It’s Never Ken Silva It’s Always Someone Else

 

I’ve always wondered why whenever, I see Ken Silva in one of his various discussions on the Internet, whether its at CRN.info, or VerumSerum or even here at Theology Today, that it’s never his fault when things turn ugly and always someone else is to blame. You ever wonder that as well, or is it just me?

 

Lord knows I was culpable in Ken and my latest spat. I should have just walked away from the discussion immediately after Ken started giving me the usual “Silva treatment”. But silly me I kept right on insisting Ken answer the question I asked him both here and here. It’s unfortunate that it went on as long as it did and I apologize to one and all if I offended anyone as that was not my intention.

 

I had hoped this was finished but Ken Silva has decided to play “poor persecuted me” to his readers and has forced me to respond. It has come to my attention that Ken Silva has sent out a massive email mentioning me and other soldiers who have attempted to hold him accountable for various statements he has made and the spirit with which he’s made them in. Here is one section of this statement;

 

Norris wrote back and said he’s wanted Patrick not to proceed, but that he’s free to publish etc. He then informed me that, in his opinion, it’s a moot point because Theology Today is now “doing something.” What Norris apparently hasn’t thought of is that Phil Naessens is a former contributor at SPM and he as much as admits stalking me here: http://obadiah1317.wordpress.com/2009/03/10/the-bickering-kids-theology-today-and-ken-silva/#comment-23172

 

Naessens runs this “Theology Today” website: https://phillyflash.wordpress.com/

 

And then today, in response to someone who expressed support of me Naessens makes a not-so-veiled threat here: https://phillyflash.wordpress.com/2009/03/06/open-blogging-weekend-3/comment-page-1/#comment-9530

 

Unfortunately, as you might imagine that, being that I am the one under attack by ostensibly Christian brothers, I’m feeling quite a bit up against the wall right now, especially with my back and health issues. Now unfortunately, I don’t know Naessens, or anyone who is in his circle that might talk some sense to him. But the heart of this matter is that it will not be wise for Naessens, and/or SPM, to publicly go to war with me because in a situation like that nobody is going to win except guys like Richard Abanes.

 

But, that said, if men like Wren, along with Naessens, who is also a professing Christian brother sympathetic to Abanes, are going to be harrassing me behind the scenes within my local community of Claremont, then I will have no other choice than to take all of this mess public just the same way as I once did with the Abanes attack last summer. It would be important for the Body of Christ to know that some evangelical discernment ministries and apologists are attempting to wage this private war.

 

I never “as much as admitted I was stalking” Ken Silva. As a former contributer at SPM I frequent that site. A blog post of mine was mentioned and I responded. Ken calls that stalking. This accusation is totally ridiculous.

 

Talk some sense into me? Is this guy serious? I’ve discussed this situation with those closest to me and was counseled to, as one valued friend so aptly put it “lock on target, load and launch”.

 

I’m not harassing anyone in Claremont or anywhere else for that matter. Six month’s or so ago I called a few pastors as I was doing some research on an article about the feud between he and Richard Abanes. I made the same type of inquiries about Abanes as I did with Silva. Whatever Patrick Wren is doing is his business apparently to research an article of his own and has nothing to do with me or Theology Today.

 

I see the threats in there as well. It “will not be wise” eh? Yea, Ken’s probably correct that it would be unwise to go to war with him, truth war or otherwise. He and his associates wield incredible influence and are not to be taken lightly. So we as fellow soldiers aren’t supposed to ask Ken Silva questions or inquire about his ministry, a ministry financially supported by fellow soldiers? If he considers these inquiries as war then what’s he going to do when the real war starts?

 

This email is nothing short of self serving manipulation and obfuscation. He misrepresents a situation that he could have avoided (source) and turns it into a personal pity party portraying Richard Abanes, Spiritual Pathways Ministries and myself as “attacking” him yet never once admitting his own culpability or taking responsibility for his own actions. Why is it that everyone else is always wrong but him?

 

And that’s the point here. It’s always someone else because it never seems to be Ken that’s in the wrong. That’s disturbing to me. That should be disturbing to you. More importantly it should be disturbing to Ken but based on his mass email he doesn’t seem the least bit disturbed does he?

