Brown observes that
the main body of the church was made up of «middling persons» who were not wealthy but who made modest but steady contributions to the church's support of the poor.
These constituted
the main body of the church.
But they have not succeeded in taking
the main body of the churches with them.
Not exact matches
I think my
main concern was that Rainer seems to ignore or pass over the importance
of being committed to the «
Body of Christ» and emphasizes instead the importance
of committing to a local «
church group.»
These twin factors converge in passages that picture the
church as a
Body, and so in the minds
of many, the
Body is the
main image for the
church.
Not only were these
churches leveling off from the heady gains
of the postwar revival era (the
main Presbyterian
bodies from 1940 to 1960 had gained adherents at more than twice the rate
of the preceding 20 years), but just as important, even more than before they were «losing» members and potential members because the regions in which they were strongest were «losing» population.
I've recently finished fifteen years outside the
Church, being detoxed from all the paraphenalia and the religiosity, and one
of the
main things I have learned is that people * outside * the
Church seem to know more about the faults
of said
body of people, than the
Church people themselves.
David Anderson, director
of faith formation, says the
main focus is the «wholeness
of the
church as the
body of Christ.»