I have beem following the Silva-Abanes saga with great concern. I think we should all pray and do all we can to help these two brothers to reach some sort of agreement.

I wrote a comment over at CRN.Info and would like to repeat it here:

I have a few suggestions that may help this situation in the positive direction. It may sound naive on my part because I believe that our brothers Ken and Richard will be able to reconcile. But if our not-so-good president, Thabo Mbeki, could get Robert Mugabe and Morgan Tsvangirai of Zimbabwe to sign a document of intent to begin talks and shake hands in public, surely we can as Christians, with God on our side, convince Ken and Richard to talk and sort out their differences.

Here are things that I think we can do to help:
1. Stop writing on at who’s door the blame should be placed.
2. Ask the ODM sites to do the same. If writers who have their respect can do it, it will be most helpful.
3. Pray for Ken and Richard that God will work in both of their hearts to bring them together in a spirit of forgiveness and reconciliation.
4. Send them each messages asking them to consider reconciling with each other.
5. Find someone who can be an arbitrator. This person will have to be respected by both (It might prove to be very difficult to find such a person).

Just think of the wonderful testimony this can be if reconciliation happens and they can issue a press release together stating their forgiveness of each other and the agreement they have reached.

The-naive-South-African-who-believes-what-happened-in-South-Africa-can-happen-in-the-internet-church-world.
- Eugene

I think it is misleading to say that the ISP looked at the article in question and then decided to request that Ken remove the article. We simply do not know that for certain. It could be that the Ken’s ISP responded to the threat of a lawsuit and erred on the side of caution.

I agree it is not a 1st amendment issue. The concern here is that Christians threatening lawsuits to blogs that they feel are offending them and the ISPs that host these blogs automatically caving in because they do not want to face the possibility of litigation. The ISPs are unwilling or unable to determine if the articles in question constitute slander or libel or break any laws.

The question that remains unanswered here is this:

Did Ken’s ISP request that the article be removed after a careful legal analysis OR did the ISP request that the article be taken down only because a lawsuit was threatened?

The answer makes a critical difference in this situation.

The ISP’s reasoning is not besides the point, it is the point. It is disconcerting if the ISP just caved to potential ligitation or did the ISP do their due diligence and really investigate the allegations in the complaint letter and then requested that Ken pull the article in question.

Again, the answer has an effect of more far reaching implications for bloggers. I agree that Ken should have followed the TOS of the ISP. Again, do we know if Ken actually violated the TOS of the ISP?

But I do agree, Ken should seek out an ISP and talk with its management and determine how they handle complaints and lawsuit threats.

The complaint letter does actually state that Ken is guilty of libel

Does anyone know if the article in question can be found elsewhere on the web?  I’ve been trying to find it to see just how “slanderous” the posting was, and no one has copied it, as far as I can tell, even including Ingrid at SoL.

--
CS

CS, you can find the “slanderous” content cached here: http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:wXfOIDoDpXEJ:www.apprising.org/archives/2005/09/a_pastors_asses.html+site:www.Apprising.org+Richard+Abanes&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

Todd: Plus, Ken’s readers aren’t going to buy Richard’s books, regardless (sorry, Richard!)

ABANES: ROFL. No surprise to me.

peace,

RA

hey CS,

Basically, there are FOUR several reasons I waited so long:

1. Soon after the article went up, I left the world of interacting with the online apologetic/discernment camp—for two years! This was primarily due to the utter disgust I felt over how these so-called online “watchmen” were acting.

SO, I went away, hoping and praying for two years that something would change. But much to my horror, two years later, things had only gotten worse. That brought me up to December 2007, when I again started interacting with the online apologetic/discernment camp.
_ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _

2. Back in 2005, no one was really even aware of that Ken Silva article, or aware of Ken Silva. There was no real reason to address it—few people would be influenced by it.

But fast forward two years, and the online apologetic/discernment camp has grown and INFECTED (as in a disease) large segments of the Christian church with its hate, misuse of scripture, personal attacks, trumped up charges against fellow believers, divisiveness, half-truths, double-standards, hypocrisy, intolerance, and mean-spirited attempts to destroy the personal. professional, and ministerial reputation of those they see as “the enemy.”

And THAT is exactly what the article by Ken Silva was intended to do. It was not written to critique my doctrine: theology, soteriology, eschatology, thanatology. It was meant to harm me personally. And that is not the only such article out there.

So far, I have repeatedly posted a challenge online that no one, not even Ken Silva has taken up, and I’ll post it again here:

“If Ken Silva wishes to place another article up titled “A PASTOR’S ASSESSMENT OF RICHARD ABANES,” which actually critiques my theology, then my all means, I welcome it.”

“I challenge ANYONE to find ANY criticisms, observations, corrections in that Ken Silva article that discusses my theology or doctrinal beliefs. Such material is not there. That article was personal in all its attacks. It was nothing more than an article deliberately designed to impugn my personal/professional integrity.”
_ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _

3. The popularity of that article had grown to the point where I felt it was indeed harming my personal, professional, and ministerial reputation. Consequently, something had to be done about it. And the step I took was actually VERY, VERY mild.

Mr. Silva and his supporters have blown this matter WAY out of proportion, and to do so, they have had to resort to yet more misrepresentations of me, my actions, and my intentions.

All the while Ken Silva has denied his own responsibility for having his original website deleted. I did NOT:

A. File a lawsuit against Mr. Silva.
B. Threaten to file a lawsuit against Mr. Silva.
C. Contact an attorney about beginning a lawsuit against Mr. Silva.