 

Ken Silva seems to be the only one talking about war and it seems his mass email was his rallying cry. I most definitely don’t want to go to war with Ken but that is entirely up to him. Of course I could be wrong because it’s never Ken Silva now is it?

Advertisements

47 thoughts on “It’s Never Ken Silva It’s Always Someone Else

  1. This entire post is so full of sin, where do I begin? Why in the world are you posting this rambling and juvenile attack against a brother-in-Christ? This is clearly a private issue between two brothers, but instead of dealing with any concerns privately, you vomit it out into the blog world. Ken was threatened with an “investigation”, so no wonder he was on the defensive. With the world and the devil encroaching more and more on Christ’s church, why would you waste time on something like this? Ken has been defending the gospel the best he can at a very bad time in church history. The malice implied here, the insults “it’s never Ken’s fault” sounds like a whining 8-year-old tattling on a sibling. Grow up, brother. This isn’t theology today, this is carnal bickering today. Stop, for Christ’s sake.

  2. Phil,
    I don’t know much about the Ken Silva issue but I’ll be sure to read up on it more…by going to Ken’s site & reading what he has to say — if what you say about him is true, he can’t help but reveal it in what he writes.

    But what I find interesting is a pattern. Before I know anything about Silva I do recognize a pattern of behavior. Ken said:
    “Phil Naessens is a former contributor at SPM and he as much as admits stalking me here”.

    I’ve noticed that people who are being held accountable, who don’t want or don’t think they should be held accountable often claim people are “stalking” them or harassing them, or “spending most of their lives tracking them down” (as someone recently accused me). People who feel like they don’t have to answer to anyone often throw up this defense. So, before I even know anything more about Silva, he makes himself look guilty. We’ll see.

    • Hi Rod,

      Hang around here a while and you will learn that HP is not the only system out there that has a corner on this behavior.

      I love the ones who show us and tell us to “judge not” then proceed to judge us. There are several mantra’s that keep reappearing.

      I agree with you on the looking guilty. I’ve followed Silva’s work for a long time and gotten a lot of benefit from it, but this last year, I’ve seen a lot of deterioration and I really would like him to stop and take a good look at how he’s reacting.

      I thought I left OZ but according to Ken, I’m still fantasizing. I guess when it comes to thinking Ken just might hear me, I was.

  3. PAULA: This is clearly a private issue between two brothers, but instead of dealing with any concerns privately, you vomit it out into the blog world.

    RA: Allow me to make a few observations…

    hypocrisy/hypocrite: insincerity by virtue of pretending to have qualities or beliefs that you do not really have….the act of preaching a certain belief or way of life, but not, in fact, holding these same virtues oneself.

    I would suggest that this most easily applies to people like you and other ODMs. You always condemn things that, when they come back around to bit you on the…..neck, you respond with cries of Foul!, Sinner!, Unbiblical!, Ungodly!

    When I attempted to handle a situation privately between myself, Ken Silva, and ken’s ISP, Mr. Silva chose to IMMEDIATELY blab blab blab it all over the Internet, creating a cyberspace circus and bringing into the situation people who were in no way involved since NOTHING had been previously said by either of us to the world.

    And how did you respond. Applause, applause, applause and accolades for the poor-persecuted Mr. Silva, saying about his choice to make the very private matter public:

    “Let me see, which is worse… posting someone’s formal complaint email which was forwarded to him by his ISP (e.g. in effect exposing the deeds of darkness and obeying God rather than the man Richard Abanes), or trying to silence free speech?”

    (Of course, this really had nothing to do with free speech at all, but that’s beside the point).

    I see. So what you’re saying is that when Silva has a PRIVATE conflict going on, he is completely free to “vomit it out into the blog world” for sympathy/support and to cause dissension. But when Phil makes a report on something that was ALREADY public, then it’s….gasp…HORRIBLE!!!

    And you also seemed to have NO PROBLEM with Ken Silva when he chose to “vomit it out into the blog world” my private email to 1 single party — i.e., his ISP. And yet, you find it appalling when Phil reveals an email that Silva sent to God knows how many dozens/hundreds of people!

    Again — hypocrisy/hypocrite: insincerity by virtue of pretending to have qualities or beliefs that you do not really have….the act of preaching a certain belief or way of life, but not, in fact, holding these same virtues oneself.

