Rightly reading the words of others: A friendly reply with regards especially to Ken Silva (part 2)

[continued from here]

Rob Bell

With regards to Rob Bell, I am having problems accessing the entire article, so I will just take it thatRick's quotes are in context, and I don't see why not. If that is the case, then Rick does have a point. That said, I do not think Pastor Ken is totally wrong here. Examine that entire statement that Bell made:

Jesus was killed because of how He confronted a particular socioeconomic religious system. He’s a first-century Galilean revolutionary who proclaimed a Kingdom other than the kingdom of Herod,

Given that Bell's article was on why his church is nonpartisan politically, does he need to write such a statement which is clearly wrong. Regardless of hos you slice and dice it, how can the Gospel square with the statement that Jesus 'confronted a particular socioeconomic religious system'? The Kingdom of God is a spiritual kingdom, not a political kingdom. The most you can mention the Pharisees, who most definitely feel threatened, but being threatened ≠ Jeus being confontational. Next, althouh Jesus is from Galilee and is probably considered a revolutionary by the religios leaders, is it proper even to call Jesus as a "Galilean revolutionary"? And theworst pat of the entire statement is that he proclaimed a "Kingdom other than the kingdom of Herod". Although that phrase is technically correct, when placed together with the phrase "Galilean revolutionary" depicts Jesus' kingdom as being political and challenging Herod's one on the political level. And that is liberalism. Just because Bell uses error to teach a relatively benign point (of being nonpartisan) is no excuse as if his error is minor.

Erwin McManus

Here is where Rick in my opinion relly blundered. Pastor Ken Silva here is using satire against McManus, who was criticising the lack of genuine compasson in serving and reaching people who are lost, within the churches. I have no idea what Rick means as to what he thinks Silva is saying, but you can read it for yourself below:

Wait! Isn't what McManus saying true? Isn't the self-indulgence in American churches an issue? Isn't that one of the things Silva also takes issue with? So what is McManus saying that is wrong. Based on Silva's remark it seems it is only that it is McManus saying it and therefore McManus must be a hypocrite.

What Pastor Ken is saying is that McManus' words are just like the pot callin the kettle black. In other words, McManus is rightly criticising such a lack of genuine compassion in reaching the lost in the churches, yet he himself does not have genuine compassion in reaching the lost and is in fact leading them astray through his embrace of the Emegent heresy.

In conclusion, it can be seen that the allegations against discerment ministries in general and Pastor Silva in particular are baseless. It is regretful that such things should happen, and it is hoped that discernment should be promoted through this exchange. Also, we should stop shooting those on the front line and shield the enemy within, but realize who are the true enemy instead. May more people come to agreement and attack the wolves within in the Emergent heresy, and stop all such infighting which impede the growth of the truth Kingdom of God.