Fishon,
Forgive me, but throughout this whole thread it seems you have been trying to pick a fight.  It seems you are deliberately reading into words to make a point, kind of exhausting for me.  It is not because I don’t like dialog, but to go from to pastors speaking at a conference with the Lama to Mormons and Jehovah’s Wittiness’s is an augmentative approach.  I actually think you know that was not Wendi’s point.  The emergent movement within the church is wide and vast and there are many within (In a very real way, myself included) and cannot be pigeon holed by some leaders.  One of the hardest parts of love is to believe the best of someone.  It requires that each of us listen more, seek to understand more and then give grace. 

I believe Doug and Rob to be my brothers in Christ; I also believe them to be in error in some matters.  I can hope they would more than likely say the same about me.  They are not bowing down to the Lama, they are not seeking some blessing as you have stated.  This was the question:  Would you speak if invited?  Not are Bell and Paggett unbelievers or heretics.  Not about their motives.  From your first post till your last you are ratcheting up the rhetoric.

Fishon and CS – Arrrrgh

You are trying to pick a fight Fishon.  You know very well that I was not suggesting by trusting a brother or sister who claims to be a Christ follower we now cannot discern errors in doctrinal essentials of a religion or religious sect.  I wish you would both read back over your comments on this thread and others.  Bell and Pagett are not Mormons or JW’s . . . they are Christ followers.  In discussions, when you express your opinion that a Christian should or should not do something (like Bell and Pagett being on this panel), you question whether they are actually Christian (“supposed Christians” or “who profess to be Christians”).  Then, the implication goes further, because it lands on us.  If the fact that these two guys would be on this panel is, in your mind, a reason to question the authenticity of their Christianity, then you question mine because I applauded them for their decision. 

One of you asked earlier (my paraphrase, I can’t find it), “can someone be saved without being able to articulate the essentials of the Christian faith.” ABSOLUTELY!!  When Jesus healed the man born blind who was later harassed by the religious leaders he said, “All I know is, I was blind and now I see.” Did he understand his fallen nature, the divinity of Christ or the triune nature of God?  Very doubtful.  In the last 2000 years there have been millions like him, some who eventually came to understand more, many who never new more than what led them to Jesus in the first place. 

Being able to recite the four spiritual laws or the Romans road, articulating sound doctrine that is approved by every fundamental Christian; these are not what authenticates my Christianity.  It is authenticated with my Father by my faith in Him (which only He knows) and by the world by my love (according to Jesus).  Keep wrestling with issues that all Christians must wrestle with as we minister in today’s culture, but please, quit trying to authenticate the Christianity of fellow Christians.

Wendi

Leonard,
I am telling you that I did not know Wendi was NOT including Mormons or JWs. I do not know her, her beliefs, anything about her. I can only go on what she says. And I based my questions to her on her words, and I quote:;::::::::::::::::::::"God is the only one qualified to assess this, so we should take people at people at their word.  Disagree with a brother or sister all you want, but affirm that they are your brother or sister.  To do less is indeed disrespectful.”

Leonard, let me ask you this. When Romney was running for President, did you not hear many people on the TV say that Mormons were Christians? I heard with my own ears many say that. And if I was to argue with them, they would use the very same arguement as Wendi was using about Bell and Pagitt:::::::I quote: “God is the only one qualified to assess this, so we should take people at people at their word.”

Again, Leonard, I know nothing about Wendi, so I believe I was asking a legitamate question? If my answer doesn’t make sense, I am sorry, but I wanted to know from where she was coming.

YOU: Lumping people together, ascribing motives you CANNOT possibly know (they want to bow down to the lama or be blessed by the lama) is not dialog.
--------I will be a little defensive. You take me to task for “...ascribing motives you [me] CANNOT possibly know....” I would declare to you by your questioning me about my question to Wendi, about Mormons and JWs, that you were ‘acsribing motives,’ by me, you CANNOT possibly know. Not once, but twice you question me about my motives for asking Wendi a question. You don’t see a little of the “pot calling the kettle black?”

