Apparently Pastor Silva caught the attention of Abanes in this piece The Falling Away of the Evangelical Church. No doubt, Abanes saw this statement:
This kind of unpalatable rubbish from Schuller we have just looked at, pure uncut skubalon, has even infiltrated the evangelical community through the apostatizing PDL Pope Rick Warren and his so-called Purpose-Driven Church. Point of fact, it would truthfully be more proper to call it the Pragmatic Church, as Warren is no doubt a devotee of Schuller's centered of the self pragmatic ideas for growing a church.
And there are similar statements throughout the article.
In this piece, SETTING RICHARD ABANES STRAIGHT ON MY RICK WARREN "ATTACK"
Pastor Silva shares an exchange where Abanes makes the following comment:
Unfortunately, Silva has widely missed the mark regarding Rick Warren. He has seemingly fallen for several urban legends about Warren, most notably the widespread false notion that Warren is some kind of "disciple" of Robert Schuller.Pastor Silva responded with prima facie evidence of the Schuller-Warren connection.
The article clearly illustrates Abanes' focus on what he percieved as an attack on Warren by Silva. Meanwhile Pastor Silva appears to be focused on what he perceives is an attack on Biblical truth.
Abanes declares Pastor Silva the de facto winner of that debate when Abanes resorts to contacting the webhosting service of Apprising Ministries and demands that the article be removed.
How ironic. Mr. Abanes, as such an ardent champion of Rick Warren and the Purpose Driven Movement, wants to erase the very document that reflects his defensive tactics.
Certainly not a vote of confidence in those tactics of defense, or the person Mr. Abanes is attempting to defend.
Sounds like someone is trying to throw cyber-sand in the face of a purpose-driven resister. I wonder where that idea came from.
See related articles: Christian Leader Pays For Speaking Out Against Rick Warren , Selling Salvation: Flipping Souls Like Hamburgers The Purpose Driven Way , More Purpose Driven Division , Dealing With Purpose Driven Resisters , More Collateral Damage From A Purpose Driven Pastor , Collateral Damage of the Purpose Driven Pastor , Dismembered By A Purpose Driven Pastor , Christian Leader Pays For Speaking Out Against Rick Warren , The Commencement Season , The Prophets Against Purpose Driven Division
See more Purpose Driven dismemberment articles here and Resisting the Purpose Driven here.
Posts
You might want more information regarding what has transpired, so I offer the following links that offer the truth, as I see it, about what has been happening:
ReplyDeleteLighthouse Trails: More Ken Silva Propaganda
MORE ARGUMENTS: Ingrid Schlueter Speaks!
Ken Silva - More Lies, More Sensationalism, More Sin
FOR THE RECORD, I did NOT:
A. File a lawsuit against Mr. Silva.
B. Threaten to file a lawsuit against Mr. Silva.
C. Contact an attorney about beginning a lawsuit against Mr. Silva.
The truth is that I sent a simple email to Mr. Silva's ISP requesting that they review ONE of his news articles because I felt it that it not only violated their TOS agreement, but was libelous and offensive in tone.
Based on the article's content, after an IPOWER investigation, the ISP's decision was to ask Mr. Silva to remove the article -- or have his website deleted. He stubbornly refused to follow a simple request from the ISP with whom he had entered a TOS agreement. It was HIS willful defiance that caused his website to momentarily disappear.
R. Abanes
Well, as another famous Southern Baptist once said, I guess it deopends on what yourt definition of is, is.
ReplyDeleteOddly enough Jim I've noticed this very same comment cut and pasted on my other site as well.
This is to Mr. Abanes,
ReplyDeleteI haven't felt the need to comment up until now, as I had sent an email of encouragement to brother Ken and also shared how sickened I was that Mr. Abanes was handling a debate this way.
Mr. Abanes' reply to all this on differing blogs is driving me crazy, so I thought I would address a few things:
Mr. Abanes, I believe you are playing word games. I read the email you sent brother Ken's provider. You were clearly threatening a lawsuit to the provider, and also brother Ken. Did you come right out and say, I'm going to sue all you guys? Of course not. That would be too easily seen as hostile, so instead we'll just imply it by saying I would hate to have to do this, or I wouldn't want to include you. Please stop treating us like we don't have a brain, and don't know exactly what is going on. You wanted brother Ken to cease and desist posting things you disagree with, so you used strong language, libel and slander, and took a threatening stance to get done what you wanted.
