*REVISED* Tickling One’s Own Ears, Part Two (or The Art of Intellectual Contortionism)
Scott on January 17, 2007 at 9:54 am
SPECIAL NOTE: I have added a small addendum at the end titled “A NOTE OF CLARIFICATION.” Please be sure to read that section as well, as it attempts to clarify my motivation behind writing this 2-part post.
In Part I of “Tickling One’s Own Ears,” I tried to address some of the possible problems with watch dogging, watch doggies and discernment ministries…those people and organizations who feel as though they have been called by God to keep an eye on the rest of us. After finishing Part I, it hit me that in the case of many of these “discernment ministries,” a more accurate term and frame of reference might be “watch bloggies” and “watch blogging.” For the sake of continuity in Part II, I will use my original terms; but at the same time the “blogging” factor is probably in the forefront of this issue.
In Part I, I suggested an alternate reading of II Timothy 4:2-4:
Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction. For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.
Many of those in the “discernment business” would apply this passage to others that they disagree with as proof that we are nearing the end of the time leading up to the “last days” (a Dispensationalist / Left Behind / Pre-Millennial / Pre-Tribulation perspective). However, I propose a different (or at least alternate) application. I suggest that this passage applies to any person or group who has a “pet” belief system that they want to promote and don’t want threatened by others who might disagree with it. In fact, spiritually speaking this is how all of us operate to one degree or another. People or groups with particular paradigms attempt to draw others to them who are of like mind and purpose, feeding off each other and using each other as validation and verification of their system of beliefs. The more excessive of the discernment ministries in particular take this to an extreme, going so far as to shun all others who don’t fall in line with what they believe to be true.
At its root this type of behavior is connected to a desire to feel as though we are special and/or significant and/or have something that most people don’t have. It is a natural inclination. We ALL want to be unique and to have a special insight into things. The danger comes when this desire is combined with a dose of pride and arrogance. The need to be “special,” the need to be “better than others” and a sense of “superiority” morph together and become a new creature.
For lack of a better analogy, the watch doggies and the discerning watch doggers who train them become possessed by this strange, new, hybrid creature. Like a spider exposed to nuclear radiation in a B horror movie, this new creature gets bigger and uglier and meaner. It thrives on being on the “inside” while also thriving on keeping others on the “outside” (to maintain its unique sense of “specialness”). It urges the watch doggies and the discernment ministries they operate to seek out and crucify anything that threatens the ideals that make it feel special. The only way to win this creature’s approval is to submit to its view of the world. It does not accept partial submission. Without full agreement, this hybridized creature of prideful arrogance will become combative and vicious, attempting to bully those around it into full compliance with its paradigm. Those who refuse to comply are excommunicated and condemned into the outer darkness.
This insecure hybrid creature also thrives from being around others of its kind, leading the watch doggies to surround themselves with others who agree with and support them in their beliefs…a 21st Century “Amen Corner.” Their websites and blogs are filled with references and links back and forth between them, creating a web of “discernment” that securely connects them all together and insulates them from outside criticism.
And this is where the II Timothy passage comes to play once again. We are told that, “...to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.” Watch doggies surround themselves with other watch doggies, and discernment ministries partner with like-minded discernment ministries. Why? Becaus they love nothing more than to hear their ideas echoed back to them.
Once the ears of a watch dogger or a discernment ministry have been tickled by words of agreement and praise from others, it is difficult for them to stop seeking out this pleasurable experience. The hybrid creature inside them yearns for the approval while it longs for the challenge of showing others how they don’t measure up to the standards that it believes to be of utmost importance. And once a person or group has tickled their own ears, it is nearly impossible for them to resist the urge to do it again, and again, and again. The creature inside won’t let them.
Case in point…the “apprising ministry” of the “Reverend” Ken Silva. It is no secret that “Reverend Ken” is chief among the remnant-based, conspiracy-hunting, judgment-pronouncing watch-doggies. It is also no secret that though Ken has his supporters, there are also a great many people who have problems with Ken and nearly every aspect of his “ministry.” The charges against Ken include:
- Creating inaccurate characterizations of people and their positions on key issues
- Blatantly misquoting many of those same people
- Presenting false information in his articles and “missives”
- Proof-texting and generally “pretzelizing” the Word (meaning to twist scripture)
- Frequent Isogesis (ignoring scriptural context in order to fit a desired interpretation)
- Claiming inappropriate authority for himself, authority that is reserved for God
- Making unsubstantiated claims and charges
- Spiritual pride and arrogance
Though these charges on their own aren’t necessarily an indictment of Ken or his “ministry” of “discernment,” most of them have been proven fairly conclusively on several blogs including Verum Serum, Fishing the Abyss and Emergent No (to name a few).
I use the “Reverend” Ken and his “ministry” in this particular post because he illustrates so clearly the dangers of “watch dogging,” “discerning,” “itching one’s own ears,” etc.
We have dealt with Ken Silva many times before on this blog. Unlike his site at Apprising Ministries (which allows for no discussion) and the site for the Christian Research Network (formerly Slice of Laodicea, which allows discussion on occasion but filters what is posted to slant the discussions in the light most favorable to them), Verum Serum has an open comment policy. This policy applies to Ken just as it does to everyone else. If the “Reverend” wants to voice his opinion, add to the discussion or dispute something that has been said (which he has done on many occasions), he has been and will continue to be welcomed here.
I don’t intend on covering all aspects of Ken Silva’s ministry in “discernment.” That would take a LONG time and would cover a lot of ground. Don’t believe me? Check out the posts and the related discussions that we have already hosted in the last 8-10 months:
- A Self-Serving Testament to an Apprising Ministry
- A Letter to Reverend Ken Silva
- What Was the Error of the Pharisees?
