Kluck, round two.

Well, chapel today was a lot of repackaging of what was heard last night.  Again, we were graced with his observations and reasons for loving the church.

The Church is important. Very important (so important, in fact, that I've capitalized it). And now we are aware that Mr. Kluck believes this.  He loves expositional sermons. He loves structure. He loves worship. He loves authority. He loves the gospel. I don't dispute this. I love these things too.

BUT, if expositional sermons always focus on what was done for us on the cross and not at all on the implications of that as Christians who are called to act, to respond, then we have missed a huge part of the Gospel. (He was very ready to shrug off our duties as people to people outside the Church).  If structures are not serving the correct purpose or have lost the meaning and value they were intended to posses, then they need reform and reevaluation, truth is to be valued far above authority and structure (luckily, they are usually manifested in those contexts)--God's inspired Word, the Truth, is our highest authority. If we are missing any part of that, it is our duty to root that out and reclaim it.  The Gospel is the very foundation of who we are, how we think, and what we do, therefore it is to be protected above all else.  This means that distortions of the Gospel, most specifically within the emergent church must be subjected to rigorous scrutiny.  

While that is being done, in part, by Mr. Kluck, there is another aspect of protecting the Gospel that he, among many others (often including myself), have failed to do.  Knowing that we are depraved, acknowledging that we're prone to error, wouldn't it be prudent to utilize the critique (whether appropriately conducted or not) of the emergent church, to do a little self reflection and analysis--to recognize the parts of the Gospel that as fallen people we have forgotten to remember?  Perhaps a little humility from both sides?  There is no doubt in my mind that much of the action and stance (or intentional lack thereof) of what has become the increasingly loathed or loved emergent church is some good (or distorted good) pursued in the wrong way, and in the wrong context. I just think it would serve the purpose of unity and truth to find those similarities and work to flesh out where we have both gone wrong, because no doubt there is incorrect orthodoxy and orthopraxy on both sides.


Bmill said...

And im back.

i think what has been interesting to me recently is that i have been led towards thinking on holiness. not in the sense of look upon myself for i am appearing to be righteous.

but taking up the cross, following after Christ and longing to conform to his likeness, to be SET APART- which is to be holy.

the more we truly dig into the word AND put it into practice, the natural reaction will be not only be counter the would and stand out for causes needed (as the emergent church looks to do; i feel) but also hone in upon and focus on Christ (the experience that the Church longs for)

which means that we are to be doing enough work ourselves and hear from others to strive for this but to (like you said) challenge the "status quo" in a manner that is firmly rooted in longing to fully know Christ more.

i just want to have my life, my actions, my definition, the thing people see about me be a Christian, a "little Christ" as the definition of the suffix -ian of a Christ-ian states.

Christiana said...

You write so clearly and with such wisdom and insight.

As you said yourself is of utmost importance - you speak Truth. With humility and in love.

Am I allowed to comment twice in a row that I'm proud of you...?

Chris Williams said...

I think that Leonard Sweet and George Barna should take this guy out for coffee.

Deconstruction of Emergent...classic.

What was the value in this?