Apologetics research resources on religious cults, religious sects, anticult organizations, Christian apologetics and counter-cult ministries, etcetera.  Plus daily religion news

Mark A. Kellner
An Apologetics Index research resource

Mark Kellner

Home
A-Z Index

How To Use
About AI
Contact Us
Mark Kellner

Mark Kellner


line

About this page



Mark A. Kellner describes himself as "a veteran journalist, evangelical Christian and author." He is, indeed, one of America's leading technology journalists, and the author of "God on the Internet" (1996).

In 1996, Christianity Today named Kellner as one of "50 Leading Evangelicals Under 40." At the time, Mark Kellner was a member of The Salvation Army. Three years later, he joined the Seventh-day Adventist Church. (1) (Kellner is currently the assistant director for news and information for the SDA's General Conference Communications Department.)

In apologetics and countercult circles Kellner - who is neither an apologist nor a countercult professional - is known primarily for his partipation on the AR-talk and AR-forum lists, where Kellner
  • defends and promotes Seventh-day Adventism, considered by many to be a controversial sect (or even cult) of Christianity

  • defends religious cults
    1. under the banner of 'religious freedom,' and/or
    2. as a result of his apparent lack of theological discernment.

  • agitates against the reporting of U.S. human rights issues as noted in Religion News Blog (Mr. Kellner seldom, if ever, addresses the facts presented, but instead comes up with all manner of excuses on why those facts should not be reported), and

  • displays a tendency of not addressing the issues, but instead resorting to various logical fallacies - an approach that makes it virtually impossible to have a constructive discussion with Mr. Kellner, at least on these topics.

  • misrepresents statements made by others. Even when confronted with his false statements, Mr. Kellner continued to shadowbox with his own misrepresentations.
For reasons known only to him, Mr. Kellner appears to have taken a special interest in agitating against messages posted by Anton Hein (the co-publisher of Apologetics Index - and the author of this web page). In and of itself, that wouldn't be a problem. However, since Mr. Kellner tends to be tenaciously argumentative to the point of exhaustion, Hein prefers to use his time and energy in more productive ways than going over the same old issues with Mr. Kellner. Hence, this Apologetics Index entry.


Mark Kellner and Cult Apologists

The Apologetics Index entry on cult apologists says:

Apologetics is the study and practice of the intellectual defense of a belief system. An apologist is someone "who speaks or writes in defense of a faith, a cause, or an institution."  (1) 

A cult apologist is someone who consistently or primarily defends the teachings and/or actions of one or more movements considered to be cults - as defined sociologicallyoffsite and/or theologically.  (6) 
Back To Top

Generally, Mr. Kellner's consistent defense of various religious cults is limited to
  • his disapproval of the use of certain terrminology (e.g. terms like "cult" or "cult apologist")

  • slippery slope arguments (arguing that if a country takes action against, say, the Church of Scientology, Christians may be targeted next), or

  • his apparent belief that certain groups and movements widely considered to be cults of Christianity are, in his view, within the realm of evangelical Christianity.
Back To Top


Mark Kellner and the Local Church

Mark Kellner currently (summer, 2003) sympathizes with the Local Church - a cult of Christianity with a track record of legal threats and actions against its critics.

It appears that Kellner considers the Local Church to be within the realm of Evangelical Christianity. As his messages on the AR-lists show, it is from this perspective that he wrote his recent article in Christianity Today, reporting on the cult's latest legal attack on Christians. [NOTE: See Dec. 6, 2003 update]

Faced with criticism from Anton Hein, the co-publisher of Apologetics Index (and the author of this web page), Kellner defends his views on a hastily published weblog, ironically called "Apologetics Answers.offsite"

Hein's criticism was posted in response to a message by Kellner, in which - in Hein's opinion - Kellner demonstrated his misunderstanding of the issue.

As part of this AR-forum exchange on the subject of the Local Church, Hein wrote:
Back To Top

Mark Kellner's failure to acknowledge and/or understand

a) the Local Church's lengthy record of legal threats,
b) and its status as - theologically - a cult of Christianity, and
c) its record of cultic behavior

has been addressed on the AR-lists before. I feel no need to enter into a discussion with him on these issues.

