05 September 2007

12-day slow pitch

by Frank Turk

About 3 weeks ago, I posted one of the softest, least-offensive and least-aggressive criticisms of anyone on earth I have ever made. It was in response to an article by David Aikman in CT, and because Dr. Aikman wasn't pressing any theological points but merely matters of pragmatic action, I thought it would be a good place to show that I am not the proverbial one-note tuba.

As a preface, doing that has re-educated me on one of the reasons I hate Blogger. It does a lousy job of notifying me/us when someone toddles through the back-issues of the blog and posts a random comment for whatever reason. However, I am edified that the essay in question was one of the top-3 posts we made at TeamPyro in August, and you have to take the good with the bad.

A fellow named "Todd" posted a few notes on my essay to Aikman, and because I have 15 minutes this week, I'd like to respond to Todd in detail.
Very poor article IMO. Here's why.
That's actually a great, pithy start – "I think you're full of beans, and here's why, dude." And in that, I thought I was going to get some schoolage from Todd. What I got instead was this:
You've put forth two topics.

Topic one:

You say, "But problematically, your essay does what it sets out to criticize."

That argument reminds me of the argument I used to use when I was a kid when I would say "it takes one to know one". How satisfied that would make me feel. That's all you've accomplished putting that sort of argument forth.
It seems that Todd doesn't actually understand what I said to Dr. Aikman – because "it takes one to know one" is not an argument at all but an insult. My complaint is that Dr. Aikman's essay is itself of the type of criticism he's complaining about – so if that type of criticism is not valid, then Dr. Aikman's essay is not a valid complaint.
You said:

"You equate criticizing Joel Osteen with KJVO enthusiasm"

That statement would be inaccurate. Aikman cited people who referred to Olsteen as a "viper", and then farther on down the article cited people with an obviously extremeist blog and likened their mentality to those who consider any other version of the bible than the "King James Version is a step toward apostasy". The two references which you claim are a comparison have nothing in common with each other.
Yeah, no.

Dr. Aikman says this in the 4th paragraph of his essay:

What disturbs me, however, is the extent to which some Christians have turned themselves into the self-appointed attack dogs of Christendom. They seem determined to savage not only opponents of Christianity, but also fellow believers of whose doctrinal positions they disapprove.
And that is the title of his essay, right? "Attack Dogs of Christendom"? He lumps all the "attack dogs" together, for better or worse.

And after doing that, he says this:
It is easy to laugh at these websites, which feature subheads like "Mixed Swimming" (dangerous, of course) and "Bible Guidelines for Clothing." Often these sites seem convinced that every translation of the Bible done after the King James Version is a step toward apostasy.
I added the underline, but it's Aikman's thesis that the KJVO guys and (for example) Ken Silva are the same people – the same kinds of critics. And they offer the same "laughable" kinds of opinions – which would be the range of opinions from criticism of Osteen and Billy Graham to (as above) KJVO advocacy.

So my first criticism for the Toddster (note to bob.blog: see how the overly-familiar acts as a dismissive epithet – very useful when done on purpose) is that in order to respond to a critique of some essay, you have to read the essay first and understand it. Dr. Aikman's not talking about all kinds of things here: he's saying that blogs ranging from Ken Silva's blog to some unnamed KJVO web site are all doing the same thing. They are all 'attack dogs'.
Not only did Aikman not in any way equate them together but, in making such a statement as you did, you seem ready to equate "King James enthusiasm" with the notion of 'regarding anything other than the King James version as a step toward apostasy'. You effectually equated those two distinct mindsets(grouping one sound one in with an extreme one) by saying what you said, and I don't think you'll get much agreement in fudging them together.
This would be another place where you ought to read more carefully. Because my phrase was, "KJVO enthusiasm" – King James Version Only enthusiasm. "Only" being an important word (as you note), but it was actually included in my statement, "You equate criticizing Joel Osteen with KJVO enthusiasm – trying, I guess, to demonstrate how backwards and uninformed these opinions must be."

