A TUMULTUOUS TEMPEST IN A VERY SMALL TEAPOT
As many of you know, the controversy surrounding myself and Ken Silva continues to spiral out of control (thanks to Ken Silva’s sensational efforts to blow the issue out of proportion).
Pastor Ken has decided to turn a simple request from his ISP to remove a single article from his website (apprising.org) into a cry of persecution so intense that one would think he has become the victim of a hate crime, police brutality, false arrest, or some other example of true persecution. Amazing.
The latest online attempt to defend Silva comes from his close associate, Ingrid Schlueter, who operates the Online Discernment Ministry (ODM) Slice of Laodicea. Schlueter, of course, is the woman I mention in Ken Silva – More Lies, More Sensationalism, More Sin, which chronicles how this whole situation erupted. She is the same person who, when faced with her own troubles involving someone whom she felt had slandered/libeled her, proceeded to contact an attorney and let him handle the situation.
Surprisingly, or perhaps not so surprisingly, Schlueter has now come out with an article defending Ken Silva, rather than me, decrying as unChristian my decision to contact Silva’s ISP—despite her own willingness to contact an actual attorney, who in turn sent a threatening letter to the person whom she felt had slandered her.
Can anyone say “Double-Standard”?
The following is my response to Ingrid, whom I have supported both publicly and privately in her stand against the person who had slandered her. Unfortunately, it seems that there is to be found no understanding, compassion, or support from her toward me, even though I didn’t go nearly as far with my response as she went with hers. This is both tragic and disappointing. It also shows the degree of fair-mindedness and consistency that we can expect from the so-called “online discernment” crowd.
* * * *
QUOTES TAKEN FROM ATTACK ON APPRISING MINISTRIES by Ingrid Schlueter
INGRID: This is the crux of the problem. The first step in any blog or website dispute over material is to contact the offender personally and ask for corrections or removal, based on what the issue is. That isn’t just Christianity 101, that’s common sense.
RICHARD ABANES: My question to Ingrid is: Where is that written anywhere in scripture? Where is that even written in some Christian code of Internet conduct? Where is that written on the Internet for anyone to follow? Who voted on this course of action to make it the “first step” for members of the Christian church? Who decided that this is indeed the one and only appropriate/common sense “first step” for a Christian — or anyone else, for that matter—to take. This is especially true if one party feels, rightly or wrongly, that the other party would have absolutely no interest in speaking to them.
The TOS guidelines of an ISP exist for a reason. And I fail to also see what the difference is between complaining to an ISP and complaining to somoeone’s manager in a store! I have made this analogy before, but no one seems to want to deal with it, or even acknowledge it:
“I fail to see the horrible atrocity here, TBH. It’s utterly baffling to me. This is no more egregious than if I were in a grocery store and the fruit man was rude to me or totally unhelpful—but he had on a Jesus pin!! I’d go to his manager and say, “This guy is not abiding by your standards of employment for courtesy, helpful service.” The manager’s decision about how to handle it is the managers decision.”
Ken, Ingrid, and all of his other supporters are making this into more than it is. They are creating a tumultuous tempest in a very small teapot.
___________________________________
INGRID: Richard admits that Ken is a Christian brother. How much more important, then, that this step be followed.
RICHARD ABANES: Again, where in the world can this “step” be found in the Bible. It has nothing to do with Matthew 18 (which Ken Silva, BTW, certainly hasn’t followed with regard to the targets of his criticisms and attacks). And my actions also have nothing to do with 1 Corinthians 6 (which is a clear discussion of one believer literally bringing another believer into the courts—NOTE: This doesn’t apply to writing a complaint email to an ISP. Seriously, people, c’mon. Stop twisting God’s Word).
___________________________________
INGRID: It was not, and now Ken’s site is in serious jeopardy because of Abanes’ bullying tactics.
RICHARD ABANES: Do not—do not even dare—try pinning the future existence of Ken Silva’s website on me.
If Ken Silva is unwilling to follow a simple request from his ISP—i.e., the arbiter of the rightness and wrongness of a website’s contents—then he is the one putting his own website in jeopardy. All Silva has to do is remove one isolated article and his website is fine. Nothing more need happen. It’s simple as can be. They’re asking him to do nothing illegal, nothing ungodly, nothing unbiblical. If he removes that article, then no problem. Silva is creating his own problems.
And, fyi, it is not bullying to complain to an ISP about a website. It happens all the time. An TOS agreement is dedicated to protecting people. And it is there to be used by people who feel a website is in violation of an ISP’s guidelines covering everything from porno, to libel, to copyright infringement.
___________________________________
INGRID: I want to address something related here. There is a vast difference between someone giving a theological critique or opinion even in a hostile and unfair way, and someone posting personal attack material that makes moral slurs on your character.
RICHARD ABANES: I’m so glad Ingrid brought this up. As everyone knows, Ingrid saw fit to actually bring an attorney into a situation when she felt that she had been wronged—i.e., she had her personal character, integrity, and reputation attacked (readers, see previous blog post, Ken Silva – More Lies, More Sensationalism, More Sin). I have supported Ingrid both publicly and privately on this matter. And here, I agree with her again completely—100%.
So how does this apply to the article in question on Ken’s website, “A PASTOR’S ASSESSMENT OF RICHARD ABANES” about which I complained to his ISP?
Let me make this VERY CLEAR for readers—this article by Ken Silva is NOT in any way about my theology! And I challenge anyone to find a critique in that article of my theology. It is not even a critique of my apologetic writings per say. But it is an “assessment” (read: an attack) on my personal, spiritual, moral character/integrity.
Although at one point in the article, Silva writes, “Mr. Abanes will know that I have been nowhere near as rough on his theology as would have been Luther, or Calvin, or Spurgeon,” the fact is that Silva says NOTHING at all about my theology.
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.
___________________________________
INGRID: Most of the time, these things never have to make it to a full legal action, and peaceful resolution of the problem should be the focus, not dragging someone to court.
RICHARD ABANES: Ingrid is right again—totally right. And THAT is exactly why I wrote to Silva’s ISP, rather than typing up some sort of legal document and filing it with the courts. Nor did I even contact an attorney to have THEM contact Silva! I wrote an email to Silva’s ISP. And that action, I must reiterate, is not in ANY WAY a compromise of 1 Corinthians 6, which is what Silva and his supporters are trying to turn it into.
The simplest response here would have been for Silva to simply remove the article instead of crying like a banshee on the Internet. By his refusal to take down just ONE article, or at the very least alter it, he himself has endangered his own website! He is foolishly cutting his nose off to spite his face. That’s his problem—not mine.
___________________________________
INGRID: Richard Abanes often mentions that he is an “established apologist” and a “best-selling author” of many books. How unbelievable that he would go after the small Internet ministry of a brother in Christ in this manner.
RICHARD ABANES: I am not going “after” ANYONE. This is is becoming surreal. The truth, without all the histrionic spins, is that I requested Silva’s ISP to remove one article that I found offensive, not even mentioning another article Silva had up on his website about me. That’s it.
Such a request is hardly going “after” anyone. And, as for me being some kind of big ogre going after the poor little pastor just trying to humbly serve the Lord—ridiculous. I’m the one who DEFENDED Ken Silva—yes, I DEFENDED Ken Silva—when on another blog someone attacked him for having a small church. That was terribly offensive and unbiblical. So I raised my voice in opposition to that kind of nonsense and attack on a pastor. Are any of you mentioning that fact? No.
___________________________________
INGRID: I believe IPower will delete Apprising Ministries site this evening.
RICHARD ABANES: This can easily be avoided. Ken Silva is turning this into a martyr show.
___________________________________
INGRID: In the mean time, those who love Ken and his heart for truth are doing all we can to get his material to a safe place. Ken’s choice was to either knuckle under to Abanes’ demands that he censor his own website of an opinion article, about which he has never been contacted, or be deleted. What a dangerous precedent this is if Abanes succeeds.
RICHARD ABANES: It’s not a dangerous precedent at all. Here’s a precedent, however, that should be set by the controversy—How about if everyone who has an Online Discernment Ministry starts being a little bit more careful about what they say and how they say it?
Might this actually be why everyone is sooooo upset? Because this action I have taken threatens their ability to say/do whatever they want to say/do no matter how hateful or hurtful it might be to others and to the Body of Christ?? Me thinks so.
___________________________________
INGRID: Every blog that expresses an honest opinion, even a harsh opinion which happens to be protected by the 1st Amendment, is put at risk by behavior like this. I may not like what CRN.info or VerumSerum or the several other sites are saying about me, but they have a right to their opinions, and I’d fight for their right to have a blog.
RICHARD ABANES: Ingrid, I believe, is in clear error here. Expressing an opinion and expressing even a negative opinion about a person’s beliefs and actual conduct, using documentation to back up that claim is NOT being placed in jeopardy at all. But all of hue and cry does make for good melodrama.
___________________________________
INGRID: In conclusion, I have read an article on Richard’s site where he called a wonderful brother in Christ, Warren Smith, “delusional” and referred to him as paranoid and “traumatized” by his New Age experiences.
RICHARD ABANES: Yes. And I proved my observations very plainly by showing how Warren Smith has taken facts and twisted them into false accusations. I also proved my points by demonstrating where Warren Smith has utterly misrepresented the various quotes/statements he has used to condemn Rick Warren. Ken Silva, on the other hand, simply deals in ad hominem attacks, presumptions, and undocumented accusations. Therein lies the difference between allegatins he has made and allegations I have made.
___________________________________
INGRID: Abanes has publicly discredited the fine work Warren Smith has done.
RICHARD ABANES: Incorrect, Ingrid. I have actually COMPLIMENTED the “fine work Warren Smith has done.” Yes, read it again, I have complimented fine work Warren Smith has done. What I have discredited is the flawed work he has done in connection to Rick Warren. I quote from the very article Ingrid references:
“Warren Smith is a former New Ager who for many years has produced material exposing the false teachings of not only the New Age Movement, but also various other religious belief systems based on unbiblical forms of spirituality. By serving God in this way, Smith has been of great service to the body of Christ. Unfortunately, Smith is now most notable for his concentrated and persistent attacks against Rick Warren” (See Warren Smith: Self-Deceived On Purpose)
Clearly, I have always stated, and continue to state, that Warren Smith has indeed done some fine work.
___________________________________
INGRID: I have known and watched Warren’s life and work for 15 years and find him to be a man of the finest integrity, wisdom and one with a loving heart from the Lord.
RICHARD ABANES: I have not said ANYTHING about Warren Smith that would impugn his personal integrity, general wisdom, or his “love” for the Lord—contrary to what Ken Silva has said about me. I pointed out, using documentation form his own research, where Warren Smith is being hindered by his past trauma in the New Age and his fears regarding its power/influence over the world.
The New Age is indeed a danger, but Smith is so fixated on it that he sees it everywhere. That is what I demonstrate in my articles about Warren Smith—and I do it by using evidence/documentation relating to how he has assessed Rick Warren and related issues. And, BTW, others agree with me.
___________________________________
INGRID: The issue with Apprising Ministries could have been resolved by a phone call. Ken Silva was never given a chance.