Also, I read brother Ken's article when he posted it, and again in the last week. It's strong, it's passionate, and well researched, and yes we know, you disagree with that. But that's just the point. You disagree. It doesn't make what he posted wrong or slander, just different than what you think is correct. He didn't post secret things about you, or say you weren't learned or not a good author. Frankly, it wasn't about you anyway, until you felt the need to interact with him and disagree with his stance as well. It was about the purpose driven movement and it's teachings. Period.
If you feel that your contacting his provider was the right decision, then stand by it, the whole thing. The denials of an implied lawsuit is insulting to brother Ken and the rest of us who read the email.
KIM: I believe you are playing word games. I read the email you sent brother Ken's provider. You were clearly threatening a lawsuit to the provider, and also brother Ken.
ReplyDeleteRA: NO, I am NOT. If I am saying I am not, then you and I are in disagreement. But I am telling you what was in my head. If you do n't believe that, then you might as well just call me a liar.
The actual language does NOT threaten a lawsuit. It reads as follows. And look at what it actually says. I'll ask again, LOOK AT WHAT IT ACTUALLY SAYS.
1. "Before turning this situation over to my attorneys," I respectfully request...."
2. "I have no wish to name IPOWERWEB.NET / IPOWERWEB.COM in a legal suit, and hope to resolve this issue as quickly and easily as possible."
The first statement ACTUALLY states "before" I contact attorneys. The obvious question is: Contact them for what purpose? Attorneys can give advice, too. Remember? They don't just have to run out and file a lawsuit. Ever think of that?
Perhaps in my mind I was thinking, if I get no where here, then I'll make a phone call like this: "Good morning, Charlie, my attorney. Listen, what do you think I should do about this situation? I've already asked the ISP to look at the article and got nowhere. I can't really call him personally because I already know what the outcome of that willl be based on his opinion of me. So what do you think I should do? Any other recourse?" That is NOT a lawsuit. But it is indeed talking to your attorney.
The second statement is a simple expression of exactly what I was feeling: "I HAVE NO WISH to name IPOWER in a legal suit." That was and continues to be MY WISH. Who wants to do something like that? In fact, that very sentence goes on to say, I "hope to resolve this issue as quickly and easily as possible." That is NOT threatening a lwasuit, it's saying you actually have no WISH to threaten a lawsuit. That is what it was saying to my mind.
This is how I interpreted these few passing words that were at the bottom of a template I downloaded years ago and that I have used before when dealing with all kinds of issues from copyright infringement, to illegally uploaded music, to on one occasion a complaint I made about a website that threw up porno material!!!! It has never caused a problem --- that is, until Ken Silva deceide to blow it up into an issue of astronomical proportions by illegally pasting that PRIVATE email to IPOWER online in violation of federal copyright/privacy laws. Why is no one complaining about him?
_______________
KIM: Also, I read brother Ken's article when he posted it, and again in the last week. It's strong, it's passionate, and well researched, and yes we know, you disagree with that.
RA: I disagree. It is not well-researched and it has NOTHING to do with ANY of my doctrinal views, contrary to this sttaement from a Free Republic article, July 28, 2008, titled “Blog Shut Down by ‘Christian’ Apologist’s Threat (RICK WARREN, RICHARD ABANES, KEN SILVA): “In that the piece was not believed to be slander at all, but rather religious and theological opinion, he refused to be forced into censoring his site by Richard Abanes.”
But Kim, I would ask you, where in that article does Silva discuss ANY “religious and theological” issues relating in ANY way to my doctrinal views, or where does he disagree with ANY of my biblical interpretations dealing with important doctrines of the faith relating to God, Jesus Christ, salvation, the atonement, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the second coming, heaven/hell, sanctification, original sin, the Trinity, or some other foundational teachings of Christianity? The fact is that he doesn't! That article was personal in all its attacks. It was nothing more than an article deliberately designed to impugn my personal/professional integrity.
Just FYI, I have presented the following challenge to Ken Silva and any/all of his followers:
“If Ken Silva wishes to place another article up titled “A PASTOR’S ASSESSMENT OF RICHARD ABANES,” which actually critiques my theology, then my all means, I welcome it.”
