is doing here?
NC,
“If they really had a heart for the Truth they claim to value, they would be open to critique, unmoderated comments, etc. as a means of demonstrating their own humility”
I think his site or sites are his choice as to whether there are comments, moderated or not. That is not your call or mine.
Just because the folks on this site do not care for odm’s (specifically Ken) does not justify the bashing and name-calling that goes on here. I just do not see a spirit of “come and let us reason” here. It reminds me of pirhana.
If it was not for odm’s, you would not have anyone to blast or cut up. Instead, the Osteen’s, Warren’s, Schuller’s and Copeland’s of the world continue to flourish in the name of love and getting along.
Subjectivism run amok.
DT
I wonder how many here spend more time bad mouthing one another then getting down on their knees and pray for one another?
DT,
It seems that you play “so what if he sins, you do too” but over look that you condone Ken’s sins by your own in actions.
So even if we are sinning, you seem to think it is OK to warn us of our impending doom for sinning while you care little of Ken’s for his own sin.
It seems you have a weird double standard that I really do not get nor care to.
Go and bring your friend Ken Silva out of sin and maybe this website will change more than you realize… or continue in your own sin of doing nothing but watching Ken continue in his sin of lies and slander.
Rev. iggy
DT,
What justifies what CRN.info is doing here is Ken doing exactly what we’ve described.
Not long ago he posted a hit piece on me in which he cast doubt on my viewing the scriptures as authoritative. I emailed him with an excerpt from a sermon I gave just 4 days before in which I emphatically and completely endorsed the scriptures as true, and authoritative. He refused to retract, or in anyway acknowledge publicly that what he had written was not true.
Ken Silva is an unrepentant liar. He will continue to lie so long as it garners him hits and amen choruses. I will continue to point it out as long as he does it.
Iggy and Tim,
Nice to see that your personal jabs have not let up. Consistency!!!!
The straw man abounds. crn.info makes it own rules of Christian conduct but doubts and attacks the actions of others when they speak out. Iggy, there’s your double standard.
Where does Matt. 18 come in here or is that even something considered?
DT
DT,
What personal jabs?
Ken Silva lies, so to say Ken Silva is a liar is merely descriptive.
Tim,
Iggy knows what I mean about jabs.
Descriptive?? That’s rich. Would it be descriptive in calling you an arrogant know it all? To me, that would be name-calling. I suppose it depends on who is giving the definition, huh?
What about Matt. 18? As a pastor to a pastor you cannot avoid this directive. I don’t care how you cut it.
DT
Tim said:
“Ken Silva lies, so to say Ken Silva is a liar is merely descriptive.”
DT said:
“Descriptive?? That’s rich. Would it be descriptive in calling you an arrogant know it all?”
Could I suggest you guys chill out a little? Please, let’s let God do the judging. Why don’t you take this to Mr. Silva privately instead of making accusations here for everyone to read? Please remember we are all brothers and sisters in Christ whether we agree or not.
DT,
Then if Ken lies publicly should he not be called out on that publicly?
Paul was very public in his confrontation to Peter, yet you are suggesting that Paul would be in sin by your interpretation of Matthew 18…
Ken skipped that step, and people like myself and many others have gone to him privately, so you are a bit presumptuous that no one has done what is called for in Matthew 18… again, by you insistence in poking at our speck you condone the log in your own eye toward Ken’s lies and slander and accusations against people like me… and many many others.
I was told by Ken I was not saved… but when confronted he just said nothing to back his claims.
So, to pull the Matthew 18 card, seems a bit again of a double standard you cannot see you have.
Also,
Perhaps you miss what a straw man is… it is usually a fictitious argument designed to be won easily by the person proposing the straw man.
here there is some research and then the facts are presented as opposed to the none research and slanderous attacks against others over none salvic issues… SoL and CRN abound greatly in these attacks and when the truth is represented it seems that some as you are here, cannot see them but assume that the lie is the truth and the truth is a lie.