RICHARD ABANES: Really? Just a phone call? That is HIGHLY doubtful, at least it was in my mind, obviously. Such a call is debatable at best. But here we are now. And Ken Silva has an email now—and it’s from his ISP. So he has his chance to resolve it. Whether he does so, or not, is up to him. But THAT will be his decision, not mine. This has really gone WAY too far. It’s been an absurd waste of time and energy.
~ Richard Abanes
For all those posting that Mr. Abanes has violated the scriptural commands 1 Cor 6, I have to ask how they expected for this to play out? Because Paul does not simply write that Christians in court shouldn’t happen, he actually prescribes a course of action that includes the two parties going before an intra-church mediator.
So the million dollar question is: who would Ken bend his will to? He has shown himself to be unwilling to bend to the authority of anyone, going so far as to defy the ISP he has employed and who’s TOS he agreed to abide by.
Perhaps we could see some actual discernment from the discernment crowd on this one instead of just blind backing of the person they happen to agree with.
BO: For all those posting that Mr. Abanes has violated the scriptural commands 1 Cor 6…
RICHARD ABANES: And BO, I would also ask: How in the world does anyone force into 1 Corinthinas 6 the simple act of writing an ISP with a complaint about one of their clients?
My email to Ken Silva’s ISP cannot IN ANY WAY be legitimately be viewed as a violation of 1 Cor. 6. To do apply the passage to my email is to twist scripture and mangle God’s Word — an interesting approach for “discerners.”
Richard Abanes
Funny thing is Ingrid closed down a site with the strong arm of lawyers… talk about double standard!
http://www.verumserum.com/?p=2023
Yep… Ingrid talks out both sides her mouth…
iggy
I have disagreed with Ken numerous times, and he will tell you I am not shy in criticizing him and Mrs. Schlueter as well. And they of me also. However to bring in a person’s secular server and suggest they will be brought into legal action is unbiblical.
We must suffer ourselves to be defrauded even when it seems unfair. Especially when it only concerns words and our so called reputations. Richard, you made a mistake and should admit it and move on. This is from your e-mail to the secular server:
“Before turning this situation over to my attorneys, I respectfully request that IPOWERWEB.NET / IPOWERWEB.COM remove this particular article from it’s servers, and notify Ken Silva to cease and desist the posting similar articles. 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.”
That is clearly meant to leverage them via a threat of legal action. Even if Ken had called you a bank robber you still should not bring matters between brothers before secular and fallen institutions, especially when it is only words.
All of us have inflated views of our reputations when our Lord made Himself of no reputation. And if Ken or anyone else will not listen then you should break fellowship, you have no Biblical recourse outside the body of Christ.
Many bloggers go way overboard about Rick Warren and maybe you, but the world has no part in us. I also disagreed with Mrs. Schlueter’s use of a lawyer and have said so.
Sweet are the cries of a heretic being burned at the (blog)stake!
Will Farel XV
Burning
forthe TruthRichard,
Sorry, I was logged onto my parody site…
And watch out for Will… he’ll burn ya!
iggy
RICK: That is clearly meant to leverage them via a threat of legal action. Even if Ken had called you a bank robber you still should not bring matters between brothers before secular and fallen institutions, especially when it is only words.
RICHARD ABANES: Rick, you and agree on a LOT. We also disagree on a LOT. That’s very kewl, in my book. And here is one of those places where we will have to disagree.
Nothing in the Bible (especially 1 Corinthians 6) even hints at any wrongdoing in my part with regard to my email to IPOWERWEB. I say this most forcefully and most confidently. And let me explain why.
You cannot take 1 Corinthins 6 — which in context applies to secular court/legal action in connection to business dealings — and apply it across the board to ANY/ALL secular individuals: e.g., an Internet Service Provider ISP department, a message board moderator, a store managers, a supervisor of a company, a police officer, etc., etc., etc.,
Those who are using 1 Corinthians 6 to condemn my actions seem to be merely using the Bible as a shield. This is not how one should use scripture. You will not find any legitmate commentary, at least to my knowledge, that will support this idea that one Christian cannot appeal to a secular person (in any capacity) when their is a problem with another Christian. I give the following analogy again, since it seems no one is getting this point:
For far too long now, 1 Corinthians 6 has been a safety net into which Christians have rested in order to commit all kinds of sin. And even discussing this issue is moot when it comes to me and Ken Silva. For the millionth time, will someone PLEASE produce documentation showing that I have filed a lawsuit against Ken Silva!!!
If ANYONE can produce that evidence, then we can all start legitimately talking about 1 Corinthians 6. If not, I’d very much appreciate the cessation of: a) misapplying scripture; and b) yet more false accusations being made.
Richard Abanes
Richard,
Why is your ISP so ready to take down Ken’s site? Is it because of your appeals to “who you are” (author of 20 books, someone who depends on his reputation for his living, etc), or because they carefully looked at his article and deemed your accusations just? Just how long did it take them to agree to your assessment of the situation? Do you have some documentation on just exactly what they agreed was slander in that article? These are not rhetorical questions. They are real questions that need answers.
Have you done any cult criticism on the internet? If so, what’s to keep your server from asking you to remove those articles if a member of one of those cults claims your article is slander? If that happened wouldn’t you want your ISP to show you just exactly how they’ve determined that you have indeed “slandered” a particular cult? Or would you be happy to remove your article solely based on your ISP’s approval of their assessment?
What’s to keep you from requesting your ISP to ask folks who don’t think you’re doing the right thing in this situation to remove their articles or be shut down? Aren’t they contributing to the “slander?” Couldn’t they possibly be contributing to the further downfall of your “reputation?”
I read on another blog where you called Chris R. a slanderer and other things. I found it pretty amazing that you could come up with such a string of words while in the midst of essentially forcing someone to remove an article about you that is hurtful to your reputation.
AMY: Why is your ISP so ready to take down Ken’s site?
ABANES: Their choice. Ken could have prevented it. He chose not to do so.
______________________________
AMY: Is it because of your appeals to “who you are” (author of 20 books, someone who depends on his reputation for his living, etc), or because they carefully looked at his article and deemed your accusations just?
ABANES: I would assume it was because they found Silva had violated their TOS.
______________________________
AMY: Just how long did it take them to agree to your assessment of the situation?
ABANES: I didn’t time it, TBH.
______________________________
AMY: Do you have some documentation on just exactly what they agreed was slander in that article?
ABANES: No.
______________________________
AMY: These are not rhetorical questions. They are real questions that need answers.
ABANES: Answered.
______________________________
AMY: Have you done any cult criticism on the internet? If so, what’s to keep your server from asking you to remove those articles if a member of one of those cults claims your article is slander?
ABANES: Because I’m more careful than Ken. There are several statements in Ken’s article that CLEARLY address my personal morality, integrity, maturity in Christ, biblical fidelity, and standing as a Christian. This is FAR different than:
Rather than making a specific list of Silva’s troubling remarks (because at this point it seems unnecessary to me), I would only ask that you read his article and list for me ANY critiques/observations he makes about my: Theology, Soteriology, Thanatology, or Eschatology. But I think you will find that there exists none. In other words, the entire article is devoted to him making an “assessment” of my personal, inner, spiritual motivations and alleged flaws. That is not apologetics. That is personal.
In my most recent blog post, I state: 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.” This is what Walter Martin was all about — i.e., assessing a person’s theological and doctrinal beliefs.
If Ken, or you, or anyone else would like to challenge me on my doctrinal views, then fine. I would be most happy to actually see that kind of critique so that I could test my own faith to see if it is approved by God. Apologetics has taken a nasty turn over the years, diverging from Walter Martin’s model, into the realm of personal attacks and trumped up charges against people. This is not how it should be.
_________________________________
AMY: I read on another blog where you called Chris R. a slanderer and other things.
ABANES: Read above answer.
Richard Abanes
AMY: Have you done any cult criticism on the internet? If so, what’s to keep your server from asking you to remove those articles if a member of one of those cults claims your article is slander?
It’s because Richard is more important than the rest of us (read hicks). He is more edge-u-ma-kate-ed (in his own imagination at least) and an ‘award winning author/journalist” (did I capture that correctly). Oh wait, did I mention he is an award winning author/journalist who knows more than the rest of us? Let me see if we can make it more clear. Richard is an award winning author/journalist and therefore he does not make mistakes and because he is so special, the bible doesn’t cover the persecution he is going thru. His situation is special and requires “different” handling.
Welcome to fruit of all things…Purpose Driven !
Seems Richie is no stranger to professing his perceived importance and how others have “violated” his own set of federal laws (only relevant to Richie):
http://fide-o.blogspot.com/2006/04/richie-abanes-didnt-disappear.html
LISA: It’s because Richard is more important than the rest of us (read hicks).
ABANES: I never said that. I never implied that. Don’t throw your insecurities and fears on me.
___________________________
LISA: He is more edge-u-ma-kate-ed (in his own imagination at least) and an ‘award winning author/journalist” (did I capture that correctly).
ABANES: Never said that either. I just have me a high school education. So, where do you get that more edge-u-ma-kate-ed accusation from. Does anyone else see how nasty these so-called Christians are being? You’re all setting a wonderful example. I’ve also had emails from ken’s devotees calling me obscenities. Is that what Ken teaches to everyone about how to speak to people? Apparently so. This is tragic.
____________________________
LISA: Oh wait, did I mention he is an award winning author/journalist who knows more than the rest of us?
ABANES: Well, all of us, including you, have our strengths and weaknesses. if you know how to cook, I don’t. If someone else knows physics, I know nothing about that stuff. And if anyone out there knows anything about math, then you sooooo have me beat. I can barely add and subtract. So, you see, we all know about different things. That’s why we all need each other.
Oh, and as for your rather bitter/mean-spirited and sarcastic reference to my having mentioned I am an “an award winning author/journalist ” in my email, that is NO different than someone else mentioning their credentials. For example, if a contractor was going to write a letter of complaint to a city planner, detailing why they thought a project was unsafe, they might say: “By way of introduction, I am a professional contractor with twenty years of experience in construction with several major corporations in the city if XXXXX.”
So you see, my statement is not the arrogant/prideful boast that you and others are trying to make it out to be. But it shows how desperate you are to paint me as sinful as possible with broad brush strokes of hate and malice. Yes, this is indeed a dark day, and has shown me some very horrific things that are running rampant in the church under the guise of holiness/piety and self-righteousness.
_____________________________
LISA: Richard is an award winning author/journalist and therefore he does not make mistakes and because he is so special, the bible doesn’t cover the persecution he is going thru. His situation is special and requires “different” handling.
ABANES: 1. I make too many mistakes. 2. I am not special in the least. I am, in fact, terribly ordinary in many ways. 3. First Corinthians 6 does not apply in this situation. To say otherwise, is perverting God’s Word.
____________________________
LISA: Welcome to fruit of all things…Purpose Driven!
ABANES: Welcome to the fruit of Ken Silva and far too many other so-called Online Discernment Ministries (ODMs)!
