They’re Talking About Me on Slicecast
John on August 19, 2006 at 4:30 pm
At the tail end of the comments to my earlier post about Ken Silva’s declaration of war on the emergent church, I stated my concerns about the wisdom of continuing the conversation. I said in part, “I believe it may be time for me to leave this matter between Ken and the Lord.”
Last night, a few hours after I posted those comments, Ken wrote a response (scroll down) to someone who had written him an e-mail about these same issues. Is it just me or is his response eerily similar to what I said to him just a few hours earlier? It also sounds quite dramatically different than his earlier comments on this site. All that to say, perhaps setting an example is working…
In any case, I’m going to stick to my resolution not to judge Slice authors to the best of my ability. However, given that Ken mentioned me (and his comments to me) on the most recent Slicecast, I think I have some leeway to respond.
For those that don’t have any idea what I’m talking about, Slicecast is the podcast put out by Slice of Laodicea where Ken is a regular blogger. Ken was this week’s call in guest on the 15 minute show. Toward the end of the program, Ken says:
I told one guy I was dealing with, I said, this isn’t a game for me. This is my life. I have lost much support financially since I started this, particularly Rob Bell. My readership has gone up and praise God for that — we’re getting all kinds of people reading it — but I’ve had a number of people back off financially because of it. I don’t care. I’m a walking dead guy…
I said to the guy, I lay my life on the line. Do you? I know what I fast and pray about. Do you?
Regular readers are aware that Ken said those things right here, responding to me. That means I’m “one guy” and “the guy” being referred to in the statements above. Now, I understand he’s speaking extemperaneously, but it’s not like Ken doesn’t know my name at this point. He’s been exchanging comments with me — both here and at Slice — for almost a month now. But, fine, it’s not my show. I don’t expect to be named. I will note, however, that Ken once rebuked me for calling him “Rev. Ken,” (same link as above). He suggested I was belittling him in some way. Isn’t “Rev. Ken” (which is how he signs his posts at Slice) a lot better than “a guy.” I think so. But once again, Ken seems to have one yardstick for judging how others talk about him and a completely different one for judging how he talks about others.
I’m not going to spend a lot of time on the rest of Ken’s Slicecast appearance. I will say that — stripped of the faux-Spurgeon writing style he seems to prefer — he sounds quite normal, even articulate on the phone. That said, I would roughly estimate that 5-7 minutes of the 15 minute program was spent in mutual self-congratulation for the corageous stand he and Ingrid are taking. (If someone would like to take the time to clock it more precisely, feel free to correct me in the comments.) By contrast, there was only one question that offered a substantive reference to anything Rob Bell (the focus of Ken’s ire) has written. Just so you don’t think I’m exaggerating, here’s sample of the sort of thing I’m talking about. This comes right after the quote above, about 12 minutes in:
Ken: Well, it’s about time we had some men with boldness…I didn’t ask for this, but I’m not going to turn it down because I owe him everything.
Ingrid: That’s right the Lord gave everything he had for us, the least we can do is to return what we have — the gifts that he’s given us — to use them for his glory and to warn those in the church — as unpopular as it is — to be in the postition of watchman you take a bit of egg in the face from the kids standing down below…However we continue on, we continue on and the price we’re paying is certainly far less — at its worst — than what other believers around the world have paid for in the past…Just read Foxe’s book of martyrs…it puts everything in perspective.
Ken: It’s like I said to one emergent guy recently. I said, I’m really not as bad a guy as you think if you talk to me one on one…
Speaking as one of the “kids standing down below”, I don’t think you’re so bad, Ken. I just think you’re seeing this situation completely backwards. You’re not really in the watchtower looking down on the rest of us, you’re right here on the ground looking at everything through the wrong end of a telescope. And that’s what makes it a little unnerving when you start swinging your sword.
Category: Religion & Faith |
Hey John, I’ve been following your blog and slice for about two weeks now. I had listened to the Slicecast and then read the comments on your blog and had the same eureka moment you did.
Not to sound like a suck-up, but I really appreciate your responses to Ken. They are well thought-out and genuine.
Look forward to reading more good (non-slice) stuff here at verum serum
August 19, 2006 @ 7:19 pm*Tsk Tsk*
Well now gentlemen. It would appear to me that you are engaging “in mutual self-congratulation” here yourselves. :-)
So, which is it? Was I talking about you John? Or was I talking about you Chris S?
August 19, 2006 @ 9:24 pmPastor Ken,
I think Chris was just saying that he also thought you were talking about John.
