Derek,
YOU:  but my major point of disagreement would be that not all gospel preaching needs to be polemical; it doesn’t always have to be a debate; we don’t always have to argue (imho).
------I agree with you. There are many proofs of that in scripture. Sorry if I come off sounding as if that is the only or main way.

YOU: They purposefully tell them not to convert or change their religion. Once they make Jesus their guru, the Christian leaders get them into Bible classes and then talk to them about the sin of idolatry. The key here is they wait until the Hindus are responsive to the Jesus, before pointing out the errors of Hinduism. This leads to a process of discipleship before the new believers are baptized.
------Oh, I think them wise. Each circumstance calls for different fishing methods. However, keep in mind the venue we are speaking about and the culture we live in. That is all I would ask.

YOU: If our evangelism strategy is always caviler, always combative, if we bust into every man’s world with our gospel guns a blazin’, I fear we will become less effective in preaching the gospel.
-----"gospel guns a blazin.” I like that. I pastor a small, rural church and we had tremendous growth in the first year of my arrival. I was invited to speak at a congerence at the Bible college I graduated from [at 50 yrs old], to give my expert [ha] advice as to how to grow a small church. It was set up as a Q&A;format. The first question/statement was, “I bet you went in with guns blazin?” My reply was, “Absolutely not.” Won’t bore you with the rest of my responce.

Derek, I to am enjoying the dialog with you. You seem to be patience with my less than articulate writing abilities to know that if I sound cranky and nasty, I am not.
fishon

Fishon, CS, PEZZ, and anyone else who would have a problem accepting this invitation, I agree that you should not accept.  No one should feel pressure to accept an invitation like this if they’re not comfortable with the circumstances.

I agree with Wendi when she says, “Many outside the Christian faith have very negative perceptions that are influenced by right-wing Christian political activists or televangelists.” And I agree that this might be a chance to represent a more balanced view of our faith to some. 

I understand the concerns expressed about it being seen as a tacit endorsement of the validity of the other faiths represented, but how will it been viewed if all Christians invited to participate declined?  Being raised in a Fundamentalist church I even understand the desire by some to separate themselves from people of other religions and unbelievers, although I do not agree with the doctrines of separation I was taught.

What does it say about Christianity if they want to get an inter-faith group together to discuss issues concerning faith and contemporary children, (bringing awareness of spirituality and compassion to our children in the first years of life) and Christianity opts not to participate?  Couldn’t this be interpreted as saying that Christianity does not care about children, or that we only care about our own children but not yours?

On the other hand, if you just don’t like that it is RB and DP that have accepted the invitation to participate, who would be OK?  Would you like to see Pat Robertson and John McArthur going?  Maybe James Dobson?  How about Katharine Jefferts Schori and Gene Robinson?  If you don’t like who is participating, who would be OK?

Leonard,

Yeah I hear you… And if I was asked to join a panel discussion with His Holiness and others then I would be out. I would only be in if I had the liberty to speak in my own session.

fishon,

Great dialog. I didn’t take you cranky at all. And heck, if gospel-guns a-blazin’ works in your context then go for it. I also pastor a small church in a rural area and I know churches in this area have seen fruitfulness from a blazin’ kind of approach.

I am glad to see we both recognize the need to adapt ministry to the context God set us in.

Where do you pastor? Do you have a website for this fast growing small church? I would be interested in see what y’all do. (And yes I am in a rural town in the South where we say “y’all.")

Derek

fishon,

I mis-read your comments. My bad. I have been in South Georgia for nine years. 18,000 in the town where I pastor and 30,000 in the county. Surprisingly there are some 150 churches in our country. Holy smokes that is a lot of churches.

I no exactly what you are saying about deaths and people moving. We have people moving all the time and it hurts, especially when leaders move away.

Good job hanging in there. Rural communities need good churches. Keep up the good work and who knows, maybe His Holiness will stop by. Ha!

So I guess I guess we’re done here.

Derek

Jan:

“Not sure you can hold them up against what they have or haven’t said when it hasn’t happened.”

But you can compare them against their past views to determine if they will accurately portray the faith at all.  Take, for instance, what Doug Pagitt wrote on his blog about what he would be doing following this event:

“Among the content for the evening I will present some of the ideas from A Christianity Worth Believing and there will be conversation and discussion especially around the first 3 chapters which you can read in the table of content section here. The event will cost $10 (payable at the door) and the first 50 people will receive a copy of BodyPrayer.”

And what is “BodyPrayer?” According to Amazon.com, it is a book he co-authored where:

“Pagitt (Preaching Re-Imagined) and Prill provide ideas and specific guidelines for praying using the body—i.e., praying for strength with your hands crossed over your chest or for healing with your palms out, facing up—with a goal of “help[ing] you connect with God at every level of your life—body, mind, and spirit."”

So, here we have a guy who uses yoga/zen/tantric/whatever postures and meditation integrated with some Christian beliefs, having a “conversation” with people including potentially the Dalai Lama at this event.

Oh, I’m suuuuure that everything will be totally okay here.

--
CS

Brian,
Very well put. We live in a ‘cum-by-yaw’ world, and I fear people who think like we do are quickly becoming the minority. However, that in no way takes away from the truth.

I do believe this event in Seattle is a fine discription of 2 Tim. 4:3-4.

I watched the local news out of Portland tonight, and there was a segment on the conference, and it was all about the lama.

Well, this will be another book for the “emergent” boys.

And the big losers in all this garbage: The children of Seattle and the surrounding areas. They get huge exposer to a FALSE RELIGIOUS TEACHER under the guises of a wonderful man of peace. Yep, follow in straight into hell. And so called Christians are playing right up to lama.
fishon

Daniel R:

“All this to ask, should I show some tolerance and give you the benefit of doubt and say ”We seem to disagree on most topics but I think he’s a man with God in his heart who speaks what he believes to be truth and follows where he believes the Holy Spirit leads him” or should I just make the pronouncement that you’re a two-faced, hypocritical preacher like I knew growing up with God on his lips but not in his heart and not a true Christian?”

