When Honest Disagreement Becomes Snarky Self-Righteousness
Scott on November 28, 2007 at 1:30 am
Frequent visitors to Verum Serum know that we have had our share of differences with the “Reverend” Ken Silva, pastor-teacher and “president” of Apprising Ministries. While I believe that Ken is sincere in his love for and faith in Christ, I also believe that he is so blinded by his compulsion to judge others by his own subjective standards of what the Christian faith should look like, and by his desire to be a “mover and shaker” in the Church, that he only sees things through the prism of personal preference and the need to be viewed as an authority by those with whom he chooses to interact.
Today’s case in point – “Reverend” Silva has decided to rail against Saddleback Church’s Global Summit on AIDS and the Church.
To be clear, here’s the basic statement from the Summit’s website:
What is faith without action? This summit will provide you with the information and tools you need to discover how your congregation, organization, or agency can start to make a positive change. Every element of the summit is designed to start conversations and build networking that will make the movement to eradicate AIDS stronger.
So, in essence, it appears that the goal of the conference is to equip people to put action to their faith and faith to their action, specifically in relation to HIV/AIDS. Ken seems to have a problem with this.
Here are just a few of the speakers scheduled to be at this conference:
- Elizabeth Styffe, RN, PHN, MN, Director of the HIV/AIDS Initiative at Saddleback Church
- Peter Piot, MD, PhD, Executive Director UNAIDS and Under Secretary General of the United Nations
- Ambassador Mark Dybul, MD, United States Global AIDS Coordinator
- Jay Hein, Director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives
- Robert Redfield, MD, Institute of Human Virology at the University of Maryland at Baltimore
- John Ortberg, Senior Pastor, Menlo Park Presbyterian Church
- Dennis Rainey, President, CEO and Co-Founder of FamilyLife
- Steve Haas, Vice President, World Vision Church Relations
- Susan Hillis, MS, PhD, Captain, United States Public Health Service, Epidemiologist, Division of Reproductive Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
- Moses Dombo, International Director, WorldVision
- Booker Daniels, Health Communication Specialist, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention
- Jonathan Uy, MD, Associate Director Virology Medical Strategy, Bristol-Myers Squibb
- Harvey Elder, MD, Professor of Medicine at Loma Linda University School of Medicine
I list these people to try and provide a snapshot of the caliber of people who are participating in this thing. These aren’t left-wing radical nut-jobs who are on the fringe of rationality. These are experts in their fields dealing with virology and epidemiology, medical treatment, community assistance and education, etc. Again, Ken seems to object to these people sharing their knowledge and expertise about the threat of AIDS in the world, mainly because many of them aren’t Christian and those do call themselves Christian don’t match his personal definition of what a “real Christian” should believe.
Why does the “Reverend” Ken Silva object? Well, why don’t we look at what Ken himself has to say. At the Christian Research Network site, Ken has linked to a statement he issued last year at this time. I guess he has strong opinions about the AIDS conference, but apparently NOT strong enough to write a new statement for this year. So even though these statements are a year old, obviously Ken still stands behind them 100%:
As a Southern Baptist pastor myself I welcome this opportunity to do what I can to set the record straight as to what the true Church of our Lord Jesus Christ is supposed to be doing while we are in this world. The central issue with “The Global Summit on AIDS & the Church,”…is that by partnering with men like Senator Barack Obama, who support the murdering of innocent children through abortion, is that Warren has violated the Biblical command of 2 Corinthians 6:14 – “Do not be bound together with unbelievers.”
As near as I can recall, I have never heard Rick Warren endorse abortion in any form. Now to be honest it is possible that Warren has come out in favor of abortion and I don’t know it, but I don’t think that is the case. This is basic dissembling and manipulation on the part of Silva. He is trying to poison the well by using a misleading guilt-by-association approach. Abortion is obviously a hot-button issue in this country, so to bring it up in relation to Rick Warren and his connection to Barack Obama is just dishonest. Silva isn’t claiming that Warren is in favor of abortion, but he is making the implicit implication by putting Warren, Obama and abortion all in the same sentence.
As far as the “do not be bound together with unbelievers” criticism, Ken is taking liberties (as usual) with the text and implying that it means something that most likely it does not. Spending time in some in-depth commentaries and word studies reveals that there are a few obvious applications of the text –
It could very well apply to marriage between a believer and nonbeliever. This is supported by the fact that the word translated as being “bound together” or “unequally yoked” is the Greek word heterozugeo. This word is only used twice in the Bible. In Leviticus it is a reference to a prohibition against cross breeding (such as between a donkey and an ox). This application would then make sense in 2 Corinthians as a prohibition against sexual union (marriage) between a believer and a nonbeliever. Look it up in an online commentary. Within the context it is an obvious connection.
The other common view is that 2 Corinthians is a reference to the idea of who is holding the power in a relationship between a Christian and a non-Christian. In other words, a Christian shouldn’t partner with a non-Christian if the non-Christian is in a position to control and influence the Christian’s actions, attitudes, beliefs, etc. This could/would obviously result in conflicts of conscience, conflicts of faith and morality, etc.
Ken seems to want this passage to mean that Christians shouldn’t work closely with non-Christians, thus Warren is wrong to bring nonbelievers into his church to discuss the issue of AIDS. Unfortunately, Ken is ignoring the absurdity of and the logical conclusion of his train of thought. The logical conclusion of Ken’s rationale is that Christians would never be able to work for or with non-Christians…ever. So much for holding down a job or having a career in this world. Maybe we could all become presidents of our own ministries! (Sorry, I know that is kind-of-snarky but I couldn’t resist) But at the same time, since Ken and his peers certainly don’t like to interact with the unwashed/unclean of the unbelieving world, maybe a complete withdrawal from any and all working relationships and partnerships is what he really wants.
Please understand that we are not saying that those suffering with the dreaded disease of AIDS are not important or unloved. The issue for the Christian Church is actually quite simple: Who is Jesus Christ? Our answer as Christians is that He is our Creator, God Himself come into His Own world. And what we must do as Christians is what He has told us to do. This is summed up in John 20:21 where Christ says – “as the Father has sent Me, I also send you.” So we ask, “What was it the Father sent Jesus to do?” The answer is found in Matthew 18:11 as the Master tells us He came – “to save that which was lost.”
Here Ken makes the dangerous assumption that spreading the gospel is not important to Saddleback or to Rick Warren. He is operating under the belief that this Global Summit on AIDS and the Church is Warren’s attempt to substitute the salvation message with a social gospel. In Ken’s mind, the salvation message is the predominant, driving force of the Church and nothing else matters.
I guess maybe he’s forgotten this “oldie but a goodie” -
James 1:20-27
Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says. Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what it says is like a man who looks at his face in a mirror and, after looking at himself, goes away and immediately forgets what he looks like. But the man who looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues to do this, not forgetting what he has heard, but doing it—he will be blessed in what he does. If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless. Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.
Hmmm…Interesting…Don’t just hear the word but do it. Look into the Law and when you find the freedom that is there, keep doing what it tells you to do. Look after orphans and widows…Gosh, I guess Ken’s got a point. It’s all about evangelism. I don’t see anything here that resembles putting love into action and meeting the needs of the “the least of these” in society. Not at all.