YOU: As far as judging you?  I don’t think so.  Again, tell me you honestly thought Wendi feels the same way about Paggett and Bell as a JW or Mormon. 
-----------------Leonard, let me make this as plain as I can to you question about my question to Wendi.
-----------------NO! I did NOT honestly think Wendi felt the same way about Paggett and Bell as a JW or Mormon. NO. I did NOT think that. Leonard, I DID NOT KNOW WHAT SHE THOUGHT. That is why every thing I said to her was in the form of a question. Leonard, I was seeking clarification. Did you miss the part where I asked Wendi:::::::Wendi, do I misunderstanding you when you say...?” I do not know how I could have been more clearer in seeking clarification. I am sorry I am not to your level of writing abilities.

If stating my strong opinions and asking tough questions is “picking a fight” to you, there isn’t much I can do about that, except, be quite. So since you think me picking fights, about the only thing for me to do to prove I am not trying to is to bow-out.
fishon

Fishon –

In the case that I didn’t answer your question in my last post, I will answer it below.  But first, let me ask you a question.  Since this thread is about Pagitt and Bell, are you saying that you consider these two pastors “false prophets” in the same category as a Mormon or JW; as Jim Jones or David Koresh?  Are you saying that you DO NOT consider these men Christian brothers with whom you strongly disagree?

Even though you and I have never met and discussed theology, I believe that a cursory read of my comments on this and other threads makes it clear that I have a good handle on essential Christian doctrines.  In the context of this thread and the subsequent discussion, your apparent doubt about whether someone who sits on this panel can actually be a Christian, my request that we take people at their word is in reference to Pagitt and Bell.  Of course we must discern the difference between Christianity and other religions.  If either of these guys claimed to be a Mormon or JW, I would not consider them Christian.  But these two pastor Christian churches.  They both write and speak, so their views are widely known.  I disagree with some things, but also learn from and am challenged by them (especially Bell).  My disagreement with them is not even close to my disagreement with Mormon doctrines.

To use your logic, we must doubt the authenticity of every Christian we meet, every pastor out there, unless and until we can know their theology.  Leonard and I have both been part of many discussions on this blog, and rarely have the discussions been theological.  Knowing that he pastors a church and reading his comments are enough for me to confidently assume he is a very devoted Christ follower.  I make the same assumptions about others who comment about church practices and Christian leadership here on MMI, unless someone makes a comment that would cause me to think otherwise.  Frankly, in the context of this thread, I think you made a huge (and ridiculous) leap linking my trust in Bell and Pagitt’s Christianity to accusing me of believing that Mormons and JW’s are also Christians.

If you really assume the worst of every person who claims to be a follower of Jesus, every poster on MMI, until you know their theology, then I feel sad for you.

Wendi

Jan:

“CS : No matter what the description of the course, they haven’t said anything yet.”

I’m looking more at what they have already said through their sermons, books, interviews, and other means of communication.  And in those forums I have seen serious problems with their faith that causes me to question them.

It’s kind of like if Louis Farrakhan was going to speak somewhere.  I can already take a pretty good guess that his presentation would be full of crazy, racist antics.  I don’t have to wait and see what he says in the course, even if the title was, “Loving The Jewish Nation in Peace.”

“By the way your sarcasm is unappreciated. “

Me?  Sarcastic?  Noooooo way.  =)

--
CS

Now that the conference is over, maybe we can get this thread to 100 posts without rehashing the same issues over and over ad nauseam.  Some of us are still holding out for an MMI travel mug or something for getting a thread to 100 posts.

CS – I’d like to challenge you to find a site to recommend for us to review that isn’t already dedicated to pointing out every wrong with everything and every person emergent, seeker, etc.  It would give the impression that you are looking for objective assessments.

That said, if Bell didn’t even mention Jesus’ name, I am disappointed.  I will find time later this week to listen to this whole session.  Nevertheless, I loved his response to the young man who asked about spiritual responses to transgression and violence.  He said that giving forgiveness instead of retaliation feel like death but bring about resurrection, would be like Friday but would usher in Sunday . . . the only think that made it an imperfect response (IMO) is that he didn’t say “I’ve learned from following Jesus Himself that . . .” Bell is brilliant.