    But this is nothing new to you. You also demonstrated such an attribute when you decried my ALLEGED threatening of a lawsuit against Ken Silva (which I NEVER did, so that right there a false accusation, also in violation of scripture). But then when Mr. Chris Rosebrough DIRECTLY/BLATANTLY threatened my online with a lawsuit in CLEAR violation of scripture, you said……nothing. And you seem to have missed the various places Ingrid Schlueter has sought legal assistance and actually contacted here attorneys about troublesome Christians on the Internet (again, that’s something even I have never done).

    Now, my mom used to say, “Three times a charm.” So here, once more….

    hypocrisy/hypocrite: insincerity by virtue of pretending to have qualities or beliefs that you do not really have….the act of preaching a certain belief or way of life, but not, in fact, holding these same virtues oneself.

    Richard Abanes

  4. Is this the same Richard Abanes who lied about Ingrid Schlueter’s husband threatening him and who openly mocked her in the comment section at the Online Discernmentalist Mafia site? Richard, you do get around. You have slandered so many of God’s people, line upon line. Your hysteria last summer on your own blog and your threats that removed Ken’s site have removed any and all credibility you once had. Repent, Richard. You are not Ken’s judge nor anyone elses. Also, it’s Paul A. not Paula.

    • Paul A,

      Ok. This stuff ends here. This is a post about Ken Silva and why he seems that he’s never to blame because its always the other guys fault. Silva brought all of last summers mess upon himself.

      Also, please leave Ingrid Schlueter and her husband Tom out of this as this post isn’t about them.

      I do find it interesting how everything always seems to be RA’s fault and never the other guys….

      Phil

  5. I noticed in https://phillyflash.wordpress.com/2009/03/06/open-blogging-weekend-3/ that all Silva did in his first response was point out that you had misspelled Apprising (which you won’t correct). It was you who started making a big deal about how he found out about what you’d written (and you did so in a way that was intended to insult him).

    It’s sad, because like me, you have seen through the Emergent rhetoric, and are trying to warn people of it. We are mostly on the same side. But your antics against Silva were childish. Agree or not with him as you wish, as I do to, but don’t play games when the one your questioning decides to respond.

    • Hi,

      I was curious as I believe he googles his name so I asked him.

      Been to your site but I have to ask you why you don’t use your real name and attach it to what you write?

      Phil

  6. Look, this is ridiculous.

    Grow up. I mean it.

    Fact: This letter was a private communication between Ken Silva, his church, and his prayer partners (of which I am one) in it, he asks for prayer because of not only a veiled threat on TT, but because of a very real threat, of which I will not reveal.

    And Abanes is calling Paul A a hypocrite?

    In this last debacle this summer, Abanes demanded that his e-mails were private communications and as such could not be broadcast over the internet. Who is the hypocrite now, Abanes? Shouldn’t you be going after your boy?

    Methinks you must be in cahoots together.

    Prediction: Abanes is going to, in the very near future, be publishing an ‘apologetics’ book on online discernment ministries.He, like any other secular author, is spending time creating buzz for his book by going after one of his favorite targets, Ken Silva, online. He will be backing this up by building up some spurious ‘research’ into Ken’s background, much like when he went after Mr. Shleuter.

    Phil will be revealed as one of the sources of this spurious research, because he is rattling the hornets nest by unecessarily attacking and accusing a brother in Christ.

    Well, you all will be judged for everything done in secret. I am disappointed, because we are all supposed to be on the same team, proclaiming the Gospel and building up the body of Christ, while defending and contending for the faith.

    • Hi John,

      I’m not in cahoots with anyone nor am I assisting RA with any research. Didn’t your mama teach you about making assumptions?

      Maybe one day you will grow up and we can call you PastorMan….whadya think?

      See ya around John,

      Phil

  7. PaulA,

    You seem to have a difficulty grasping reality, truth, and facts. Please, just take a moment and try to step back and listen.

    P: Is this the same Richard Abanes who lied about Ingrid Schlueter’s husband threatening him

    RA: Here is the truth.

    Mr. Schlueter was using language that IN MY OPINION was threatening.

    Was I wrong? Apparently, Mr. Schlueter & Ingrid thought so. And Ingrid told me her opinion privately.