And what about this one -
Matthew 25:34-40
“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
“The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’
Again I say…Hmmm…Give food to the hungry and drink to the thirsty, care for strangers, clothe the naked, care for the sick, minister to those who are in jail. Once again, Ken appears to be right. It IS all about evangelism. Nothing about being the light of Christ in people’s lives by putting His love into action and being a conduit of blessing to the world living in darkness that is dying to see the Light.
This is the true message of the Christian Church. The incredible offer of the forgiveness of sins through the death of Christ on the Cross and His Resurrection from the dead, the gift of life forever with God in Heaven, and salvation from an eternity in conscious torment in a literal place Jesus Himself called Hell. This is the only cure there is for the problems of this world.
I certainly agree that the salvation message is of utmost importance to the world. But if it was SO important as to cancel out all other missions and activities for believers, why would Christ say what he said in Matthew 25 and why would James say what he said in James 1? Doesn’t this seem to indicate that putting Christ’s love into ACTION in the world is one of the ways to get people to listen to the message of grace and reconciliation between God and humanity?
…And so today I exhort the Body of Christ to return to her primary mission in prayerful hope that God will once again be with us. That God will be with us just as He was with Jesus Christ and will once again smile upon this nation because only in His power can the Christian Church ever even think of benefiting this world no matter how noble a social cause may seem.
Here I completely agree with what Ken says but NOT what he means. The Body of Christ DOES need to return to her primary mission – that of being a light to a world living in darkness. Yes, we ARE called to share the Good News. Yes, we ARE called to make disciples of all nations. But what about the other “stuff?” What about the Matthew 25 and the James 1 exhortations? Shouldn’t there be a balance of both the preaching/teaching and the actions/service?
Ken and his peeps assume that there is only one way to do it – preach judgment and condemnation; pass judgment on all that do not live by a check list of approved beliefs; point out all that is gross and icky and disgusting in the world AND in the Church; and criticize those who don’t fall within the narrow confines of what they deem to be “acceptable” Christianity.
I guess that is one way to do it. I just can’t help but wonder if someday God’s going to say, “OK, Ken. Nice theology. Great doctrine. You even wrote your own creed and confession of faith in Old English. Pretty cool. But what did you do with all of that besides telling everyone else around you that they were doing it wrong? How did your theology and doctrine shape the way you shined My Light into the world of darkness in which you lived?”
I often wonder if the focus that Ken and others like him have on Conversion-First-And-Foremost is shaped by the fact that they live very comfortable lives in a very technologically advanced society. I wonder if Ken would be so quick to dismiss the importance of participating in something like this Summit on AIDS and the Church if Apprising Ministries was located in Kenya or Sudan.
Category: Religion & Faith |
Preach it, Brother Ragan!
I just have to tack on another verse. Matthew 10: 7-9:
(Also Luke chapters 9 and 10.)
November 28, 2007 @ 2:07 am[...] Check it out! While looking through the blogosphere we stumbled on an interesting post today.Here’s a quick excerpt Frequent visitors to Verum Serum know that we have had our share of differences with the “Reverend” Ken Silva, pastor-teacher and “president” of Apprising Ministries. While I believe that Ken is sincere in his love for and faith in Christ, I also believe that he is so blinded by his compulsion to judge others by his own subjective standards of what the Christian faith should look like, and by his desire to be a “mover and shaker” in the Church, that he only sees things through the prism of pers [...]
November 28, 2007 @ 2:14 amThanks for the update on the antics of Ken Silva.
Ken is clearly a Pharisee with his cup bright and clean on the outside yet filthy dirty on the inside. Ken is what bad fruit looks like.
I wonder if Ken is angry at Jesus for having the courage to speak to that Samaritan woman at the well or eating a meal with tax collectors and prostitutes.
Don’t ya just hate it when Jesus violates the laws set down by Ken. Maybe we should all put down our bibles and just worship Ken directly.
November 28, 2007 @ 7:24 amJohn – I’m no theologian, but I do believe that Matthew 10:7 8 has the meaning that you should be healing the sick, etc. “as you are going about preaching the message ‘The Kingdom of heaven is near’”. I don’t believe the two verses can be separated (my pastor teaches that this has to do with the participle form in the Greek). So, I don’t agree that you can use these verses to support the post unless the preaching of the Gospel to the afflicted precedes or is the focus of the ministry to eradicate the AIDS virus.
November 28, 2007 @ 7:25 amScott,
Here is how easily your attack on me is–yet again–answered. I now simply turn right around and say to you:
So, now who’s right? And yes, we’ve had many interactions where I have simply tried to show you that just bacause you believe something does not make it right. I, and others, happen to have a very different view of these issues than you do.
Finally Scott, as far as “they live very comfortable lives in a very technologically advanced society”; whoever the nebulous “they” may be, how would you have any idea of what my life is actually like? O, that’s right…you wouldn’t.
The only Pharisee involved with this post is the new evangelical who wrote it. :-)
November 28, 2007 @ 7:50 amAs if further proof were needed that this conference is a good thing, the CEO of the charity I used to work for is a speaker.
Haven’t we had the “and no returns” tactic in these threads before? It was funny the first time, but it’s a bit school playground, don’t you think?
Ken, I’m interested in your definition of a Pharisee. I’m guessing/speculating that this isn’t the first time you’ve been called one, and you presumably don’t consider yourself to be, so how would you define the term?
November 28, 2007 @ 8:35 am“how would you define the term [Pharisee]?”
This works for me as an overview:
Who were the Pharisees?
November 28, 2007 @ 9:14 amKen,
You forgot “I am rubber and you are glue…” etc, etc, etc!
Seriously, though, here’s how easily I can refute your refutation of me:
1) You said: “While I believe that [Verum Serum] is sincere in [their] love for and faith in Christ…”
The problem here is that you DON’T believe that our love for and faith in Christ is sincere, or at least you believe that we are tools of the devil and people who are leading others into darkness, which would mean that at the very least you believe that our love for and faith in are directed at the wrong Christ. You have said so yourself on a variety of occasions, so unless you want to backtrack now, you have talked yourself into a corner.
2) You say: I also believe that [they are] so blinded by [their] compulsion to judge others by [their] own subjective standards of what the Christian faith should look like…”
Unless you call quoting Matthew 25 and James 1 part of my “subjective standards,” you have a problem. You claim that the Bible is your ultimate guide and measuring stick for what is correct and orthodox and what isn’t, AND YET you cherry-pick what verses are convenient for you to want to see discussed and enforced. I acknowledged that sharing the Good News of the Gospel of Christ is of utmost importance to followers of Christ. I am simply willing to ALSO acknowledge that Jesus himself (and those who knew him) pointed out that there is more to the Good News than a check list and an ability to explain man’s total depravity and need for Christ. If you have a problem with that, then perhaps what you should take it up with the Lord!
3) You say: “…I also believe that [they are] so blinded by [their] desire to be…“mover[s] and shaker[s]” in the Church,”
I will admit that I would like to be seen as relevant in discussions of faith, and I will admit that I take at least a small amount of enjoyment in the fact that here at VS we have been able to engage a variety of people from around the world in discussion and debate (as this thread and others give evidence of). I guess what I am pointing to in relation to you and your behavior is:
a) your frequent need to trumpet your position as “president” of your own 2 person “ministry;”
b) your frequent appeals to your own authority as a “pastor-teacher” with the expressed point that we who challenge you should think twice about calling into question your logic and theological perspectives because to do so is to challenge a pastor;
c) your frequent yet misleading allusion to how you were “largely trained under the ministry of the late Dr. Martin” as though the fact that you have listened to all his tapes and read all his books and articles means that you have received the mantel of authority from him to speak the way that you do. To borrow a line from Lloyd Benson, “I have read Walter Martin and listened to Walter Martin and in fact met and spoke with Walter Martin on two different occasions and you, Ken Silva, are no Walter Martin.”