I continue to wonder what your opinion is on this:
“I’m having trouble reconciling the statements made about Rob Bell’s belief that “ALL things are reconciled” (I believe Pastor Ken said “redeemed”) with the statement on the beliefs section of the Mar’s Hill church website: “His death and resurrection bring hope to all creation. Through Jesus we have been forgiven and God is reconciling us to himself, each other, ourselves, and creation. Jesus is the only mediator between God and humans. For all who accept his sacrifice he gives the Holy Spirit who leads us into all truth through a communal life of worship and a missional expression of our faith.”
Doesn’t “For all who accept his sacrifice he gives the Holy Spirit” imply that the Holy Spirit is withheld from those who don’t accept Christ’s sacrifice? If so, is this, along with the picture of Christ as mediator, a way of speaking about the atonement? (Not a clear way, but a way nonetheless?)
August 20, 2006 @ 1:52 pmAs for “all things being reconciled” I can tell you where Rob got that idea:
It’s a scriptural principle. In Christ, the curse that began with Adam is ended, not just for us but for the whole creation.
August 20, 2006 @ 2:22 pmJohn,
Nice article. I listened to a bit of the ‘cast as well, but – like you noted – I got tired of all the high-fiving with seemingly little else to add, and didn’t finish it.
Your comments sent me back to the site in question, and now I’m noticing as I’ve read many of the anti-Rob Bell/anti-EC articles on Slice of late, that much of the time in writing is spent with self-martyrdom and self-congratulation that it has become fairly difficult to understand exactly what’s “wrong” with the EC movement other than Rob Bell’s a part of it. And, it’s become fairly difficult to understand exactly what’s wrong with Rob Bell, other than that he’s part of the EC movement (and that he recently went on a speaking tour where the venues served alcohol).
August 21, 2006 @ 10:38 amI think the perception of Rob is that he is anti-Reformed Theology or even hostile towards it. And so any quotation that is taken from an interview or Velvet Elvis is used to show how anti-Reformed he is.
August 21, 2006 @ 11:52 amGentlemen,
As succinctly as I can.
Rob Bell: “This is part of the problem with continually insisting that one of the absolutes of the Christian faith must be a belief that ‘Scripture alone‘ is our guide. It sounds nice but it is not true… When people say that all we need is the Bible, it is simply not true” (Velvet Elvis, 067,068, emphasis mine).
Jesus Christ: “It is written: ‘Man does not live on bread alone, but on every Word that comes from the mouth of God.’ ” (Matthew 4:4)
Bell misstates sola Scriptura in order to appear to make his point. We do not say “all we need is the Bible,” so it is simply not true to state the Reformed position as such. However, his statement is in contradiction to what Jesus has just said.
The idea that the Scripture alone (in harmony with an inner witness from God) is the final authority on faith and doctrine is based on how Master set this Example Himself in front of eyewitnesses in the Gospels.
August 21, 2006 @ 4:24 pmWhen you read that quotation alone from Velvet Elvis, I can see your point. But when you read it in context, it makes much more sense.
In that chapter (Yoke), Rob is saying that you cannot simply read scripture alone. You have to make some decisions about it. For instance, when you read “Love your neighbor as yourself” you can’t just stop there and be done. You have to decide who is my neighbor? How do I love them? Scripture doesn’t detail the way I should love the people in my cul-de-sac, and so I have to make some decision about that.
Rob mentions the multiple times the Bible says we should greet each other with a holy kiss. Yet you don’t see anyone do this today. Why not? People agree that our culture is not a “kissing” culture and recognize that Peter and Paul were writing to cultures where that was normal. Therefore, people have decided not to follow that directive.
Scripture is the beginning. But it’s not the end. It can’t be. The end is when you inhale the teaching of the Bible and live it out.
August 21, 2006 @ 5:10 pmFor reference, what Bell says is this:
Your criticism of this passage confuses me. You say it’s a mischaracterization of sola scriptura, i.e. that Rob is setting up a straw man argument using something that reformed theologians don’t really believe. Let’s say you’re right (I’m not convinced, but for the sake of argument let’s go with it.) If so, isn’t he right to knock it down nevertheless? In other words, if someone (not you, somone else) were to say that “all we need is the Bible” wouldn’t you — speaking as a good reformed theologian — say that this was a too narrow view of God’s work in the world? Wouldn’t you likely point out that men and women of faith presided over the writing, collection, transmission and translation of the Bible itself. In short, wouldn’t you agree with Rob Bell? If so, why are you chastizing him? If not, what exactly is the position you’re defending here?
As I read it, this is what Bell is saying in the passage above: God is still speaking to people through his Spirit today. The body of Christ is a living thing, as alive today as he was in the first century. The Bible is complete, but the Word lives.
There’s nothing heretical about that idea.
