Just when you thought things couldn’t get any weirder with the back-and-forth between myself, John & others and Slice, along comes Rev Ken’s post today and it’s Slice stub. Today’s rantings and their mandatory non-critical “amen chorus” in the comments section of Slice once again prove my axiom that people shouldn’t bother to review/recommend/criticize books/music/speeches they have not read/listened/attended – it just doesn’t work (I think I’ll just call this Chris’ Law).

In today’s missive, Ken quotes some of my posts rather liberally (giving me credit, at least, unlike some other occasions), though I’m not sure exactly what point he was trying to make:

In a later post Everything is Spiritual-Redux (a ‘Slice’ of Rob Bell) Lyons shares that “what has stuck with me the most is the quote I’ve listed above, which helps confirm what I’ve been learning about the Kingdom of God in this past years’ studies.” The quote he refers to from Rob Bell is: “In the Hebrew language, there is no word for ‘Spiritual’, because that would imply that there is something that is not…” Lyons then goes on to say that Bell spoke about “the relation of science and God” and how they are not mutually exclusive. That by “believing in God [it] doesn’t mean that you have to become ‘brainwashed’ into believing that the earth is 6,000 years old.”Lyons tells us that during his EIS performance Bell said some:

Things that made me go “hmmm”:
1. When God is mentioned in Genesis 1:1, He is called Elohim in Hebrew. The suffix -im in Hebrew indicates the word is plural. The next few verses then spell out the plural natures of God (creator, spirit, word).
2. Two-dimensional vs. three-dimensional vs. multi-deminsional thought
3. The “dials and knobs” view of the world
4. In Hebrew, there is no word/adjective for “spiritual”, as this would imply that there were things that were NOT spiritual.

Perhaps he misinterpreted things that made me go ‘hmm’ as being a negative – when it was really a placeholder for things I wanted to think about, as they were thought-provoking.

Ken works his way selectively through some other reviews of the EIS tour, completely missing the point on several topics discussed by Bell, since Ken was not present. He correctly quotes Bell as saying that “It is possible for church to work against spirituality”, but then mis-interprets this to be a harangue against church doctrine, when it was a comment directed at people who start to see church as a place where God makes His home address (thus making other locales somehow less ’spiritual’).

At least, in the end, Ken admits what it is he’s doing…

Oh yes, I can just hear the Emergent howls of protest arising: “But how dare you! You’re judging Rob.” Read my keyboard: Yes, absolutely! Yes, I am judging his character by the fruit of his life and his public conduct. As a pastor-teacher myself this exactly what I am supposed to do as Jesus says – “Stop judging by mere appearances, and make a right judgment.” (John 7:24) And I offer this as yet another reason of why this Emergent Church rebellion is such a heinous crime against the Body of Christ. It has created a forum for young men like Rob Bell who are proving that they are simply too young to have senior pastorates and who are quite obviously not showing the kind of Christian character we should expect from our pastor-teachers.

It seems Ken is still insistent on the prooftexting of John 7:24, which, if read in context would more easily be argued as evidence of why Ken should cease and desist his logic-free attacks on Mr. Bell, or at least save them for when Mr. Bell actually does something wrong (besides speaking in a place more likely to be frequented by sinners than by saints).

But it gets better

On Slice, the faithful amen chorus chimed in to Rev Ken’s article (again making Chris’ Law all the more apporpot), and took it even further, comparing him rather unfavorably with Charles Manson, before going WAY off the deep end:

“filling the board with Hebrew characters, diagrams, biblical interpretation and numbers? “Oh nooo!! It sounds like kabbalah.
I know some people who persue kabbalah, and they all get so obsessed with hebrew letters, their meaning, and the significance of gematria, the hebrew numerology and metaphysics.
Also `everything is spiritual` is a kabbalistic statement as well.They spiritualize the elements, the fire,the earth, everything.
They also interpret the Bible in a mystic, esoteric way.
As a freemason said: kabbalah is the mother of all occult. It is, and I saw people get so deep in it that they went actually crazy.
If this gets into the church, it will be the saddest thing that can happen.
The spirit of Antichrist sitting in the holy place.

So, from Ken’s article on EIS (which he didn’t attend), we’ve now got Chuck Manson in sheep’s clothing spouting kabbalah, ushering in the Anti-Christ. In actuality, the only Hebrew characters Rob wrote on the board were those that composed the name Elohim, and the numbers cited were the numeric analysis of the creation story. And Shazaam! Rob Bell’s now teaching Kabbalah in the bars of America. Someone hide the children!

And then – in case we weren’t paying attention – Rhoda finishes us off with this gem:

I had read on Slice the term “Elvis of Emergent” in reference to Mr. Bell, thinking it to be a term using artistic license, and maybe pushing the boundaries of good taste. But then I read in Ken’s article that he himself wrote a book and titled it “Velvet Elvis”. I think “you can’t make this stuff up” applies here.

I totally agree with you, Rhoda, I totally do. You’ve just put the icing on proving Chris’ Law. I couldn’t have made up these gems to illustrate what I’ve been saying about Slice any clearer. If you’ve not read Mr. Bell’s book (and obvoiusly, you have not), you would not know the metaphor of the ‘Velvet Elvis’, and how you (and those who write at Slice) have helped make its truth evident.

In all Seriousness

Over at Verum Serum, Scott (who I hadn’t realized existed before today) posted an open letter to Ken Silva, regarding the disservice the methods and messages at Slice are doing to themselves and (possibly) Christendom. It is probably the most eloquent summation I’ve seen to date, and it is far more fair than I have probably been (being devoid of sarcasm).

Scott makes an excellent point that it seems as if the Slice crowd desires some sort of “All-ness Statement” every time Rob Bell, Rick Warren or one of their other punching bags speaks publicly – that these men of God must end every sermon with a “salvation message” or else they have somehow failed. I will wholeheartedly agree that the Gospel is the “Good News” and must be preached. However, I will also defend methods that don’t EXPLICITLY preach it at every opportunity, no matter how it fits in to the presentation at hand. As Solomon pointed out “There is a time for every purpose under heaven”, and in this case I don’t think it’s really Slice’s God-given role to determine when that time and purpose are for persons other than themselves.

If you’re read my recent post on the EC, you know I’m not totally comfortable with what it is and where parts of it want to go, but the blanket, dogged, mean-spirited, often ad homenim attacks against individuals in it really need to stop – especially when those who are writing don’t know of what it is they speak…