So, if Ken accuses me of not being saved and gives no biblical backing for that, other than I am associated with emerging, it is like someone stating just going to church makes one saved.
As far as personal jabs, DT I am only trying to get you to see that you are missing the big picture. I have only stated that you need to mind your own house, meaning that of those you support instead of coming here and assuming all stated is a lie.
CRN.info has many differing views. I do not agree with Rick nor Rick with me, I do not agree with Tim R. at times I am sure many do not agree with me… but instead of attacking one another (which does happen at times) we openly discuss as opposed to the highly censored world of the ODM’s.
I do not care if they have comments or not. The point is that their posts are mostly lies and on par with the National Enquirer and not researched much at all.
Now, they do hit the nail sometimes and I have even stated I agree with Ingrid at times… yet still to state “saved by grace through faith” then attached some personal “works righteousness” to salvation seems to negate grace… at least to me and that is the gospel Ken and Ingrid preach… Ken and Ingrid offer no reconciliation but only offer the ministry of death and condemnation… Look up the scriptures concerning these words and understand the difference.
Also about the “jabs” you seem very well at doing those yourself… so don’t kid yourself you are better than the rest of us sinners saved by Grace by some self righteous self deception that you are immune to doing the same thing! LOL!
BTW, is it true that workmanapproved is Ingrid? If so the whole conversation in which I pointed out that person consistently denied grace and added works makes sense… she used the same “name” on my blog to defend herself after posting a hit piece on Dan Kimball the day his father died… pretty nice of her wasn’t it?
Here we have offered prayer and held days of fasting and prayer of blessing for Ken… and he mocked those who participated… publicly at CRN…
That is the type of people you defend… mockers of those who mourn and mockers of those who pray for their enemies. THAT IS YOU DOUBLE STANDARD! Beware of proud mockers… for God mocks them.
Be blessed,
iggy
I’ve emailed Silva directly, earlier with a few people in a post, and now with more than a few. The question is, now that you’ve seen that he’s unrepentently sinning, will you go to him as part of the community and call for his repentance? Or is that rich too?
When it comes to these issues I follow the Matt.29 mandate.
Rick,
Your silence on this issue is deafening.
Chris L., Tim, and everyone else,
You guys talk about how you’re so open for dialogue and comments. Well, how do you justify your banning Ken from even being able to access your site at all? And if the watchdoggies are wrong to have no comments on their sites, aren’t they more honest than you are by banning someone from access to your site. Did you ever announce you have banned his IP address?
Chris L. it seems that I have brought this up before.
“The pot calling the kettle black.”
DT
DT,
Ken hasn’t been banned.
We moderate some of his comments by delaying them sometimes, but none of his comments have been deleted to my knowledge.
This isn’t true. Did Ken tell you this?
DT – The issue keeps changing but I believe I have been verbose in my opinion about Ken and Ingrid’s tactics, never have I been accused of being silent. Present the issue to which you refer and I will gladly offer the wisdom of my hospital room perspective. I have time.
And Todd – You should apologize for printing a falsehood that crninfo banned Ken. I assume it was a misunderstanding? It is just this kind of thing that Ken and/or Ingrid would say and then remove the article without admitting a mistake. I mean, we all make mistakes but we should correct them when possible, no?
Ken seems to have access to the site – he quotes from and links to it all the time… His comments are on moderation (meaning that they have to be manually approved), as he has been warned on numerous occasions about leaving one-liner/threatening messages, but none of his comments have ever been deleted…
DT,
Most of the writers I know here have attempted this route with Ken in the past (I did last year) in some form or fashion, to no avail…
Interestingly, when questioned on whether he has done the same with Rob Bell (one of the questions I asked him in private email), and whether his “you can’t question me because I’m a pastor” stance should be applied, then, to Rob as well, his reply to me was that Matt 18 wasn’t required, and he then went into his spiel about how God had called him out to go after Rob, and that even if he tried to contact Rob, he was sure he would have been ignored…
With Ken, approaching him privately only ends up with return messages full of veiled threats (your blood is on your own head for questioning the anointed of God… blah, blah, blah).