August 21, 2006 @ 6:09 pmBell’s view of Scripture is neo-orthodox. This is to say the text of Scripture itself is not necessarily inspired but comes to life as the Holy Spirit inspires a particular passage to a particular person and we “breathe it in and then live it out.” Please understand I know more about than you appear to think about this existential view of the Bible.
That is heretical. 2 Timothy 3:16 and 2 Peter 1:20-21 teach that the human authors of of Scripture were overshadowed and guided by God to record that which He wished recorded. The proper view of the Bible, and the only view acceptable to the Lord, is that God Himself wrote all of it. And since He is perfect the autographs were inerrant and therefore infallible. As Barnhouse put it the Bible is just as much an act of the Holy Spirit as the Virgin Birth.
I tell you in the Lord that anyone who does not hold that view of the verbal plenary inspiration of Scripture will answer to God for it.
August 21, 2006 @ 7:11 pmKen,
I’m not convinced that you’ve demonstrated any problems with Bell’s theology. He is certainly more liberal than you are, but I’m afraid that in itself is not heresy.
Verbal plenary inspiration, in my estimation, has some practical benefits but also some serious problems. I do think it can be helpful to start any study by assuming that what was written was somehow divinely intended in every word. That said, I do not accept the doctine of “inerrancy” if by that you mean that every statement of the Bible is true for all people for all time in every specific. Nor do you believe this. As someone has already noted elsewhere, we do not offer a holy kiss upon greeting nor do we insist that women cover their heads in church. We also do not offer baptisms for the dead. These things were certainly practiced at the time the NT was written and may have underlying principles worth noting, but they are not practiced today nor do we feel we are in error to ignore them. In these cases we recognize the Bible as a reliable guide to 1st century history but not as a verbally inerrant guide to what we must do today.
Similarly, I don’t accept the view held by some that science must be rejected as a guide to truth about God’s creation. Though I don’t think science will ever overrule scripture, I do believe it can and does inform it in some areas. Specifically, it is not necessary to be a young earth creationist to be a Christian. Orthodox men, including some who share your views about seeker-sensitive churches and the EC, nevertheless accept that the earth is far older than Bishop Ussher believed.
It’s also worth noting that the new testament authors who quoted the old testament did so in such a way that it calls into question the idea of verbal inspiration. Since they did not always quote the Septuagint — the Greek version of the Hebrew Old Testament — word for word, it appears their concern was more for the meaning than for the words per se. I’m not sure what else we’re to make of this fact. Either the NT authors quoted the meaning or they made errors in quoting the words which in itself would seem to mitigate against the verbal inerrancy view. If there is a response to this problem I’m open to hearing it.
In any case, belief in verbal plenary inspiration — whatever wisdom it holds — is not a requirement for salvation found anywhere in the New Testament. The apostle Paul, who wrote most of the New Testament (under God’s inspiration of course) did most of his work among Gentiles who did not even have or know the Old Testament. These same churches could not have had the complete Old Testament either, which had not been fully written in the 50s. In short, the word they received was the Gospel but not the Bible. It was the living word, not the written word. And yet I think we can all agree these people were believers and the founders of our present faith. Given these facts, I believe you are taking some extreme liberties when you suggest that anyone who differs from you on this point is a heretic and outside the faith.
August 21, 2006 @ 10:30 pm[...] In today’s missive, Ken quotes some of my posts rather liberally (giving me credit, at least, unlike some other occasions), though I’m not sure exactly what point he was trying to make: In a later post Everything is Spiritual-Redux (a ‘Slice’ of Rob Bell) Lyons shares that “what has stuck with me the most is the quote I’ve listed above, which helps confirm what I’ve been learning about the Kingdom of God in this past years’ studies.” The quote he refers to from Rob Bell is: “In the Hebrew language, there is no word for ‘Spiritual’, because that would imply that there is something that is not…” Lyons then goes on to say that Bell spoke about “the relation of science and God” and how they are not mutually exclusive. That by “believing in God [it] doesn’t mean that you have to become ‘brainwashed’ into believing that the earth is 6,000 years old.”Lyons tells us that during his EIS performance Bell said some: Things that made me go “hmmm”: 1. When God is mentioned in Genesis 1:1, He is called Elohim in Hebrew. The suffix -im in Hebrew indicates the word is plural. The next few verses then spell out the plural natures of God (creator, spirit, word). 2. Two-dimensional vs. three-dimensional vs. multi-deminsional thought 3. The “dials and knobs” view of the world 4. In Hebrew, there is no word/adjective for “spiritual”, as this would imply that there were things that were NOT spiritual. [...]
August 22, 2006 @ 2:34 pm[...] Source: Verum Serum [...]
December 23, 2006 @ 9:45 am