4) You say: “[they] only see…things through the prism of personal preference and the need to be viewed as an authority by those with whom [they] choose…to interact.”
Actually, Ken, I don’t have the need to seen as an authority. I don’t appeal to my position as the “president” of some organization, or the “pastor-teacher” of a church, or the editor-in-chief of Christian Research Network or whatever. I don’t think you’ve ever seen me make any sort of appeal that implies my authority. I welcome correction. I thrive on discussion and debate that forces me to clarify my position, shift my thinking, etc. On the other hand, you and your peeps spend a considerable amount of time making connections between what you think is right to what God must think is right using the logic that since you are a man who wants to follow Christ and who is president of a ministry and pastor-teacher of a church, then what you think must be what God wants you to think, and thus must be the RIGHT way to think.
Yes, Ken, I fully understand that just because I believe something doesn’t make it right. I guess the difference between you and I is that I don’t make the assumption that those with whom I disagree must not just be wrong but must also be questioned as to the validity of their whole belief system and their very salvation.
And lastly, I don’t need to know what your life is “actually like” in detail. You live in the United States. You have regular access to technology. You run a ministry that consists of a house church, a website and a blog. In short, Ken, your life is cake compared to what the vast majority of the world lives in and deals with every day. Living in the states gives you the luxury of nitpicking at stuff like the Saddleback AIDS conference because you basically have nothing better to do than to feel that it is your calling to attack and criticize others. If you were living someplace where you didn’t know if you would have food or water for your family from day to day -OR- if you were living someplace where AIDS, malaria and the like were wrecking havoc on the population on a daily basis…then I’m not so sure that you would be convinced that the Saddleback conference was a waste of time for the Church.
November 28, 2007 @ 11:15 amCarol,
You’re right of course. I wasn’t suggesting that the verse implied otherwise. I’m merely echoing Scott’s thought that it is perfectly appropriate for a church to host an AIDS conference. I would even go so far as to say it is divinely mandated.
November 28, 2007 @ 11:53 amKen – Anymore, it seems to take a lot for most people to lift a finger to help those in need. So, when we see anybody doing something kind, we should praise God for planting that seed, and acknowledge the act itself (regardless of who we believe that person, or group of people to be).
If an atheist who lives on my block, brings a bag of apples over to my house from her tree, am I not to see that as kind?
If a Wicka woman brings a jacket to a homeless person in the park, am I not to see that as kind?
If Astrologist decides to help serve food at the local shelter to people on Thanksgiving, am I not to see that as kind?
So, my point is, what does it matter Ken who you think Saddleback Church to be? Praise the kind act.
We are after all, not the Judge of any people.
We are here to love one another.
***
John- I agree. I would say too that it is divinely mandated.
Matthew 25 (40 in particular)
November 28, 2007 @ 12:15 pm“The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’
For whatever reason my labors in Christ have been consistently misrepresented here by my sincere brothers in Christ.
So, for the actual record:
Jesus I Know; and Rick Warren I Know, but Who is Ken Silva?
November 28, 2007 @ 12:16 pmJohn – I do not have a problem with a church hosting an AIDS conference either, with a couple of caveats. I think the church would be on very shaky ground if it is supporting non-Biblical methods of AIDS prevention (such as “safe sex”), or if the church does not acknowledge that its primary focus should be the condition of the eternal soul. I also believe a church must be very careful to whom it grants the honor of speaking from the pulpit.
November 28, 2007 @ 12:24 pmHm. Just read through that Pharisee link of yours, Ken. Thanks. Maybe a better question would be, who are the modern day Pharisees? Who are the people, today, who are pretentious? Who are more concerned with keeping to the letter of law like not working on the Sabbath rather than helping a sick man?
As far as this issue with Obama is concerned: I wonder if it is the unrepentant sin that is the issue here? That Obama is against AIDS is clearly not a focus for people who are against his talking to the church. The problem seems to be that he is for abortion?
Does this mean that any person who comes to speak at a church should first be screened to make sure they have no un-confessed sins lurking in their closets? Regardless of whether or not those sins pertain to what he has come to speak about?
Conversely, is there anyone out there that should absolutely never be allowed to speak from a pulpit?
Just curious.
November 28, 2007 @ 12:30 pmI can’t see a church conference on AIDS being of any use unless it discusses sodomy, which is the primary means of spreading AIDS. It is spread from parent to child quite often in Africa, but it’s spread to the mother often from sex with a man who has sex with other men. I guess the best way to convince men not to do this is to be honest about the risks of sodomy. AIDS is pretty much a homosexual disease, despite what our government would have us believe.
I’m not sure becoming a believer gets rid of homosexual tendencies, but the Bible certainly condemns it so it definitely curbs the practice amongst believers. The Church’s job, partially, is to proclaim the law of God, which would involve making unbelievers aware of how much God hates the practice of sodomy.
Scott,
November 28, 2007 @ 12:48 pmYou’re not coming off terribly well in this post, I’m afraid. Whenever you start in on Ingrid or Ken, despite the way they themselves come off, you end up sounding roughly the same as them. I honestly couldn’t bring myself to finish reading the post because of its tone. I say this as I examine the plank in my own eye, but on my own blog, I definitely appreciate my commentors calling me out on my posts.
PR,
I appreciate your perspective and I’m sorry that you don’t think that I am coming off very well. To be honest, I probably agree that my tone was/is harsh, maybe too much so. I guess I see this topic differently than others. I haven’t really talked much about Ken lately…in many months in fact. Ken is going to believe what he wants to believe about people and my arguments probably aren’t going to change his mind (though they may open the eyes of people on the fence before they fall off on one side or the other). But this is an example where he basically is advocating INACTION on the part of the church except for the direct spreading of the evangelistic message of the gospel, which directly contradicts Matthew 25 and James 1.
The youth pastor of our church is taking a group on Saturday, and I believe that a few others are attending the whole 3 day event. To be honest, I may not have felt so strongly about this whole thing except that my daughter is going with a group of young people on Saturday to the youth event. I am excited about the fact that our youth pastor is “on his Christian game” so to speak to see that there MUST be a connection between faith and action. He is working to “train up the youth in the way they should go,” namely keeping both aspects of their Christian faith alive and active and relevant to the world.
If you didn’t read the whole post, at least maybe you can answer me this: Is Ken correct in appearing to ignore Matthew 25 and James 1 and placing the emphasis primarily on evangelism and pushing aside the other “stuff” (feed the hungry, care for the sick, visit those in prison, care for widows and orphans, etc)?
November 28, 2007 @ 1:09 pmSaddleback’s HIV/AIDS Summit…
(h/t Verum Serum) Rick Warren is hosting an …
November 28, 2007 @ 1:17 pmNo, I think the church should do all that stuff, but it should do it in the way I mentioned above. In Africa, the population probably possesses lower native judgment inherently, and is in even more need of hearing God’s law on the matter of homosexuality. I added some more thoughts on my own blog.