“Many bloggers go way overboard about Rick Warren and maybe you, but the world has no part in us.”
No,the truth is the truth!
Abanes,you are just following in the footsteps of your master,evangelical Pope,Rick Warren! What else can we expect from disciples of heretic Rick Warren?
I wouldn’t use the “going to court” thing, I would have used Matthew 18:15-18.
Which would have meant that the first step would have been some sort of contact and discussion of the matter between the two. If that had been accomplished and the offended party was not happy, then the inclusion of several others to witness the problem.
So, if Mr. Abanes did not contact Mr. Silva in some personal manner to discuss this, then yes, Mr. Abanes is acting in an unScriptural manner for dispute resolution, assuming that Mr. Abanes considers Mr. Silva his Christian brother.
[...] A Tumultuous Tempest [...]
This is pathetic. What happened to turning the other cheek. Are ISP’s now qualified to judge these matters between professing Christians? You wouldn’t take Pastor Ken to court, because he is a Christian, but you will have him shut down by an ISP who has no business judging this matter. I’m afraid that one day this will turn around on you. I am really upset that you had his site shut down, as I really enjoy Pastor Ken’s excellent articles. He backs up his critiques with Scripture and he has every right to say it how he sees it. We live in America after all. Maybe we should all remember the phrase our moms all taught us as kids: sticks and stones…
Ken Silva’s website is offline. You win. You got what you wanted. Rick Warren’s critics silenced. This is just more proof of the truth of what we have been warned of coming out of that church. Congratulations.
Richard,
I’m not really talking about the article in question here. I am addressing a “bigger picture” item. So let’s, everyone, that’s everyone from the award winning journalists down to the lower level bloggers, get down off our high horses and up off the ground.
Richard, you have displayed a tremendous lack of grace and Christian forbearance. Not in this situation alone. I have seen your comments at other sites for the last several weeks/months and have been appalled by this attitude. And while you may not be the only one, you have been behaving extremely poorly, specifically then in this current situation. No my quote then your rebuttal on this. It’s true. If you can’t see it, then perhaps Ken should have been more forceful.
Those who defend Ken. Ken is my friend and a dear brother. I respect him and love him. But today, get the whole PDL thing out of your heads. Yes, it is wrong. Yes, Abanes defends it and Warren. Yes, that can be seen as a factor at play here. No, it should not be the crux argument against RAbanes’ actions. Warren is wrong, to say the least. But RAbanes has acted on his own. None of us are perfect, least of all myself, but let’s be intelligent or else abstain.
Finally, Richard. You deny the application of 1 Corinthians 6. Okay fine, but be careful to make verses and passages have to be so literal, as in saying, “it says nothing about contacting ISPs”. Ephesians didn’t say anything specific about me having to take the garbage out when I was a kid, but I still had to honor and obey my mother. The only one twisting Scripture then would be yours truly.
But for a moment, let’s give you 1 Corinthians 6. Then what would you say to 1 Corinthians 13:4-7–do you not claim to have love? What of Matthew 5:1-12, if indeed you were persecuted and had things said falsely about you, then where is your rejoicing? Or are you perhaps more concerned with your own image than God’s? May it never be. What then would you answer to Matthew 18:21-22? I’ll stop there, but do these also not apply here? Not even a little? In your words: Puh-lease!
I don’t want a reply. Just think about it Richard. Just give a pause, for once, and examine yourself. That’s all.
SW
Oh, and I forgot to mention above -I’d like to re-read the offending article. It has been a long. long time since I read it. But I can’t, as the site is shut down. Maybe you can post it here for us to read. Thank you.
Interesting that Richard is being dogpiled for throwing his credentials around, when Ken Silva has done THE EXACT SAME THING numerous times.
In all fairness, I cannot defend Ingrid or Ken Silva in their actions. Both of them have recently attacked and interferred with Brother Ray Comfort’s ministry, gossiping and slandering his good Christian character and name because of something that does not even concern either of them. Ingrid left a very mean and nasty remark on my blog, which I saved, because I used what she and Ken Silva had been doing to Brother Ray Comfort as a biblical example of sowing discord and strife among the brethren and gossiping as written in Proverbs as one of the seven things the Lord hates, which was my only reason for putting it on my blog; as there were biblical truths to be learned from it all and which I had stated in the article. Ingrid didn’t “approve” of my article because it exposed her, and she left this mean nasty comment on my blog. While I do not in any way, shape or form endorse Rick Warren’s Purpose Driven or emergent church Movement, I will also say that Ingrid and Ken Silva both have a double standard from the comments I have witnessed from the both of them and some of the ministries that call themselves “discernment” and I pray that the both of them, along w/their followers will examine their own hearts before throwing stones at others.
Who are you siding with Mr Abanes?
The World or God’s side? Or do you not believe that Pastor Ken Silva is on God’s side?
Remember the reproach that Jesus Christ took for us; do you not think that all of this is foolish in comparison?
How will God judge this at the end of time?
Are we not supposed to communicate with our brothers and sisters with understanding and patience, willing to be ‘wronged’ or ‘rebuked’ for the sake of Christ?
As far as I am concerned, Tell-telling to an ISP is playing with the World’s agenda, playing into the hands of ones who don’t believe that God exists!
In fact, our adversary, the Devil, is having a field day and this is exactly what he wants: discord and misunderstanding, not willing to be humble before a Holy God!
Please tell me where any of this brings honor and glory to our Lord? It’s not about ‘us”, it’s ALL about Jesus. Always has been, always will be.
Ingrid: “contact the offender personally and ask for corrections or removal, based on what the issue is. That isn’t just Christianity 101, that’s common sense.”
Richard: “My question to Ingrid is: Where is that written anywhere in scripture?”
Perhaps Ingrid is referring to Matthew 18:15-17.
Richard,
I read Ken Silva’s article and, as an attorney, I didn’t see anything legally actionable or defamatory (in that sense) about it. I think it is – well, silly – of you to pretend that all you did is ask a question to the service provider and that they determined the validity of your claim… they way this works in the real world is that the threat of litigation (which any in-house lawyer would have read in your email) is sufficient to avoid further problems and to shut the site down.
I suspect you’ll have quite a number of folks watching your site for TOS violations!
It looks unseemly for you to pretend that this is ALL Silva’s “tempest in a teapot”. It doesn’t take a wide-eyed ODM to see the weakness of your position.
Hi There,
I’m interested to know exactly what was written by Ken Silva, that warranted the force shutting down of his apprising.org website. From the evidence that is (still) available on the web I would like to pose the following questions:
1) what are the specific accusations that Ken has made against Richard & are these based on factual evaluation/critique of Richard’s work? Now that Ken’s site has been shutdown it is impossible to see the evidence.;
2) what are the specific accusations that Richard has made against Ken to iPower, & are these based on factual evaluation/critique of Ken’s blog? Maybe Richard you could be specific about this?; &
3) Did iPower’s “legal” department bother to properly investigate Richard’s claims against Ken, or did they just issue a “comply or be shutdown” to Ken without looking at the actual evidence? If so, iPower has not followed anything close to a basic legal investigation into a complaint.
It would be interesting to see the facts, rather than partake in a senseless “mud-slinging match” to see who can win. If Ken has inaccurately critiqued Richard’s work, then he is in the wrong, however, if Ken’s claims are based on fact then he should be able to comment on these. Likewise with Richard.
I would also like to make the point that Martin Luther was silenced by the Catholic Church when he made a stand by voicing his 95 Theses. Readers, draw whatever opinions you want by this statement.
May God help us all.
Richard, you say that you don’t believe a phone call would have resolved the issue. To me that is the problem, you didn’t try to reason with Ken first. Its like having a disagreement with your brother and then tattling to the babysitter without first even attempting to resolve the issue.
Obviously you don’t believe you did anything wrong Scripturally, but it does seem to be a rather immature handling of the situation.
Hi Rich,
I see Ken’s website is officially shut down now. Congradulations!!! You have successfully proven that no one is entitled to an opinion outside of yours. You and Rick keep promoting your false gospel of purpose driven. You’ve earned the adoration of men. Eventually we’ll see what God thinks about it. But for the present, I think you’re a sleazy individual and I plan to devote a lot of my time to making sure everyone knows it. Please don’t give me your phony “I’ll pray for you.” I would consider your prayers an insult.
I said it before and I will say it again: Bloggers, watch out. This is not only a completely un-godly thing to do (falsely accuse a brother in Christ of slander with no back up or explanation, then go to law against him) But it is just the beginning.
Don’t write in a truthful and strong way your opinions based on scripture about the following things:
homosexuality
lying
sex outside of marriage
islam
mormonism
Hinduism
theft
murder
etc. etc. etc.
Because some better educated person will come along and scream slander to your ISP, threatening legal action (a lie is a lie) and scare your ISP so your opinions can no longer be voiced.
Mark your calendars; this is a sad day for the first amendment. More importantly, it is a sad day for Christianity. The wolves within have destroyed and divided the flock.
PB: Don’t write in a truthful and strong way your opinions based on scripture about the following things: homosexuality
lying sex outside of marriage islam mormonism Hinduism theft murder
ABANES: OH, Pu-leeeeze, PB. Stop it. Just stop it. These things can all be talked about with total freedom. Just dont say, “Hey, go out and shoot a gay” or “Mormons sacrifice and eat babies.” Get it? Why, oh, why, oh why are Christiasn so fearful? When did that happen? When did Christians become so afraid of the world that they started living in a cocoon of anxiety, worry, and stress about the big bad world coming in to destroy them all. From reading the works of first century Christians, even those believers under the threat of Rome were not as fearful as so many American Christians. This is embarrassing.
______________________
PB: Mark your calendars; this is a sad day for the first amendment. More importantly, it is a sad day for Christianity. The wolves within have destroyed and divided the flock.
ABANES: Nothing like a little melodrama!!! I marked it as a sad day on my calendar when Deborah Dombrowski wrote Harvest House publishers and tried to intimidate them into not releasing my book (see my post Lighthouse Trails: More Ken Silva Propaganda). Do you have anything to say about that? (You might want to back-date your calendar).
~ Richard Abanes
Greg: I see Ken’s website is officially shut down now. Congradulations!!! You have successfully proven that no one is entitled to an opinion outside of yours.
ABANES: TOTALLY Untrue. Did you know that Silva had up more than one article on his website that spoke about me negatively??? I didn’t agree with any of them. And you know what else? I only complained about one of them. Clearly, you’re above assumption is wrong.
____________
Greg: You and Rick keep promoting your false gospel of purpose driven. You’ve earned the adoration of men. Eventually we’ll see what God thinks about it.
ABANES: I guess we will. I look forward to that day when God will say, “Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!” (Matthew 25:21). However, if you can find anything in my writings wherein I present a false Gospel, then please, BY ALL MEANS, let it be made know. I happen to believe, preach, teach, and live by all of the essential doctrines of the Christian faith that date back to the oldest of doctrinal creeds we possess, particularly The Apostles’ Creed. From that historical creed emerged the following beliefs that I fully accept without reservation and preach/teach through my apologetic writings:
In other words, so there will be no question about my faith, I hold to the historic, orthodox, biblical explanations/definitions of the Trinity, the full humanity/deity of Jesus Christ, the miraculous conception of Christ, the inherited sin nature of humanity, the atonement by Christ for fallen humanity via his shed blood on the cross, salvation by grace alone through faith alone, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the eventual return of Jesus (physically/visibly), and the inerrancy/infallibility of the the Bible. So, please do tell me where I preaching a false gospel. Ready, set, go.
