Comments on: Back to Church

By: Doug Cooper

Doug Cooper — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 16:23:58 +0000

Bonnie – My heart aches for people like you who have deeply experienced the shortcomings of the body. I think that there is a general repentance that is in the wings where we all realize that church was never meant to be about being fed. It’s about being one as Christ’s body. We have all brought sick expectations of being fulfilled into the church building instead of simply raising Jesus up and allowing Him to be our Head and our Groom. I wrestle with what it would look like if we were to become the Church that God intended. The false pictures are too vivid and recent. But, I know that we can’t find it alone. We can only work it out as a Body if we are living as a body. If we all realize together that we are sick, we can all seek healing together. I pray that you will find a group of people that you trust enough to find that healing with!

By: Bonnie Lowery

Bonnie Lowery — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 14:39:24 +0000

May our God only bless you for your deep and prayerful insight! My husband and I are 2 of those who were “lost in the shuffle” at Park Street. For 12 years I prayed and ached for just one person to reach out and be a friend (not a social friend, but a Jesus-hearted friend). I tried small groups, Bible Studies, seminars, but came up empty. When my husband and I both had a winter of sickness, we stopped going to to church completely for awhile. I still spend time in prayer and study, but I recognize and know that I am incomplete without the Body of Christ. I have joyfully experienced that the Lord is more present where two or more are gathered, but I search for that “oneness”.

Your article tells me that I am not alone in my search. Thank you for having the courage to share from the depth of your spirit.

By: Kevin Gibson

Kevin Gibson — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 00:27:33 +0000

I think that if we fully realize that the Church is a who, not a what, much of your ‘rehab’ might occur naturally.

-When we look at things as a what, size is usually of utmost importance – diamonds, automobiles, houses, lawns, couches, arenas, salaries, etc. But when we look at people, less tangible things are important and perspective is made. When the Church is treated as a what, going to it appears to be the most important aspect of faith, which seems to be emphasizing attendance. More faith = higher attendance = the church is effective.

-Things can’t be questioned, for they cannot reply. A conversation is impossible with a what. A rock is a rock; a box is a box; a car is a car. But a who? I can talk with a ‘who.’ The Church can respond, process and communicate doubts, worries, concerns of the Bridegroom. A what solves things with easy answers, prescriptive plans, rebuke and shame. A who has compassion and says “I don’t know,” “I apologize,” “Let’s ask our Christ for wisdom on that.” A who finds relevance, pliancy, and consideration. I don’t find that in many ‘whats.’

I would go as far as saying that if we realize the Church is a who: services would fade as there is no longer a product (the ‘what’) to serve to people; denominations would diminish as all Christ-followers are the Body/Church/Bride; buildings might crumble as the institution (the ‘what’ aspects) disintegrates.