- They’re Talking about Me on SliceCast
Instead of looking at Ken’s whole operation, I want to focus on one aspect of Ken’s ministry, namely his articles and/or “missives” as he likes to call them. His website has a huge number of these articles and missives in its archives. It is upon these articles that I want to focus in an effort to illustrate the self-gratification of “itching one’s own ears.”
If one were to spend any time at Ken’s site and read his writings, one immediately notices his liberal use of hyperlinks. In any given piece, the “Reverend” will use anywhere from 5 to 20 and even up to 40 links embedded within the text of a single article. One who is familiar with the internet and blogging would assume that these “hot” links would lead a reader towards information that supports whatever assertion “Reverend” Ken is making at the time. The large number of links gives the impression of well-documented research and well thought out argumentation.
Alas, for the most part this is not so.
(Side Note: Hyperlinks in this case are the equivalent of sources listed in a bibliography -or- footnotes when one writes a research paper for school. The difference is that rather than being just a list of sources that were used to gain information, these “hot” hyperlinks can actually take the reader directly to a primary source of information so the reader can see it for themselves.)
When “Reverend” Silva embeds these links into his articles, rarely do they route a reader to primary sources of information. There is very little attempt on his part to allow his readers to verify what he has alleged or to look over the proof of a point he has made. Instead, these links typically refer a reader to other articles that Ken has written. These articles are, in turn, filled with more embedded hot links that take a reader to other articles written by “Reverend” Ken. Going deeper, THESE articles are ALSO filled with hot links that take the reader to EVEN MORE articles written by “Reverend” Ken. It is nearly impossible to track the layer upon layer of links within the articles and “missives” that Ken has written, though in a moment you will see that I have made an effort to do just that. In the vast majority of Ken’s writings, these links within each layer refer back to other links and other layers…all found within the articles written by Ken’s own hand.
In essence, Ken has used himself to prove himself.
To be fair, there are times when Ken does use links to other sites, but even then there are problems. Typically these other sites and outside sources are other watchdog/discernment groups that agree with some point he is trying to make. Rarely does he bother to point the reader in the direction of actual primary source documentation.
For the most part Ken Silva has created an intellectually dishonest cycle of using himself to build up…well…himself. He makes a statement about X and Y, and then to prove the statement he refers a reader to other articles that he has penned dealing with X and Y. These articles are then also filled with other links to other articles he has written dealing with X and Y. Little if any primary research. Very few quotes or authoritative summaries from primary or secondary resources. Hardly any verification or proof to back up his accusations and outrageous claims.
Just his words.
If you will pardon the analogy (and believe me, I tried as hard as I could to find a different one), it’s as if his ministry website is filled with multi-layered incidents of intellectual incest. One article begets a second article and then these two articles combine to create a third. The third article then combines with the first article to prove a forth article. And on and on and on and on. These overlapping circles of intellectually incestuous rhetoric build layer upon layer until I’m pretty sure that even Ken must get confused over what he has said that can actually be SUPPORTED and what he has said that is just stuff that comes out of his head that he thinks sounds important.
As I have worked on both parts of this post, I have come to understand (at least partially) why it is that when someone challenges Ken on a subject, he can’t do anything but point someone to an article/missive on his website. It has become apparent over the months that Ken places a considerable amount of stock/weight in his own words and views. Now I fully appreciate why this is the case. He has gotten caught up in the intellectual dishonesty of his own site, which has led him to believe that everything he says is reliable. In his mind, the proof of his reliability is the fact that other articles on his site agree with him.
I have tried to create a real-time example of what I am talking about. If you look at this example and think, “Wow, that must have taken a lot of time,” you are right. I intended to do a quick analysis of only one Ken Silva article and the circle of embedded links and incestuous intellectualism, but I couldn’t just do a single article. Instead, I took that article and looked at the embedded links that took me to other articles, and then I traced/followed the embedded links in each of THOSE articles to even more articles filled with links. I basically went three layers deep into Ken’s self-induced ear itching.
It wasn’t pretty.
Initially I intended to use this post to identify each article and each hotlink by name, creating a family tree of sorts to trace the pathways established in Ken’s overlapping maze of self-referencing, but then I realized that to do so I would need WAY too much space for this post. My blogging partner John might be able to help me think of a way to map this whole thing out in a more efficient manner, but he’s gone on vacation with his wife for a few days, so I can’t ask for his help right now. For the time being, I will present a general overview along with a summary.
I began with a single article. I then traced and labeled all links and articles that were presented by Ken as sources within this primary article. As I made notes, I labeled each level of articles and links as primary, secondary, and tertiary (denoting the three levels that I followed through stemming from the one article). Articles are listed by the names given them by Ken Silva. Embedded/Hot links are listed according to the name that Ken used when listing them within the given article.
(NOTE: The following breakdown may be tedious to some…though not nearly as tedious as creating it, I assure you! If you don’t want to read over all the details, skip down and read the summary. Also, please don’t just take my word for any of this. If any of this seems odd or far fetched to you, retrace my steps. Begin at the same place that I did, with the same primary article, and trace the links into the deeper layers. If you do, you will come to the same appauling conclusion that I did.)
The Primary Article that I began with was “Rob Bell and the Cult of Personality.” Within this initial article, Ken used 13 primary links. The first three primary links led to outside sources (all three were conservative affiliates of his) while the other 10 primary links led to other articles written by him or to archives of articles which were written by Ken.
- Primary Link #1 (labeled as “Slice of Laodicea”) leads to a dead link, which makes sense since Slice packed up shop and moved across the blog superhighway to Christian Research Network.
- Primary Link #2 (labeled as “Why Many Evangelical Pastors Today are Cult-Like”) links to an article from the semi-watch blog/uber conservative (spiritually speaking) Christian World View Network.