    And now, here’s a few key things you seem to have left out….for some reason.

    A. You didn’t mention that Ingrid contacted me and informed me that I was mistaken in my interpretation of her husband’s words.
    Why did you not mention that?
    Did you know that?

    B. You didn’t mention that in response to Ingrid’s explanation, I IMMEDIATELY removed my blog post that discussed my opinion about her husband threatening me.
    Why did you not mention that?
    Did you know that?

    C. You didn’t mention that for some inexplicable reason, even after I removed my original blog post about the issues (removed it months and months ago), Ingrid has decided to leave her controversial, inflaming, and antagonistic piece up at SOL.
    Why did you not mention that?
    Did you know that?

    And as you answer, please explain WHY — since I have long-since removed any mention on my blog to Mr. Schlueter — Ingrid has kept up her hit piece against me using that dead issue?

    I was under the impression that she and I had resolved the issue, and I even informed her that I had INSTANTLY taken down that blog post per her request & based on her assurances that I had misinterpreted her husband’s words.

    It seems SHE is the one who wants to keep the issue alive.
    __________
    P: and who openly mocked her in the comment section at the Online Discernmentalist Mafia site?

    RA: Again, you seem unable to actually look at truth/facts.

    I have made only 2 posts at O-D-Mafia. Both of them were in response to a very silly silly picture where the blogger put my head on a pregnant woman’s body.

    This made me laugh laugh laugh — NOT at the content of the article, but rather, at the hilarity of my head on a pregnant woman’s body.

    If you saw your head on, say, a dead deer, maybe you’d find that funny.

    So, in response, I posted: “ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

    Then someone named “Paula,” coincidentally, came to the website and basically said the VERY SAME THING you’re ranting about now — i.e., how I was mocking Schlueter.

    AND I CORRECTED “Paula,” saying: “What are you talking about. . . . I am laughing at my head on a pregnant woman, that’s all. (August 25, 2008 at 3:51 pm).

    So, PaulA, I was not responding to anything in the article except my own picture being used like that. Why are you repeating your….er…Paula’s accusation?

    Please PRAY about what you’re doing & why you’re doing it. You have truth being set before you. You are not locked into going down the road you’re going down with these issues. Please.
    ________
    P: Richard, you do get around. You have slandered so many of God’s people, line upon line.

    RA: No, I haven’t. I have spoken the truth about the real slanderers and accusers of the brethren — and they/you don’t like it.
    ________
    P:Your hysteria last summer on your own blog and your threats that removed Ken’s site have removed any and all credibility you once had.

    RA: 1. That was Ken’s “hysteria,” not mine. 2. My credibility is just fine. You might want to check out my new apologetics book, due out in July 2009.

    Richard Abanes

  8. Phil,

    From strictly a secular perspective, a few things you may wish to consider:

    1. When someone claims another “lied”, and puts it in writing and publishes same, that individual now risks civil liability for libel. In that scenerio, the evidence to support the claim of dishonesty would be weighed and judgement passed. Financial penalties may result if the evidence is insufficient. Those penalties could multiply based on the scope of the publicity, harm to personal reputation, etc.

    2. Most unfortunate to see the Ken Silva quote above. It was taken from an email that was clearly marked as pastor-client priviledged communication. How do I know? Because I received the email as one of the intended recipients.

    Not sure how you obtained it, but it is a gross breach of confidentiality to be in receipt of the email:
    A. if you were not the intended recipient
    B. and you publish the excerpt from the privileged communication.

    Perhaps you did not intend to breach confidentiality by publishing this extract. At a minimum, you failed in due diligence, by not checking your source, and how your source obtained the priviledged communication. In many states, breach of pastoral confidentiality, is a civil offense.

    So Phil, you may have differing theological views from Ken Silva. Surely we all will get our day in the Eternal Court.

    Meanwhile, it seems you may have put yourself at risk of being dragged into a civil court.

    Again, this is from a secular perspective.
    Should Christians sue each other? We know the answer. Should Christians commit libel and breach the pastor-client privilege? We know the answer to that question, too.

    “It’s never Ken Silva, it’s always someone else”
    In this case, Phil, it looks like that someone else is you.