“I challenge ANYONE to find ANY criticisms, observations, corrections in that Ken Silva article that discusses my theology or doctrinal beliefs. Such material is not there.”
Interestingly, only one critic of Rick Warren, who disagrees vehemently with not only Rick Warren, but also my support of Rick Warren, was willing to take up the challenge (no one else, not even Silva, has agreed to take the challenge). And this is what he learned:
"For the record, I like Ken Silva, Ingrid Schuleter, and many other ODMs that are online. I stand vehemently opposed to the purpose-driven programs and ideology that you support. I know that you and I are perhaps diametrically opposed on many things in evangelicalism. But you know what? You were right for what you did. I took your challenge of finding anything resembling an argument of your doctrinal and theological positions in that article, and could not find anything substantive. And, the more time I took in reading it and looking for evidence, the more I found myself agreeing with you that the article bordered on being slanderous. The points that you listed for why you chose to contact the ISP and requested the article be removed made sense to me" (Monday Morning Insights)."
The truth -- as this person was honest enough to admit -- is that Silva's article had nothing to do with my doctrine. It attacked my personal morality, integrity, maturity in Christ, biblical fidelity, and standing as a Christian. And that is why I raised and objection to Silva's ISP. That is the issue here. I not only saw the article a certain way, but Silva's ISP saw it that way too. As they looked at it, they apparently felt that it had indeed violated their TOS with him. That was Silva's fault.
Moreover, what is alarming to me is how no one seems to be raising a word of criticisms about even worse attempts to silence me that have been made by others, including Lighthouse Trails (see this article) and Warren critic Chris Rosebrough (see this article) .
This shows that the issue is NOT what everyone claims is the issue. It's about taking sides, and being against a person they perceive as an enemy. The rest is all a smokescreen. That is the truth. If that weren't the truth, then please, I do want to know -- Where is the hue and cry against Chris Rosebrough (see above link)? Where are the articles crucifying Lighthouse Trails (see above link)?
RAbanes
Richard,
ReplyDeleteYou ARE playing word games. You made innuendo concerning a lawsuit; that is enough and warrents Pastor Silva's reply.
Definition: Innuendo
n., pl. -does.
1. An indirect or subtle, usually derogatory implication in expression; an insinuation.
2. Law.
1. A plaintiff's interpretation in a libel suit of allegedly libelous or slanderous material.
2. A parenthetic explanation of a word or charge in a legal document.
[From Latin innuendÅ, by hinting, ablative of innuendum : in-, to, toward; see in–2 + -nuere, to nod.]
ANON: You ARE playing word games.
ReplyDeleteRA: Now you ARE reading my mind, apparently. Or simply calling me a liar. Either way, I have explained my heart, my intention, and my motives. If you choose to not believe me, then that's your choice. But I would wonder why someone is so quick to judge a brother as a liar in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary.
___________
ANON: that is enough and warrents Pastor Silva's reply.
RA: And still no comment on:
1. Silva's breaking of laws by publicly posting a private email.
2. Attempts by Lighthouse Trails to silence me.
3. The public threat of a lawsuit and use of attorneys against me by Chris Rosebrough.
Interesting.
RAbanes
who really cares about intentions.you are being judged by your fruit. you had a man silenced for disagreeing with you. as for lying you are defending a man who teaches contrary to what the bible teaches.sounds like promoting a lie.why are you defending yourself so strongly? who are you trying to convince of your innocence? yourself maybe certainly not those you injured davec
ReplyDeleteFirst, Mr. Abanes, other folks actions do not take away or explain yours. Bringing in Chris R. and Lighthouse Trails just makes it look like you're trying to change the subject off your action this week. As for lighthouse trails, I will go and read it, because I'm not familiar with what was said, and as for Chris R., wasn't he trying to prove a point? That you had written things about him that could be taken as slander, and if this is how you were going to handle disagreements, then he, if anybody, had ground to stand on in that area.
ReplyDeleteBrother Ken started out by questioning the theology of Purpose Driven. You then attacked him for his conclusions on purpose driven, since you didn't like them and didn't agree. He then returned with a rebuttal to your assumptions of him. Like I said earlier, this didn't start out as a problem with you, but you took it on as your problem by making him and others who agree there are problems with purpose driven, seem ill-equipped at doing any kind of good research on this subject. You attack the research by saying not only that you disagree, but that it's not good. According to who? Many others out there have done the same homework, and found the same problems with purpose driven. Are they all wrong? Are they all terrible researchers?