____________
Greg: But for the present, I think you’re a sleazy individual and I plan to devote a lot of my time to making sure everyone knows it. Please don’t give me your phony “I’ll pray for you.” I would consider your prayers an insult.
ABANES: Well done, Greg: “And the Lord’s servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. 25Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, 26and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will” (2 Timothy 2:24-26).
Richard Abanes
Kristina: Richard, you say that you don’t believe a phone call would have resolved the issue. To me that is the problem, you didn’t try to reason with Ken first.
ABANES: That is the problem to you? Okay.
_______________
Kristina: Its like having a disagreement with your brother and then tattling to the babysitter without first even attempting to resolve the issue. Obviously you don’t believe you did anything wrong Scripturally, but it does seem to be a rather immature handling of the situation.
ABANES: Well, that’s the way you see it. Fine. I can accept that, and even respect it. Here’s how I saw/see it, as I’ve previously stated: “What I did is NO DIFFERENT than lodging a complaint with a grocery store manager, voicing a problem to a company supervisor about a fellow employee, or calling the cops about a neighbor playing their stereo loud in the wee hours of the morning.”
Ken Silva, his devotees, and other so-called online “discerners” are turning this into something it is not. And trying to hide behind scriptures and self-righteous pronouncements, when along they are turning a blind eye to all kinds of other problems in their own camp. This is both fascinating and enlightening t watch. And, terribly, terribly sad.
Richard Abanes
DREW: It would be interesting to see the facts, rather than partake in a senseless “mud-slinging match” to see who can win. If Ken has inaccurately critiqued Richard’s work, then he is in the wrong, however, if Ken’s claims are based on fact then he should be able to comment on these. Likewise with Richard.
ABANES: I agree with you completely on all counts, Drew. My points exactly. This is a very interesting point to raise.
Ken Silva’s article in question said NOTHING about my doctrine or my work. NOTHING. It did not critique, in any way, my theology, soteriology, eschatology, or thanatology. Nor did it provide any criticisms of statements I had made in any of books relating to doctrine, other religions, or Bible interpretation.
As I have already stated in previous blog posts and in my responses to comments, that I challenge ANYONE to find ANY criticisms/observations/corrections in that Ken Silva article that discusses my theology or doctrinal beliefs. Such material is simply not there. That article was personal in all its attacks. It was nothing more than an article deliberately designed to impugn my personal/professional integrity.
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.
This is what Walter Martin was all about—i.e., assessing a person’s theological and doctrinal beliefs. If Ken or anyone else would like to challenge me on my doctrinal views, then fine. I would be most happy to actually see that kind of critique so that I could test my own faith to see if it is approved of God. Apologetics has taken a nasty turn over the years, diverging from Walter Martin’s model, into the realm of personal attacks and trumped up charges against people. This is not how it should be.
My email to Silva was NOT about silencing him, as evidenced by the fact that his website had several articles that mentioned me in a negative light. I said NOTHING about those articles to his ISP. Moreover, as for Silva’s entire website being removed, that was HIS fault. All he had to do was delete that one article and/or focus that article on my doctrine/beliefs, there would have been no deletion of his website. Why didn’t he just follow that simple request from his ISP? Silva has inflated this situation FAR beyond where it ever needed to go.
~ Richard Abanes
WES: read Ken Silva’s article and, as an attorney, I didn’t see anything legally actionable or defamatory
ABANES: Awesome. I guess for some reason, IPOWER felt differently.
Richard Abanes
Why don’t all of the people in this argument get together for prayer and breaking of bread, instead of writing their defenses here? The world already thinks Christians are hypocritical and factional.
QueenofmyCastle: Perhaps Ingrid is referring to Matthew 18:15-17.
ABANES: So far I have heard two scriptures thrown out into the discussion arena regarding this controversy: 1 Corinthinas 6:1-8 and Matthew 18:15-17.
I have done NOTHING unbiblical here. The above verses and their appropriate, in context interpretations, make that abundantly clear for anyone interested in the truth.
~ Richard Abanes
First of all, this is the first time I have visited this blog. I do not know who Richard Abanes is, or what he has written (sorry about that). Neither am I familier with any other “key players” in this controversy. So, I have no agenda or desire to become involved in this school yard fight.
What distresses me in this, and similer disagreements over the years, is the apparent disregard for the reputation of Christ. It seems to me that when we as Christians begin to ’spit and sputter’ at each other over the trivial, those outside the Body either laugh at our Lord’s Bride, or decides that we are no different than anyone else. As a result, souls can be lost for eternity, and the name of our Lord gets sullied and ridiculed because of the immature antics of His children (so-called).
The argument surrounding this blog seems to center on whether Mr. Abanes was libelously slandered by someone named Ken Silva. Someone name Ingrid came to Ken’s defense, but apparently sought sought legal counsel when she was slandered at an earlier time. Now, at least two different warring camps have evolved and this is an all out war. In addition, two different passages of Scripture are debated, and no one can decide on a consensus interpretation of them as they may/may not apply to the current situation. HOW RIDICULOUS! You all are like a bunce of Pharisees, quibbling over the ‘finer points of the law’ but failing to recognize that the one, single distinction between the Pharisee and Christian is LOVE for the Brethern.
Mr. Abanes and the rest of you — Grow Up and become more concerned about how you represent Christ — and less concerned about how you all represent yourselves.
I pray that the true love of Christ and the full extent of the Gospel become manifested in you lives.
Steve Whitsitt
S. Archer: Who are you siding with Mr Abanes? The World or God’s side? Or do you not believe that Pastor Ken Silva is on God’s side?
ABANES: I fail to see how writing a simple email to an ISP of someone canbe reduced down to me being on the side of either the world or God (apparently, the side of all things Ken Silva). Since when did 100% support for a mere man become equal to being on God’s side? But to answer your question, I am indeed siding with God. And sending an email of complaint to an ISP does not chaneg that.
_________________________
S. Archer: Remember the reproach that Jesus Christ took for us; do you not think that all of this is foolish in comparison?
How will God judge this at the end of time? Are we not supposed to communicate with our brothers and sisters with understanding and patience, willing to be ‘wronged’ or ‘rebuked’ for the sake of Christ?
ABANES: Does that go for Ken silva, too? It seems like we have a terrific double standard going on here.
_________________________
S. Archer: As far as I am concerned, Tell-telling to an ISP is playing with the World’s agenda, playing into the hands of ones who don’t believe that God exists! In fact, our adversary, the Devil, is having a field day and this is exactly what he wants: discord and misunderstanding, not willing to be humble before a Holy God!
ABANES: Your opinion. Not mine. Blessings to you.
Richard Abanes
Hey S.J!!!
Regarding 1 Corinthinas 6:1-8 and Matthew 18:15-17, see my July 27, 2008 @ 3:51 pm post.
R. Abanes
JOHN SNEED: Ken Silva’s website is offline. You win. You got what you wanted. Rick Warren’s critics silenced.
ABANES: As for the eventual outcome of the ISP contacting him, there was NO REASON for Ken Silva to allow his website to be taken down. That unfortunate turn of events rests on his shoulders alone. It is certainly not what I requested. I just wanted one article removed. Ken Silva deliberately chose to allow his website to be kicked. So, don’t blame that one on me.
All Silva had to do is remove one isolated article and his website is fine. Nothing more needed happen. It was simple as can be. They asked him to do nothing illegal, nothing ungodly, nothing unbiblical. If he had removed that article, then no problem. Silva has created his own problems, and in choosing to do so, has turned this whole issue into FAR MORE than it ever needed to be.
Richard Abanes
JEN: This is pathetic. What happened to turning the other cheek. Are ISP’s now qualified to judge these matters between professing Christians?
ABANES: Actually, they are qualified — just as qualified as a restaurant manager is to judge a lousy Christian waitress not taking care of Christian customers, or just as qualified as a company supervisor is to judge the bad performance of a Christian employee who has been pushing his work on another Christian employee, or just as qualified as a secular college professor is to judge the in-class behavior of one “Christian” student to another Christian student.
_____________
JEN: You wouldn’t take Pastor Ken to court, because he is a Christian, but you will have him shut down by an ISP who has no business judging this matter.
ABANES: And everyone, LISTEN UP, I did not have ken’s website shut down!! Mr. Ken Silva arranged that for himself. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again, “Silva deliberately chose to allow his website to be kicked. So, don’t blame that one on me. All Silva had to do is remove one isolated article and his website is fine. Nothing more needed happen. It was simple as can be. They asked him to do nothing illegal, nothing ungodly, nothing unbiblical. If he had removed that article, then no problem. Silva has created his own problems, and in choosing to do so, has turned this whole issue into FAR MORE than it ever needed to be.”
______________
JEN: I’m afraid that one day this will turn around on you. I am really upset that you had his site shut down, as I really enjoy Pastor Ken’s excellent articles.
ABANES: Jen, see above. I didn’t have it shut down. he shut it down himself. I ONLY asked his ISP to request that he remove one article out of literally hundreds. Blame Ken for that one.
______________
JEN: He backs up his critiques with Scripture and he has every right to say it how he sees it. We live in America after all. Maybe we should all remember the phrase our moms all taught us as kids: sticks and stones…
ABANES: His article had nothing to do with any false teachings I had uttered. It had nothing to do with my theology, doctrine, or teachings about the Bible. It was nothing but a personal attack.
~ Richard Abanes
KAMATU: I wouldn’t use the “going to court” thing, I would have used Matthew 18:15-18.
ABANES: Hello, Kam. Please read my July 27, 2008 @ 3:51 pm post above.
Richard Abanes
LISA: Seems Richie is no stranger to professing his perceived importance and how others have “violated” his own set of federal laws (only relevant to Richie):
ABANES: This is yet another example of people online who have no care/regard for legal issues or the laws of the land. Is everyone actually dismissing so brazenly Romans 13:1-7, which is applicable to all of us who call ourselves Christians:
This is biblical. And yet when I seek to hold others accountable for their online actions that violate the very laws that God has setup around us to protect us, shield us, preserve us, as put in place by the government that He himself has ordained, I am the one who is the bad guy. Unreal. What is happening to everyone?
Richard Abanes
What I see here is a total double standard which his highness Rick Warren has created with his stench that he calls religion! And you being a blind follower of a blind guide is equally nauseating! Your site should be banished from sight as well because you have said some nasty things about Ingrid and Ken. But that’s okay, they don’t like Rick Warren’s garbage that you clearly support so that makes them monsters and you’re the innocent victim. In your own estimation you’ve piled up some strange ideas from Rick and you think you’re right and everyone who says something for the Word of God and defends truth as being wrong and in need of being banished from the internet.