That said, if Mr. Kellner wishes to support the Local Church in its theology and behavior, Christian apologists and countercult professionals should take note of this.

If he merely wants to report on the issues, it is my hope and prayer that he familiarizes himself a) with sound theology, and b) with the history of the conflicts he chooses to write about.
Source: AR-forum, msg by Anton Hein, Aug. 10, 2003
Back To Top

In a follow-up post, Hein posed some questions to Kellner:

I also encourage Mr. Kellner to post a clearly-worded statement regarding the Local Church. For example:
  • Does he believe the Local Church's theology to be orthodox in nature - that is, biblically sound?

  • Does he support the Local Church in its current legal case?
  • What are his thought on the Local Church's sociological behavior, including the group's record of legal threats and actions against Christians?
Source: AR-forum, msg by Anton Hein, Aug. 10, 2003
Back To Top

Mark Kellner chose not to answer these questions, instead referring me to his two earlier questions which I had not answered. (More about that in a moment).

Mr. Hein wishes to hold me to a standard with which he, apparently, sees little need to conform: not having answered my questions, he insists I answer his. I'll await Mr. Hein's answers to my earlier questions before tackling his in specific.

We're not playing that game, Mark. Your initial message on this issue demonstrates your failure to properly evaluate the Local Church vs Harvest House, Ankerbeg and Weldon.

Hence your questions posed to me are moot.

In fact, the very wording of your question shows that you are not sufficiently familiar with the facts of the case, but instead have bought into the Local Church's version of the story. And you are once again crying wolf with some sort of slippery slope fallacy.

As I stated before, in my opinion your current attempt to rush to the aid of yet another religious cult is ill-advised in that it appears you fail to acknowledge and/or understand:

a) the Local Church's lengthy record of legal threats,
b) and its status as - theologically - a cult of Christianity, and
c) its record of cultic behavior

I am therefore not surprised that you will not go on the record with your answers to my questions.

>I do NOT "dislike anyone who dares critique cults, sects and other religious >movements," and for him to suggest this would imply an ability to understand >my thought processes that transcends normal abilities.

Fair enough. I should instead have said that it appears you dislike criticism of cults, sects, and other religious movements.

From where I sit, it appears that your focus on religious freedom for any and all movements often prevents you from properly evaluating the theology and practices of certain groups. If that is not the case, then perhaps you need more training in how to discern between orthodoxy and heresy, as well in how to properly apply scripture to certain sitatuations. Otherwise you will continue to end up defending such cults of Christianity as the Local Church. In that regard, at least J. Gordon Melton honestly admitted that he does not know how to tell the difference between orthodoxy and heresy - though, as you know, he also went on to defend the Local Church. As SCP's Brooks Alexander points out, he did so using "Opinions Without Expertise," and "Expertise without Knowledge": http://www.apologeticsindex.org/l40.html#cultapologist. Please do not make the same mistake. Otherwise you may - like Melton - end up harming the message of the Gospel.

Anyway, while you refuse to answer my questions, you force others to distill your position from what you have posted thus far on this issue. In closing, I advise interested parties to read the book itself: http://tinyurl.com/jln5

If you can come up with a reading and interpretation similar to those claimed by the Local Church and Mark Kellner, Janet and I will treat you to dinner at a fine Dutch restaurant next time you visit Amsterdam.
Source: AR-forum, msg by Anton Hein, Aug. 10, 2003
Back To Top

For the record, these were the questions Mark Kellner asked:

Mr. Hein's comment begs several questions:

(1) The question here isn't merely the statements in the book, but the consequences of those statements. Civil authorities in other countries, including those hostile to religion in general, now have a text published in the United States, by a reputable Christian publisher, that claims a sect is involved in illegal activities including "human sacrifice" and the promotion of prostitution. In turn, said civil authorities could move against the legitimate worship and freedom of religion rights of people who are not doing either crime, and claim they have justification. Should not a Christian -- or even a non-Christian -- have the right to fight back, at law if other means fail?