The truth is that I sent a simple email to Mr. Silva’s ISP requesting that they review ONE of his news articles because I felt it that it not only violated their TOS agreement, but was libelous and offensive in tone.

Based on the article’s content, the ISP’s decision was to ask Mr. Silva to remove the article—or have his website deleted. He stubbornly refused to follow a simple request from the ISP with whom he had entered a TOS agreement. It was HIS willful defiance that caused his website to momentarily disappear.

And now he and his and his so-called online “discerner” supporters are fueling an ever-growing controversy . They’ve turned it into an Internet circus. It’s gotten so intense, that I have been receiving emails filled with:

- THREATS;
- PROFANITY/OBSCENITY;
- BIBLICAL CONDEMNATIONS;
- ACCUSATIONS OF ME NOT BEING A CHRISTIAN;
- FALSE ACCUSATIONS REGARDING MY ACTIONS

And, of course, each email was from a Ken Silva devotee aghast at how I would come against such a man of God and try to destroy the Lord’s work (or some permutation of those sentiments).

I think this has shown the fruit of people like Silva, and the online discernment/apologetic crowd. Walter Martin would hang his head in anguish at these people who have perverted what he started as a noble and necessary calling in the church: i.e., to “earnestly contend for the faith that was once and for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3).
_ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _

4. The time has come for these people to be held accountable and responsible for the unnecessary, unbiblical,and ungodly division in the Body of Christ that they have been causing. My email to Ken Silva’s ISP was as attempt to help bring about at least a modicum of accountability/responsibility. You see the reaction. What does that tell us all?

Richard Abanes

For my perspective and far more information, please read:

Lighthouse Trails: More Ken Silva Propaganda
MORE ARGUMENTS: Ingrid Schlueter Speaks!
Ken Silva - More Lies, More Sensationalism, More Sin

Richard:

Thank you for the response.

For the record, I like Ken Silva, Ingrid Schuleter, and many other ODMs that are online.  I stand vehemently opposed to the purpose-driven programs and ideology that you support.  I know that you and I are perhaps diametrically opposed on many things in evangelicalism. 

But you know what?  You were right for what you did.

I took your challenge of finding anything resembling an argument of your doctrinal and theological positions in that article, and could not find anything substantive.  And, the more time I took in reading it and looking for evidence, the more I found myself agreeing with you that the article bordered on being slanderous.

The points that you listed for why you chose to contact the ISP and requested the article be removed made sense to me.  The hiatus from doing things online, the fact that you are getting more widespread publicity and things like this could defame you, and the fact that he did not tackle any theology or doctrine head-on are all reasonable, rational explanations for your actions (I heard you on the Gino Gerasi show in Denver the other day, BTW.)

With this good explanation of things and my examination of the article, I agree that you were in the right.  Even though I believe you are wrong on things like supporting Rick Warren, and perhaps a large number of other areas, I have to say that you did a good job, sir.

God Bless.

--
CS

CS,

THANK YOU!!!!

You said: “I took your challenge of finding anything resembling an argument of your doctrinal and theological positions in that article, and could not find anything substantive.”

That’s all I wanted. I want truth to be told. I want us ALL to be committed to standing for truth, the gospel, defending the faith, honesty, integrity, sound reasoning, biblical discernment.

You can even disagree with me on all kinds of Rick Warren things. KEWL!!! Guess what, I don’t even agree with everything Rick Warren says or does. And if I were a pastor, I’m sure lots of people would disagree with me, too. Fine!!!

As Christians, our unity is wrapped around a shared love for Jesus Christ, God the Son, who came and died for our sins on the cross, so that by grace through faith him, which includes his work on our behalf, we could receive eternal life with our Creator as a free gift!

“In Essentials, Unity; in Non-essentials, Liberty; in All Things, Charity.”

And for the record, brother, I am SURE that i am wrong on all kinds of things. ROFL. Ask my wife.

Richard Abanes

P.S. GINO = AWESOME

Yeah, Richard, if CS had his own discernment site, it wouldn’t get much traffic. It would be relatively balanced, polite and boring because he doesn’t call names and even sees both sides of issues (shocking!).

(that was a compliment, CS!)

PETER: It seems to me that Ken (and others like him) enjoy reporting news in such a fashion as to make something appear true that isn’t.

ABANES: Today, I will be putting up a brand new RUMORS REPORT page at my website that includes a listing of many of the false statements that have flooded the internet from these people, who are using it as a perfect opportunity to spread more lies. We’re really seeing what they are all about.

My list won’t be in-depth, just a quick - that’s wrong, that’s untrue, here’s a lie, etc etc etc. It’ll be very easy to read. I’ll post a link when it is done. Again, what we are seeing again and again is a frighteningly DEFIANT stand these people are taking against: truth, accountability, responsibility, and biblical guidelines for...well...just about everything!

My opinion is the church needs to wake up and expose these people for who and what they are—i.e., very troubled individuals (spiritually, morally, and psychologically) who are damaging the Body of Christ. I’ll name no names. I’ll let you fill in the blanks as you read what is being disseminated now throughout cyberspace in response to this incident.

RAbanes

“But please stop playing innocent and say that you never threatened a lawsuit to I-Power.” Even if you agree that he might have implied a lawsuit (I agree, he did imply such) to say he was threatening I-Power seems a stretch.

From Ken’s new web site, quoting Richard (I can’t assume this is accurate, as much from Ken has been, in my experience, very INaccurate, but nevertheless) “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.”

What a mess.