What's really odd is that you actually cut-and-pasted my exact phrase in the next part here, Todd, but you didn’t actually read it. That's sloppy.
Virtually your only criticism of Aikman is, "equating criticism of Joel Osteen's preaching to a KJVO bibliology is a stretch at best", and, "You equate criticizing Joel Osteen with KJVO enthusiasm", and the support of that criticism is not even sound. Think further into it somehow and get more from Aikman's great point.
Well, if there was someplace to go with with your criticism, I'd be glad to. The problem, plainly, is that Dr. Aikman has equated criticism of Joel Osteen with KJVO enthusiasm, and in doing so has marginalized his criticism of people who may or may not deserve it by confusing them with people who are actually doing something which is, well, we really don't want to get into KJVO issues here because those people tend to be less dignified than even the EC people we have been dealing with lately, so let's just say that the KJVO folks are happy to be their own little remnant. Given that Ken Silva is not KJVO, he's not in that remnant, so I think it's safe to say that both sides could take offense at Dr. Aikman's point of view.

However, you were about to give me some advice about how to get something out of Dr. Aikman's essay, so let's hear it.
Here's how.

You Said:

"Your criticism of them, in a nutshell, is that their "approach" is flawed – and this may well be true. But your approach to reproach is not really much better – because it does the kinds of things you are very sincerely worried about, only without the Biblical epithets of "whitewashed tombs" and "vipers".

That's the whole point Frank. Aikman did it without the vitriolic epithets. Soundly, without making those false comparisons you claim. He didn't misquote anybody or paraphrase anybody.
What he did, Todd, was to say that criticism of Joel Osteen is as baseless as KJVO bibliology.

He may have not used the words "aberrant", or "cultic", or "crazy", but he is the one who said that they are doing their criticizing while they are doing their KJVO advocating. That's a pretty straight line, if you ask me.

Now, here's the part of your comment I think betrays your own bias:

He did take a cheap shot at the extreme KJV mindset but that extreme mindset does exist and is worthy of any and all constructive criticism it can get.
I wonder if that includes lumping it in with criticism of Joel Osteen as the same kind of work?
Topic Two:

I'm sure Aikman appreciates your criticism that he did not provide many tenable constructive alternatives but then you unpacked quite a few words yourself as well along that vain and weren't really able to give it much justice either.

So all in all I see more defensive posture that useful substance in your article.
Well, Todd, you read my essay about as well as you read Dr. Aikman's essay, so my opinion is that you need to start over, re-read his essay, and then see if you can grasp the finer points of his view of criticism – which is self-defeating – before you try to defend what he has done here.

Thanks for your comments.


Rick Frueh said...

That article had some valid points. Aikman had some points also but as an outsider looking in he lacked the perspective necessary to make a more complete analysis, including the doctrinal issues being discussed. I realize that in that narrow context John the Baptist would come up short, so your overall commentary seemed understandable from one who rejects shrillism.

That is not the point that should be made and Aikman is by no means a template. And the people who post here are so superior in their intellect that it is illogical to assume that they do not get what some are saying. You may disagree, sarcastic wit may help the situation, name calling may provide a productive bridge to wayward brethren, intellectual elitism might be God's way, but let us not pretend we are talking past each other.

Steve Lamm said...


You make an excellent point when you note that: "...in order to respond to a critique of some essay, you have to read the essay first and understand it."

Seems to me that this is a real problem constantly illustrated in the comments that come flowing in on the meta at this blog and others - a failure to carefully read, understand and accurately represent the views of those being criticised.

I can't count how many times you and the other Pyros have had to almost plead with people to go back and carefully read the blog because a commenter completely missed the point.

I suspect this is the same reason that so much error get's passed off as biblical. It's the inevitable product of a careless reading of Scripture.

Anyway, thanks for your work here. I find your blogs to be precise.


Anonymous said...

Frank, what exactly are these "attach dogs", attaching themselves to? :-) (Toddster paragraph)

FX Turk said...

Your leg, muscles, if you get to close.

... pesky kids ...

FX Turk said...

I'm down another 2lbs and I'm starving to death, btw, garet.

Anonymous said...

I bet if you offered one a meat chub it would let go.

Anonymous said...

Starving huh? Sounds like the Hollywood starlet diet. I just ate two pounds of cajun chicken myself, feel pretty full. Keep it up man. Remember, if you are continuing to work out you are actually building muscle mass too, using your weight as a measure of success may not be an accurate portrayal of actual progress. :-)

Stefan Ewing said...

I have never seen the actual word "precise" used before to describe this blog's authors' writing, but it is in fact a very apt word to capture the precision with which the three of you do practice your discernment and teaching. Props to Steve Lamm for coming up with it.

Fred Butler said...

If you are going to be precise, it is A.V. 1611 Only


DJP said...

Steve LammI can't count how many times you and the other Pyros have had to almost plead with people to go back and carefully read the blog because a commenter completely missed the point.