(2) There are people who either now believe or have believed in the past that Anton Hein has committed "misrepresentations" of a given position or statement of fact. Does Mr. Hein now invite lawsuits from those who disagree with his statements or presentations on his Web site?
Source: AR-forum, msg by Mark Kellner, Aug. 10, 2003
Back To Top

On the AR-lists, Mark Kellner has a history of slippery slope arguments regarding issues of religious freedom. Hence I felt it was unnecessary to again address the issue Kellner presented in question 1 - particularly in light of the fact that, in my opinion, the rest of his message demonstrated his ignorance of the issues surrounding the case. This is why I referred to an article by Brooks Alexander, who describes cult apologist J. Gordon Melton's contribution to an earlier Local Church legal action as "Opinions Without Expertise," and "Expertise without Knowledge."

Question 2 was posed in response to a comment I made on the AR-talk list, in which I said, "I think that Christians and Christian ministries could/should at some point sue the Local Church and its officials for - among other things - their misrepresentations."

In asking question 2, Mark Kellner followed a pattern he has firmly established on the AR-lists: one of not addressing the real issues, and instead trying to divert attention elsewhere.

That approach does not work with me. Hence, the questions remain:
  • Does Mark Kellner believe the Local Church's theology to be orthodox in nature - that is, biblically sound?

  • Does he support the Local Church in its current legal case?

  • What are his thoughts on the Local Church's sociological behavior, including the group's record of legal threats and actions against Christians?
However, true to form, on his new weblog, Kellner does not answer these questions, but instead interacts with an earlier message. He writes:

(1) Mr. Hein first alleges that I "fail to acknowledge and/or understand" what he terms "the Local Church's lengthy record of legal threats."
Source: Apologetics Answersoffsite Aug. 12, 2003
Back To Top

The reader is invited to compare Mr. Kellner's article and response with the information posted here

Next, Mr. Kellner writes:

(2) Mr. Hein then claims that I "fail to acknowledge and/or understand" the Local Church's "...status as -- theologically -- a cult of Christianity."
Source: Apologetics Answersoffsite Aug. 12, 2003
Back To Top

Merely quoting an opposing opinion does not demonstrate that Mr. Kellner acknowledges or understands the issue. Indeed, as demonstrated in his subsequent messages to the AR-lists, Mr. Kellner has indeed not acknowledged and/or understood the Local Church's status as - theologically - a cult of Christianity.

In his third and final point, Kellner writes:

(3) Mr. Hein claims that, in respect to the Local Church, my article ignored "its record of cultic behavior."
Source: Apologetics Answersoffsite Aug. 12, 2003
Back To Top

I did not claim that Mr. Kellner ignored the Local Church's cultic behavior, but said "it appears you fail to acknowledge and/or understand" that behavior:

Mark Kellner's failure to acknowledge and/or understand

a) the Local Church's lengthy record of legal threats,
b) and its status as - theologically - a cult of Christianity, and
c) its record of cultic behavior

has been addressed on the AR-lists before. I feel no need to enter into a discussion with him on these issues.

That said, if Mr. Kellner wishes to support the Local Church in its theology and behavior, Christian apologists and countercult professionals should take note of this.

If he merely wants to report on the issues, it is my hope and prayer that he familiarizes himself a) with sound theology, and b) with the history of the conflicts he chooses to write about.
Source: AR-forum, msg by Anton Hein, Aug. 10, 2003
Back To Top

Mark Kellner's news article about the Local Church's legal action against Harvest House, John Ankerberg and John Weldon lacks sufficient balance. Mark's opinion on the issue is evident from the details he leaves out.

Compare, for example, Kellner's mention of two books critical of the Local Church, with the comments of the late Jim Moran.



Questions for Mark Kellner

In the end, on the topic of the Local Church the questions remain:
  • Does Mark Kellner believe the Local Church's theology to be orthodox in nature - that is, biblically sound?

  • Does he support the Local Church in its current legal case?

  • What are his thoughts on the Local Church's sociological behavior, including the group's record of legal threats and actions against Christians?
Back To Top


Update, Dec. 6, 2003: Mark Kellner Answers Questions

On August 6, 2003, 4 months after these questions were asked, Mark Kellner finally replied via a message on the AR-forum discussion list. I will, for the moment, summarize his answers:
  1. Does Mark Kellner believe the Local Church's theology to be orthodox in nature - that is, biblically sound?

    Answer:
    Yes, Mark Kellner believes the Local Church's theology to be orthodox in nature.