November 28, 2007 @ 1:22 pmPR – I’ve got to pick you up on this;
Can you cite a reliable source on this? As I mentioned above, I worked for four years for a Christian charity with considerable HIV/AIDS expertise. Your statement may be true in the Unted States, but on a global scale it is completely false. Once AIDS has become endemic in a population with above average sexual promiscuity (as is not uncommon in several African countries) HIV/AIDS just doesn’t discriminate. The original source of infection may have been from homosexuality, but that has long since passed being the problem.
This is my Calvinism. I refuse to get into a discussion about it.
November 28, 2007 @ 1:52 pmNow see this issue as I do. I turn around and say that: “[Scott] is going to believe what he wants to believe about people and my arguments probably aren’t going to change his mind (though they may open the eyes of people on the fence before they fall off on one side or the other).”
That’s the essence of our fundamental difference. And the following is patently false:
And: “[Ken] basically is advocating INACTION on the part of the church except for the direct spreading of the evangelistic message of the gospel,…”
I advocate nothing of the sort. However, I’m also in full agreement with Dr. John MacArthur’s views in this area as expressed on The John Ankerberg Show. It was in reference to the apostate Roman Catholic Church, but it is completely analogous to working in union with unbelievers in religious settings e.g. Saddleback Church, no matter how noble the cause:
JOHN ANKERBERG: Now, Dr. John MacArthur, when we met together, we agreed that the ECT document, the “Evangelicals and Catholics Together” document was attempting to join Roman Catholics and Evangelical Protestants together as “cobelligerents,” the word the Francis Schaeffer coined “working at the grass-roots level” in terms of social issues.
And we were going to work together against the many social evils, including secular humanism, the riding tide of Islam, pornography, abortion, and things like that… I would like you to define the kind of unity that can exist between Evangelicals and Roman Catholics,…
John MacArthur: I think the way we can work together on [fighting abortion] is for the Catholics to work against those things, like they want to work against them, and we will work against those things, like we want to work against them, but we can’t really throw our arms around each other in a common effort because that confounds the issue of spiritual truth.
Look, if the Catholic Church is already a cobelligerent, if they are already anti-abortion, and pornography, and homosexuality; they are going to use all of their energies within the framework of their system to go after that. We are committed to that, and we are going after that. There is already a collective movement. Once you then sort of try to define that as “common spiritual mission” built on “common spiritual unity” you just take doctrine and throw it out the window…
November 28, 2007 @ 2:16 pmPR – sorry, didn’t post any links. Wikipedia may not always be 100% accurate, but it is useful in drawing together a lot of the leading reseasrch in a well referenced article.
I would just draw your attention to these quotes:
“Heterosexual intercourse is the primary mode of HIV infection worldwide”
“Needle sharing is the cause of one third of all new HIV-infections and 50% of hepatitis C infections in North America, China, and Eastern Europe.”
“The risk of transmitting HIV to blood transfusion recipients is extremely low in developed countries where improved donor selection and HIV screening is performed. However, according to the WHO, the overwhelming majority of the world’s population does not have access to safe blood and “between 5% and 10% of HIV infections worldwide are transmitted through the transfusion of infected blood and blood products”"
“In the absence of treatment, the transmission rate between the mother to the child during pregnancy, labor and delivery is 25%.”
Doesn’t that last one concern you? As someone who is pro-life, doesn’t it concern you that there are hundreds of thousands of children every year being born under an in-utero death sentence?
And, actually, re-reading what you’ve put
you’ve not just said that Africans have lower judgement, but that they are more prone to homosexuality. Trust me, dude, African churches preach God’s law on that subject just plenty without any outside encouragement. That statement was based entirely on ignorance and prejudice, wasn’t it?
November 28, 2007 @ 2:23 pmKeith,
Check this out. And this.
I’ll post some more on this later. C. Everett Koop testified before congress that roughly 97% of the AIDS cases in the US came from homosexual sex, and most of the other 3% were from IV drug use.
November 28, 2007 @ 2:32 pmI think you made a similar statement yourself:
At any rate, I was making a statement about IQ, not homosexual tendency.
If this were true, where’s the heterosexual outbreak in the US and other Western countries where there’s a lot of promiscuity? I have friends who’ve had sex with hundreds of women. When they went in to get tested for AIDS, they were told they had nothing to worry about if they hadn’t had sex with any men by the doctors. We’ve been told since the outbreak of AIDS that heterosexuals are equally likely to get it, and it simply isn’t true. I know no heterosexuals with the disease, and I’ve known quite a few promiscuous people. The primary means of spreading HIV in the hetersexual population is IV drugs:
November 28, 2007 @ 2:50 pmPR – So I checked your first link, and I found this:
“Yet almost certainly greater – and more controllable – contributors to the African epidemic are “contaminated punctures from such sources as medical injections, dental injections, surgical procedures, drawing as well as injecting blood, and rehydration through IV tubes,” says Brody.”
Then I checked your second link, and found that it was, word for word, the same article, but in a PDF. Nice trick, shame someone bothered to read them both.
Which western societies – the ones with widely available condoms? It’s also worth noting that the strain of HIV most prevalent in Africa is more virulent than the strain most prevalent in the US and Europe. So that is exactly what you would expect.
I should point out the difference between my statement and yours. My statement can be backed up by research,(see the section titled ‘Promiscuity’) yours can only be beacked up by throwing mud. You were not making a statement about IQ! If you were I would have left well alone, because I know there’s no point discussing that with you.
You were stating that as a result of their lower IQs, Africans were more in need of guidance about homosexuality – therefore implying they are more prone to homosexuality. This is so offensive you are now trying to backtrack from it.
I notice you didn’t respond to my question about reconciling your pro-life stance with your lack of care for babies infected with HIV in their mothers womb. I really would like an answer on that, please.
November 28, 2007 @ 4:03 pmActually, I was trying to say that people with lower IQ are more apt to make poor decisions, be they homosexual or no. I in the case of homosexuals, this involves not using condoms or having less knowledge of the factors that cause the spread of the disease. Therefore, they will probably pay a higher price than individuals with higher IQ doing the same thing.
Ok. Let’s get them to clean up their needles too. This has nothing to do with homosexuality or heterosexuality, as spreading it through dirty needles isn’t sexual transmission. It still doesn’t detract from the fact that sexually, HIV is pretty much a gay disease.
I know of no-one who uses condoms amongst my heterosexually promiscuous friends. They almost always rely on female birth control. Let’s say that non-B (specifically, E) spreads more easily in heterosexuals. It’s still B that’s spreading in more rapidly amongst heterosexuals in South America, Central America, and the Caribbean:
Is it possible that people from societies that attach more stigma to homosexuality are more prone to lie about who they’ve been sleeping with? There’s a lot of double-speak on this issue from doctors and other professionals. Some are saying that IV drugs are the primary cause of the spread in heterosexuals, some are saying that it’s heterosexual sex, but infection with different strains. Which is it? From the 1987 article above:
This is making my case. In the same article, it was also making the point that female genital mutilation had a lot to do with the spread of HIV, and if you’ll noticed, this was confined to the more Islamic parts of Africa. That makes perfect sense, as female genital mutilation would likely increase the blood-to-blood contact amongst infected persons.
The case of HIV-E is interesting though. I’ll have to look more into it.
November 28, 2007 @ 4:51 pmScott,
I’ve enjoyed this post and the replies. Just one issue I’ll bring up…you mention:
“This word is only used twice in the Bible. In Leviticus it is a reference to a prohibition against cross breading…”
And I think you meant to write “cross-breeding” but if you really meant “cross-breading” then I have a loaf of sourdough that is deeply offended…
November 28, 2007 @ 4:52 pmMy comment disappeared.