1) I’m struggling to find (lots of searching comments for keywords) where you’ve brought this up before.
2) I can show you a copy of the the moderation screen. This should not block IP addresses – it should just put comments from those IP’s into moderation queue – which it did before Ken announced he was leaving and never coming back again (for the nth time). The last time he did this was on September 12th in this thread (at which time he was already on moderation). If he is having trouble accessing the site, he has never emailed me about it…
DT,
The bottom line is, once you get passed the “Well you guys do this….” is that Ken only partially quoted a man which changed the meaning of his comments – dishonesty at best.
Since there are multiple examples of this malevolent intent can only be assumed – thus intentional misrepresentation – thus lying.
You have yet to address this habit of Silva – that of selectively quoting others so they appear to be saying something other than they did.
Chris L., and Rick,
I did bring this up before.
You said…”And Todd – You should apologize for printing a falsehood that crninfo banned Ken. I assume it was a misunderstanding?”
What about this message?
No apologies are coming from me when this issue is really happening.
Forbidden
You don’t have permission to access / on this server.
Ring a bell?
So, just because Ken does not yell “Mercy” most of you here think it is ok to publish a blast-a-thon almost soley on honor of Ken.
DT
OK – I am confused. Someone break this down for me, what issue exactly is Todd saying still remains? I know it has something to do with Ken but I am having trouble separating the exact issue.
So Todd, You’re saying here for the world to read that Chris Lyons is a liar? That he in fact has banned Ken and has lied to everyone about it? Is that what you are saying?
Nice, DT…
Obfuscation, distraction and misinformation.
Excellent.
Just face the issue.
Is it right for Ken to lie about people or twist their words?
yes or no, DT?
OK – Now I get it, DT is saying Ken was banned. I distinctly remember Ken bowing out and vowing not to return. I have never seen any comments from himin moderation, and Chris L. would never allow any of us to delete any comments, even when I did (two from Amy) Chris retrievd them and they posted. So if you are saying Chris banned Ken you are wrong and should apologize and say where you got that information.
DT,
So it’s an acceptable practice on Silva’s part to quote only portions of a statement so as to bolster his position, regardless of the fact that doing so alters the original meaning of the statement?
Neil
DT,
I just added and then removed an IP address from our moderation queue, and I have verified that it does not block access to the site – just from free-posting of comments.
Tim – is it even possible to block access to a WordPress site? I can’t find anywhere in the admin functions where this can be done (just to verify that it wasn’t done on accident)?
DT – I guarantee you that, if Ken can’t access the site, it is not intentional. I will keep playing with admin settings, but the only place he is listed is in the moderation queue…
I have been blocked from commenting on CRN since it began and nobody cares!
Ok – I am really confused, though – how is it that Ken can quote articles and comments (as he did in the linked article), if he is supposedly “blocked”?
It seems like you’re just trying to divert the subject, DT…
And Ken’s posts are regularly posted and linked to here, so in essence he comments here all the time.
Why is no one concerned that I have been blocked from commenting on CRN? That is comment legalism!
They’re afraid of you, Rick – along with anyone else who dares to disagree…
all quiet on the DT front…
Just when I think I think my opinion of watchdoggies has hit rock bottom along comes DT to find an extra gear of cynicism on my transmission of jadedness.
Talk about adventures in missing the point…
Chris L.,
No diversions here. I just think that pirhana fest has not made this playing field level. I am never condoning lying. I think we all have quoted someone and had someone else misconstrue it or misrepresent it. I am not saying that this has happened. I am not privy to all intentions as obviously some of you here are. I just think that just because someone does not receive you (Matt. 18) does not give anyone the right to barbecue someone publically and that is EXACTLY what has happend here.