This is over an article that was written in 2005. Why was this not addressed back then? Why do you have to drag the “law” in on this matter and bring down the name of a man of God? He speaks the truth, of which you know nothing about. He stands for the Word of God, which you don’t even adhere to a standard translation, you follow your arrogant leader and do whatever you wish and have strange associations with people and organizations of the world, certainly not of God.
You rant about how you are so biblical and of God, why did you have to drag the man and his work down? You should be ashamed! But you have been filled with the lies from the pit of hell, the man and the organization that has brought down the church in these last days and you have the nerve to call yourself Biblical! You have no shame because you’ve made a standard of your own and called it Biblical and anyone who defends the TRUTH are the guilty. What a twist!
You’re a blind guide, a hypocrite and part of the brood of vipers that lure sheep into a false teaching and you just want to put down anyone who opposes your stench! The truth hurts.
Hypocrites! You can bash other people and their opinions and disregard that we do have freedom of speech, or at least I thought we did in this country, but you’ve violated the 1st amendment and you have the audacity to talk about Ken violating YOUR rights. What about his?
You think you’ve won this, but I will say this, that what goes around comes around, and you’re piling up judgment upon yourself!
What you sow you reap. You may think you have it sown up now, but be mindful that God’s eyes see it ALL, even through all the stench that is called Christianity but is just glorified paganism with Christian handles.
You can bash me all you want and print your hype to make yourself feel better, but I cannot let this go without speaking truth and standing up for what is right and you don’t even know what right is when you follow the likes of Rick Warren.
And for those who have been offended by Ray Comfort’s taking part in that Word Fatih nonsense, I say this, if he speaks at the event, he’s endorcing those false teachers. He should have stood up against that filth but he didn’t. So Ingrid and Ken are monsters because they point out these errors. We are to test the spirits and that’s a command from God. The Word Faith as well as the Church growth movement has further spoiled the name of Jesus in the eyes of most of the world. They see “religion” as people who are hypocrites. Thanks to all of the publicity of the heretics, it’s ruined the gospel from those who truly are of the remnant, who aren’t making millions by fleecing the flocks, who just want to set an example among the unsaved. But the big name celebrity “Christian” leaders have made a mockery of the true faith.
We are living in the last days of this age.
People who have to make a “name” for themselves, be warned, you’ll get your reward in full here, but the judgment that is coming…be prepared!
Consider YOUR ways. Think about what you’re doing and who it affects. It’s not just about YOU. When you have brought down a child of God, you have brought down the Lord Jesus as well. This will be your judgment!
I don’t need a response, I’m only doing what the Holy Spirit is leading me to do. I don’t normally post comments on a blog, but I felt this was necessary.
Mr Abanes insists, repeatedly, that his actions have not closed down Ken Silva’s site but that Ken Silva chose that for himself by failing to comply with a simple request. In doing so, he side-steps the critical point: that, in order to protect the integrity of his own position overall, Ken Silva had no choice. It is simply disingenuous to paint a man into a corner and then suggest that it is his own fault that he ends up with paint on his shoes…
Apologetics and Discernment are two mutually dependent sides of the same coin. They balance and foil one another, and necessarily so. It is perhaps time that both sides of this coin in this context (and similar situations) recognise that. I have been a lurker on the sites of all the people weighing in on this disgrace for some time and I have generally been convinced of the bona fides of all and the human fallibility of all. I have also noticed that on both sides and in both “camps” there is an unseemly pridefulness and a pre-occupation with self that the protagonists may well be unware of themselves.
There is always the potential for a strange confluence in this Web 2.0 continuum of passion and commitment to what one understands to be truth on the one hand and self-indulgence on the other. It is sad that the latter can be seen so frequently to compromise the former in so many instances.
This one is no different.
“WES: read Ken Silva’s article and, as an attorney, I didn’t see anything legally actionable or defamatory
ABANES: Awesome. I guess for some reason, IPOWER felt differently.”
Richard, why don’t you interact with the point of the comment? It’s not about my opinion, even if its a legal one – its about the way that the system works. Ipower’s Legal Department isn’t making that call… it’s responding to a complaint. There’s no forum to dispute the complaint or respond – it’s making a business decision to avoid the threat of potential litigation.
I’ve thought better of you in the past – you’re seeming pretty smarmy on this stuff here. I mean that as an observation, not a character assessment, because I don’t know you at all. But I can evaluate your actions and behavior. I’ll also guess that you won’t be looking to retain me for my legal opinion.
WES,
ROFL @ “I’ll also guess that you won’t be looking to retain me for my legal opinion.” You got that right.
But seriously, I feel that I have outlined why I took exception to that one article — JUST that one artilce mind you, out of several articles on ken’s website that mentioned me negatively. Not ONCE did I mention to his ISP those other articles.
Now, just think for a moment, if I wanted to silence Ken, why would I NOT have mentioned ALL of those articles? ANSWER: Because I didn’t want to silence Ken. I had my reasons for objecting to that article, and those reasons are mine, and lie between me and those to whom I have sent those reasons.
I also, BTW, did NOT want Ken’s website to be kicked. I am actually shocked that he chose to play martyr and kill his own website? That was HIS choice. Not mine. I wish people would acknowledge that. But that little factoid keeps being ignored. They keep blaming ME for having his website deleted, when in reality, HE was the one who chose to let that happen — and he chose to do it over one article out of hundreds, included other articles in which he critiqued me. That’s very, very odd to me.
RA
STEVE: Mr Abanes insists, repeatedly, that his actions have not closed down Ken Silva’s site but that Ken Silva chose that for himself by failing to comply with a simple request. In doing so, he side-steps the critical point: that, in order to protect the integrity of his own position overall, Ken Silva had no choice.
ABANES: Oooooh, PUH-leeeeeze. Give me a break. Ken didn’t have to protect anything except an article that said NOTHING about my doctrine, biblical interpretations, or theology — but everything about MY personal/professional integrity (not his). It would have done nothing to his “integrity” to simply take down an article, or hey, perhaps re-write it to conform to the claim that it was about my doctrine/theology. STILL, no one has taken up the challenge I have posted repeatedly: “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.”
_______________________
STEVE: It is simply disingenuous to paint a man into a corner and then suggest that it is his own fault that he ends up with paint on his shoes…
ABANES: Ken was HARDLY in a corner. Good grief.
RAbanes
“I also, BTW, did NOT want Ken’s website to be kicked. I am actually shocked that he chose to play martyr and kill his own website? That was HIS choice. Not mine. I wish people would acknowledge that. But that little factoid keeps being ignored. They keep blaming ME for having his website deleted, when in reality, HE was the one who chose to let that happen — and he chose to do it over one article out of hundreds, included other articles in which he critiqued me. That’s very, very odd to me.” Richard Abanes
“I also, by the way, did not want the whole country of ______ to come under my rule. I only requested that People Group A give up one of their tiny territories where I was not held in high regard. I am actually shocked that they chose to play martyr and let their whole country be swept into the sea. That was THEIR choice. Not mine. I wish people would acknowledge that. But that little factoid keeps being ignored. They keep blaming ME for having the whole country swept into the sea, when in reality, THEY were the one who chose to let that happen — and they chose to do it over one territory out of hundreds, included other territories in which they speak against me. That’s very, very odd to me.” – unidentified political tyrant, a type seen oft throughout history
“AMY: Do you have some documentation on just exactly what they agreed was slander in that article?
ABANES: No.”
______
“PB: Don’t write in a truthful and strong way your opinions based on scripture about the following things: homosexuality
lying sex outside of marriage islam mormonism Hinduism theft murder
ABANES: OH, Pu-leeeeze, PB. Stop it. Just stop it. These things can all be talked about with total freedom. Just dont say, “Hey, go out and shoot a gay” or “Mormons sacrifice and eat babies.” ”
So did Ken say anything to you equivalent to “Hey, go out and shoot Abanes.” or “Abanes sacrifices and eats babies?”
I read about 90% of what Ken Silva wrote. As I remember it, a large part of it seemed to be him defending himself against your accusing him of “attacking” Rick Warren. In other words, it looked like he thought you had unjustly accused him; instead of writing to the server to ask that your article be removed he actually took the time to try to sort out what was going on, and why his interactions with you were such as they were. That’s how I remember it. My analysis might be different if I had the article available now. I certainly did not see anything that merited your bulldozer approach. In fact I find it rather scary that you could so easily have his site shut down.
Yes, YOU, have his site shut down. Not himself.
The way you interact with folks over the internet and the way you have handled this situation with Ken has done far more to damage your “reputation” than anything Ken wrote, in my opinion.
If you’re ever interested in actually listening to other folks opinions, there are some decent ones expressed here. The lawyer’s, for example. S.J. Walker’s, for example.
If you were truly so concerned about your reputation it would have been far more productive for you first of all, to write Ken and see if he would take it down. Or to ask him to post your own rebuttal showing specifically why it was slander (and other words you’ve used about it) and why you think it should be removed from the internet.
Then you would presented yourself as a reasonable person interested in what other people think, not a strong-arm who thinks that others will agree “slander” when you say “slander.” You could also have gotten some input from other Christians, by trying such an approach.
Wow! I guess I don’t live in America anymore…as a combat veteran who has fought for your rights I have to ask, what did the Appraising Ministries say that was illegal that you took it upon yourself to have them dumped from the ministry?
I am very concerned about this…if we disagree with someone theologically are we supposed to threaten them (especially other Christians!- read I Corinthians!) and get them shut down?
Can you provide the rest of us with a succinct description of what the ministry did illegally, other than disagree with Rick Warren, that caused you to work to get them shutdown?
Is free-speech gone in America? Are believers not allowed to give opinions? Let me know… the next time I get shot at I’ll need to know what I am, and am not, fighting for…
Jim
I am just curious. Why are YOU so fearful of Ken Silva? He is a nobody. He is not connected with the great and glorious Rick Warren and all the other celebrity Christians. Why not just write a rebuttal on your own blog and be done with it? It is not as if his post was going to hurt your career.
You have practiced censorship. Well done, Mr. Goebbels.
If Silva said you were arrogant in the offending post…then I would have to agree judging by your comments here.
I have found that PDL encourages censorship in churches too, with ‘resistors’. You have learned from your master well.
Mr. Abanes: If you spent as much time studying and living out the word of God that you profess you believe, you would realize how contrary to scriptures your actions appear to be. I believe it is time to grow up and get on with the furtherance of the gospel and quit spending your time trying to defend yourself. What a waste of good time in a desparate world.
Richard, God will judge the intent of the heart. No sin will go unpunished. The thing you need to worry about is if you see things from God’s ponit of view and make sure you are living as he would want you to.
Richard -
I’m no fan of Ken or Ingrid, or any of them. However, after watching them for a few years now, I gotta say that they just strike me as sad, perpetually angry people. I’m not here to speak as to the legality of your request, only to say this… with Ken’s site gone, it just seems like the hip guy (you) beating up the nerdy kid who asks for it.
So Ken’s slightly left of sane? So what? Has he hurt your book sales? Has he threatened you? Has he persecuted you in any way that’s measurable?