You also said that it was illegal for brother Ken to make public the email you sent to the ISP. How is that private? The ISP sent it to him. It was a complaint to a public company. Also, Ken needed to tell his readers what would be happening to his site. I guess he could have just said it in his own words, but then you could have accused him of getting it wrong, quoting you wrong, etc. This way, he had the exact words, no misunderstanding. Also, you seem confident that your actions were correct, so having your words publicly stated correctly, I would think, would not be a bad thing, but you're upset it was made public. Why?
Last point. If your intentions were to never sue, why mention attorneys or bring up the words legal suit? It is hard to believe that you would not think that throwing out the words legal suit and attorneys would not conjure up being sued. It might be helpful to ask the ISP as well if they thought there was a threat of a suit.
Why didn't you get in touch with Ken when you saw that he did not get the intentions that were in your head? You could have easily explained that he misunderstood your email, and maybe nipped this in the bud, but you let him move on with the idea that he would be sued if he did not comply. It is way too much to ask that he know that your intentions were different than what was written.
I did not intend to go on and on about this, but I really felt like this was like Goliath, going after David. If it's like you have said, that you are a well known established author, and Ken is in a smaller venue, you even going to his ISP just seems over the top, when you were already getting your points made known just debating him online.
KIM: First, Mr. Abanes, other folks actions do not take away or explain yours.
ReplyDeleteRA: I never said they did. I simply want to know why no one cares at all about what Lighthouse and Rosebrough did. Do you have an answer for me?
____________
KIM: Bringing in Chris R. and Lighthouse Trails just makes it look like you're trying to change the subject off your action this week.
RA: I've talked about nthing but my actions. Lighthouse 7 Rosebrough are a separate issue -- Why does no one care about what they did? Why?
_____________
KIM: as for Chris R., wasn't he trying to prove a point?
RA: NO. By the time I contcated him he had already contacted my ISP and had to contact them again to tell them he had been appeased. His lawyers were next to be called. He was not joking.
_____________
KIM: That you had written things about him that could be taken as slander, and if this is how you were going to handle disagreements, then he, if anybody, had ground to stand on in that area.
RA: Oh, he had grounds. I didn't. Beautiful. I can only imagine how he would have been exalted as a hero if he actually would have filed a lawsuit. Unreal.
______________
KIM: Brother Ken started out by questioning the theology of Purpose Driven. You then attacked him for his conclusions on purpose driven, since you didn't like them and didn't agree.
RA: WRONG - WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. That is an absolute falsehood. This issue has NOTHING to do witgh Purpose Driven or Rick Warren. To think otherwise is the height of absolute absurdity. I've already said a million times over what this is about. This is become total lunacy.
_____________
KIM: You attack the research by saying not only that you disagree, but that it's not good.
RA: Sorry, but it's not. And I have shown why and where their conclusions are horribly faulty. But again, that has NOTHING to do with the single, isolated article in question.
______________
KIM: Are they all wrong? Are they all terrible researchers?
RA: If the shoe fits. The fact is that far too many people are in an area of ministry they have no business being in. Sorry, but it's true. The truth hurts sometimes. When you're sick you don't go to someone who just kind of like medicin stuff. When you need your car fixed, you don't go to some neighbor who thinks cars are just awseom, but can't even chaneg the oil. People are going to these "discerners" who don't know the first thing about apologetics. They rip and tear at brothers/sisters using false information, half-truths, outright lies, and bogus conclusions based on bits and pieces of quotes ripped out of context and used to serve their own agenda at the expenese of truth. That is the reality of the situation. Sorry. But it's true.
_______________
KIM: How is that private? The ISP sent it to him. It was a complaint to a public company.
RA: Private means UNPUBLISHED in the world of copyright. Jusyt because you send something to someone else does NOT make it public.
_______________
KIM: I guess he could have just said it in his own words, but then you could have accused him of getting it wrong, quoting you wrong, etc.
RA: A person is NOT allowed t publish private emails & letters without permission of the person who wrote the material -- PERIOD.
_________________
KIM: but you're upset it was made public. Why?
RA: 1. It was illegal. 2. It has caused confusion and been used to blow up a situation into what it NEVER should have been. 3. It shows that NO ONE is safe, even in the presence of laws designed to portect all of us.