For the public record, please tell everyone you're not a sock-puppet of me.

I remember a long time ago, one particularly arrogant commenter demanded that I document some statement. It's almost an obsession of mine that I source everything, and this article was no exception. It was right in the article. It wasn't hidden-texted, small font, anything — it was right there.

So I wouldn't reinvent that wheel. I told him to look at the article. He would not do it. He just accused me, over and over, of not sourcing my quotation.

All that to say, thanks for saying that.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

“Now, I know that someday I am going to come to what some people will say is the end of this life. They will probably put me in a box and roll me right down here in front of the church, and some people will gather around, and a few people will cry. But I have told them not to do that because I don’t want them to cry. I want them to begin the service with the Doxology and end with the Hallelujah chorus, because I am not going to be there, and I am not going to be dead. I will be more alive than I have ever been in my life, and I will be looking down upon you poor people who are still in the land of dying and have not yet joined me in the land of the living. And I will be alive forevermore, in greater health and vitality and joy than ever, ever, I or anyone has known before".

D. James Kennedy, Ph.D.

FX Turk said...

My comment is that Dr. D. James Kennedy was a man of great patriotism and good conscience who stood up for the Gospel of Jesus Christ when many would not. I did not agree with him on everything he ever said or wrote, but I held him in the highest regard.

My prayers are for his family and church today as they grieve their loss. His reward is in the hands of his great God and Savior.

donsands said...

Good words Cent. IMy heart jooins with yours for his family. He was a great help to me as a babe in Christ.

Nash Equilibrium said...

I think I am going to write to Aikman and tell him that I'm a KJVO person, a follower of Joel Osteen, and I breed Jack Russells as attack dogs.


Then later I'm going to point out that since the original KJV included the Apocrypha, I'm going to ask why he's attacking people who believe in the Apocrypha (as in all Roman Catholics).

David Rudd said...


your article raised an interesting question for me, and it is one of perspective only. it may help me understand you better.

if you were to place yourself and ken silva on a spectrum of "attack-doggery", where would you be, and where would he be?

i know, such a device is a thoroughly modern construct and thereby irrelevant anymore because we no longer "categorize" and "systematize" things like that... but help a brother out...

what would you say?

btw, i didn't completely agree with your original letter, but i thought it was well-done, had a great spirit, and made some good points.

FX Turk said...

David Rudd:

I would place Pastor Ken on the "pastoral" end, with the pastoral concerns Paul urged on to Titus and Timothy, an end occupied by the likes of Dr. MacArthur and Dr. Piper.

I would put myself on the "malcontent christian bookstore owner who is tired of having to sort through giant piles of trash to sell a decent book that doesn't make people spiritually crazy" end, who is concerned with having all kinds of local churches being spiritually healthy and spiritually prosperous, and as I look around I think I'm the only guy standing in this end of the pool.

It's the same pool. They are watching the deep end and are trying to keep people who don't belong there off the high board. I get watch the kiddie pool to keep the kids from, um, (Phil just e-mailed me and told me there was nothing I could do to offend him, but I realize that the metaphor I was about to employ here would get 200 comments before bed tonight, and would probably offend Darlene at least) ... I get to keep kids from putting Snickers bars in the water and making the girls scream.

Hope that helps.

cslewis3147 said...


speaking of books, I was at Kingdom Bound in Siloam, at the end of July/Beginning of August,while we were at the Siloam Springs/SBC church camp...I bought some good posters there-journeys of Paul and books of the Bible...but they were way expensive...keep up the good work!

Anonymous said...

Have you considered a move to Typepad?

FX Turk said...

The posters were priced at MSRP, and I don't think you can get them cheaper anywhere -- unless someone is carrying the non-laminated versions. We carry the laminated ones only because they don't really wear out.

FX Turk said...

e-d mommy:

We have thought about moving once or twice in the last 2 years. In spite of our dis-satisfaction with blogger, it gives us the biggest bang in terms of real control over the template.

Some day they will figure out how to give us real editorial control over the comments, -- like being about to ban by IP address, and being about to go in and edit posted comments -- and then they'll stop having their once-a-quarter 3 days of lousy service, and then it'll be OK.

You know: for free. And make it snappy.

Unknown said...


that helps a little.