- Primary Link #3 (labeled as “Christian World View Network”) leads to the front page of the Christian World View Network.
-Primary Link #4 (labeled as “Emergent Church”) leads to an archive of articles written by Ken dealing with what he calls the “Emergent Heresy”
-Primary Link #5 (labeled as “Neo-Orthodox”) leads to the article “Neo-Orthodoxy: An Emergent Overview.” This article links to 7 secondary articles, 6 of which lead to other Apprising Ministries articles or archives. The 6 secondary articles contain links to 37 tertiary articles or archives. Of the 37 tertiary articles, 28 of them are ones contained on Ken’s site and written by Ken.
- Primary Link #6 (labeled as “Contemplative Mysticism”) leads to an archive of articles written by Ken dealing with Contemplative Mysticism.
- Primary Link #7 (labeled as “Roman Catholic”) leads to the article “Has the Roman Catholic Church Really Changed?” This article links to 5 secondary articles, 1 of which leads to another Apprising Ministries article archive. The other 4 articles are on other “discernment” sites.
- Primary Link #8 (labeled as “Richard Foster”) leads to the article “Richard Foster and the Quaker Inner Light.” This article links to 15 secondary articles, 14 of which lead to other Apprising Ministries articles or archives. The 14 secondary articles contain links to 188 tertiary articles or archives. Of the 188 tertiary articles, 116 of them are ones contained on Ken’s site and written by Ken.
- Primary Link #9 (labeled as “Chuck Swindoll”) leads to the article “Chuck Swindoll: What Are You Thinking?” This article links to 12 secondary articles, 6 of which lead to other Apprising Ministries articles or archives. The 6 secondary articles contain links to 55 tertiary articles or archives. Of the 55 tertiary articles, 37 of them are ones contained on Ken’s site and written by Ken.
- Primary Link #10 (labeled as “Rick Warren”) leads to an archive of articles written by Ken dealing with Rick Warren.
- Primary Link #11 (labeled as “Emergent Church”) leads to the article “Dr. Walter Martin on the Emergent Church.” This article links to 6 secondary articles, 5 of which lead to other Apprising Ministries articles or archives. The 5 secondary articles contain links to 50 tertiary articles or archives. Of the 55 tertiary articles, 36 of them are ones contained on Ken’s site and written by Ken.
- Primary Link #12 (labeled as “Rob Bell”) leads to an archive of articles written by Ken dealing with Rob Bell.
- Primary Link #13 (labeled as “Apprising Ministries”) leads to an archive of all of the articles written by “Reverend” Ken.
SUMMARY: Using just one article as a primary source/starting point, I tracked back the embedded links three levels deep. As one moves from the primary to the secondary and the tertiary, the results are clear. Within the three levels of interwoven confusion, the “Reverend” Ken used a grand total of 394 embedded links to support his contentions. Of these 394 links, 264 of them were references to articles written by his own hand.
CONCLUSION: By a 2 to 1 margin, “Reverend Ken” is his own best proof and support! Why bother to try and prove or support anything using scripture and logic and reason when you can just write another article that can become the proof of the first one, while the first article can be the proof for the second.
And this doesn’t even take into account the fact that at least half of the links to outside sources were to “discernment-friendly” sites similar to his own!
Metaphysically speaking, Ken Silva must be spiritually double-jointed to be able to scratch and tickle and itch his own ears the way he does.
Ear tickling in action.
Intellectual incest and academic dishonesty.
Now I need to go take a shower.
This whole thing makes me feel dirty.
***
***
ADDENDUM: A NOTE OF CLARIFICATION
***
***
One of our regular readers made an observation about both parts of this “Itching One’s Own Ears” series. She challenged me, saying that it appeared that I was “knocking” all discernment ministries. I must admit that though that was not my intention, I can see how it could have come across this way. Thank you, Amy, for your critique and your recommendation.
Let me be clear. It was never my intent to broad-brush all discernment ministries. There are discernment ministries out there that focus on all aspects of life and many of these organizations do great work. They focus on a wide range of topics including: cults and counter-cult facilitation, science and faith, countering the influences of popular culture and society, the role of faith in politics, etc.
Many of these discernment organizations demonstrate keen insight and judgment, using the Bible, logic and reason, research and investigation, etc. These ministries are able to analyze the obscure, the suspicious and the obvious, their perceptions honed by years of study. They demonstrate wisdom in how they apply their knowledge and perceptions to various situations, individuals and organizations. They demonstrate restraint in how they proceed in dealing with matters of style and substance. They are transparent in their operations and in how they arrive at their conclusions.
At the same time, these discernment ministries are open to critique and criticism. They engage in dialogue. They don’t engage in demagoguery aimed at those who voice disagreement or concerns. Their approach is methodical and measured. From my experience, a few of these effective discernment ministries include:
- Ravi Zacharias International Ministries
- The Christian Research Institute
- Walter Martin’s Religious Info Net
As I said, there are MANY discernment ministries out there who discern responsibly and who interact with the Church and the World responsibly. My concern is with the other brand/style of discernment ministries whose approach is far more aggressive and far less reasoned and thought-out, far more knee jerk and far less logical, far more perception-based and far less Biblically-based. These types of discernment ministries have good intentions but in my experience they do far more damage and harm than they do good. In particular, many of those discernment groups who feel called to focus most of their attention internally within the Church place themselves in the position of not only questioning suspect beliefs and/or doctrines but questioning the motivations and the very salvation of others within the Church with whom they disagree.
It is these groups that I had in mind when writing these two posts.
