What would happen?

This post is from the defunct blog "Dying Church"

From rix rantz ravz & revelashunz:

The efforts to "save the church" are, IMO, misguided and ultimately doomed to failure. God did not send us into the world to save the church. He called us to transform the world. If we see the church as a consequence of our activity and not an institution to save or organization to perpetuate, I think we would then begin to think radically and realistically about our mission. Jesus came to seek and to save that which was lost. Too many of us are here to seek and to save that which is found. What would happen if we would abandon our allegiance to institutions and instead sought to simply embrace the hurting, feed the hungry, comfort the grieving and shared the love of Jesus through genuine relationships? Church would then happen on its own. But as long as we seek to criticize the church, fix the church, transform the church, whatever.... we miss the Mission.

Comments

[rick]

Wow! This is outstanding. Right on!

[Andrew]

Darryl, I like your next post, "Tension", as a follow-up to this one, particularly your comment, "the word church means so many different things to so many people." And I note that Rick says in the full text of his posting, this is a "flow with the generalities". So without getting too nitty-gritty, I'll risk posing two questions that arise from two lines that stand out for me in this excerpt... First, "He called us to transform the world." That's a huge destination with many paths. Isn't it right to say that some may be called to lead the church through times of "fixing", and some are called to other parts of the Mission? What are the implications of divorcing the Mission from the organization? Second, "Church would then happen on its own." What does this look like?

[Brian]

Sometimes it is the church that is hindering/getting in the way of trying to reach the lost Brian