I’d ask iPower to put his site back up. Do the right thing, the honorable thing, the Christlike thing. Turn the cheek, my friend. Walk those two miles. Give this miserable dude your coat, and shirt, too.
Mellowdrama, insecurities, bullying, power-plays, your fault, no it’s your fault, no, it’s yours, and plenty of weak Christianity to go around. Both you guys do Jesus proud: NOT.
jerry [fishon]
“STEVE: It is simply disingenuous to paint a man into a corner and then suggest that it is his own fault that he ends up with paint on his shoes…
ABANES: Ken was HARDLY in a corner. Good grief.”
So you can contact iPower and knowingly put him in a position where he either a) must pull an article or b) have his blog taken down, yet you say he wasn’t put in a corner?
UNBELIEVABLE!
Let’s be honest here. Let’s put the Purpose Driven Agenda aside for a moment and look at the issues here. Ken Silva has his hands in more than one pot and it was he alone that let AM go. He could have kept the site by complying with a simple request. When you wrong a person, the biblical thing to do would be to make it right w/the person. The only thing Ken Silva had to lose was his pride. Obviously, he chose to keep his pride and stir up more controversy by choosing to have it shut down;Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.Proverbs 16:18;
and yes, Ken Silva did have a choice. He is the one who publically attacked the character of another here, and he is the one who should apologize by taking the offensive material down as requested.
Everyone knows Ken Silva labels himself as General Editor
Christian Research Net
http://christianresearchnetwork.com/, the site Ingrid turned over to him, so he can continue his tactics over there w/Ingrid.
Secondly, I remember reading on AM a hint he was thinking of letting AM go because of the time and cost involved in it, when he was asking for donations.
Richard Abanes, unfortunately, is Ken Silva’s scapegoat for having AM shut down when there were clues two weeks ago that Ken Silva was about to let it go.
Good grief, Richard, could you cry more? Way to go, proven to be a real man. Anyone who thinks they are above reproach needs a humility check. You come across as completely pompous and arrogant in, not only this post, but all of your comments here. Take a step back for a second and look at how you are playing this out. This really comes across as gloating.
Congratulations, the world salutes you.
Matthew 5:24; 5:40; 7:5
Dear Sir,
“The good man brings good things out of the good stored in him and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored in him. But I tell you that men will have to give account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken. For by your words you will be acquitted and by your words you will be condemned.”
Matt 12: 3-5-37 mary:)
ABANES: As for the eventual outcome of the ISP contacting him, there was NO REASON for Ken Silva to allow his website to be taken down. That unfortunate turn of events rests on his shoulders alone.
Matthew 27:24
You said, “Where is that written anywhere in scripture? Where is that even written in some Christian code of Internet conduct? Where is that written on the Internet for anyone to follow? Who voted on this course of action to make it the “first step” for members of the Christian church?”
I think it’s calling contextualizing Matthew 18:
Mat 18:15-17 “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.
You should have reasoned with him privately, but then again, why bother – after all, it can’t apply to cyberspace can it?
To Ingrid, Praise be to God. He has declared, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay.” Shutting down sites that slander God’s servants is all God. Jesse Duplantis and Robb Thompson are two of the most humble ministers in the body of Christ today. May God speak to your heart concerning your hateful words, and may you judge yourself, so that God will not have to. Many will pray for your true repentance, resulting in a real knowledge of God and our Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ.
Mr. Abanes, with all due respect I can’t help but notice that the vast majority of replies to your view of this incident totally disagree with not only the reasons that you give, but also the action you took to rectify your differences with Mr. Silva. From observing the “fruit” that your actions produced I can’t help but ask if you sought Gods guidance in this matter. Please take my question seriously as I am a fellow Christian wanting with all my heart to run this race as God wills. You and Mr. Silva are in my prayers and I know that in every trial God sees us through if we trust Him completely and obey His will.
Richard,
I don’t know if anyone has pointed this out, but in bringing pressure to bear on someone, anyone exercising their first amendment rights to criticize you, a public figure, for your teaching or you behavior or even writing that you are of low character, you are kinda making his point for him.
I have not read the post in question, but frankly, your threats of a law suit to get his criticism of you removed is out of bounds for someone of reputable character.
If he was wrong, prove him wrong. If he was right, learn from what he wrote in humility. But in coercing his ISP to remove his criticism of you, you don’t really have an arguement to defend yourself against the charge of being a bully.
And since Christ never defended himself against the outright lies told about Him, but only defended the weak in his assaults on the pharisees, I don’t see how this action can be one that a disciple of Christ should take.
And the fact that you cite you ability to make money as a reason to wanting the criticism taken down… I think you need to ask yourself how your God is in this situation.
It seems to me that it is more likely your popularity, your power and your income than it is the Christ who taught you to set your own desires aside and serve others.
Your defense that ‘This was all in Ken’s hands, if he would have just done what I wanted nothing would have happened to him’, is just another version of, “honey if you would just do what I tell you then I wouldn’t have to hit you”.
Nothing Ken could have said about you could have hurt your reputation as a writer, and supposedly seeker of the truth, than your own action here which shows that you do not want open debate and seek to censor your opponents.
Dude — this WHOLE THING is overblown. Richard: your responses (and the responses of the dozens of others, which I will loosely call “brothers & sisters”, show NO love at all. Seriously. I’m reading this thinking to myself: “what happens when an unbeliever comes across this?” Pathetic!
This is exactly the reason Paul rebukes the Corinthian church about suing one another. I know folks are trying to leverage 1Cor6 against you, and that’s their prerogative, which may/may not be wrong. I know your scoring hundreds of hist on your blog for this, but I really think you need to squelch this ASAP. For the sake of the Gospel — remove this page, its comments, its tremendous activity — just kill it, bro.
No one is winning hearts for Christ with this, and that should be our preeminent goal. This banter is ridiculous, un-Christ-like, shameful, disgusting, and it needs to end. Let the bloggers blog on about this in their own myopic worlds. Let Silva do what Silva does — and just do your thing. If he got under your skin that much, all you did by playing in this sandbox was show how much power he has over you. Think about it. You have been made a slave to Silva by expending so much effort into this very blog entry, the phone call to iPower, the continuous commentary, the self-defending discussions — dude, you’ve given yourself over to an idol! Toss it in the fire! Burn the danged thing and move on…
If Silva attacked you ad-hominem, that’s his sin — let God deal with it. Yours is continuing to let it paint a picture of Christ’s followers that should not be.
I can’t believe “Christians” act so pathetically — it makes me nauseated. Not that it rules over me — more like I’m “table-flipping mad” over the ordeal because God’s very name is being drug in the mud over this whole S-T-U-P-I-D thing.
Bro: let. it. go. Please… in the name, and for the sake of Jesus.
Charlie
Mr. Abanes, you open your letter: “Pastor Ken has decided to turn a simple request from his ISP to remove a single article from his website…” it was a complaint from you towards his ISP – IPOWER to get a [2005] article removed ending in a threat amounting to: do it or else be shut down. Did you tell IPOWER not to shut Pastor Ken down? Even if you did or didn’t, all you’ve proved to do is create a fuss with eyes & ears going towards Pastor Ken wondering what the problem was all about in the first place. You’ve managed to give him a platform to air his article and then some. Pastor Ken’s articles are going to be more popular now. He will re-appear on another server with the same article & notations added [e.g. this is the article Richard Abanes does not want you to read]. Instead of having Pastor Ken remove one article, you’ve actually paved the way for more to shine the Lord’s light on your purpose driven way (kjv John 3:19-21). Good going!
)
“Second, concerning Matthew 18, this verses also DOES NOT APPLY because in context it is referring to personal/private offenses that one brother has done to another. For example, if Ken Silva had privately insulted me using an obscene name or gesture (which, BTW, I could never see Ken doing), then that would be a private/personal matter to be resolved privately by me calling him up first. But this was a very public offense that fell under the jurisdiction of a company’s TOS agreement. Consequently, it was more than appropriate for me to simply approach his ISP.”
I haven’t found this interpretation of those verses in any translation I’ve checked. All versions I looked up say to go and talk to your brother in private–NOT that the offense has to be done in private for the verse to apply. Seems to me, you’re being somewhat selective in your application??
For someone who’s so concerned about his reputation that he’d contact another website’s ISP to have a 3-YEAR OLD comment removed, do you realize how thin-skinned and unforgiving this makes you appear to many who may have had some respect for your works and opinions?
If you don’t want to apply 1Cor. 6:1-8, nor do you like the course of action suggested in Matthew 18:15-17, maybe you could skip to Matthew 18:22?
If you considered it to be such a small “teapot” I wouldn’t say Ken Silva blew it out of proportion but that you did, sir.
STEVE: It is simply disingenuous to paint a man into a corner and then suggest that it is his own fault that he ends up with paint on his shoes…
ABANES: Ken was HARDLY in a corner. Good grief.
=========================
“Yank the article or else” is not a corner? Give me a break!!! You and your demigod Warren are dangerous and ignorant of the harm you are doing to the Church. Rather than listen to what is being said from the cries of those who have been TRULY slandered, you prance about on the world’s stage and decide yourselves what is acceptable or unacceptable speech -implicitly calling everyone who disagrees with you or Warren liars or worse. Well, the day will come when all of Christianity will be judged by that standard and that which is grounded in biblical truth will be persecuted. I’m not sure,however, why I’m telling you this. Hanging around in Warren’s corner, I’m sure you will be fine.
First, let me I do not know what Mr. Silva said that is alleged by Mr. Abanes to be actionable, but I would like to comment generally.
It is one thing to say “so-and-so” is an adulterer, thief, swinger, drunkard, or a homosexual and quite another thing for someone to say “so-and-so” is a false prophet, false apostle, heretic, unsaved, apostate, and/or preaching unbiblical truth.
Why do I make such a differentiation and/or distinction?
Well the latter deals with religious beliefs and the Courts are not going to entertain what is and what is not “heresy” and/or who is and is not a false prophet. Although I have not “shepherdized” (check to make sure it has not been overturned), I still believe the following case, UNITED STATES v. BALLARD et al., 322 U.S. 78 (1944), to still be good law as to those specific issues.
Said case in full can be read here: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=322&invol=78
If the court is not going to entertain what is and what is not “heresy” and/or who is and is not a false prophet, then how can someone sue for defamation and prevail against a party, who believes in what they are speaking and/or writing, when the (plaintiff) is called a false prophet, false apostle, heretic, unsaved, apostate, and/or preaching unbiblical truth, i.e. heresy?????? (Note: I’m speaking generally here for I have not seen what Mr. Silva is alleged to have said.)
First, truth is an affirmative defense to slander, libel, and/or defamation. The court would in effect have to therefore conduct a “Heresy Trial”, as to whether or not someone was in fact a false prophet, false apostle, heretic, unsaved, apostate, and/or preaching unbiblical truth. The courts are not going to do that and the following quote from UNITED STATES v. BALLARD et al. explains why.