_________________
KIM: If your intentions were to never sue, why mention attorneys or bring up the words legal suit?
RA: This has been answered. Please my next to last response in my article Open Letter to Steve Camp
RAbanes
The issue here is how this was handled in the first place. Recently, I watched a program on the Food Network on selecting the next Food Network "star". One person said that the experience had taught him how to take criticism. Too bad the Body of Christ has not learned this same lesson.
ReplyDeleteToday's seeker sensitive church wants only to hear the praise of man.
Paul said we were to suffer ourselves to be wronged, if it were to the Glory of God.
Charles Spurgeon is a great example of this in his "down-grade" controversy.
The Bible says we are to "mark those who cause divisions" [i.e. heresies]. Paul certainly "named" people who were leading others astray or resisting their message. Pastor Silva was/is certainly in Biblical guidelines to expose names when doctrine is being violated.
Your continuing to act like a 5 year old in defending yourself, only shows how immature the church in America really is.
And for being an award winning author, one might think you could spell correctly when blogging.
I suggest, Mr. Abanes, that you keep the issue on what transpired between you and Pastor Silva.
Deflecting the issue to cast the light away from you is a tactic.
Most don't know about the other issues you attempt to throw up as a smokescreen.
The original article debated is on public record. Most are intelligent enough to read what actually transpired.
God's prophets were not well received, they hid in caves -- were considered "no names" except by the people who felt threatened by them.Even Jesus considered himself of "no reputation". Are we better than he? Do we care more about our "ministry" than ministering to Him?
Just food for thought.
Mr. Abanes,
ReplyDeleteYour shoe fits comment is your opinion. I'm sure the false teachers that you warn others about, correctly I might add, would say the same about you. They would be wrong though because your research and facts would back you up. Ken Silva and the other folks you've mentioned do good work, and their research can be checked and validated. Like I've said before, you disagreeing with them doesn't make them wrong.
I have contacted ipower to answer some questions, like did they really investigate your complaint by checking the article mentioned, and did they take your complaint as a threat of legal action. I hope they respond, but I don't know if they will.
Just a side note: your comments about the other discernment ministries out there is very demeaning. You assume a lack of ability, intelligence and common sense on their part, which again, is opinion, that you try to use as fact.
Have you checked all the research that these ministries have done? Have you checked the evidences that they site and proven it wrong? Maybe this has been done by you, and I haven't seen it, but I have checked all the evidences, specifically on purpose driven and Mr. Warren, since I believe that's the real problem here, and have always found the statements they site, backed up.
I really feel there is nowhere else to go on this. You not only disagree with the research from these ministries, you don't even think they have abilities to do the job anyway. Jesus is their Savior, so they have what is most important, God's Holy Word, and the Spirit within them. God told all his sheep to test the spirits.
These ministries don't have to measure up to a level of ability that you have set, but what God and His Word has set. I believe they have, you don't.
This Open Letter to Steve Camp outlines my initial thoughts/intentions/motivation for writing to Ken Silva's ISP. It also covers various issues relating to the "Ken Silva vs. Richard Abanes" controversy, including:
ReplyDelete1. Bible Study notes on key passages being discussed,
2. the actual contents of my email to Silva's ISP,
3. observations about the current state of the church,
4. an indictment of today's so-called Online Discernment Ministries, and
5. documentation of Ken Silva’s violation of federal copyright/privacy laws, and other issues.
The open letter should answer most questions and addressed the widely-read article by Steve Camp titled "Battles in the Blogsphere."
This is my final word on the issue. Those who have ears to hear, and eyes to see, will both hear and see the truth.
Richard Abanes
Pop Culture Mix
Mr Abanes,
ReplyDeleteI would definitely say you were playing from what I have seen, and sadly enough, you still are. In the thoughts of your guru: Sometimes you just have to wait for them to leave or die. Is that what decent Christians should do for you at this point, Mr Abanes??
Personally, I think your guru has ruined the SBC, and my family will no longer be associated with them. I will go elsewhere, not to be disclosed to treacherous people like you, as I am not as forgiving as Jesus on your behalf. I don't want you, or Rick in my Church. While we can share the gospel with unbelievers, we don't want to worship with them in our Church. May God have mercy on your soul.
Regards,
C.W.