Category: Blogs & New Media, Religion & Faith |
[...] Part II of the Watch Doggie post at Verum Serum is a complete fisking of Ken Silva on a level that’s stunning in thoroughness. You may need to hose off after reading this, but it’s quite a revealing piece, especially after Scott takes apart Silva’s documentation methods: SUMMARY: Using just one article as a primary source/starting point, I tracked back the embedded links three levels deep. As one moves from the primary to the secondary and the tertiary, the results are clear. Within the three levels of interwoven confusion, the “Reverend” Ken used a grand total of 394 embedded links to support his contentions. Of these 394 links, 264 of them were references to articles written by his own hand. [...]
January 17, 2007 @ 2:40 pmPredestinated Puppies of Panic (Part Two)…
Scott @ Verum Serum continues with Part Two of his “Watch Doggies” posts, Tickling One’s Own Ears, Part Two (or The Art of Intellectual Contortionism). If you’re intrigued as to how the world of the Christian UnGenerous Web works, please…
January 17, 2007 @ 5:44 pmSo
The “concern” that motivated you to write about the bad “watch doggies” was just a smoke screen for the real agenda, “Kill Ken” (directed by Quentin Tarantino)
To think that when responded to part 1 that I thought you were serious. This was just a set-up to attack Ken Silva.
Let’s see you are against those who are prideful and arrogant. Hey wait, that is a subjective assessment.
Go to the mirror boys.
Thank you, verum serum, fishing the abyss and e-no. You are the theological pillars of the church.
Pleeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaassssseeeeee,
January 18, 2007 @ 6:51 amdo not use the word strawman again, as I might lose my lunch.
[...] Source: Verum Serum [...]
January 18, 2007 @ 7:49 amChris P,
The “real agenda” as you put it was to take a look at the flawed way in which many in the “discernment business” go about doing their business. Is Ken Silva part of that group? You bet. Was he the “real target?” Absolutely not. He just makes himself one of the most obvious examples. In the past we have taken many others (including you, Ingrid, John McCarthur, etc) to task for the same kinds of things.
Just to be clear, Chris, according to most of the criteria that people would use to assess “emergentness,” I would not even appear as a blip on your spiritual radar. One of the problems that many in the discernment ministries suffer from is all-or-nothing syndrome (either someone agrees with everything you say or they are the enemy). In most respects I’m not particularly liberal socially, I’m conservative theologically, I believe in Absolute Truth and Right and Wrong, I reject subjectivism and relativism, I think that many in the “emergent camp” have stepped over the line in many areas, etc, etc, etc.
Because I disagree with Ingrid and Ken’s beliefs that they are able to assess the quality of a person’s spiritual life and/or salvation, and because I don’t believe that Ingrid has the right to extrapolate spirituality from worship style, and because I disagree with the horrible way in which Ken represents Christianity by his bogus use of circular reasoning and badly supported accusations…these don’t mean that I am “emergent.”
I disagree with these things because I believe that they are done out of a paradigm colored by improper and/or ill-informed use of the Bible, personal preference and demagoguery.
As has been pointed out before, I disagree with many who claim to be “discerners” but am able to say quite assuredly that people like you, Ingrid and Ken are still my brothers and sisters in Christ. I have no foundation upon which to even attempt to pass judgment on the validity of your salvation. From what I know, we agree on the essentials of the faith. On the other hand, people like Ken (and you, if I remember correctly from our exchanges in the past) don’t hesitate to call into question my salvation or the salvation of my friends John and Chris L and in a larger circle Rob Bell, Rick Warren, etc.
Some “discernment” ministries don’t take this extremist view. Organizations like Stand to Reason, Reasons to Believe, Christian Research Institute, etc are able to see that there is room for disagreement when it comes to many issues connected to the Christian faith. They may disagree with people in the Church, but they don’t presume to pass judgment on the salvation of those people.
By the way, how is it prideful and arrogant to voice dissent and concern over what Ingrid, Ken et al say and do? It’s what they do on a daily basis but I don’t hear you calling fouls of pride and arrogance against them. I have said that “discernment” ministries run afoul when they have the pride and arrogance to pass judgment even on the salvation of people and when they make claims that their way is the only acceptable way and everything else is suspect.
Are you saying it is prideful and arrogant of me to dare to speak out? Are you saying that “discerners” should be left alone because they feel they are “called” to do what they do, but I should shut up because I can’t be called to point out to them that they are placing themselves in the seat of judgment, a place reserved for God alone?
Pride and arrogance are what makes people want to put themselves in the place of judgment over others. Pride and arrogance are what lead to pharisaical paradigms.
It doesn’t take pride and arrogance to point out pride and arrogance.
Oddly enough, it takes discernment.
January 18, 2007 @ 8:07 amthanks scott. seriously. if i had a blog, i would have wanted to do this for the very first post…but i know i would have just quit after the first paragraph because i get angry over the fact that someone as reckless as ken can get to me.
chris p….you just made yourself look more ridiculous….as you do with every comment you leave on whatever site. the one thing that scott did not do (nor does he believe) that you guys do with
every.
single.
article.
is question the original author’s salvation. please do not attempt to rail on someone with that nasty redwood in your eye. it’s just sad.
January 18, 2007 @ 8:13 amOnce again – issue and accusation ignored – ad hominem attact employed.
January 18, 2007 @ 8:56 amTrue to form, Ken’s latest missive, a collection of quotes from his “teacher”, Walter Martin, contains ten hyperlinks, nine of which lead to the Apprising Ministries website and the tenth to another blog run by a CRN contributor.
January 18, 2007 @ 10:19 amChris P,
In an effort to anticipate and head-off other objections and/or points you might like to make:
You may want to say that people in the camp of Ken, Ingrid (and you) are simply judging what you see by the Word of God, which instructs believers to be discerning, to test all things, to know believers by the fruit they produce, etc. To this I would agree, except that in saying that you would be ignoring the fact that not everything in this Christian life is absolutely cut-and-dried/black-and-white.