    To mitigate the risks outline here, may I suggest a public apology.

    • Hi Jim,

      Thanks for the advice. Are you a lawyer Jim?

      Anyway Ken misrepresented the facts in his privileged email about me. My lawyer advised me to confront this publicly as we had no idea how many people he sent this to. My copyright attorney in the USA agreed as well and I ran the posting.

      Thanks Jim for you concern,

      Phil

  9. Dear me, this is getting tired. Rather than dealing with the real enemies of the Christian faith (like the Emergent Church, the “seeker-sensitive movement), some see the need for facile attacks against persons on their side!!!

    I will be frank – over the last couple of days, I have seen more than enough infighting to last a lifetime. I was originally on Pastor Silva’s side, but after seeing the war of words all over the blogosphere, on Monday, I made a conscious decision not to bother with Apprising anymore.

    I sincerely believe that Silva ought to stick to his apologetics (from which I have learnt much) and not get so caught up on attacks that come against him or his associates personally. I may lose friends over this stance, but some fights need time called on them…

    • Hi Doug,

      Thanks for your post. As far as I’m concerned this will be the last posting regarding Silva and Apprising.

      You say what you need to say around here Doug and that won’t ever change our friendship.

      Phil

      • Bro,

        You have a good heart and it most definitely wasn’t you I had mind – more those in favour with the Apprising/Slice clique. This blog is kind of like my home – I can say anything and feel comfortable

  10. P: Richard, you do get around. You have slandered so many of God’s people, line upon line.

    RA: No, I haven’t. I have spoken the truth about the real slanderers and accusers of the brethren — and they/you don’t like it.

    What a joke. The old “They do it so I can do it” routine. My 9 year old is still using that one. Most of my kids got rid of it by age 7. You are accountable for your own behavior. And, exposing the truth about someone is not slander.

    P:Your hysteria last summer on your own blog and your threats that removed Ken’s site have removed any and all credibility you once had.

    RA: 1. That was Ken’s “hysteria,” not mine. 2. My credibility is just fine. You might want to check out my new apologetics book, due out in July 2009.

    Boy, my prediction is coming true! Is your boy Phil doing ‘research’ for you also? You have no credibility with me even after I enjoyed reading your previous books and thought they were great since I saw your behavior towards brothers and sisters in Christ, I have changed my mind.

    Phil,

    You would be wise to keep personal verbal attacks and speech against my mama to a minimum. I got over that stuff in 7th grade, and despite the newfound popularity of mama insults, I find it no more attractive. You should do some research about my 7th grade days at Richard Henry Dana Jr. High and the last fool that spoke about my mama in so cavalier a tone. Speak to me. I am very much a man, thank you. So grow up, and address the issue as you so willingly demanded Ken Silva do on all your vendetta posts of late.

    Sounds to me like you are the one doing the crying, my little tennis playing friend.

    • Hi John,

      I didn’t speak against your mama. I asked you if she taught you about making assumptions. Apparently reading comprehension isn’t your strong suit.

      The one that didn’t address the issue is you John but I thank you for proving my point for me. It’s never Ken’s fault always someone elses huh John?

      Thanks for making my point John!

      Phil

      • Oh John,

        If someone sent you an email stating they were “investigating” your ministry how would you respond? Would you welcome it or threaten them?

        Also, because Mr. Silva mis-reprented the facts in his “pray for me” email my attorney advised me to publish the portions that had to do with me. The “stalking” thing specifically John could be actionable and since only the Lord and Ken knows how many people he sent it to I was advised to deal with it publicly.

        Now the obligatory disclaimer; I said “could be actionable” and not I’m suing Ken Silva for libel and slander.

        Phil

  11. PASTORBOY: Fact: This letter was a private communication between Ken Silva, his church, and his prayer partners (of which I am one) in it,

    RA: Fact: This letter was a private communication between Richard Abanes and Ken Silva’s ISP…..

    So which is it?

    Was it right for Ken Silva to publicly post my private email to his ISP?
    In which case, it is also right for Phil to post this private email by Ken to supporters.

    OR

    Was it NOT right for Ken Silva to publicly post my private email to his ISP?
    In which case, you would be justified in saying that it was also NOT right for Phil to post this private email by Ken to his supporters.