DT
DT,
Ken has never been banned from answering questions from my direct emails… so even if he was not allowed on this site (which I highly doubt) he has no excuse for his actions. So, please stop excusing his sin…
Now, knowing how Ken works, he might have told you he was “banned” but left off that he “banned himself”. And that is the sort of lies and misrepresentation we are talking about here… and the most likely of situations.
iggy
Come on, DT, barbecue? Then CRN is extra crispy!!
wow, DT.
This is a barbecue?
YOu ever turn this clear eyed perspective on Ken?
He ever receive an email from you as relentless as you are here?
Somehow I doubt it.
But I apologize if I’m wrong about that one.
DT,
I don’t follow the progression of your logic/posts.
Step ONE: Silva selectively quotes a person to fortify his position while changing what said person really meant/said.
Step TWO: Said person points this out, as well as pointing it out as a M.O. of Silva’s.
Step THREE: You oppose said person’s self-defense.
Did I miss a step?
Neil
Pirhana-fest? Really? Neil was right above that we should not ascribe motivation to deception, but that identifying the deceiving practices, themselves, is not unfair or uncharitable.
Anyone is free to comment here and “correct the record”, if they so desire. Can you say, with any honesty, that the back-and-forth we are having here with you would be allowed on any site managed by Ken, Ingrid, Paul Johnson, etc.? Evidence points to “no”…
Have you pointed this out to Ken?
Tell me, though – when it comes to light that you have misrepresented/misconstrued someone’s intent, do you refuse to issue a correction (with or without apology) and continue to make the same misrepresentation over and over and over and over again?
Unless they are made explicit, none of us here are, as well. However, when an error is pointed out and no correction is made, clarification made, nor apology given, one can reasonably assume that the one in error has no real desire at seeking or communicating truth.
Yes?
1) There’s nobody “on the barbeque” here without the power to hop right off of it. A simple correction (such as printing the entirety of the comment), retraction (removing the entire comment) and/or apology is always available. All that stands in the way is pride…
2) Do you hold yourself and those you write for (CR?N) to this same standard? Would you consider the public barbequeing of folks like Rick Warren, entire groups of Christians, Rob Bell, Andy Stanley, Erwin McManus, etc., etc., etc. to be also ‘unacceptable’ by your standards – partularly if Matthew 18 was NEVER applied, by admission, in these cases?
Look, everyone gets a little carried away, but to claim a barbecue here while looking the other way at what goes on at CRN is plainly showing a respect of persons. The hyperbole, the demeaning names, the mocking, the scornful humor, and even the piling on when someone sins morally is openly unchristian. Exposing someone for quoting an unbeliever and then you yourself linking to a secular newspaper while they BARBECUE a fallen brother or sister is…what’s the word…wait…uh…hypocrisy.
The self links, the claims of authority, the implication that Spurgeon and others is on your side, and the printed e-mails that contain an attitude of “you seem like a nice guy let me help you out”, are all dripping with self righteousness.
And now I have done what I can to help all of you, I leave you in the Almighty’s hands. (I hope you recognize the satire)
DT,
You’ve got so many problems with the way you’ve argued on this thread.
1. Ken has without a doubt lied. You’ve got at least two examples given to you, and you haven’t addressed it yet.
2. Your Matthew 18 argument is obviously an attempt to use scripture to allow Ken to hide from his sin. This becomes obvious when you refuse to address this directly, and when you’ve been called on to act as one of the witnesses that Matthew 18 demands, and you’ve been informed that we’ve approached Ken directly.
3. If you’re so worried about Matthew 18 issues why haven’t you brought them up to C?N.com and SoL along with all the other watchdoggie blogs none of who bother following step 1. Have you emailed them about this? And if you have why haven’t you distanced yourself from them?
Really, the facts being what they are it really looks like you’re more worried that we’ve identified Ken’s sin than you are his sin.
Gentle(?)men,
I have skimmed the issue at hand and maybe I am missing something. What is the issue?
To Neil and the others, I have not commented on this thread as to the issue itself. That is why I hav refused to comment. What I have urged, but to no avail, is to be careful calling brothers in the Lord a liar just because most of you are emergent (or emerging in thought and/or practice) and his ministry rubs you raw.