Calvinism -vs- Arminianism, the perpetuity/cessation of spiritual gifts, dance as a part of worship and praise, acceptable instrumention during worship, inwardly-focused songs that express personal feelings towards God -vs- upwardly focused songs expressing praise and gratitude -vs- outwardly focused songs that communicate Biblical principles, using popular culture as a mirror to reflect the needs of people back at them and then using Biblical Truth to bridge the gap between personal need(s) and spiritual redemption and fullfillment -vs- using Biblical imagery to communicate Biblical truths to a culture that doesn’t understand Biblical culture in a historic and societal context, etc.
These are all issues that are current and relevant within the Church, but they aren’t issues that divide the sheep from the goats. On these things and others we can agree to disagree because they don’t reflect directly on the sovereignty of God, the person and divinity of Christ, the atonement/redemption/sanctification made available to mankind through the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, etc.
The Bible does tell us that the Word of God is sharper than any double-edged sword, able to divide soul and spirit (Hebrews 4). This being true, we can use the Bible as a tool for discernment, to “test the spirits” (1 John 4). But nowhere does the Bible tell us that we have permission to extrapolate from what the Bible clearly teaches in order to add to it those things that we think it needs.
Ingrid has EVERY right to voice concern over the use of dance in a worship service as it relates to propriety, dress and behavior, etc; but she doesn’t have ANY right to assume that dance is always inappropriate, that churches who allow dancing are shallow and empty of Biblical teaching, that the leadership of these churches is lacking in spiritual insight and maturity, etc. In doing so, she has taken her concerns and made them an indictment of fact.
Ken has EVERY right to express concerns about things Rick Warren has said in his books or interviews or from the pulpit; but he doesn’t have ANY right to make assumptions about the state of Warren’s soul, or about the sincerity and/or veracity of the salvation of the 1000′s that have made decisions to follow Christ through the various Saddleback ministries. To do so is to place himself in the judgment seat of Christ.
You and Ken and Ingrid may not like how Rob Bell or Rick Warren present the gospel message. You may think that there is not enough talk about sin and judgment while there is too much talk about love and grace. Fine. You have the right to prefer one method of delivering the message over another -and- you have the right to prefer the emphasis of one side of the “spiritual equation of salvation” over another. You have the right to voice your concerns, and your concerns should shape how YOU tailor how YOU deliver the gospel message to others around you. But why do your concerns become the criteria upon which Bell, Warren and others are judged? You want more talk of sin and judgment, but love and grace is also part of the equation. They want more talk of love and grace from you, but sin and judgment is also part of the equation. Neither side has the market cornered on the proper method of delivering the gospel, but the people on YOUR side are the ones intent on demonizing the other side.
What is necssary is a healthy balance of both judgment and grace. Discernment ministries are frequently low on love and grace but heavy on fear and judgment. What you like to call “emergents” are heavy on grace and love and light on fear and judgment.
You can’t have the gospel message without both, my friend.
January 18, 2007 @ 10:20 amRay Jr,
After spending the amount of time that I did on his website, tracing the inbreeding of his thoughts and (ill)-logic, his Walter Martin post doesn’t surprise me (though it does make me sad to see him use Dr. Martin’s name so freely).
Did you notice the punchline at the end of Ken’s article?
“If you aren’t prepared to speak out yourself then at least be willing to financially support those of us who are doing so.”
Nobody has ever accused Ken of being subtle! He should just reach out through the computer screen with a club, hit the reader on the head, and empty their wallets!
Sad.
Scott
January 18, 2007 @ 10:31 amScott,
Scott, you said in a comment to Chris, that “The “real agenda” as you put it was to take a look at the flawed way in which many in the “discernment business” go about doing their business.” I’ll have to take your word for it, that that is your real agenda, because to be honest it does seem to me like your primary interest is criticizing Ken Silva. Regardless, your heavy attack on what you see as flawed leaves one with a bad taste in one’s mouth towards discernment ministries. To balance that out, I would like to make some positive comments about discernment ministries.
I know some mothers who seem to think that their primary responsibility to their children is to pray them out of the danger they have gotten themselves into. They let their kids make decisions about what is good to do before their children realize that there are real consequences to wrong decisions, before their kids have a relationship with God that enables them to desire right decisions. The moms just sit back and sigh and say, well “after all they are teenagers,” or “after all they are junior highers” or “after all they’re out on their own in first grade now.”
My kids have an incredible amount of freedom in a lot of things, in outdoor ventures, relating to different kinds of people, etc. But there are some areas in which I am a Mother Bear who feels that her cubs are endangered. I don’t want the danger anywhere near.
My children are regularly being taught outrightly or subtly that “If it’s Christian it’s okay.” So under the understanding that “If it’s Christian it’s okay,” they are constantly bombarded with less-than-God honoring ideas from Christians. Many of those ideas come to them because of books and other media that are just being dumped into churches and colleges.
I believe that the first thing that I can do to be a mother bear for my children is to reinforce the importance of their having their own relationship with Christ. I want them to respect God’s Word and learn to obey it and desire to obey it; I want them to have an attitude of thanksgiving, praise, and love for others, to understand prayer and to pray . . . I could go on.
I also want my children to look beyond a Christian “label” to determine whether something is Biblical or not. I want them to realize that if they are unsure about whether something is pleasing to God or not, they can choose quite happily to stay out of it even if all their friends are “doing it.”
I can’t keep up with all that is labeled “Christian” that my children and I face. Often I may not have time to read a book before they’re using it. I don’t have time to look into all their music to see if the “Christian” words are about the God of the Bible. So sometimes I am thankful for people who spend their time in discernment ministries. Using them doesn’t mean that I think that all of their workers have perfect research methods. Using them doesn’t mean that I know they have always been as careful as they should be. I use them with discernment. And at times, if I see somewhere that I believe an unjust accusation has been made, I speak up.