    Now, again, which is it? You can’t have it right for Ken, but wrong for Phil. Otherwise, both you and PaulA are hypocrites.

    Personally, I say it was wrong for both Ken & Phil to post a private email. If I had known Phil was going to do that, I would have advised him to not do so in respect of privacy/copyright guidelines.

    So, there, I am not a hypocrite. Now, speak……which way will YOU take? We’re here at a kind of “Deal, no deal” juncture. But in this case it’s “Hypocrite, no hypocrite.” Howie Mandell is waiting……
    ____________
    PASTORBOY: And Abanes is calling Paul A a hypocrite?

    RA: Yes. And unless you answer in a non-hypocritical way, then you also are a hypocrite. BTW, will you also make your call publicly on Chris Rosebrough’s very public threat against me with a lawsuit? That would also show you are NOT a hypocrite. Since I’ve NEVER ONCE directly threatened a Christian, or any ISP, with a lawsuit (contrary to the hateful gossip spread by the ODMs). But Chris Rosebrough has done otherwise. So, what say you?
    _____________
    PASTORBOY:Shouldn’t you be going after your boy?

    RA: Uhm, Phil is not my boy. In fact, we barely know each other. We’ve never spoken on the phone. Never meet. And I don’t even have any idea what he looks like. Sooo, I’m not sure what kind of reality your spinning in your head.

    And as for “going after” him, see my prvious comment.
    ______________
    PASTORBOY: Methinks you must be in cahoots together.

    RA: Ahhhh, yes. The conspiracy card. I have found that bizarre and wildly delusional conspiracies are big among the ODM crowd. That, too, is a mark of a “cult.” Interesting.
    ______________
    PASTORBOY: Abanes is going to, in the very near future, be publishing an ‘apologetics’ book on online discernment ministries.He, like any other secular author, is spending time creating buzz for his book by going after one of his favorite targets, Ken Silva, online. He will be backing this up by building up some spurious ‘research’ into Ken’s background, much like when he went after Mr. Shleuter.

    RA: ROFL! Might you make this “prediction” (LoL) because I’ve already mentioned something over at phoenixpreacher and elsewhere about the need for such a book? LoL. That’s not much of a prediction, pastorboy. And I like the “secular author” spin in there. Are you insinuating I am not a Christian, much like Mike Rarliff, who came right out and said I am “unregenerate.”

    And as for what i spend my time on, I suggest you plow through the internet and see how I have been laboring over the past many months witnessing to New Agers and Mormons — instead of producing endless diatribes against brothers and sisters in Christ like the ODMs.
    _______________
    PASTORBOY: Well, you all will be judged for everything done in secret. I am disappointed, because we are all supposed to be on the same team, proclaiming the Gospel and building up the body of Christ, while defending and contending for the faith.

    RA: tell this to the ODMs, who years ago began perverting the noble calling of apologetics/discernment and the wonderful godly movement of apologetics started by Walter Martin.

    Richard Abanes

  12. “2. My credibility is just fine. You might want to check out my new apologetics book, due out in July 2009.”

    When “RA” began to resurface over at crn.(dis)info I told a few friends no doubt he has another book to hawk. Now with the current attack on Ken Silva, and Ingrid etc which I am sure he has everything to do with, he boldly steps forward with his agenda.

    Your credibility?

  13. pastorboy: The old “They do it so I can do it” routine.

    RA: This is some kind of concoctin in your own mind. I am not saying, haev never said, and would never say soemthing as stupid as “They do it so I can do it.” Is English you’re second language? Seriously. I can’t tell. With the Internet you might be German or something like that. Because even the statement you quote from me has nothing to do with the sentiment “They do it so I can do it.” So, I’m really not sure where to take this. You seem incapable of just listening to what I say.
    ________
    pastorboy: exposing the truth about someone is not slander

    RA: Agreed…….point made. And NOT exposing the truth, but rather spreading lies, under the guise of exposing truth, IS slander. And that’s what your Internet buddies do. Sorry. It’s the truth — and I’m exposing it. They need to repent.

    RA

  14. Chris P: “2. My credibility is just fine. You might want to check out my new apologetics book, due out in July 2009.”