"malcontent christian bookstore owner who is tired of having to sort through giant piles of trash to sell a decent book that doesn't make people spiritually crazy"

that's funny. we have a book exchange room in our church and i throw away (er... file away) about a third of the books that come in because they are such trash.

i guess, what i was getting at is that Ken at times (in my opinion) goes a little overboard with his crusading and his degrees of separation. are there ever times when you would say, "i appreciate Ken, but he goes further than me with his 'attack-doggery'". or are there times when you would say, "i wish Ken would be a little more aggressive"?

i just perceive that if some of those accused of attack-dogging would occasionally demonstrate themselves to be cut of different cloth (publically) it might reduce the temptation of some to lump everyone together...

don't know if that makes sense?

Nash Equilibrium said...

Bookstore Dudes of all stripes: Perhaps the time has come to open a Christian Bookstore, and sell only Bibles? Then any newbie Christian stumbling in would at least be temporarily disabled from getting into trouble.

(Of course, you'd still have to keep out the Kenneth Copeland Bible, the Benny Hinn Bible, etc.)

Unknown said...

case in point:

after sending my last comment, i opened my email and the first message waiting for me says, "you got called out by ken silva..."

so i check it out. sure enough, ken's taken something i wrote last year and completely distorted it in order to make a point about the evils of the emerging church.

which i guess is fine, if he thinks i'm such a threat...

but i tend to see you guys as above that type of behavior? am i wrong there?

Unknown said...


Thanks for your response to David Rudd, it helped me gain a little clearer picture of you.


FX Turk said...


My opinion is that every church ought to give some kind of Bible away from free as IBS provides several excellent translations in paperback in case QTYs for about $1.50 each (that's a buck-50 a Bible, plus shipping) (ESV is on their list, for the real innovators). And if a church is especially enterprising, they could actually sell better-quality bindings of the pastoral staff's "common translation" for a small profit to the members of the church in partnership with a local bookstore if they are so inclined.

The problem with a "bible only" approach is that it ignores the really immense wealth of healthy doctrine "out there" -- things which would benefit the individual believer, the post-seminary pastor, and the local church as a whole from cross-denominational sources. Seriously: how many Presbyterians have benefited from Piper, MacArthur, Spurgeon, Gill, etc.? And how many Baptists have benefitted from Sproul, Duncan, Machen, Calvin, Luther, etc.? And would they ever come up if we only lived in our denominational fox-holes?

Christian retail can be exquisitely beautiful when it is primarily and systematically "Christian" and only methodologically retail; it is ugly and sinful when it is systematically and primarily "retail" and methodologically "Christian".

David Rudd said...

Christian retail can be exquisitely beautiful when it is primarily and systematically "Christian" and only methodologically retail; it is ugly and sinful when it is systematically and primarily "retail" and methodologically "Christian".

i wish our local Christian retailers thought this way...

i'd buy from you, Frank.

FX Turk said...


First of all, it confuses me when someone has more than one "screen name". Help me out there by being one person and not more than that.

Here's what I think -- I have a hard time when anyone wants to drive stakes in the ground where the Bible doesn't say to drive stakes in the ground. I have blogged about that specifically.

The problem is this: when is it time to make it clear that a certain kind of error is irreconcilable and must result in separation? Some people are up-front about that, like Pastor Ken. Some people are clear about it, but don't make that the main issue -- among which (I think) are we PyroManiacs.

Some people never bring it up -- and that in frankly problematic.

I like polemics. I think they advance the cause of Christ clearly. I think some people are better writers than others, and that's not a sin on the part of the weaker writers -- it's simply the way it is.

If people who are offended by Ken Silva spent as much time trying to understand what he's saying as they do trying to understand what the culture is saying in order to cause the Gospel to ape that culture, I think more people would appreciate and listen to Ken.

I think Aikman's article is a great negative example of this.

Does that get what you're looking for?

FX Turk said...

David Rudd:

This is the terminal illness of the Christian Publishing establishment and of the Association of Christian Retailers (formerly CBA): they have forgotten what the mission is, and now are merely subsidiaries of secular marketing organizations.

There are a handful of exception (for example, Crossway publishers). But if you bring up doctrine, you literally get boo'd at ACR/CBA events.

Unknown said...


Is your bookstore independently run or part of a chain. In either case, how much freedom do you have in promoting the good stuff? Many people want the fluff, has your business suffered because of this? Our local "Christian" bookstore is the stereotypical sellers of Jesus junk and self help garbage with some good stuff hidden in between so naturally I am encouraged to hear that there still may be some good Christian bookstores out there!

David Rudd said...


sorry about the multiple personality disorder. i commented before signing out of a different google account this morning...

i think i'm back to normal now.

