Monday Morning Insights

Photo of Todd
    .

    Two Discernment Websites Cease Publication on the Web

    Bookmark and Share

    My read on this one? 

    Well… I think that Abanes should have probably tried to work with Ken to get the post taken down.  I have no doubt that Ken would NOT have taken it down, but it would have been the right first step, rather than going directly to Ken’s web host.  And once Ken got the notice from his web host, I think he should have tried to make the compromise happen. 

    But instead, it’s a big mess… one that’s causing more than a bit of insanity.  Ken is crying ‘martyr’ and some of the watchdoggie sites are saying that this ‘first amendment issue’ will cause us all to eventually lose our right to criticize anyone online.

    Bottom line:  Ken’s article had been on his site since 2005.  I really doubt that it was going to do Richard any harm.  Plus, Ken’s readers aren’t going to buy Richard’s books, regardless (sorry, Richard!)

    You can catch more on this at Richard Abane’s website; or an update over at Lighthouse Trails or Slice of Laodicea.  I won’t link to them here, but you can find them easy enough if you’re that interested.

    This SO MUCH takes away from everyone who is involved’s effectiveness.  I hate that.

    Your thoughts?

    As many of you know, I've picked a few fights every now and then when I feel that some of the 'discerning ministry' have crossed the line. Well, it seems that two of my favorite watchdoggie websites are down, at least for now.

    The first one is rather sad... and I would ask you to pray for Jim Bulbitz. Jim publishes OldTruth.com, and is having some serious health issues. In fact, he needs to have a liver transplant. He shares the news at OldTruth. His health issues will cause him to stop new posts, at least for then next few months. You know, I have disagreed with many of the things (probably most) that Jim has written over the years; and we've gone head to head on more than one occasion. But I can always say this: Jim was always open to dialouge, and always has treated me as a brother rather than a heretic. I appreciate that; and pray for you, Jim, that God will heal you completely.

    The second website to go down happened this weekend. This was Ken Silva's "Apprising Ministries" website. Ken, on the other hand, is one of the more hard-nosed, confrontive bloggers I've run across on the net. Here's the short version of this one: Ken wrote a scathing piece on author Richard Abane in 2005 that Abane thought was slanderous. So, Richard contacted Ken's ISP and asked them to remove it from their servers. Ken's ISP looked at the article, and told Ken he'd have to remove that one post, or else they would take his site down complete. Ken, ever the martyr, decided to leave it up; and thus, lost his whole site (although I'm sure they're working frantically to get it back up on another host)...

    Comments

    if you want a Globally Recognized Avatar (the images next to your profile) get them here. Once you sign up, they will displayed on any website that supports them.

    1. mnphysicist on Sun, July 27, 2008

      First prayers for Jim Bulbitz, whoa that is sad news.


      As far as the first ammendment issue, its an easy work around with off shore servers operating in a different legal climate, or select a host who takes a hard line on freedom of speech, even to the point of dealing with litigation if need be, but be aware it will likely cost more than most shared hosting packages


      In the US, having spent a few years on the tech side of this… if we get a legit complaint, based upon a cursory read, we’ve typically ask the author to pull it, and if they do not comply, we do so for them… its not worth the time and distraction, if the complaint has some level of legitamacy. Simply responding to a summons could run way over a customers annual billing, and thus calls are typically made on the conservative side in order to protect the best interests of the business..The vast majority of customers do not push limits… if they did, and were willing to pay, a different stance could be taken, but most of the time folks look for bargains.


      Then again… as Christians is there ever an excuse to push such limits to the point that a secular business views an author’s content on iffy grounds? Are we not called to stay far away from even the perception of sin? Granted there are theological underpinnings… reproof and correction in some cases, but that is not what a host looks at when making the call, ie they look at the potential for slander/defamation etc..  and if secular discernment is more critical than Christian discernment, I think we have a much bigger problem than a first ammendment issue. I do agree that the whole mess is a real effectiveness killer, and most certainly not a good witness.

    2. Eugene Roberts on Mon, July 28, 2008

      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

    3. Peter Hamm on Mon, July 28, 2008

      I followed this story a bit, too. It is perhaps true that Abanes should have contacted Silva personally first. Abanes claims that he KNOWS, based on way more contact with Silva than I’ve certainly ever had, that that would be of no use.