  2. Does he support the Local Church in its current legal case?

    Answer:
    Yes, Mark Kellner supports the Local Church in its current legal case.

  3. What are his thoughts on the Local Church's sociological behavior, including the group's record of legal threats and actions against Christians?

    Answer:
    Mark Kellner has "seen nothing in the 'sociological behavior' of the Local Church that concerns" him. Regarding the group's legal threats and actions, Mark Kellner states, "we are all free to use the legal system as we see fit and as necessary."

Now that Mr. Kellner has finally gone on the record, is it clearer than ever that he is not able to properly evaluate the doctrines and practices of religious movements or to discern whether or not they fall within the boundaries of Biblical Christianity.

NOTE: Jan. 5, 2006 update:

Appellate Court Rules in Favor of Harvest House and Its Authors, John Ankerberg and John Weldon
OPINION
This is a libel suit brought by a church against a publisher and two authors after the church was included in a book about “religious cults,” as that term is defined in the book. The publisher and authors moved for summary judgment, which the trial court denied. This interlocutory appeal followed. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(b) (Vernon Supp. 2005). Because we agree that the passages in the book that refer to the church are not, as a matter of law, defamatory, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and render judgment that the church take nothing from the publisher and authors.
[...]

CONCLUSION
Because the allegedly libel statements are not defamatory, as a matter of law, we sustain the publisher and authors’ first issue on appeal. Accordingly, we need not address the remaining issues and decline to do so.

We reverse the judgment of the trial court and render judgment that the church take nothing from the publisher and authors.
Back To Top




Kellner's Discussion Tactics

On now to a different subject (albeit somewhat related) than the Local Church issue addressed above.

Earlier, I noted that for reasons known only to him, Mark Kellner appears to have taken a special interest in agitating against messages posted to the AR-talk list by Anton Hein (the co-publisher of Apologetics Index - and the author of this web page).

I also observed that Mr. Kellner gets especially upset at the reporting of U.S. human rights issues as noted in Religion News Blog.

To put Kellner's critiques into perspective, it is helpful to understanding that Religion News Blog, "is a service that alerts Christian apologetics- and counter-cult professionals - as well as other academic and professional communities - to relevant religion-, apologetics-, human rights-, and ethics news from around the world." [http://www.religionnewsblog.com/site-5249-.html]. The site includes news items from around the world, linked to relevant research resources.

The blog is used by thousands of people a day, and the AR-talk list is one of several forums in which the Religion News Blog headlines are posted. Oddly enough - given the fact that its subscribers can be expected to have more than a passing interested in logical thinking, research resources, and a fair evaluation of claims and issues [See: What is AR-talk?offsite] - AR-talk is the only place in which a handful of people, Kellner included, whine about the reporting of issues such as: Such reports are met with statements to the effect that criticism of America's policies and actions can simply be dismissed by claiming the author and/or the person or media source reporting it is "anti-American."

Thus, once more, for the record:
  • My wife and I do not consider ourselves to be anti-American. While we do criticize certain American policies and actions, that in and off itself does not make us anti-American
  • In fact, our many American friends and acquaintances (including many of our fellow-Christians) do not consider us to be anti-American.
  • Many Americans - Christians and non-Christians alike, and living either in the States or abroad - themselves criticize the policies and actions we speak out against. And guess what? They are not "anti-Americans."
  • Religion News Blog has a specific function: to alert Christian apologetics- and counter-cult professionals - as well as other academic and professional communities - to relevant religion-, apologetics-, human rights-, and ethics news from around the world. We clearly state why we specifically pay attention to U.S. human rights issues.
Alas, it doesn't matter to these folks how often I explain these facts. Sadly, some people prefer ignorance over having to deal with facts.