I appreciate people who send out warnings, because they realize that many of God’s children are like young children, not really knowing much of the word, not being able to recognize danger when they see it.
Is it fair for pastors/ministries to send out their tapes/videos/programs to people everywhere expecting people to just use them without being concerned about whether they line up with Biblical teaching or not? If elders and pastors in churches were being more careful about what comes in to the churches, some of these discernment ministries probably wouldn’t exist. At least, their work load would be much smaller. But what happens is that many things are brought into churches because “so and so recommended it so it must be good.” The people are made to drink the teaching as if it’s a chocolate milkshake; for many it taste like castor oil. When they express their distaste they are labeled judgemental. They aren’t trying to be “judgemental;” they really believe what they are drinking is castor oil and don’t understand how everybody else is drinking it with such delight.
Whether one thinks that we are in “the last days” or the “last of the last days” or “the middle of the afternoon of the first of the last days” or “whatever” is a mute point. We are told to be careful about our doctrine. Some believe that some of the teachings coming into the church are not in line with the Word of God.
Maybe it’s just my poor hearing, but although I hear you saying that there are good discernment ministries, I also hear you making general statements that color discernment in general, color it yucky, icky, throw-up green: for example, statements about people who you judge to be practicing discernment the way they do because they have a different end-times theology than you do; for example, classifying discernment ministries as “those people and organizations who feel as though they have been called by God to keep an eye on the rest of us.” What a loaded statement . . .
Speaking for myself, if I had the time to start a discernment ministry my motivation would be to try to help guide people away from being deceived by the arch-enemy. Why? To get pats on the back from those who are like-minded? No, I don’t need that. Why? Because I care about people and because sometimes God burdens me to speak out.
I do care that people don’t seem to want to focus on the Word of God, that people could be being led into practices in which they will contact spirit guides, that people are being led to think that tolerance towards sin is more important than obedience to Scripture, that it’s okay to hold hands with evil if you’re trying to do good. I care that people my childrens age aren’t learning the importance of knowing and obeying the Word of God. I care because I know they have an enemy, who would like them to spend their lives not knowing and obeying God.
January 18, 2007 @ 1:28 pmAmy,
To me it looked like a case study. Scott begins with statements regarding discernment sites, then sights a thoroughly research case study to bolster the argument.
I believe Scott attempted to and completed succeeded at using Ken as a case study worthy of a good fisking.
January 18, 2007 @ 1:41 pmAmy,
The rest of your comment contains some very good insights into the need for discernment as well as the benefit of consulting those who have done the research. So, in general, I agree.
But in specific, if the research is fundamentally flawed and the attitude thoroughly vitriolic, as in Scott’s case study subject, then discernment itself should direct us to a better source.
January 18, 2007 @ 1:47 pmNeil,
I agree that in some cases “discernment itself should direct us to a better source.” What I’m concerned about is that in both part one and part two of “Tickling” there are comments that could be taken as generally devaluing discernment ministries. What I’m also concerned about is that sometimes the issues that are being brought up by discernment ministries are more important to deal with than spending a lot of time fighting over how they’ve been brought up.
Personally, I’m tired of hearing all of the criticism against Ken Silva. It’s not that I don’t agree with some of it. I just feel like it’s time for some forgiveness. To forget about the old things he’s said (which have been covered again and again), to forget about how he does his research and to try to look objectively at anything new he brings up.
But if other people feel differently perhaps the best thing for me to do is simply to stop reading sites that are making him a prime target of their discussions.
January 18, 2007 @ 4:20 pmAmy,
January 18, 2007 @ 8:20 pmI’m not trying to contradict you on everything you post, I promise. Having said that, I agree with you we need someone helping us discern things. That person is called the Holy Spirit. Beyond that, God uses the pastor of our local church and the spiritual authorities in our life. Mr. Ken Silva does not fit that category in anyone’s life but his family’s and his church. Besides which most of the stuff he presents simply doesn’t follow logic. The same can be said, for the other webpage he frequently posts to.
In keeping with your analogy, I would ask you this. I believe you are a good parent, but I know bad parents. I know parents who use their God-given authority to beat their Children, ignore them and all sorts of horrible stuff. To often the “discernment ministries” would fall into this category of parenting.
Amy,
It was not my intention to put a bad taste in anyone’s mouth regarding all discernment ministries. In fact, in one of my responses to Chris P I make it a point to highlight some of those ministries that seem to “do their thing” in both a responsible and godly manner. I have worked closely with discernment ministries for many years and have also been involved in many aspects of discernment ministry.
As I highlighted in both parts of my post, there is a difference between being discerning and being judgmental about a person to the point of passing judgment on the individual, their salvation, their ministry, and all those touched by their ministry.
Remember, we’re talking about situations where people who are claiming to have “discernment” are also claiming special knowledge about the state of the hearts of these people they are attacking and the validity of the salvation of those who follow these people. We’re talking about situations where people who are claiming to have “discernment” and wisdom are passing judgments on people, churches and ministries because these people are engaging in things that these “discerners” don’t approve of.
Was I harsh on Ken Silva? Yes. Was I too harsh? Possibly, though for the most part I don’t think so. Was I aiming this whole thing just at Ken as Chris P alleges. Absolutely not. I have objected to other “discernment ministries” besides Ken’s. It just so happens that he has pushed himself into the forefront of these issues while at the same time being someone who demonstrates time and again his lack of qualifications to make the claim of having “discernment.” It doesn’t matter how many books of Dr. Walter Martin that he reads, and how many recorded talks he has listened to. It is obvious that Ken doesn’t have the “discernment” to know what to do with the knowledge that he might have or how to apply it in any sort of godly and logical/thoughtful manner.