I don't disagree with anything you've said about writing and polemics and all that. In fact, I would affirm you in all this, and say that I really agree.

Maybe part of the problem is created by the venue of the internet. People can write/say whatever they want with no thought to the potential consequences.

I'm as guilty of this as the next guy...

My fear is that too often this venue (inernet, not pyros) is being increasingly used as a platform from which people can launch crusades against other people and movements they haven't really taken the time to understand.

With Ken, (i'm obsessing here, because it is the example in the presenting post) I think guys like you would do more for him if you would take the time to affirm him when he is spot on (which he is sometimes), but also to point out when he has gone overboard (which we all do sometimes).

One well-constructed (and accurate and appropriate) criticism of someone else who is perceived as "in your camp" would be a clear demonstration that the "arguments" put forth by Todd are baseless.

not sure any of that made sense... it was a bit of a vomit and i haven't had enough coffee today.

on the book thing:

they have forgotten what the mission is, and now are merely subsidiaries of secular marketing organizations.

i think this is probably something that goes way beyond just books and is a deeply-seeded problem in a whole bunch-of-a-lot-of churches as well...

will self-publishing be the "salvation" of Christian literature?

FX Turk said...


cf. Steve Camp at this blog and my own.

To say any more would be to say too much.

FX Turk said...

Sam --

We still sell plastic trash, and we also have obligatory copies of Osteen and Joyce Meyer. We are not completely clean -- I admit it.

The question is how we sell what we sell, and whether my employees are equipped to ask the right questions and guide people to better choices. You think you want Osteen? What about some Piper instead? You think you like Joyce Meyer? What about Kay Arthur instead? You live NIV? What about NASB or ESV?

It's about trading people -up- instead of -down- or merely -sideways-. Yesterday I was working in my store and I had a woman come in with her teen son needing a new Bible. I started showing her options and talking about the benefits and challenges of the various translations and study sets, and by the time I was done I had everyone in the bookstore there listening and asking questions.

That doesn't happen at Family or Lifeway. And God is going to hold me accountable for what we did to the local church -- for good and for ill.

theologian said...

I have read this blog site for quite some time and have always found it refreshing and full of sound biblical insights. I enjoy your perspectives very much as I think the gospel is in need of defense!

However, I couldn't sit back on this particular issue without speaking up. To "go after" David Aikman for "going after" men like Ken Silva (and by osmosis Ingrid Schleuter) is nonsense. Ken and Ingrid are the most volatile people I have read on the internet. I believe one of the quotes that caused me to tune them out for good was when Ingrid said Rick Warren was running the best little whorehouse in Orange County and Bill Hybels had a corner on spiritual brothels. I took incredible offense to these remarks. I have good friends in both churches and regardless of the disagreement with ministry methods, this was a great insult. Then for Ken to come back with "You can call me names and I can take it" (not his exact quote)and then Ingrid calling those who are bringing up the issue as those who are having "temper tantrums" is again just plain ridiculous.

The truth of the matter is Ken is a pastor of a church of approximately 15 members and most of them (from what I've been told-- and he can validate or deny this) are his family members. I know size of a church means nothing in the bigger picture, but I feel he is dishonest to paint himself as "influential" in the SBC. Why is he in the SBC if he finds nothing good about it? Is it possible he is in it with the motive of trying to gain some form of "credibility"? Again, I'm not accusing him of this, I'm just questioning because I know Ken is not formally educated, yet he continually maligns all others as "theologically ignorant" and so on. The vicious statements he makes and the venom of his attacks are very disturbing.

Although Ken seems to imply he is not a part of the Separatist Fundamentalist group, who is very aggressive in their attacks of all of those "outside" their ranks, I know Ingrid is intimately connected to them and it makes me wonder if he is as well.

I say all that to say this, if they are a part of the Separatist Fundamentalist (Sharper Iron, etc.) then they really are spiritually blinded and they are on the "fringe" of culture (making issues of separation from other believers about musical styles, clothing, associations, Bible versions, etc). I say this with a lot of experience as I was in a separatist church for a long period in my life and I know that even Pyro. would be off limits to "associate" with. It's an "us vs. them" mentality so you can never really get to the heart of the theological issues being discussed. There is absolutely no open-mindedness within the group because if they embraced even John MacArthur (he's such a rank liberal!) they would be crucified and "disassociated" from. Not to mention the way they treat people when they choose another course in life. Recent blog scandals verify this. Oh, the venom and hate coming from "confessing Christians."