That said, Mark Kellner's approach is a little more creative. He tends to, for the most part, ignore the information presented - preferring instead to launch into bombastic arguments and rambling statements that have little to nothing to do with the issue at hand. His reportoire includes the following tactics:
  • resorting to the use of logical fallacies (with slippery-slope, straw men, and ad-hominem arguments being his favorite), and/or
  • changing the subject, and/or (in the case of comments regarding U.S. human rights issues),
  • reminding people of America's participation in the liberation of Europe (as if a good deed should cover all subsequent sins), and/or
  • the "but they did it too" clause (in essence, two wrong make a right...), and/or
  • borrowing what is known as the "FUD marketing" approach: sowing fear, uncertainty and doubt. (The latter tactic is used by Mark to excuse his defense of various cults and sects. His basic message: if he doesn't defend the religious freedom of various cults, sects, and hate groups, Europe may ban them, and then come after the Christians next.)
Small wonder, then, that it took so long for Mr. Kellner to answer the questions I posed to him regarding his support for the Local Church.
Back To Top


Update, Feb. 25, 2004: Mark Kellner On The Attack

Those familar with Mr. Kellner's postings to the AR-lists know that he has demonstrated:
  1. a marked lack of skills when it comes to the discipline of apologetics (including the discernment necessary to know the difference between orthodoxy and heresy), along with
  2. a tenacious dedication to defending various cults and sects (usually opting for slippery slope arguments in which Kellner foresees the worst violations of 'human rights' or 'religious freedom.')
Sadly, he continues to address apologetics and cult-related issues.

In a lawsuit filed by the Local Church against the Spiritual Counterfeits Project, cult apologist J. Gordon Melton defended the group. His contribution has been aptly described as "expertise without knowledge" and "knowledge without Expertise."

Currently, Mark Kellner - a technology journalist and Seventh-day Adventist - in much the same fashion actively criticizes the Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions, its authors and its publishers, while defending the Local Church.

On Feb. 25, 2004, he announced his latest effort:

An article I’ve written about the controversial book “Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions” appears in the March/April 2004 issue of LIBERTY Magazine, a bi-monthly religious freedom publication of the North American Division of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. It should be available on the magazine’s Web site, http://www.libertymagazine.org, shortly.
Source: Mailing list message by Mark A. Kellner, posted to AR-talk, Feb. 25, 2004
Back To Top

The publication itself describes the article with the typical 'the-sky-is-fallen' attitude employed by Kellner:

"Can a Book Harm Religious Freedom?", by Mark A. Kellner discusses Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions, and the book’s frightening identification of religions the authors believe unchristian.
Back To Top

[The article is available here]

I replied to that message by pointing the list readers to this page (along with the related section at the entry on the Local Church).

True to form, Mr. Kellner chose to respond by missing the point: "It is interesting -- and perhaps telling -- that Mr. Hein feels able to discern my arguments about ECNR without even reading my article."

I replied:

Per the AR-talk Charter, I provided research resources that have a direct bearing on the information you provided.

As for 'discerning' your arguments, perhaps I should remind you that you have recently made your views on the Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions known on both AR-talk and AR-forum. If, perchance, you have seen the light between then and now, I expect your change of heart will be reflected in your article. If so, I will add the information to the appropriate Apologetics Index entries.

That said, for reasons mentioned here - http://www.apologeticsindex.org/k04.html - I will not enter into a discussion with you on this subject.
Source: Message posted by Anton Hein to AR-forum, Feb. 25, 2004
Back To Top

Kellner, following a well-established track record, continued to miss the fact that he himself had already publicly discussed his views on thebook. And thus he whines on:

Has Mr. Hein become able to discern other people’s thoughts, motives and conclusions from a distance, without interacting with another person’s arguments? Find my response to his Web comments (referenced in an earlier post of his on AR-Talk) at http://apologeticsanswer.blogspot.com/.
Source: Mark Kellner, message to AR-talk, Feb. 25, 2004
Back To Top

As the track record shows, interacting with Mark Kellner's arguments is like trying to nail pudding to a tree.

The latest entry on his blog - misleadingly titled, "Apologetics Answers" - provides a sad example of Kellner's overall approach: bombastic nonsense, designed to knock down the straw men that populate his world.

It is not so much Mr. Kellner's personal attacks on me and others that concern me. Rather, it is the fact that despite his near-complete lack of knowledge and discernment in the fields of apologetics and countercult ministry, he apparently still feels qualified to make pronouncements on related issues.

For example, he concludes his latest effort as follows:

As mentioned before in this blog, Mr. Hein -- who sets his own rules and standards for what is and isn't "kosher" to him apologetically -- has decided both on the matter of ECNR and the Local Church. Nothing will persuade him, it appears, and he doesn't even have to examine the issues at hand to render -- or retain -- his viewpoint.