Note the quote that you used by St Augustine above this question.  It says, “In Essentials, Unity.” Many of these emergent followers do not adhere to the core essentials.  That is the problem here.

You may find it disrespectful and offensive to call out some of these pastors, but the Apostles cautioned us to watch out for false teachers and identify them.  (1 John 4:1, 1 Timothy 4).

--
CS

A couple responses to Brian’s last comment: First, I think speaking at BYU is vastly different than this event, precisely for the reason MacArthur (apparently) gave.  That said, it might be possible to speak even at BYU and not give credibility to the Mormon claim, but it’s probably not going to be a particularly rich evangelistic environment.

As for the Seattle conference, Brian gave two reasons to decline: he doesn’t want to portray Christ as simply one among equals (I agree), and he doesn’t want “some to believe that I agree with the other faiths represented” (I agree there, too).  But neither of these is a necessary outcome.  It might be very possible to use the opportunity as a means of drawing clear distinctions between Christianity and other religions, which would satisfy both points.  (I say might because the event organizers could effectively eliminate that possibility through the speaking arrangements...in which case I would have to decline the invitation.) If I were to accept such an invitation, it could only be on the condition that my God-given obligation to proclaim the Word not be hindered. 

Unfortunately, although Todd only asked “would you accept the invitation”, most of the (negative) comments here seem to be going beyond that, judging Pagitt and Bell for doing what I presume they believe is within God’s will.  Another sad and verbose story in our history of judging others.

DanielR,
I was a drunk till I was 33; worked in the lumber mills until I went off to Bible College, and became a preacher at 50. I grew up in an enviorment that calls them as “I” see-um. Kinda like you did when you intimated that I take things to the “extreme.” Of course, the ‘extreme’ would be your definition of ‘extreme.’ And I am quite sure there was no intent of ‘disrespect’ or ‘offense’ meant on your part????

YOU:  But I would guess that you are very much like the fundamentalist preachers I knew growing up; rooted in tradition, against anything new or innovative, very protective of what you consider “correct” Christianity.
-------Daniel, you are right, you don’t know me. I am protective of what I consider ‘correct’ Christianity, and I don’t apologize in the least for that. Against anything new or innovative. No, you would be really wrong about that one. And in all honesty, I do wish you would elaborate a little more on the “tradition” thing.

I am sorry your grandmother’s heart was broken by unscrupulous leaders and a disgraced preacher. I too have had the same thing happen to me, and the disgraced preacher was one of my great friends. If I had been a Christian as a youth, maybe I would have run away too. But as an adult who does not put my faith in any man [to not fall] I made it through.

YOU: All this to ask, should I show some tolerance and give you the benefit of doubt and say ”We seem to disagree on most topics but I think he’s a man with God in his heart who speaks what he believes to be truth and follows where he believes the Holy Spirit leads him” or should I just make the pronouncement that you’re a two-faced, hypocritical preacher like I knew growing up with God on his lips but not in his heart and not a true Christian?
-------Daniel, if I have said anything that is hypocritical, by all means call me “two-face” and “hypocritical.” Be sure you know what hypocritical means, though.

------I would say, because we disagree doesn’t make me a hypocrite. But in your eye, intolerant. I can live with that.

------Daniel, I am assuming that we will not agree on this subject. You see, you take offense with me for taking offense at, what I perceive as, men compromising Christianity. Your offense with me is so important to tell me about, but your offense with me is because of my being offended by someone else. Go figure! Is not my being offended by what these men say, teach, and do just as viable as your offense?
fishon

CS, I do not find it disrespectful or offensive to “call out” Pastors you believe are false teachers.  I find it disrespectful and offensive to question their sincerity, to question whether they are really Christians at all by calling them “so called Christians”.

I disagree with you on much of what you write on MMI, but I don’t question your sincerity.  I don’t question whether you’re really a Christian or not.

DanielR,
I too wish you well and to be blessed of our Lord and Savior.

At the end of the day, we probably agree on manyt things. This darn internet exchange makes it hard to get across how we mean what we say.

MAKE IT a great day.
fishon

Daniel R and Wendi:

(Quoting Daniel R) “CS, I do not find it disrespectful or offensive to “call out” Pastors you believe are false teachers.  I find it disrespectful and offensive to question their sincerity, to question whether they are really Christians at all by calling them “so called Christians”.”

Here’s a great question for our analysis.  Can someone be a false teacher and yet be called a Christian?  At what point is the line clearly crossed?

For your consideration, I bring up Hymanaeus and Philetus in 2 Timothy 2.  They were going around spreading the false doctrine that the resurrection of men following Christ’s ascension had already happened.  Paul said about them:

“But shun profane [and] vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.  And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.”

Paul also added about Hymanaeus and Alexander in 1 Timothy 1:

“This charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy, according to the prophecies which went before on thee, that thou by them mightest war a good warfare; Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck:  Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.”

And Alexander was a dear pal of Paul’s, too, to whom he referred in 2 Timothy 4:

“Alexander the coppersmith did me much evil: the Lord reward him according to his works:  Of whom be thou ware also; for he hath greatly withstood our words.”

My take on it is that it is easy to err in those non-essential matters, as Peter and I discussed, such as drinking.  However, when someone is erring in the larger, core pieces of the faith, such as salvation, can that person be called a Christian anymore?  Or if someone cannot explain their salvation in Biblical terms or concepts, is that person truly saved?

Please share your thoughts.

--
CS