An elder recently told me my former pastor who used Donald Miller’s story theme in his sermon as well as using the same terms as Michael Frost while presenting missional lamented our critique of his sermon. He commented that it was strange to have a critique like ours when he had finally used “contemporary authors.” He also commented that he could buy into one idea of an author without becoming like them entirely…truth is truth. In other words, he could buy into the idea of “story” taught by emergent leaders and yet not be emergent himself. This may be so, but I don’t buy it. He used terms in different sermons such as wholly other, at one ment, god consciousness, and christ coursing through (his) veins. Those terms were not all scripted, but some were boldly written into sermon notes. I believe he has not only bought the story idea from Donald Miller, he has become a lot like Donald Miller. He has himself become very much emergent (or whatever we can call them, I think New Age is probably the proper term). He has likely had a mystical experience or several. I cannot be certain, but I believe he didn’t just pick up that one single idea.
Suppose he did agree with this one concept of “story.” I find it offensive enough by itself. God is not writing a story when he deals in our lives. We cannot “take the pen” and write our own story. How crazy is this? We are not part of a story, we are part of God’s creation and our lives are real if only a vapor. What’s more, Christ is real and not a character in a play God created. He’s not a even God acting in our world. How ridiculous. Christ died for our real sins, and we are made alive in Him for real if we have real faith which He gave to us as a gift. It’s not just a story which we can write better if we would just try. Our job is not writing some story, our life is meant to give glory to God. We fall short every day, but by the grace of God and by His mercy, we are saved, forgiven. We who repent and who rely on God for His salvation are not just characters, we are His people.
Beyond this, suppose I read a book written by a Mormon. I find something I like in the book. Am I to quote this author from the pulpit without some sort of disclaimer? Would it not be better to quote the Bible itself if the concept was true? I believe it’s unwise for a leader in the church to go around quoting people without carefully considering who they are quoting and what that person believes. Also, it’s important to clarify if you only “buy into” one part of their beliefs to the congregation. If you are trying to distance yourself from the emergent church, it’s wise if you use emergent authors to state what is good in the quote you are using (it was actually most of a sermon) and to point out the error for the congregation. Just my opinion.
I am a C...I am a CH...I am a CHRISTIAN 
It is but a short step from terms to practice…
I believe that too, Okie. Actually, I think that a person trying to hide the practice will not be able to as they will be using the terms. That’s why I think this pastor has gone on into New Age (whether he knows it or not). He denies people are “emergent” who don’t deny it themselves. One major factor, I think, is that many of the grown children of pastors and elders in our old church go to an openly emergent church including this particular pastor. It’s a church that really serves mankind (which is fine), but also gets into this “silence” and practices all the forms of contemplative prayer/lectio divina/ignatius prayer and on and on.
I feel that our former church was slowly and progressively introducing the missional concept as well as slowly introducing silence and different forms of prayer. Bringing the terms in slowly also allowed for very few questions. They could honestly answer that they weren’t doing any contemplative prayer. They weren’t yet, but they were talking of silence, of staring at the lights to prepare for prayer (what?) and of imagining the burdens in your hands and letting them go (visualization). They had read these books they thought others should read and methods for transformation. Why not just tell everyone you’re doing this and that? Because they knew people wouldn’t buy it right away. So, they do it little by little. There were things they would alude to saying, “we’ll be introducing something new in a few months…be ready.” Then we’d have a 40 days of purpose campaign, or Walk Across the Room by Bill Hybels, or now a campaign to raise money but also to establish the pastor as Nehemiah and the authority. It was amazing to watch over time, and sad…sad.
I once read of a woman who was convicted of killing her husband. It seems she put a little antifreeze in his iced tea. And over the period of a year he finally died. it was only an autopsy that showed he was poisoned. It was so subtle, and so slow, he never knew it was killing him until it was too late.
I see the emergent / seeker sensitive / purpose driven movements as the same. Now I catch some heat for it as there are those who think I am being harsh or judgmental or some kind of a spiritual dinosaur. So be it.
Early on in my Christian experience I was deceived because I did not know the Word. I swore that it would never happen again. And have spent my life seeking to know the truth so that, when presented with a lie, I might be able to recognize it as such and reject it.
The truth of the Word is our only defense against the lie.
That “a little leaven” thing. I have thought of the food poison thing too…arsenic. I recall a crude example. Would you eat a brownee knowing the batter had only a drop of dog poop?
Exactly; I recently used that example with a person who is attending a church that has embraced false teaching.