      Beyond that, just about everything that I’ve heard from Silva and those who agree with him is just ludicrous. This is NOT a first ammendment issue. When you have a Terms of Service (TOS) agreement with an ISP, you need to honor that agreement. That agreement included the understanding that if Ken posted something that violated the agreement that he could be shut down.


      From the misquotes, quotes out of context, and “questionably true” (at best, imho) comments that Ken has posted on his site, it is not surprising that somebody might find offense and consider something he writes slanderous. Somebody did, and the ISP reacted (and gave Ken a chance to take the article down.)


      The simple issue is that Silva violated his TOS agreement. This has nothing to do with the first ammendment, and if it gets blown up out of proportion, then I’ll have further evidence that Ken is only interested in making a stink, and not interested in “the truth”, at all.


      The “watchdog” has perhaps bitten the wrong man this time.

    4. sam on Mon, July 28, 2008

      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.

    5. Peter Hamm on Mon, July 28, 2008

      Sam,


      We know that the ISP asked for the removal of the article. Their reasons for doing so are almost beside the point. Ken refused, knowing what the consequences were… the site went down… now he’s crying foul.


      Perhaps this time he will find an ISP with terms of service more amenable to his methodology. (I’m betting within 72 hours, because if I felt as passionately about something as Ken does, I’d be back up PRONTO.)


      I am frankly surprised that someone like Ken hasn’t been sued for slander yet. (because if it’s in “print” only on the web, I assume that it can’t be libel)

    6. Sam on Mon, July 28, 2008

      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

    7. Peter Hamm on Mon, July 28, 2008

      “The complaint letter does actually state that Ken is guilty of libel” a complaint I find eminently believable, in light of the history of apprising ministries.

    8. CS on Mon, July 28, 2008

      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

    9. Brian L. on Mon, July 28, 2008

      I like Richard, but my question is along what Todd said about it being up there since 2005.


      It’s been up there that long and he’s just noticing it?  Apparently it hasn’t done the kind of damage he thinks it would.


      On the other hand, no one wants slanderous stuff about them printed anywhere, especially in the global setting of the internet.


      Brian L.

    10. Matt on Mon, July 28, 2008

      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

    11. Peter Hamm on Mon, July 28, 2008

      Thanks, Matt.


      I made a pdf of that article, because dinner is almost ready, so I’ll look at it tomorrow…


      but one thing I glanced out really stuck out.


      “From where I stand, it has now become clear to me that Mr. Abanes feels anyone who disagrees with him is simply wrong”


      hello, pot… kettle calling…

    12. Richard Abanes on Mon, July 28, 2008

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


      ABANES: ROFL. No surprise to me. http://www.mondaymorninginsight.com/images/smileys/grin.gif


      peace,


      RA

    13. CS on Mon, July 28, 2008

      Richard:


      Glad to see you join the conversation here.  I was wondering if you would answer the questions that has come up several times now: why did it take you about three years before you decided to petition to have the article removed?  What prompted this action?



      CS

    14. Richard Abanes on Tue, July 29, 2008

      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

    15. Peter Hamm on Tue, July 29, 2008

      Thanks, Richard.


      If indeed you merely did what you mentioned above, then of course it is Ken’s own fault his site is down (for now). I’ve read parts (but not all) of the article,


      But you’ve opened quite the can of worms, as you can tell by the communications you’ve received from some of Silva’s supporters. (Ken, make a note, perhaps you could communicate to these folks a little more about biblical ideas like “living at peace with everyone” and avoiding profanity and the like with as much vim and vigor as you employ in the condemnation of those who disagree with your particular brand of Christian theology.)


      I fear you’ve only seen the beginning of this, and I fear that in the days to come we will see a lot of “truth-twisting”. Please be encouraged and hold on to the high road at ALL costs!

    16. Page 1 of 7 pages  1 2 3 >  Last »

      Post a Comment

    17. (will not be published)

      Remember my personal information

      Notify me of follow-up comments?

    Sponsors