November 28, 2007 @ 4:52 pmKeith,
I wrote a lengthy comment that disappeared. I’ll try to get back to you later. I think there’s quite a bit of obfuscation going on by researchers, and some of the references you gave me make my point.
November 28, 2007 @ 5:00 pmPR,
It was in the spam catcher (latest version of Akismet).
It happens occasionally to the longer comments, even to me once.
November 28, 2007 @ 5:06 pmHa, Ha, Ha!!! Funny!!!
As my students would say, “My Bad!”
I went back and made the correction!
Thanks, Inca!
Scott
PS – I guess I should have been busy proof-reading as opposed to LOAFING around! Get it? Bread…Loaf?
Man, I kill myself!
November 28, 2007 @ 5:07 pmCan you dig it out?
November 28, 2007 @ 5:08 pmPR,
Uh…I de-spammed it. I thought it appeared as #24.
If that wasn’t it I’m sorry but it must have been eaten.
November 28, 2007 @ 8:01 pmPR – saying that “sexually, HIV is pretty much a gay disease.” is very different from saying “AIDS is pretty much a homosexual disease”
Now, since you have acknowledged that E strain passes more freely via heterosexual contact, and that the E strain is the prevalent one in Africa, will you please modify your comment to “sexually, in the Unites States(or the West, if you prefer), HIV is pretty much a gay disease.” If you said that, you may be right, I don’t know. But when you just say HIV or AIDS is… you are, unless otherwise specified, talking about Africa and possibly Asia, (India). AIDS is at an epidemic level in sub-Saharan Africa – an estimated 21.6 to 27.4 million people infected. It did not get to that level through homosexual sex, nor would it have got to that level if heterosexual sexual contact were not an effective way of passing the disease on. The Rest of The World is merely a footnote in the global story of AIDS.
Finally
So which part of God’s law is going to educate them about condoms?
I have met with many people working on the front line of HIV/AIDS programmes in sub-Saharan Africa, all Christians, both European and African. Although they say that teaching God’s law on homosexuality is important, they have all made it clear that preaching it more is not going to acheive any more. Believe me, on this subject I really do know what I’m talking about.
November 29, 2007 @ 6:49 amJohn,
Your spam filter caught my comment again.
November 29, 2007 @ 10:46 amNo one is asking you to condone or embrace the homosexual partnership for yourself, personally. As a heterosexual, I knew immediately that I could no longer worship publicly with a congregation after our minister found out one of the members of the church of Christ where he served was gay and had a monogamous relationship, (much longer than most heterosexual marriages, incidentally) and decided it was his “Christian” duty to counsel this member, and ultimately the gay member took his own life. I knew right then some things should be left up to our Creator to judge. With attitudes like yours, do you not recognize that you are a cheerleader for the anti gay activists who far too often take it upon themselves to torment emotionally and often physically, the gays for no other reason than being who they are. Why not preach cleaning up the heterosexual conduct i.e. red light districts, discretionary relationship, no-fault divorce, etc., or do you teach that the truth only becomes the truth when other people find out about it. At least if gays decide to no longer share a relationship with one another, they do not leave little children to suffer the collateral damage. How in the world would you feel if sometime in the future we learn that the gays do have a biological reason for their being gay. If nature can cause a glitch in so many of the characteristics that make up a human being, why can’t the hormones, testosterones, etc., be subject to a little quirky variation? And, how do you explain little babies born who are trans-gender? How awful you will feel if someday that is proven without a doubt. The church of Christ doctrine is too elite for me to subscribe to. It is almost like the members think they are the only true believers and believe the only truth. That is really painful for those who have family members, wonderful friends and loved ones, who for some reason think they have “found the way” and it is their mission to show you! In earthly terms this would be described as the ultimate “snobbish” way of thinking. I do not think a loving Creator would leave us with only a book much like “Finding Waldo”, and woe unto ye who do not understand and interpret it the same as the believers in your church. The Creator created the entire universe, everything, and everyone. I am ashamed that you have reduced Him to Someone who would in turn condemn everyone to Hell unless we see eye to eye on your method of praising Him. Please!
November 29, 2007 @ 4:03 pmTo lead a movement to help AIDS sufferers within the community of believers in Christ is one thing, to include unbelievers confuses the gospel message even if some believers realize the motivation. When asked about his questionable alliances Warren quotes the Scripture where Jesus sent out the seventy and told them that if the man of peace received them stay in that town. Warren’s reasoning is that if an unbeliever wants to join then let him. With that hemeneutics the Bible says anything.
Warren does a lot for the AIDS cause but his unscriptural alliances have removed the gospel essence from the movement. Pragmatism is a double edged sword. It isn’t just this conference, Warren cooperates publicly with the head of ACT UP ( a pro-gay org) and other people who exhibit earthly compassion while rejecting the Lord Jesus. The line of demarcation is Christ, not humanitarian issues. Warren would be much better served by going around the land to wake up the church to our rsponsibility to the poor, not lend credibility to those who reject Christ.
BTW – Warren accepts invitations to go to Jewish synagogues, Mormon tabernacles, and Roman Catholic churches to help them grow. If I am not mistaken, Paul called the unbelieving Jew the “enemies of the cross of Christ”, he called works based salvation “fallen from grace”, and he called Mormonism the “spirit of anti-christ” since they deny Christ’s deity.
November 30, 2007 @ 5:48 amRick – you say it so much better than I. Thanks. And, I still can’t quite get over the title of the Fox News piece on Warren – “Can Rick Warren Save the World?”. Yikes. Smacks of hubris to me.
November 30, 2007 @ 7:20 amCarol,
I understand that some people have problems and/or concerns regarding Warren. I am not completely comfortable myself with some things that he has said and/or done.
And perhaps pride is an issue that he needs to deal with.
But I think it is unfair to see potential hubris in Rick Warren based on the title of a news story from Fox News that he had no control over. “Can Rick Warren Save the World” is a typical news title that attempts to be provocative and thought provoking.
Since Rick didn’t write the piece, I don’t think you can hold it against him.
November 30, 2007 @ 8:42 amhope wrote:
>No one is asking you to condone or
>embrace the homosexual partnership
>for yourself, personally. As a heterosexual,
>I knew immediately that I could no longer
>worship publicly with a congregation after
>our minister found out one of the members
>of the church of Christ where he served
>was gay and had a monogamous relationship,
>(much longer than most heterosexual marriages,
> incidentally) and decided it was his “Christian”
>duty to counsel this member, and ultimately
>the gay member took his own life. I knew
>right then some things should be left up to
>our Creator to judge.
Gosh, when I read stories like this my soul burns with anger for days. Why do I find Christians with their hatred for others so filthy and disgusting? Does that minister even realize he did the same as putting a gun to that poor man’s head an pulling the trigger. In my eyes that minister is a filthy murderer and should be in prison for his crimes against humanity. That minister is a typical example of how Christians daily show me through their deeds and words that there is no God. Disgusting!
After a story like that I’m ready to outlaw religion in America and jail the filthy bastards who put on minister’s clothing and then proceed to molest little children and/or drive others to suicide all while professing the good name of Jesus.
Can you tell that I’m angry?