That's not exactly a "Berean" attitude (Acts 17:11,NIV), is it? More important, is it how Mr. Hein would want others to judge him and his views?

Oddly enough, Jesus of Nazareth had some words which Mr. Hein might want to ponder: "Don't pick on people, jump on their failures, criticize their faults--unless, of course, you want the same treatment. That critical spirit has a way of boomeranging. It's easy to see a smudge on your neighbor's face and be oblivious to the ugly sneer on your own." (Matt. 7:1-3, The Message, online at http://tinyurl.com/yv5f8)
Source: Mark Kellner's weblog
Back To Top

Those who know me, know that in the 29+ years that I have been involved in apologetics- and countercult ministry, I have never set my "own rules and standards for what is and isn't 'kosher' to [me] apologetically." That's not how apologetics and/or countercult ministry is done. But Mr. Kellner, whose lacks knowledge and skills in both areas, does not know that. As one of America's leading technology journalists he may be able to persuade me on the merits or demerits - as he sees them - of a piece of software or hardware. But when it comes to his opinions regarding issues that clearly lay far outside his area of expertise, I can not take them seriously.

That has nothing to do with what he terms a "'Berean' attitude." For one thing, Kellner's writings are not part of Scripture (as referred to in Acts 17:11offsite). For another, they don't stand the test of Scripture. After all, Scripture tells Christians to judge righteously, to teach sound doctrine, to discern between orthodoxy and heresy, and to watch out for false teachers and false doctrines. These things are missing in Mark Kellner's writings.

Instead, Kellner misinterprets - and as a result misapplies - Scripture, in this case quoted from a paraphrased version of the Bible. He would do well to study the section he quoted in its proper context, as well as in a translation better suited for serious study: Matthew 7:1-20, NASBoffsite

Apologetics Index includes helpful research resources on the subjects of discernment and judging.

In response to Kellner's message, I posted the following to AR-talk:

Mr. Kellner continues a practice he has demonstrated here countless times: eisegesis - reading into the text something that is not there, rather than exegesis - reading what the text actually says.

In this case, that error leads Mr. Kellner to wonder whether I am - as he puts it - an Evangelical "Psychic" (and this on a blog he has chosen to title, "Apologetics Answers.") For someone ostensibly concerned about allegedly libelous statements, his comments are particularly ill-advised.

But, as I have already pointed out, it does not take a 'psychic' reading to know Mr. Kellner's take on the issue he is trying to address. After all, on the subject at hand - the Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions - Mr. Kellner has already made his thoughts and opinions known right here on the AR-lists.

As the current entry on his blog shows, Mr. Kellner has not changed his mind regarding the Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions.

Hence the research resources on the background of this issue are of some value:

http://www.apologeticsindex.org/l40.html#harvesthouse

and

http://www.apologeticsindex.org/k04.html

For the record: Janet and I talk and pray with psychics, but do not engage in psychic practices ourselves.

If further comments are necessary on this issue they will be posted at Apologetics Index and/or Religion News Blog.
Source: Anton Hein, AR-talk, Feb. 25, 2004
Back To Top

Alas, Mr. Kellner's confusion only increased, leading him to belabor the subject:

I don't wish to belabor this subject -- believe me, I don't -- but I must ask if ANYONE else here sees even the smallest of contradictions in Mr. Hein's statement below.

He accuses me of eisegesis as opposed to exegesis, yet he is unwilling to perform exegesis on my article!

Again, is there ANYONE who notices a problem with that line of thinking?

(For the record, let me again state that I'm willing to hear Harvest House's arguments, or those of Ankerberg or Weldon. But in more than a YEAR since my CT news article, none of these people have contacted me -- and believe me, I'm reachable!)
Source: Mark Kellner, AR-forum, Feb. 25, 2004
Back To Top

Unbelievable, but true. Hence, I finished with the following message:

Have no fear, Mark. I will deal with your article in time.

That said, you have - on this list - stated your arguments against the Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions. At the time, they did not hold any water. At the same time you came to the defense of the Local Church - a cult of Christianity.