This is not about if everything is “reformed” or not as many of you think. It is about calling names and feeling excused from correction.
Also, I have not seen anywhere where Ken adds to grace.
Lastly, I would most definitely write Ken, Ingrid or Paul Johnson (whoever that is) if I felt they were outside the veil of grace.
I guess was not given a member or club card when I first commented a few months ago. The scale is heavily tipped against me.
DT
Rick,
I remember being scolded a couple of months back for calling Iggy, Carlos, his real name. You have called me Todd which is my name as well. I still sign my name DT.
I did not see anyone call you out for calling me Todd. Or was that in jest?
DT
Dt,
What?!? Talk about ascribing motives! The first part makes no sense, and the second part misses the point completely (and misses the mark with motive).
1) Re-read my article – I did not call Ken a liar.
2) My “beef” has nothing to do with “emergent-ness”. My issue is that – as he often does with anyone he is attacking – he quoted me incompletely and ascribed a belief to me that is not mine (whether purposeful or not) in an attempt to smear another Christian.
That is the issue you’ve been avoiding, trying to bring fictitious accusations (banning) into the conversation… If this is a barbecue, I guess everyone will be going hungry…
No motive, just in friendship. I’ll call you DT if that is your preference.
DT:
Wow, DT…
The majority of people here do not identify with the emerging church. So give that load a rest, puh-leaze.
Also, Ken isn’t called a liar because he tweaks what people here agree with.
He get’s called a liar because there are two websites of his own that document that he is a…LIAR.
This is not about if everything is “reformed†or not as many of you think. It is about calling names and feeling excused from correction.
You’re right…it’s not about “reformed” doctrine. It’s about Ken, Ingrid and their ilk calling names and feeling excused from correction…so MUCH SO that they don’t allow any other voices that might reveal their sin–established in their own hand as lies and slander, etc. So thanks for agreeing with us.
Lastly, you should write Ken, et. al. because they LIE. If you’re going to get on the high horse for every piece of mistaken doctrine, wrong teaching, etc. then get on that band wagon when self-annointed spiritual leaders LIE and use SINFUL tactics. It’s just as offensive to God AND it hurts the witness of the church. (So there…you can’t accuse me of excusing false teaching.)
RE: your member card complaint.
Wow, you come in, throw some bombs, people disagree and then you’re “persecuted”? Disagreement is not an attack.
If Ken, Ingrid, et. al simply disagreed without using the tactics and sin they embrace then you’d see some amazing discourse ON THEIR SITES in the comment threads…
oh, yeah. That’s right! They don’t do that…
I rest my case.
Whatever, dude.
You came in here. Lobbed some grenades and then just are complaining when people don’t bow.
1) I did call him a liar. He is a liar, and he lied about me earlier, and Chris L here now.
2) Address any of the issues brought up here DT. Please. Whether its Ken’s lying or the application of Matthew 18 to watchdoggies Because you’ve steadfastly refused to actually address what you brought up. Its like trying to nail jello to a wall with you.
DT,
RE: being called by your name.
Again…WOW…you holding onto offenses there? I vaguely remember that exchange. It was a while back. But I’m glad Rick clarified for you.
DT,
This is a straw man and really I do not even understand why this is an issue. The only ones that took issue where defending me as a friend. In that I do not even remember Rick being the one doing so… I think it was either Tim R. or Tim W…
Again, I see that this is not even an issue and if it offends one to be addressed by their name of nickname, then why come…
I am offended by cowards who do not use a real name AND give no links to who they are. They, to me are but phatoms who care little for being held accountable for their words.
So, all, let’s move on… in fact this is as immature as I can see any conversation has gone… so grow up a little and address the real issue.
There is a huge difference if one lies and is called a liar for doing so, and one being called by their names be them given or chosen.
iggy
Do not call me Rick or even Henry, from now on call me:
The Grand High Exalted Mystic Ruler!
LOL!