    ROFL: Well, since I’ve been producing about 1-3 books a year for the last 15 years, it’s kind of difficult to post anything on the Internet when I am not having a book about ready to come out. I suppose you didn’t think of that.

    ROFL!!!! You kill me. Play that hate card as often as you can, I suppose. Sigh. Oh well.

    You have this idea in your mind of me — an invented person that you can stick the label “Richard Abanes” on. And that invented person in your mind has nothing to do with the real me.

    You’ve created someone in your self-made existence of unreality, who is complete with an agenda, personality, motivations, and false doctrines — i.e., a person that you can hate and attack in your crusade for God. It’s tragic.

    RA
    PS and goodnight

  15. Phil Naessens

    I appeal to you in the name of Jesus Christ to put an end to these ugly altercations.Ultimately,only Satan benefits from this kind of infighting.

    Tunji

  16. Hi tunji,

    What you are witnessing is not pretty but very vital to the body of Christ and the Church. As you can see from the private communication, they band together in spite of the issue the email contains lies. There is a fine line in the discernment field and imho they have crossed it. They have become what they accuse others of.

    I attribute this to not being well balanced. They hyper-focus on just one of our obligations as Christians to the demise of the rest. Balance in our work is vital to our health.

    The goal of any ministry should always be repentance and restoration. Unfortunately, it appears they have become so rabid in attacking others that they now achieve the opposite goal. Thus they have become judge and jury and vengeance no longer belongs to God, but is something they take upon themselves and sin starts to propagate. It’s wrong. The fact that they don’t see that tells me how far they have fallen.

    They are so convinced in their own minds that they are doing the will of God, that no amount of criticism is accepted or reflected upon. We are called to introspection before we act. A rebuke, even a mild one, should be met with some strong soul searching. I didn’t witness a hint of that here. They justify themselves in their own minds and are not doing what’s right in the eyes of God. May he have mercy.

    I am issuing a call for their repentance and I will continue to make that call until I see it taken to heart. My goal is and always will be restoration.

    Last but not least, if YOU ever see me cross lines, call me on the carpet. You will be doing me and others a good deed.

    imho, they have revealed themselves.

  17. Dorothy

    Do you realize your opponents on the other side of the table are deploying an identical argument to yours? What you have said is simply an exercise in self-justification,to which there may be no end,if either side does not check themselves.

    The hardening of attitudes,abuse,disrespect,ungodly attitudes, multiply,the longer this kind of free for all brawling continues.

    More importantly at this stage of the matter,have you considered what an unbeliever stumbling on these exchanges is likely to think and say.Probably ‘if these are Christians,thank God I am not a Christian’!1 Cor 14:22-23.

    Enough,elder sister.

  18. Phil
    I was referring to all concerned,and asking all persons to show restraint,Christian charity,forgiveness.
    I really do not want to be drawn further into this.Except to appeal to you,once again,to please in the name of the God we serve,now rest the matter.

    • Hi,

      You say “all concerned” but you only name me?

      You don’t want to be drawn in but that doesn’t stop you from chipping in your .02 worth now does it? I think its you that needs to check himself Tunji because once again you’ve typed before you’ve done your homework. You have a habit of doing that around here and I’ve extended great patience and restraint towards you in the past but no more. Either interact with the facts or stay silent.

      Phil

  19. Have you ever noticed that the people who constantly claim they are being persecuted by people within the body of Christ, are those who take up collections?

    • Hi Boyd,

      Thats an interesting observation. Silva cried foul just like the the WoF people Senator Grassley was investigating did. I certainly wouldn’t place him at their level financially but I guess you have to protect your interests huh Boyd?

      Phil

  20. When Paul talked about persecution he spoke of beatings, stonings and jail. To the blow dried marketeers persecutions is loss of revenue and questioning their authority or sincerity. I guess I could just contact my prayer partners/contributors and cry about this terrible injustice that I’m going thru?

    Keep those cards and letters coming in!

    Your persecuted brother,
    Boyd

    • Hi Boyd,

      Interesting analogy. I’m going to have to ponder that one for a while. I think you may be onto something here.

  21. I’m just glad Chris P actually could show up somewhere on the internet and ask a coherent question.

    over at crn.info he can’t do anything other than have a hot-flash, cramps and a temper tantrum.

Comments are closed.