November 30, 2007 @ 8:49 amScott -I understand your point; however, I think most pastors would require editorial control over a television piece given the media’s attitude toward Christianity. I mean, we know how the media twists and slants and edits to its own purposes (even FNC). To not insist on control would be naive.
November 30, 2007 @ 9:30 amCarol,
In a perfect world what you are saying would be true, but at this point I think you are way off in your expectations. I have worked in a variety of media over the years and I can almost guarantee that news networks would never give editorial control over to the subject of a feature in either broadcast or print media.
The only control that someone like Warren would have would be to refuse to cooperate/participate in the process. The problem with that approach is that it completely removes you from any input in the production process or the final version of the story. As is the nature of news stories, the story would still be done, just without his input.
He would have more control if it was a feature story of significant length or if it was 30-60 minutes special broadcast in which they would need unrestricted access.
November 30, 2007 @ 10:04 amThe fake ministries of the ODM’s should all just go be Amish. Then they wouldn’t be bothered by anyone…and we wouldn’t have to be bothered by them.
November 30, 2007 @ 10:25 amTo Mark…I am sure the minister I referred to truly thought in all honestly and compassion that it was his Christain duty to “carry out the scriptures” regarding homosexuality. I would doubt with the profound belief that scripture worshipers have that he does not find fault nor feel guilt with his counsel to this kind man. I have experienced one incident after the other when I am in the company of the “true” Christians – their word, not mine – that their view on being a Christian is so rigid, that I cannot believe that a Creator who sent His Son, in person, to love us and save us for all eternity, would expect us to understand the Scriptures as we know them today and choose the ones we should take literally and separate them from an analogy. What if we make the wrong choice due to our limited ability to understand a very difficult account of history. Has God skipped over me when he hands out his Divine Guidance, so that I can recognize it as such, or have I just not put enough effort into seeking it. Why would a loving God be so Small and vindictive to punish most of us because of something we do not understand. Please Explain! Isn’t there enough evil in our world that we can confront, and can you not tell the difference in evil and someone who in their heart has a different view than yours on a lot of issues?.
November 30, 2007 @ 10:29 amNC – what’s ODM?
November 30, 2007 @ 10:41 amOf course a lot of those “filthy bastards who put on minister’s clothing and then proceed to molest” are gay. At least, many of the victims were pre-teen boys.
Homosexuals are not always victims. Disturbingly often they are perpetrators.
November 30, 2007 @ 11:04 amCarol,
Some Ideas about possible ODM meanings:
- Old Dead Monsters
- Otherworldly Dinosaur Mastication
- Operational Defense Methodology
- Orange Demented Monkeys
But of course, what do I know?!?
November 30, 2007 @ 11:08 amJohn,
Any luck finding my comment from yesterday? I have to admit, it’s extremely frustrating writing a good comment only to have it disappear.
November 30, 2007 @ 11:14 amPR,
I did find it and de-spammed it. Usually when I do that it automatically appears on the site. In this case I thought it had appeared as #24.
If that’s not it, I have no idea what happened to it. It’s not in Akismet anymore and it’s not waiting approval.
Sorry, man.
November 30, 2007 @ 11:23 amThat’s not the one. Kind of pointless to comment at length if it just disappears, isn’t it?
November 30, 2007 @ 11:37 amIt’s definitely frustrating, but it wasn’t intentional.
Again, sorry it happened.
November 30, 2007 @ 11:43 amKeith,
I responded on my own blog.
November 30, 2007 @ 12:37 pmScott, just wondering: why do you consistently refer to the Reverend Ken Silva (assuming that he is an ordained minister) as the “Reverend” Ken Silva?
The two of you may be poles apart on most things and may agree on very little, but what you’re doing qualifies as an ad hominem argument (i.e., putting the other guy in the worst light possible)?
What I’m trying to say is, if your ideas are superior to his ideas, let the ideas themselves win the day without the accompanying snarkiness.
November 30, 2007 @ 1:21 pmBob,
Ken signs all his posts (or used to) “Rev. Ken Silva.” We started using that simply because it was how he identified himself.
As things progressed it became clear that “Rev. Ken” was inordinately obsessed with his ordination. He constantly refers to his authority as “pastor-teacher.”
At that point the “Rev.” part of it seemed to take on a different meaning (for me anyway). It was Ken’s self-conscious way of letting you know he’s more important than you.
But again, this began with him, not with us.
November 30, 2007 @ 2:38 pmBob,
Fair enough. I’ll have to rethink why it is that I keep putting Ken’s title of “Reverend” in quotes.
At first blush, let me give you some thoughts that might explain (though not excuse) why I do so…
1) Though Ken may have been ordained by the Southern Baptist Convention (an organization which he now spends a considerable amount of time railing against), I am pretty sure that he has no formal training or degrees (as in he has no seminary degrees or other such degrees in advanced fields of study). In my mind, “Reverend” is a title that is used when someone has reached a certain level of knowledge and training. I have no problem saying that Ken is a pastor, but as far as me viewing him as a “reverend,” I’m not so sure.
Note: Regarding Ken’s level of theological training, I say that I am “pretty sure” of this because I have been told as such by others who would know Ken far better than do I. That information may be available on his Apprising site, but his writings are not very well organized so to try and find an actually bio on Ken is nearly impossible. Given Ken’s habit of using his titles of authority whenever possible (“president,” “pastor,” “reverend,” “editor,” etc) if he actually had advanced degrees I’m pretty sure he wouldn’t hesitate to use them in identifying himself as an authority to be reckoned with.
2) I have a difficult time believing that Ken actually conducts himself in such a way as to deserve any title indicating a level of authority in the church, be it “reverend,” “pastor,” “teacher” or whatever. He certainly isn’t my pastor and holds no spiritual authority over me, so I don’t feel the need to actually use any of the titles that he enjoys throwing around on a regular basis.
3) Given the attacks and insults that Ken levels at people every time he spews forth his pronouncements and missives, putting “Reverend” in quotation marks certainly indicates the level of disdain I have for his attacks and his inability to engage in well-reasoned dialog.
All of that being said, I agree with you. I do feel as though the arguments that many of us make in regards to Ken are solid…solid enough that I should leave some of the snarkiness out of it.
As of now I will simply refer to him as Ken Silva without the “Reverend” jab.
Thanks for calling me on it. I really do appreciate it.
November 30, 2007 @ 2:54 pmScott – I’m glad you’re doing that. I’ve felt for a while that your way of engaging with Ken undermines the validity of your argument with him.
PR – I just had a read of your response. It’s kind of late here, and the end of a busy week, so I’m going to reply tomorrow.
November 30, 2007 @ 2:58 pmHogwash.
If you actually made the time to carefully read what I actually write then you would know the answer to that. I always been open about the size of my local church and my training for ministry.
This title, which I very, very rarely use, is bestowed when one is ordained as a local pastor is the SBC. As I explained before, Ingrid used that as my handle t the old Slice. I had nothing to do with choosing it.
My board of directors, which includes four other ministers, disagrees.
Which is back to my original point: I don’t. So who decides which is right?
November 30, 2007 @ 4:44 pmKeith,
Here is my take on Ken (which you may have seen already). I did my best to be dispassionate. A good percentage of my post is Ken’s own words from his site. His response was to a) claim other ministries ask for money and b) he is accountable and it’s my fault for not knowing how and to whom.
I stand by what I said.