The U.S. Supreme Court in UNITED STATES v. BALLARD et al., 322 U.S. 78 (1944), wisely stated:
“‘The law knows no heresy, and is committed to the support of no dogma, the establishment of no sect.’ Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. 679, 728, 20 L.Ed. 666. The First Amendment has a dual aspect. It not only ‘forestalls compulsion by law of the acceptance of any creed or the practice of any form of worship’ but also ‘safeguards the free exercise of the chosen form of religion.’ Cantwell v. State of Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303, 60 S.Ct. 900, 903, 84 L.Ed. 1213, 128 A.L.R. 1352. ‘Thus the Amendment embraces two concepts,-freedom to believe and freedom to act. The first is absolute but, in the nature of things, the second cannot be.’ Id., 310 U.S. at pages 303, 304, 60 S.Ct. at page 903, 84 L.Ed. 1213, 128 A.L.R. 1352. Freedom of thought, which includes freedom of religious belief, is basic in a society of free men. West Virginia State Board of Education by Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 63 S.Ct. 1178, 87 L.Ed. 1628, 147 A.L.R. 674. It embraces the right to maintain theories of life and of death and of the hereafter which are rank heresy to followers of the orthodox faiths. Heresy trials are foreign to our Constitution. Men may believe what they cannot prove. They may not be put to the proof of their religious doctrines or beliefs. Religious experiences which are as real as life to some may be incomprehensible to others. *87 Yet the fact that they may be beyond the ken of mortals does not mean that they can be made suspect before the law. Many take their gospel from the New Testament. But it would hardly be supposed that they could be tried before a jury charged with the duty of determining whether those teachings contained false representations. The miracles of the New Testament, the Divinity of Christ, life after death, the power of prayer are deep in the religious convictions of many. If one could be sent to jail because a jury in a hostile environment found those teachings false, little indeed would be left of religious freedom. The Fathers of the Constitution were not unaware of the varied and extreme views of religious sects, of the violence of disagreement among them, and of the lack of any one religious creed on which all men would agree. They fashioned a charter of government which envisaged the widest possible toleration of conflicting views. Man’s relation to his God was made no concern of the state. He was granted the right to worship as he pleased and to answer to no man for the **887 verity of his religious views. The religious views espoused by respondents might seem incredible, if not preposterous, to most people. But if those doctrines are subject to trial before a jury charged with finding their truth or falsity, then the same can be done with the religious beliefs of any sect. When the triers of fact undertake that task, they enter a forbidden domain. The First Amendment does not select any one group or any one type of religiion for preferred treatment. It puts them all in that position. Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, 63 S.Ct. 870, 891, 87 L.Ed. 1292, 146 A.L.R. 81. As stated in Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333, 342, 10 S.Ct. 299, 300, 33 L.Ed. 637. ‘With man’s relations to his Maker and the obligations he may think they impose, and the manner in which an expression shall be made by him of his belief on those subjects, no interference can be permitted, provided always the laws of society, designed to secure its peace and prosperity, and the morals of its people, are not interfered with.’ See *88 Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 64 S.Ct. 438. So we conclude that the District Court ruled properly when it withheld from the jury all questions concerning the truth or falsity of the religious beliefs or doctrines of respondents.”
If Mr. Silva made comments that fell in the latter category, then absent any existing “hate crimes” legislation, I do not see how Mr. Abanes would prevail in a lawsuit for defamation, slander, and/or libel.
DARREN: If Mr. Silva made comments that fell in the latter category, then absent any existing “hate crimes” legislation, I do not see how Mr. Abanes would prevail in a lawsuit for defamation, slander, and/or libel.
ABANES: Lots of legal talk — cool. But I think you wasted a lot of good research time. Why? Because unfortunately for Silva, this whole issue had/has NOTHNG to do with theological/doctrinal/religious critique. The particular article in question titled “A Pastor’s Assessment of Richard Abanes” nowhere addressed, in any way, my doctrinal views: theology, soteriology, thanatology, eschatology, or any other -ology.
I continue to offer the following challenge to Ken Silva, any other Online Discernment Ministry, and any supporter of Ken Silva:
No one, to date, has responded. I wonder why…….
Richard Abanes
JANINE: “Yank the article or else” is not a corner?
ABANES: NO. Here’s why. It would have meant NOTHING for Ken to pull/edit one article. Instead, HE made it into a martyr melodrama that he and his supports can use to crank out endless sensational articles.
_________________________________
JANINE: You and your demigod Warren are dangerous and ignorant of the harm you are doing to the Church.
ABANES: You and your demigod Silva are dangerous and ignorant of the harm you are doing to the Church — you see, Janine, that doesn’t work real well.
________________________________
JANINE: Rather than listen to what is being said from the cries of those who have been TRULY slandered, you prance about on the world’s stage and decide yourselves what is acceptable or unacceptable speech -
ABANES: No, I’m sorry, Ken Silva’s ISP decided that.
________________________________
JANINE: …. implicitly calling everyone who disagrees with you or Warren liars or worse.
ABANES: did you know that Silva had up more than one article on his website that spoke about me negatively??? I didn’t agree with any of them. And you know what? I only complained about one of them. Clearly, you’re above assumption is wrong. A lie is a lie. Slander is slander. Start blaming those who are lying and slandering.
Richard Abanes
Sam: If you considered it to be such a small “teapot” I wouldn’t say Ken Silva blew it out of proportion but that you did, sir.
ABANES: I kept it all private by sending a personal email to an ISP with whom Ken entered into a TOS agreement. They determined he broke that agreement. But instead of complying with a fairly harmless, minor request, he has turned it into, as i call it, a martyr melodrama.
Richard Abanes
I find the charges of Arbanes trying to limit others opinion as laughable. So far there have been about 50 opinions here. I assume many of you, as was I, were directed here at the suggestion of Ingrid and the link posted on her site.
Funny, Ingrid no longer allows comments or opinions on her site. (I don’t know about Silva’s because I never read it.) When Ingrid DID allow comments they were carefully chosen so as not to allow those offering a cogent response to her flat out dishonest posts. I wrote many responses that followed her “comment rules” specifically yet she would not allow them. What was she afraid of? She would not give voice to those who could prove her wrong or “painting only part of the picture”, or a “lie by omission.
As conservatives, of which I am both politically and spiritually, we often complain about the bias of the press, and rightfully so much of the time. But as Christians we should be better. I was at the same service Silva wrote about on his trip to Saddleback. His “report” was so biased and one-dimensional in his attempts to spread his prejudices about Warren it was ridiculous.
I have followed some of what Silva has written on Schlueters site and some of the garbage on Lighthouse Trails. Having come from a Baptist fundamentalist background and clearly understanding and believing Biblical theology (but not the legalism and Pharisaical attitudes that were all too often evident) AND being a member of Saddleback for over 20 years (prior to moving) I saw absolutely no incongruity in the two. Of course those who are pre-dispositioned to believe everything anti-Warren will not believe me but it’s not my job to make them believe.
Again I say in closing, why are many of these “discernment ministries” afraid to answer, or even post opposing questions publicly? What do they fear? Kind makers you wonder huh? It’s a big bully pulpit when no one has the opportunity to reach the same readers with truth who are being told un-truths.
Let’s put the horse before the cart and get Exodus 20:16 (false witness) right so we don’t have to argue about Matt. 18.
PS. Richard, I don’t think we have ever met each other and if so I know we don’t know each other personally to any extent but you may be amused to know that I am the “John Brown” that Ingrid accuses you of also taking on the persona of on the web and spending an “inordinate amount of time on the internet defending Warren”. Thought you might be amused of yet another false accusation of Ingrid’s and her apparent self-stated role as arbiter of how much time one should be on the internet.
Richard,
I’ve only got a quick moment so let me just say that I agree wholeheartedly with your decision and course of action.
Amazing how the indignation of the self-righteous rises up when the tables are turned.
Praying for ya!
QUEEN: “Second, concerning Matthew 18 . . . I haven’t found this interpretation of those verses in any translation I’ve checked. All versions I looked up say to go and talk to your brother in private–NOT that the offense has to be done in private for the verse to apply.
ABANES: Let’s go one better than a commentary. I quote from an Online Discernment Ministry:
In other words, public statements are i a different realm than private sins against someone, which are to be handled privately because it is no one else’s business. And to make a private issue public, without first trying to resolve it privately, is a shame. And we have this from another discernment website:
I hope this shows that such an interpretation of Matthew 18 is fairly common.
__________________________
QUEEN: do you realize how thin-skinned and unforgiving this makes you appear to many who may have had some respect for your works and opinions?
ABANES: I think you’re missing my reasons and my motivation entirely. Truth is the issue. Truth is the issue. Truth is the issue. For FAR TOO LONG there has been NO accountability/responsibility in the so-called “apologetic” and “discernment” world. I am trying, and I have been trying to change that in my own way. Put ALL of my motivation there. It has nothing to do with defending myself per se (although that is mixed in there somewhere), but with holding people accountable who like to talk a good line about accountability, but when faced with having actually BE accountable, respond……well, the way you are seeing Ken and the other ODMs respond.
Richard Abanes
BRBJS: Did you tell IPOWER not to shut Pastor Ken down? Even if you did or didn’t, all you’ve proved to do is create a fuss with eyes & ears going towards Pastor Ken wondering what the problem was all about in the first place.
ABANES: I DID NOT request that IPOWER shut down Silva’s website.
___________________________
BRBJS: You’ve managed to give him a platform to air his article and then some.
ABANES: I gave him an opportunity to do the right thing, or to do what he has chosen to do.
)
____________________________
BRBJS: Pastor Ken’s articles are going to be more popular now.
ABANES: Then that will be to his detriment, and the detriment of his readers. This does not change the facts: 1) what I did was well within biblical bounds and appropriate; 2) Silva responded inappropriately by over-reacting and CHOOSING to get his whole website kicked.
_____________________________
BRJS: He will re-appear on another server with the same article & notations added [e.g. this is the article Richard Abanes does not want you to read]. Instead of having Pastor Ken remove one article, you’ve actually paved the way for more to shine the Lord’s light on your purpose driven way (kjv John 3:19-21). Good going!
ABANES: And that will reveal even more about him, and we can start the process all over again. these people do NOT want to be held accountable or responsible for ANYTHING they say/do. How godly is that?
Richard Abanes
Ginger: I don’t know if anyone has pointed this out, but in bringing pressure to bear on someone, anyone exercising their first amendment rights to criticize you, a public figure, for your teaching or you behavior or even writing that you are of low character, you are kinda making his point for him.
ABANES: It is not a First Amendment write to slander people. It is not a First Amendment right to stand up in a crowded theater while the movie is playing and shout, “FIRE! FIRE! FIRE!”
____________________________
Ginger: I have not read the post in question, but frankly, your threats of a law suit to get his criticism of you removed is out of bounds for someone of reputable character.
ABANES: You haven’t read my various posts very closely at all have you? No lawsuit was ever threatened. Please take some time and read my articles, and attached respones to such inaccurate reports (for which you can thank Ken Silva and his devotees).
______________________________
Ginger: If he was wrong, prove him wrong. If he was right, learn from what he wrote in humility.