To be honest, Amy, I think that everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt from time to time. The difference is that in this situation Ken and Ingrid and their clan have been shown time and again how they have been wrong: wrong in scriptural interpretation, wrong in exegetical exhortation, wrong in logic, wrong in quotes and research, etc. Even when Ken has been confronted with the words of a man whom Ken claimed to quote in one of his “missives,” confronted because this man said that Ken misquoted him and took his words and intentions completely out of context, Ken refused to “back down.” No apology and no correction. Instead, he claimed that this man was wrong and that he (Ken) was right. Ken and Ingrid have both been confronted with situations where they have misquoted individuals or made claims that were easily refuted as being completely without basis or merit. Again, no apologies and no corrections.
Specifically as relates to Ken Silva, the benefit of the doubt was on shaky ground even before I began to do my research, but by the time I was done, I was convinced that Ken has been given the benefit of the doubt so often and has been given a pass so often that he has deluded himself and those who follow him. He has been allowed to say things and make outrageous claims. His writing is deceptive both intellectually and spiritually. I don’t know if this is by intent or just by blindness, but either way it must be stopped.
These types of discernment groups are tearing the Church down from the inside out by lashing out indiscriminately at any group who doesn’t match with their preferences for how Church should run. There doesn’t appear to be any exhortation. It’s all condemnation.
January 18, 2007 @ 9:12 pmRegarding the linking back to one’s own blog, I came to the conclusion that this was done by Ken and others (not picking on Ken – he’s the example at hand in this post) due to a fear of guilt by association.
A large part of many discernment ministries (Ken’s AM very much included) are about pointing out who is working with whom. It gets very confusing because inevitably there comes the point when a “six degrees of Kevin Bacon” develops and no one is safe from some kind of GBA. So, the safest way to prove a point without fear of someong coming back with a GBA remark is to link…to oneself.
I always hesitate to make GBA statements on my own site because I start down the incredibly impossible path of soon ruling out everyone.
For example, Bob DeWaay has taught at Schaeffer’s L’Abris in Rochester, Minnesota (I believe he has, anyway). Dallas Willard can be connected to Schaeffer’s long-respected ministry…and Dallas Willard is high on the list of contemplatives. John Piper inviting Mark Driscoll to speak at a conference or something, etc. etc. I would think finding an acceptable source to link/quote would be impossible, hence part of the overwhelming tendency to find sources from dead preachers who can’t change mid-stream and associate themselves with someone “bad.” Or to link to yourself.
January 18, 2007 @ 11:22 pmScott,
I understand and agree with much of your concerns about Ken Silva. If you had seen my last “conversation” with Ken Silva you would see that my ultimate question to him is still along the lines of, “Who can correct you?” and “Do you consider all your words, tone, etc, from God?”
I wrote Ken Silva a letter on spiritual abuse once, that was never posted. Perhaps that is why he has chosen not to speak to me. It covered some things that happen in spiritual abuse, including making statements without supporting them and implying that one has authority over others simply because one is a pastor teacher. It covered the danger of a person not being confronted by his “own kind.” I used an example of a well-known pastor who was accused of child molestation, (making sure that Ken Silva knew I wasn’t comparing him to a child molester); the people who could have brought the child molestation to light in his own church appeared to not want to treat the allegations as possible. From what I’ve read it seems that that pastor had some kind of aura of “don’t touch the Lord’s annointed” around him.
Anyway, I know that there are problems with Ken Silva. But I really feel like your posts, especially the first one, do some knocking of discernment in general. I read some of your comments in which you gave credit to some discernment ministries; from my perspective it would have been better to put those kind of things in your main article.
Probably some of my overall feeling of “enough!” regarding Ken Silva comes as a result of viewing Chris L’s post, some of Patrick Lane’s (with squinted eyes) and yours. Ken Silva appears to be the “flavor of the month.”
One thing that bothers me about your ability to analyze people (I’m not being sarcastic) is that you seem to want to aim it all at Ken Silva and Ingrid and constantly defend some people from attack. Rick Warren, for example. To be fair, from some things I’ve written, you probably think that I tend to aim too much of my criticism at Rick Warren. Well, I couldn’t prove it, but he has probably affected me more personally than Ken or Ingrid have affected you. And he has much more potential to affect the church as a whole one way or another. Sometimes I have the idea that you think that Rick Warren’s “thousands of conversions” excuse him from Biblical obedience. Is that so? If Ken Silva had thousands of conversions to his “credit” would you still be analyzing him? There are plenty of people who have concerns about Warren, even some of the same concerns that you have about Ken Silva (taking scripture out of context for example) who do not try to make a judgement on his salvation or on the salvation of those at Saddleback. It would be quiet interesting to see you take Warren’s teaching on Exponential growth and pick it apart. See what percentage of the scriptures he used in that message were taken out of context. It would also be interesting to see you motivated to do a comparative study of “The Arrogance of Ken Silva” and “The Arrogance of Rick Warren.” Or how about “Confusing Responses from Ken Silva” and “Confusing Responses from Rick Warren.” Or how about “Name Dropping by Ken Silva” and “Name Dropping by Rick Warren.”
Hope you’re smiling. I am.
More to say, but need to go for the moment. Hope you don’t find any horrible spelling errors. No time to proofread.
January 19, 2007 @ 7:58 amAmy,
I really appreciate your perspective. Though I wasn’t trying to condemn all discernment ministries, I can see how it might come across that way.
I have revised both posts by adding an addendum at the end to clarify my overall position. Let me know what you think.