November 30, 2007 @ 5:45 pmKen,
Just a quick point…
In a previous comment I said, “I have a difficult time believing that Ken actually conducts himself in such a way as to deserve any title indicating a level of authority in the church…”
Your response was:
Why is it that your “board of directors” is good enough for you, but Rick Warren’s isn’t good enough for you, Rob Bell’s isn’t good enough for you, etc, etc, etc?
If your board of directors or the elder board at your church (which I would assume are composed of godly men and/or women) are enough, in your mind, to keep you accountable, then why isn’t that same structure good enough for the men you so vigorously attack and denounce?
It just seems like you want people to have a hands-off approach to you and your ministry, but you certainly don’t extend that same philosophy to anyone else with whom you disagree.
November 30, 2007 @ 6:39 pmIn my opinion this would be more accurate: “A good percentage of my post is [some of] Ken’s own words from his site [arranged to make unfavorable points].”
“[Part of] His response was to a) claim other ministries ask for money [well, don't they?] and b) he is accountable and it’s my fault for not knowing how and to whom.”
I explained that as the pastor of a local church I have their leadership to which I am accountable as well as to a separate board of directors.
And I put a link up earlier in this comment thread which explains more fully the scope of the ministries which extend from my local church. This is where Apprising Ministries comes from.
However, it doesn’t matter how many times I explain this, certain folks just don’t want to see it. Now, that’s cool with me, but they at least ought to be ethical enough to acknowledge that I have not hidden anything.
November 30, 2007 @ 6:47 pm“It just seems like you want people to have a hands-off approach to you and your ministry,…”
That’s how you see it; I’ve never said anything remotely like that. Anyone can come at me all they want. I’m a big boy, I can take it.
My only objection remains: Disagree, criticize, attack, etc. all you want; but don’t lie and say I have no accountability structure, because I do. :-)
November 30, 2007 @ 6:51 pmKen,
For the record, my post was 2,997 words, 1,269 of those were Ken’s. That works out to 42.3%. Most of these are full paragraphs, not selected quotes. Compare my treatment of Ken to his treatment of Rob Bell, which I wrote about here. Notice how, even after I point out how Ken has misunderstood what Bell said and even after his “source” came on my blog to reject his interpretation of some statements he’d made, Ken never admits he was wrong.
Ken can say my post doesn’t fully reflect his views or is somehow dishonest in its arrangements of the facts. But notice that — exactly as my post points out — Ken never gets around to actually specifying where I took his words out of context or how I arranged them unfairly. That’s always left to the imagination of the reader.
Also notice what Ken hasn’t said. He hasn’t said I misquoted him because, quite simply, I haven’t.
So, Ken, I’ve seen how you and Ingrid handle accountability at Slice. Anyone who doesn’t agree is unceremoniously dumped and, usually, banned. Then they abandoned comments altogether, then brought them back. Who knows what the policy is now…
I’ve seen how Ken handles disagreement here on our site enough to know that any accountability structure is liable to be little more than a rubber stamp of like-minded individuals.
For instance, a search of “Ken Silva” on Google brings up two critical VS posts in the top 5 listings (including the one I linked above). For an “internet ministry” like Ken’s that’s somewhat significant I would think. Has Ken’s accountability structure ever asked him about those posts? Has he ever had to actually, you know, account for anything he’s been called on by us or anyone else? Did he have to explain himself after the guys at Pyromaniacs sent a shot across Slice’s bow a year ago? What has Ken actually had to answer for?
More to the point, where are Ken’s financial giving statements? Where is the information available for viewing online? Who is looking at the numbers? Who has overview of how the money is spent? To whom is Ken tithing/giving?
Bottom line: If no one is reviewing the financials in a regular, organized way there’s no real accountability happening.
What say you, Ken?
November 30, 2007 @ 7:37 pmKen/Scott/John
in comparison to previous, similar, discussions, this one is a lot more objective and less ‘spoken in anger’, which actually reflects better on everyone. Nobody damming anybody else to hell, etc, all looks better to the outside observer.
I do wonder, though, whether anyone at all is going to change their mind in even the slightest way about this issue, which is why I’m keeping out of it.
FWIW – Slice is now a ‘non-interactive’ blog. So, no comments at all, even after moderation, and no banning, since everyone is banned.
December 1, 2007 @ 2:51 amI whole-heartedly second that.
December 1, 2007 @ 12:05 pmKeith,
I agree that we probably won’t change Ken’s mind and Ken probably won’t change ours. My investment of time at this point is to help others that come by VS who may be undecided or who are just searching for all the possible answers/alternatives.
The feedback that we get from time to time indicates that these exchanges can be very clarifying and informative to people who have questions.
Otherwise, believe me when I say that I have other/better things to do than kick around controversies with Ken. If that was all I was interested in doing, I would be posting about the crud he puts out every day. I usually only engage Ken and/or his ideas when I think that some good can come out of the exchange.
December 1, 2007 @ 2:46 pmScott asked of Ken Silva:
>Why is it that your “board of directors” is
>good enough for you, but Rick Warren’s
>isn’t good enough for you, Rob Bell’s isn’t
>good enough for you, etc, etc, etc?
>If your board of directors or the elder
>board at your church (which I would
>assume are composed of godly men
>and/or women) are enough, in your
>mind, to keep you accountable, then
>why isn’t that same structure good
>enough for the men you so vigorously
>attack and denounce?
Good question and I also want to know who Ken Silva’s “board of directors” is. I would like to hear from them what they think about Ken’s behavior. Are we sure that Ken’s “board of directors” even exists? I have been to Mars Hill Church in Grand Rapids and they have an office staff that could put me in touch with Rob’s board of elders. I see that Rick Warren’s church website has a physical address and phone number listed where I could go to find out the names of his board of directors. Where is Ken’s information? Where is the physical address, what’s the phone number, and who are the elders of Ken’s “church”??
I think its high time for some actual physical verification here.
This wouldn’t be the first occasion that a functionally delusional person invented an organization that didn’t actually exist outside of the imagination. Many of them do it because they are convinced that God wants them to. Some even hear little voices in their heads. I see a lot of similarities between Ken Silva’s thinking and Charles Manson’s thinking.
Was it Lenin or Stalin who said that religion is the opiate of the masses? The behavior of many Christians (including Ken)convince me they might be right.
December 2, 2007 @ 8:17 amhope responded:
“…I am sure the minister I referred to truly thought in all honestly and compassion that it was his Christian duty to “carry out the scriptures” regarding homosexuality.”
Hi, Hope.
Perhaps you and I have read different scriptures? My scriptures say that you should work on the plank in your own eye before you offer to help your brother with the speck in his.
My scriptures come with a simple set of ten rules that are time tested for the last five thousand years and they don’t seem to mention that two people of the same gender are forbidden from having a monogamous committed relationship.
The scriptures I have read talk about how God himself came to Earth in the form of a man and never bothered to mention homosexuality as a problem yet he had LOTS TO SAY about ministers doing very bad things.
Why are some ministers driving people to suicide? Is it because they are not really Christians?
Even atheist doctors take an oath to “first do no harm”.
This is a perfect example where Christians don’t even measure up to the ethics of the average atheist.
In my view, the behavior of the average Christian is the best evidence atheists have that there is no God.
December 2, 2007 @ 8:40 amMark, O, yes indeedy, they quote scriptures..Levitcus, 1st Corninthians, and Romans, to name a few!