As for him referring to the Dali Lama as his holiness, I’m not sure.  I don’t think it qualifies as heresy, but it does bother me.  For those of you who would have agreed to this panel, what do you think would be the appropriate and respectful term to use referring to this man in this kind of a forum? 

Post number 87 - Wendi

I, too, am a little uncomfortable with Bell calling the Dalai Lama “His Holiness, but then I’m not comfortable with Christians calling the Pope “His Holiness”.

Wendi and Peter:

“CS – I’d like to challenge you to find a site to recommend for us to review that isn’t already dedicated to pointing out every wrong with everything and every person emergent, seeker, etc.  It would give the impression that you are looking for objective assessments.”

I was simply making the rounds and found those videos on A Little Leaven.  I recommend that the focus be put on what was present in the video, not the forum that put them up for dissemination.  If a “bad source” has good content, we often have to put aside our prejudices and look at the story.

“As for him referring to the Dali Lama as his holiness, I’m not sure.  I don’t think it qualifies as heresy, but it does bother me.  For those of you who would have agreed to this panel, what do you think would be the appropriate and respectful term to use referring to this man in this kind of a forum?”

The Dalai Lama is not holy, so to ascribe the position of holiness to him is definitely wrong.  Especially from the lips of someone identifying himself as a Christian in a forum like that.  I think heresy is an applicable word here.  Ditto for “Holy Father” for the Pope.

As for what to call him, the words “Dalai Lama” literally mean “Ocean Teacher,” which, contextualized, means “Deep Waters Spiritual Teacher.” So, there isn’t as grave an error in using this title in addressing him, as this phrase or the phonics of the name have little impact in English. Same for “Tenzin Gyatso,” his given Buddhist name, which means “Ocean of Wisdom.” However, his fully given Buddhist name does start with, “Holy Lord,” which I wouldn’t dare use.

I would probably call him by his birthname of Lhamo Dondrub.  Or, I would be polite, and discrete in addressing him, by saying something like, “And I may disagree with my fellow forum patron in saffron robes.”

--
CS

CS,

So here we go again with a discussion of linguistics. What does the phrase “His Holiness” mean? The word “holy” means special, set apart, different, separate, etc. In that connotation, the DL is “holy.” He is not holy in the way God is holy, but that is not how Buddhists are using the word. I am afraid you are using a Christian definition to a word used in a Buddhist context and missing the point.

I think if Christians used the title “His Holiness” to speak of Jesus then I would see why we as Christians would take offensive at using that title for the DL. For example if the DL used the title “Lord and Savior,” I may be a bit hesitant to use that in reference to the DL, because it is a common title used for Jesus.

I think showing respect for a religious leader is a part of loving our enemies as long as “respect” does not become idolatry. Certainly there is a fine line there.

Derek

P.S. This is comment 93

Your Magnificence,

Did I get the title right or is the whole thing with the “high and mighty” and the “poobah”? )

“His holiness,” as a title, certainly has religious significance. I was simply pointing out that one religion uses the word “holy” differently than another. CS said the DL is not holy. The DL is not holy like God is holy, but he is holy (special, set apart, etc.) within his religious context.

Derek, the Great

P.S. You may refer to me as “His Greatness” if you so desire…

On the way to 100…

I’d like to be called Monsignor even though I’m not Catholic. Will that work okay?

Dan, how about abbreviating to HAMGIP.

Wendi, you obviously are not using the official Flintstones spell checker.

I assume since he’s called “The” Dalai Lama, Mr. Lama would not be correct. 

I’d like to know what he would say if someone broached the subject and explained that some Christians are uncomfortable calling him “Your Holiness” because we consider only one person holy, Jesus Christ.  I have a feeling he might just say, “Call me Dondrub then.” I would think the whole Your Holiness thing would get old pretty quick.

I’ve decided to ditch the big title and go back to just Dan.  High and Mighty Grand Imperial Poohbah is just too much to sign every time, plus it makes me sound like I should be behind a curtain pulling the “magic” levers. 

I would like to see Peter meet with the Dalai Lama and call him “Dude”.  As in, “Listen, dude, about this whole reincarnation thing…”