About constantly defending Rick Warren, I would say that I simply find myself in the position of reacting to/against the arguments that Ken, Ingrid and the gang put up, and it just so happens that the most common target of theirs is Rick Warren (with Rob Bell being a close second). Believe me, if it was Chuck Swindoll or Billy Graham being attacked by the discernment gang, I would speak out just as quickly if their logic and Biblical reasoning was faulty.
I have said before that I am not completely comfortable with everything that Rick Warren says or does, just as I am not completely comfortable with everything that Rob Bell says and does. But my questions and concerns don’t go as deep as questioning their salvation, or the salvation of their followers.
In answer to your kind-of-question, nobody is excused from Biblical obedience…not me, not John and certainly not Rob Bell or Rick Warren. But there is a significant difference between questioning someone’s obedience to God and questioning their salvation in Christ (which is what Ken, Ingrid, Chris P. and others do quite frequently).
I am COMPLETELY in favor of people having the freedom to voice concerns about theology, teaching style, worship style, political and/or social activities, etc. Pastors and laymen (or lay-persons if you prefer) are all accountable before God in how they act, what they teach, and how they represent Christ. In my mind, there is absolutely no “touch not the Lord’s annointed” escape clause. Anyone who tries to pull that trick is probably hiding something.
January 19, 2007 @ 11:20 amScott,
I like what you added.
I used to enjoy listening to Ravi Z. on Sunday mornings on the way to church; he has a way of stimulating thinking.
To continue with my thoughts on Ken, I just feel like it’s time for some mercy. I’ve felt that way ever since I saw Chris L.’s biodata relating to him, before I knew about his health problems.
I think that it is very possible that God can give people a burden about something that they feel like they need to do something about, and that they can go about demonstrating that burden with their own human fallabilities intact. The messenger can overshadow the message. I have always wondered, if I were to have the time and resources to study some of the things that Ken Silva studies, specifically Rob Bell, if I wouldn’t share his belief that there is something dangerous there. I can’t explain this feeling – I could say that I think it’s the Holy Spirit, but I know that I could be very wrong about that. I guess I’m more inclined to think that it could be of the Holy Spirit for the fact that I struggle with Ken Silva’s personality, writing style, and things deeper than that; so the idea that he may be “right” isn’t something that would come naturally to me. When I say that he may be “right” I don’t mean in name-calling, judging salvation, etc, but in his concern about harmful teaching.
Anyway slowly (because I don’t have the time to do it any other way) I would like to look at some of Rob Bell’s videos, and since the library doesn’t have Velvet Elvis, I may need to try to buy it. I have seen enough – original source – to put some questions – big ones – in my mind.
Thanks for listening and responding to my earlier concerns.
January 19, 2007 @ 1:33 pmAmy Wrote:
Yes, we’ve all succomb to this at one time or another, since the whole interaction between VS and Ken & Co. began.
In the end, we all fall short of His glory.
January 19, 2007 @ 2:49 pmBlondie,
Thanks for your words that are so true. When I open my eyes, I realize that some of the accusations I bring against others are present in myself.
For example, a month or two ago if I would have written out a list of 20 things I struggle with, pride would not have been one of them. But one day, I don’t remember the circumstances, I realized that pride is indeed there, in a kind of way that made it hard for me to recognize. Coming to that realization was difficult.
I didn’t say it, but one of the reasons that I think I’m feeling like, “Let’s be merciful to Ken” is because I am realizing just how much I don’t measure up to what I could be with Christ’s help. Yet He continues to love me and put up with me, and continues to be willing to help me grow in obedience to Him.
Last night, I was reading a passage somewhere that talked about “the tender mercies of the Lord.” He is so merciful to me, and I need to demonstrate more mercy to others.
January 19, 2007 @ 3:46 pmAmy wrote:
Your words ring true to my heart. I feel this way, daily. As if He has to “put up with me”. Yet, what I deserve, I do not receive. I receive mercy, love, and compassion. So who am I to deny such grace to others? Be they “deserving” or not (in regards to how I feel about them) it doesn’t matter.
If they slap one cheek, let’s offer them the other.
January 20, 2007 @ 5:52 pmOops…. the last post was supposed to be without “the quiet one”. I forgot to check who submitted a comment last…
Guess I am a real blonde.
January 20, 2007 @ 5:54 pmScott,
That was a great assessment of the “Easy Discernmentism” that we see popping up more and more. With the advent of the internet, every self-appointed theologian in the world has a platform from which to broadcast their squirrelly views.
Incidentally, linking back to your own site (with full canonical links – http://www.aprisingministries….) increases your search engine rankings. Google puts a lot of weight on links TO your site.
That’s the other thing that irks me about Ken. He is a shameless self-promoter. Of course, I think that goes back to his need to turn his opinions into groceries.
I don’t know much about Walter Martin, but what I do know leads me to believe he would never support Ken’s methods.
January 21, 2007 @ 2:02 pm[...] always seem to run suspiciously long, comprising a significant percentage of most articles, but most of which originate with himself or other [...]
January 23, 2007 @ 3:53 pm[...] Take: Rather than just reprint Ken’s article, I will critique sectons of it, piece by piece, strawman by strawman, fallacy by fallacy. The Lord apparently has His reasons as to why He chose [...]
February 24, 2007 @ 5:48 pm[...] has created a minor blogstorm. Following the pattern established by himself, and emulated by his ‘watch-doggies’, MacArthur built, through isogesis and mischaracterization, some huge straw-men, and then proceeded [...]
March 20, 2007 @ 5:59 amFor some reason, Ken has crawled out from under his rock to speak with his forked tongue again, and Chris P has come to inform us all that man is not made in the image of God…
fun stuff.
Any word on next week?
March 24, 2007 @ 2:27 am