December 2, 2007 @ 10:18 amI have found this to be such a taboo subject that you just do not go there with the fundamental Christians who interpert the Bible literally. Now, with AIDS being discussed in the medical field, why is the comparrison never made with heterosexual diseases. Could it be because medical science has found a cure for those diseases i.e. pennicillin. Instead of stigmatizing this disease called AIDS, why can’t we support a cure for it, instead of shunning the victims. Because so many “Christians” find it appropriate to judge, can you imagine the extra burden of pain they are piling on those who are already hurting. They know that (in their eyes) they have already been sentenced to an eternity of hell because of their sinful lifestyle, so if we are going to use scripture regarding this issue, I would much rather think the one you quoted about “removing the plank in your own eye”, would be the one true Christians would apply.
Hope,
It is extremely important to understand that the spread of HIV/AIDS is not a homosexual problem. Its a promiscuity problem. Two homosexuals who are in a monogamous relationship and have never had sex with anyone else cannot get HIV or spread it to others.
God clearly wants and approves of monogamous relationships. As the American divorce rate passes the 50 percent mark [and married US Presidents are free to have sex with interns in the White House, and US astronauts are angry because the person they are cheating with is found to be cheating with someone else as well] the Christian church bigots of today need to stop ignoring the huge sins going on all around them (otherwise known as the plank in their own eye).
Also take special notice that nowhere have I said that homosexuality is not a sin. It might be. At this point in history with Christians making a mockery of God’s word I don’t really care about such a speck in someone else’s eye. I remain silent on that question. What I won’t remain silent about is that all Christians have sinned and are sinning today and they need to work on their own sins and stop worrying so much about their neighbor. The Church turns a blind eye to huge sins all around for political expediency but then decides to get excited about homosexuality because the Church is run by bigots who are infatuated with sex – specifically other people’s sex lives. To me that is clearly violating the commandment against coveting.
When will the Bigots in the Christian church stop peeping into the windows of other’s and get back to their own obedience to the ten commandments?
Didn’t Jesus say something about who gets to cast the first stone?
I feel the farthest from God when I’m standing in a Christian church.
December 2, 2007 @ 11:12 amI think I agree with you. I carry my faith in my heart, and when I replied with that answer after a church going friend ask me which church I attended and I responded “My church is in my heart, and she said, “Hope, we have to talk”! I took that comment to mean that she was expected to make a church going Christian out of me. I feel more like a Christian when I am not around all of the church members who wear their religion on their sleeve. I grew up in the Bible Belt, and I am grateful for much of the values I was exposed to, but not the narrow-mindedness and rigid beliefs upon which they expound.
December 2, 2007 @ 11:29 amHope,
You probably don’t want to hear this, but read Hebrews chapter 10 and especially around verse 25, where the KJV says “Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together as the manner of some is” and the NIV says “Let’s not stop meeting together as some people do.”
We all carry our faith in our heart, that goes without saying. But there’s something right and necessary about being part of a community of believers.
“And so much the more, as you see the day approaching.”
December 2, 2007 @ 10:00 pmWhen the Christian religion gets its act together and worships as one religion, I will be the first one in the door. But I do not know which church to attend, as I might unfortunately, and with my luck, choose the wrong one! I do not seek my faith like in “Finding Waldo”, the children’s book. I have noticed too often that Church attendees spend more time finding fault with other people’s beliefs, without thinking too much of the rocky past of the Christian religion. It has been ever bit as evil as the fundamental Islams. Then, miraculously about ONLY 150 years ago, the Stone-Campbell movement decided to restore Christainity to its original message.. If the members of the Church of Christ maintain that it has the exact formula i.e. no intrumental music, literal intrepretation of the Bible, non-inclusive with other ways of worship, etc., aren’t they being a bit riskly in the event that they inadvertanly misunderstood or forgot something? I can only tell you that I am still scarred from listening to the “I am Right, You are Wrong” debates of my childhood. And every Christian Track published that I have ever seen refers to the Church of Christ as the one “true” church. That is just too arrogant and elitist for me, when I think that our Creator created the entire universe, all kinds of things, places and people, and what in the world makes us believe that we have the only way of worshipping HIM. To say, “Well, we are blessed, then one would have to assume that those not fortunate enough to have “found the one true way” have not been blessed – and what have they done to deserve their “fate”. Just too confusing for me, and frankly, I could never reduce the God that I believe in, to such a small and narrow Being.
December 3, 2007 @ 5:27 amHope,
I have a slightly broader view of “the body of Christ” — too broad, some might say (probably Ken Silva). A body has different parts — head (Jesus Christ), arms, legs, hands, feet, respiratory system, bones, muscle, you get the picture. And all have different functions and a different look to them. The foot is not the hand, and the ear is not the eye. Just because the ear says, “Because I am not the eye, I am not in the body,” (and where would he get that idea except from some pushy, unloving eye?) doesn’t mean the ear is not part of the body. Paul Somebody mentioned this in a letter to some people in Corinth.
The louder the insistence on “We’re right; everybody else is wrong,” the more I believe that only the Lord knows who is a part of His body and who isn’t, and some people in both groups are going to be very surprised.
December 3, 2007 @ 7:29 amTo get back to the original point of the post – if you want to know where Rick Warren stands vis a vis salvation and the Word of God, read the “Christian Reponse to the Common Word” by Muslim theologians. Check out the second to the last paragraph wherein the letter states that our eternal souls are at stake if we don’t make peace with Muslims, and then scroll down the signatures. If Rick Warren really believes what this letter says, he should not be preaching from the pulpit of a Christian church. Unitarian, maybe, but not Christian.
December 10, 2007 @ 9:33 amWhat is it about this blog that attracts so many theological liberals?
December 10, 2007 @ 12:51 pmI’m not sure how you define “so many” in relation to the number “theological liberals” that stop by the blog. We certainly attract a wide variety of opinions, and I think it is because we actually engage in discussion and encourage the exchange of ideas during the dialog. While we are not afraid to disagree with people who come by the blog, we welcome all comers. We engage them where they are at, agreeing at times and disagreeing at others.
As we have pointed out quite often, we don’t edit or screen comments. We don’t pick-and-choose what gets through and what doesn’t. I think that non-Christians and liberals find that refreshing. They are used to Christian blogs that try and control the debate and regulate the flow of information, thus skewing the perception of visitors/readers of their blogs.
We prefer the concept of transparency, which I believe is also closer to how Jesus and his followers engaged people in the early years of the Church.
Theologically speaking, neither John or I would fall into the camp of “liberal theology.” If we were to present our theological bona fides, you would find that we are orthodox right down the line in relation to the important “basics” of the historic Christian faith.
How are you defining “theologically liberal” and who would you place in that category in terms of people who visit VS?
December 10, 2007 @ 1:07 pmIMHO, a theological liberal is more interested in unity than in separation.
December 10, 2007 @ 1:15 pmI should have qualified my question…
I asked how you are defining “theologically liberal.”
Since “liberal” is a loaded term (especially in the Church), could you qualify how you are using it?
Do you think that Arminianism is a liberal position?
Do you think that Preterism is a liberal position?
I’m just trying to get a bead on your label.
December 10, 2007 @ 1:15 pmI’m well aware, hence my question.
December 10, 2007 @ 2:26 pmI’m interested in Scott’s question (from a position of ‘I don’t know’ rather than ‘I think I disagree with you’)
I don’t think I’m theologically liberal, but I can’t find a conclusive definition to which I can say ‘I don’t think that’.
December 10, 2007 @ 2:33 pm