>(For the record, let me again state that I'm willing to hear >Harvest House's arguments, or those of Ankerberg or Weldon. >But in more than a YEAR since my CT news article, none of >these people have contacted me -- and believe me, I'm reachable!)

For the record: In our previous exchange on this issue, I told you that if I were involved, I would not contact you either. After all,

A) There may be legal reasons why no one is talking (certainly to a journalist)

B) You have already shown your hostility toward the Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions by making ludicrous claims about the book.

C) You have established a track record of defending the cults under the guise of "religious freedom" and "human rights" - precisely what other cults apologists do.

So don't hold your breath.

As for your complaint, you fail to see that you consistently read into people's comments that which you wish to agitate against. And now you feel misunderstood? Wow.

Let it rest Mark. If you wish to let your article speak for itself, do so. But as long as you attack Christian brothers and sisters while defending the cults under the guise of 'Apologetics Answers," I will continue warning people regarding your views and tactics.
Source: Anton Hein, AR-talk, Feb. 25, 2004
Back To Top

Bottom line: the publishers of Apologetics Index encourage Mark Kellner to stop dabbling in apologetics and counter-cult issues. His lack of knowledge and skills in these areas leads to him doing more harm than good.


Update, Mar. 18, 2004: Harvest House Statements

While Mark Kellner continues to post wildly inaccurate information about the Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions, Harvest House has now posted detailed information about the legal case on its website. Not only does it provide insight into the legal issues surrounding this case, but - unintentionally - it also serves to refute much of the misinformation spread by Mr. Kellner.


Update, Apr. 5, 2004: Harvest House Statement



• Footnotes
Note 1: Previously - from the initial publication of this page on Aug. 11, 2003 until the Mar. 8, 2004 update - the statement read as follows: "In 1996, Christianity Today named Kellner as one of '50 Leading Evangelicals Under 40.' This was probably a mistake, given the fact that he is a Seventh-day Adventist...."

Though that statement was first posted on Aug. 11, 2003, Mark Kellner waited until Mar. 8, 2004 to note that this was incorrect. He did so on the AR-talk list, where he suggested I should have 'recalled' that he joined that list in 1999, after he had joined the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

True to form, on his web log, Mr. Kellner describes the "ERROR" (which he also refers to as "a shot of bile") as follows: Along with attempting to slime me, Mr. Hein takes a pot shot at Christianity Today magazine.

For the record, the statement was in no way meant as a slight on Christianity Today, which we consider to be a fine publication.

The publishers of Apologetics Index thank Mr. Kellner for illustrating by way of his online behavior the need for this page. [back to text]
Back To Top


• See Also
Back To Top


• Sites
Aberrational, Heretical, Heterodox, Suborthodox or Unorthodox Apologetics Answersoffsite Mark Kellner's weblog. Kellner says the blog is where his "shares his views of the current state of Christian apologetics, religious liberty and related issues". However, the weblog appears to have been set up because Mr. Kellner was denied a forum elsewhere, and thus far (August 2003 through Jan, 2005) has been used almost exclusively to 'answer' people he cannot and/or will not answer elsewhere. The blog does serve to demonstate why Mr. Kellner is not considered to be an apologist. It also illustrates Mr. Kellner's usual approach:
  • fail to properly address the issues,
  • don't pay attention to what people say, and
  • instead change the subject (preferably by using straw men)
As noted before, for reasons known only to him, Mr. Kellner appears to have taken a special interest in agitating against messages posted by the co-publisher of Apologetics Index. He simply doesn't get the message: as the saying goes, I'm not interested in a battle of wits with an unarmed person - particularly not when it appears that his pompous ponderings now take on the shades of cyberstalking.

Aberrational, Heretical, Heterodox, Suborthodox or Unorthodox Mark Kellner's web siteoffsite Kellner's official site
Back To Top


About this page:
Mark Kellner
First posted: Aug. 11, 2003
Last Updated: Jan. 8, 2006
Editor: Anton Hein
Copyright: Apologetics Index
Disclaimer
Bookmark this page
• Link to: http://www.apologeticsindex.org/k04.html
» Copyright and Linking Policy
» How to use this site



Looking for more information?
Home | How To Use | About | Contact