ABANES: The ISP has proved him wrong. And by DELIBERATELY allowing his own website to be kicked for no good or necessary reason, Ken Silva has proven himself to be ___________ [fill in blank].
________________________________
Ginger: But in coercing his ISP to remove his criticism of you, you don’t really have an arguement to defend yourself against the charge of being a bully.
ABANES: Excuse me, but filing a complaint about someone is HARDLY coercion or being a bully. Have you EVER in your life complained to a store manager about a rude or incompetent employee? Ever tell a supervisor about a misbehaving co-worker of report a lousy waitress to the restaurant hostess? Hey, you’re a bully for coercing and trying to force those people to behave in a manner that is more to your liking.
_________________________________
Ginger: And since Christ never defended himself against the outright lies told about Him, but only defended the weak in his assaults on the pharisees, I don’t see how this action can be one that a disciple of Christ should take.
ABANES: Okay, next time someone breaks into your home, or shoots a family member, or causes you to get into a car accident, or is horrible rude in the vegetable aisle at the store, you just go ahead and forget about it. The same principle is at work.
__________________________________
Ginger: And the fact that you cite you ability to make money as a reason to wanting the criticism taken down… I think you need to ask yourself how your God is in this situation.
ABANES: You really don’t get it, do you? Unfortunate.
___________________________________
Ginger: It seems to me that it is more likely your popularity, your power and your income than it is the Christ who taught you to set your own desires aside and serve others.
ABANES: Thank you for your opinion.
___________________________
Ginger: Nothing Ken could have said about you could have hurt your reputation as a writer, and supposedly seeker of the truth, than your own action here which shows that you do not want open debate and seek to censor your opponents.
ABANES: Yeah, you’re right. That’s exactly why I have allowed DOZENS of critics against me who have said some really nasty things to post here. Riiighhhht, I rally “do not want open debate and seek to censor your opponents.” By the way, did you know that Silva had up more than one article on his website that spoke about me negatively??? I didn’t agree with any of them. And you know what? I only complained about one of them. Clearly, you’re above assumption is wrong.
Richard Abanes
Danny: From observing the “fruit” that your actions produced I can’t help but ask if you sought Gods guidance in this matter. Please take my question seriously as I am a fellow Christian wanting with all my heart to run this race as God wills.
ABANES: Hi Danny. My opinion is that all of the “fruit” that has resulted is a product of Ken Silva’s planting, watering, and harvesting — not mine. I just opened the door to the fields of his “ministry” so the world could see exactly what kind of fruit is there.
Richard Abanes
Jane: Many will pray for your true repentance, resulting in a real knowledge of God and our Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ.
ABANES: Ahhhh, yes, the “you are not a Christian” retort. Predictable. Can you tell us where in scripture there is a verses that indicates you can know my Christianity (or lack thereof) based on a short email I sent to an ISP telling them that I found a single, isolated article to be offensive and libelous? Thank you, in advance.
Richard Abanes
DOUGLAS: I think it’s calling contextualizing Matthew 18: . . . You should have reasoned with him privately, but then again, why bother – after all, it can’t apply to cyberspace can it?
ABANES: See my July 28th, 2008 at 3:46 pm post
Richard Abanes
SCOTT: Matthew 27:24
ABANES: Interesting. This is a new one. Now, I am being compared to Pontius Pilate washing his hands of guilt for condemning Jesus to death!!! That’s a new one. Are implying Ken Silva is a Jesus Christ figure?
RA
CHRIS: This really comes across as gloating.
ABANES: It’s not gloating. It’s just the truth/facts. The truth sometimes hurts. Sorry.
Richard Abanes
Tim B.: So you can contact iPower and knowingly put him in a position where he either a) must pull an article or b) have his blog taken down, yet you say he wasn’t put in a corner? UNBELIEVABLE.
ABANES: He cold have temporarily removed the article and re-wrote it inline with his claim that it was about my theology, then he could have put it back up. Hey, no big deal! But noooooo. Ken chose a truly bizarre course of action. THAT’s what’s so unbelievable here. I have to wonder why he made that decision, since he still has another website where he can now use this event for churning out yet more sensational, false, defamatory materials. Interesting.
R. Abanes
JEAN: believe it is time to grow up and get on with the furtherance of the gospel and quit spending your time trying to defend yourself. What a waste of good time in a desparate world.
ABANES: I took an action that SHOULD have produced not so much as a little burp in the cosmos. Instead, Mr. Silva turned it into a tidal wave of massive proportions. That was not my doing. Now, as far as this blog goes, I am allowing people to post for a time, so that people can have their say — pro/con — and then these threads will be locked.
After that I am going to begin a series of the New Age movement, Eckhart Tolle, and Oprah Winfrey. The Ken Silva thing will be left behind on this blog as I move on, as you said, to use “good time in a desparate world.”
Thank you for your sound words of thought, encouragement,and advise.
RAbanes
LYDIA: I am just curious. Why are YOU so fearful of Ken Silva?
ABANES: I’m not. Why would YOU think I am. This is an issue of accountability and responsibility — two things that are sorely lacking in the so-called Online Discernment Ministry community. Things need to change.
____________________
LYDIA: He is a nobody. He is not connected with the great and glorious Rick Warren and all the other celebrity Christians. Why not just write a rebuttal on your own blog and be done with it? It is not as if his post was going to hurt your career.
ABANES: I have answered this in other relies. Please read my comments
_____________________
LYDIA: You have practiced censorship. Well done, Mr. Goebbels.
ABANES: Ahhhh, the Hitler/Nazi card. Well played. I was wondering when that was going to come up to. So my email to Ken’s ISP puts me in the same camp as that demonic, hate-filled, murderous, anti-semitic, monster of a human being!!! Wow!!! That is quite a comparison. Thank you for illustrating so many points with that accusation. I wonder if any Silva supporter is going decry such rhetoric….meh, probably not.
Richard Abanes
JIM: Wow! I guess I don’t live in America anymore…as a combat veteran who has fought for your rights I have to ask, what did the Appraising Ministries say that was illegal that you took it upon yourself to have them dumped from the ministry?
ABANES:You’re reading false reports. I took no such action.
_______________________
JIM: I am very concerned about this…if we disagree with someone theologically are we supposed to threaten them (especially other Christians!- read I Corinthians!) and get them shut down?
ABANES: Here’s the truth, contrary to whatever you’ve been reading:
1. I had no disagreements with ken Silva theologically.
2. I never asked that his websiote be shut down.
Read my blog posts and get the truth — which is something not coming from the Silva camp.
_______________________
JIM: Can you provide the rest of us with a succinct description of what the ministry did illegally, other than disagree with Rick Warren, that caused you to work to get them shutdown?
ABANES: That’s already been answered in both my main posts, and if you look trhough the comments. And, please stop saying this had ANYTHING to do with Rick Warren. It didn’t. That’s yet another bizarre spin being put on this issue by Ken’s camp.
________________________
JIM: Is free-speech gone in America? Are believers not allowed to give opinions?
ABANES: NO. YES — believers are allowed to give opinions.
Richard Abanes
AMY: So did Ken say anything to you equivalent to “Hey, go out and shoot Abanes.” or “Abanes sacrifices and eats babies?”
ABANES: You missed the point entirely. Sigh.
_______________________
AMY: I read about 90% of what Ken Silva wrote. As I remember it, a large part of it seemed to be him defending himself against your accusing him of “attacking” Rick Warren.
ABANES: That was his OTHER article. The one that i said absolutely NOTHING about to his ISP. That could have stayed up fr eternity!!
_______________________
AMY: In other words, it looked like he thought you had unjustly accused him; instead of writing to the server to ask that your article be removed he actually took the time to try to sort out what was going on, and why his interactions with you were such as they were.
ABANES: You have the wrong article in mind.
_______________________
AMY: Yes, YOU, have his site shut down. Not himself.
ABANES: Saying it is so, does not make it so. What you have just said is not supported by the facts. I requested one article to be removed. HIS decision forced his website to be kicked. Put the blame where blame is due.
________________________
AMY: The way you interact with folks over the internet and the way you have handled this situation with Ken has done far more to damage your “reputation” than anything Ken wrote, in my opinion.
ABANES: Thanks for your opinion. It’s appreciated.
_________________________
AMY: If you’re ever interested in actually listening to other folks opinions, there are some decent ones expressed here. The lawyer’s, for example. S.J. Walker’s, for example.
ABANES: I think I addressed those. And yes other opinions are appreciated. And I am trying to get posted as many as possible
________________________
AMY: If you were truly so concerned about your reputation it would have been far more productive for you first of all, to write Ken and see if he would take it down.
ABANES: I made my choice. He made his.
_______________________
AMY: Then you would presented yourself as a reasonable person interested in what other people think, not a strong-arm who thinks that others will agree “slander” when you say “slander.” You could also have gotten some input from other Christians, by trying such an approach.
ABANES: Thanks for your opinion. If ken were truly so concerned about his website, it would have been far more productive for him to either take down or revise his article, and see if he would acceptable to his ISP.
Richard Abanes
READERS ATTENTION
DUE TO THE LEGAL THREAT OF A LAWSUIT NOW BEING MADE AGAINST ME BY CHRIS ROSEBROUGH FOR REMARKS I MADE IN A “COMMENTS” SECTION ON THIS BLOG, I AM LOCKING THIS THREAD AND, UNFORTUNATELY, CANNOT ANSWER THE QUESTIONS OF THOSE WHO WERE STILL SEEKING ANSWERS ABOUT MY PERSPECTIVE REGARDING KEN SILVA AND MY REQUEST TO HIS ISP.
THANK YOU FOR STOPPING BY.
RICHARD ABANES
____________
CHRIS ROSBROUGH THREATENS RICHARD ABANES
WITH FULLBLOWN LEGAL ACTION ONLINE:
July 28th, 2008 at 5:02 pm post
Richard,
This sword cuts both ways Richard. Let this comment serve as a legal notice to you.
Unless, you
1. Publicly apologize for falsely claiming that I say that Rick Warren teaches salvation by works.
2. Rescind and apologize for the unfounded and libelous comments that you made about me claiming that I:
A. Have done damage to the body of Christ through the means of “slander, lies, libel, and deceit”
B. That I “spoon feed” lies to my adoring fans.
Then I will seek the fullest legal recourse allowed under U.S. Law.
You have until 12 PM Pacific time on Monday July 28th to comply.
These statements of yours are not only Objectionable, they are libelous and I will no longer idly sit by and allow you to publish these lies about me.
This is no joke. You and your ISP will be hearing from my attorney if you do not comply.
Chris Rosebrough
UPDATE
THIS ISSUE HAS NOW BEEN RESOLVED — SEE RESOLUTION.
[...] MORE ARGUMENTS: Ingrid Schlueter Speaks! A TUMULTUOUS TEMPEST IN A VERY SMALL TEAPOT As many of you know, the controversy surrounding myself and Ken Silva [...] [...]
[...] all of you the fact that in an email I just received, Ingrid Schlueter (see these article: #1, #2, #3) has just threatened me with a legal RESTRAINING ORDER!!!!! I kid you [...]