Wouldn't it be better to address the issues David Aikman is bringing to our attention then to "write him off" because he seems to be in defense of those Pyro. may disagree with. Instead of attack into another attack, it seems it would be better to help these folks understand the issues better. They have been gaurded from broader theological debates and maybe shedding light for them on the real issues would be better then defending them against David Aikman's analysis.

Overall, I think sticking to the Scriptures on these blogs can't hurt-- so keep it up! This is just my two cents.


Ken Silva said...

theologian (DS)

You seemed sincere so let me point out re. "Ken is a pastor of a church...and most of them (from what I've been told-- and he can validate or deny this) are his family members."

Other than my wife, family by marriage I have zero family members in Connecticut River Baptist Church where I am pastor.

And: "I feel he is dishonest to paint himself as 'influential' in the SBC." With all due respect, I do not see how anyone can legitimately argue I have said anything of the sort. :-)

If anything, when pressed I would offer the opinion that I am anything but influential in the SBC. And further, please know this is not my goal, k. Should you wish you could read more concerning the scope of the ministries entrusted to me at the following link. Just about three quarters of the way down the page under the subheading: "Caution: Ministries May Appear Smaller Than They Actually Are"


My goal for doing labor in Christ remains the same: To do to the best of my abilities the work He gives me to do; to keep my nose clean, and to get out of this world having done it. Soli Deo Gloria!

Not wishing to get this comments section further off-track I anticipate this to be the last I'll say here so I do pray this helps. :-)

David A. Carlson said...

Ugly David Here

"That doesn't happen at Family or Lifeway. And God is going to hold me accountable for what we did to the local church -- for good and for ill"

It does, sometimes, in reverse. I went with my 16 year old daughter to our FCB (no other options) to buy her a study bible (her request)

We looked at 3 the Reformation, JM's and the Archeological Bible (I had pre approved those three, plus the NET bible, but she is not a fan, so sad) We had a lengthy discussion at the store (about an hour), looking at, reading (because they have different translations)and discussing differences.

When we checked out, the teenage clerk commented that she found our discussion interesting (and I assume unusual)

David Rudd said...


many good points.

i might have read it wrong, but my impression was not that Frank was "going after" anyone, but simply defending the reasonableness of and need for blogs such as ken's, ingrid's, and this.

that said. i think in other places, people have "gone after" aikman for his article. your critiques here are spot on there.

that goes to the heart of my questions for frank... i think this blog runs the danger of being marginalized (in some people's eyes) as just another slice, CRN, etc...

i'd like to see a little more of the nuanced critique these guys are so good at go that way...

i, for one, appreciated your comments.

FX Turk said...

Wow. "go after"?

Due: when you're serious and can find words that mean what they say, then I can comment. To imply that I said Dr. Aikman "went after" Ken Silva, and thereby I "went after" Dr. Aikman is frankly laughable.


FX Turk said...

In my opinion, Ken gets marginalized because he's just one guy and he's really not very well known for anything besides his watchblog. We don't get marginalized because there's a "we" here, and we don't just watchblog. Not for nothin', but a large part of our credibility comes from Phil and the mutual friends we share.

I think Ken does get marginalized, but because there's only one of him and he's not "networked" (for lack of a better term) among reasonable and credible people, he gets ignored.

We don't get ignored. Our love, as they say, is loud.

David A. Carlson said...

Mr. Silva gets marginalized because of what he posts.

My favorite example is his series of posts that connected the emergent church to Dallas Willard and then to Chuck Swindoll (because Chuck once had the temerity to post something approving of DW that was completeted unrelated to the original post) and then proceeding to call out Swindoll on that basis

It is not a "watch blog" - it is a fault finding ministry.

Daryl said...

Perhaps Mr. Silva does occaisionally get a bit into fault finding. Which is worse, finding a bit too much fault from time to time, thereby causing people to think a bit harder than they need to, or finding no fault ever, thereby creating a false sense of security in the church?

I'll take the "bit too much fault from time to time" guy anyday.

But that's just me...

Todd Saunders said...

Wow Frank, I don't blame you for not notifying me that you finally replied to my comment in a different place.

Frank, are you accustomed to taking a toddling and random comments(as you described them) like mine and devoting an entire post to it. That doesn't make sense Frank. People don't do that with toddling and random comments. Need I say more about your sincerity there? Well, thanks, but I will anyway.

Turns out you truly are a poster child for Aikman to point to even though he may or may not have originally.

Yes, I will come back and explain.