Comments on Christian Courier article – Are Modern “Church Buildings†Digressive?
(I was directed to this article by a new friend of mine, Jamie Cain. Jamie is H’s new headmaster at the school she’ll be teraching at. Recently, a discussion came up regarding church buildings. It’s actually kind of sad, Jamie’s wife Kristi was simply posting about the new Hindu temple in Atlanta… and the end of the post was about the last that temple was discussed. The conversation ended up revolving around the place of church buildings in Christianity. You can read the discussion here.)
Following some discussion on the topic of where a church is to meet, Jamie directed me to the article from ChristianCourier.com, entitled Are Modern “Church Buildings” Digressive – that is to say – ‘Does the use of a modern “church building†constitute a digression of the divine pattern?’
The article goes on to build a case for the fact that there is no pattern to where a church worships, concluding with some archaeological evidence that early church buildings (prior to Constantine) did exist.
Starters
To start with, there is a very odd sense of negativity throughout the article, starting with a burst of scare quotes (i.e., putting terms in quotations as a means to discredit their validity) – examples: “a binding patternâ€, “families.â€, “homes,â€, etc. Toss in a few sentences like: “The advocates of this theory, however sincere they may be, are terribly misguided.” and “This claim, quite frankly, is ludicrous.” And we’ve pretty much gone ahead and set ourselves up for some good ole-fashioned confrontational dialogue! Yeehaw!
[as a side note, it reminds me of nearly every single book, chapter, paragraph, blog post, or speech I've ever read/heard on Intelligent Design. But do not let me get distracted!]
The Meat
Despite this odd sense of angst noted in the above paragraph, the main section of the article does present some points of note. Let’s work through them.
Item 1. – Author’s Point: The church initially met in the outer courts of the temple, therefore we have proof that the early church did have large group meetings.
My thoughts: It seems that in pursuit of the ultimate smackdown (some would say “ultimate pwnage”…), the author conveniently choose to ignore the fact that plenty of believers in house church meetings see the value and worth of larger corporate gatherings, seperate from the main house church meeting. In fact, if that were acknowledged, this entire point is nearly null, so it makes sense that it would not be mentioned.
Although there yet remains a large difference in POV’s- while the author would say the Temple was the early church building, I see this part of the temple more as a public area. Why? Because the Temple was free to use for such gatherings, and there were plenty of other people doing plenty of other things. A modern day version of this would be a public park, or perhaps on a town square in the downtown area of a small city. The Temple was not, by any stretch of the imagination, a place the early Christians specifically setup to do church and church-related activities, and nothing else.
Item 2. Author’s Point: The early disciples did meet in homes at times.
My thoughts: I guess this is some sort of consolation prize, perhaps to setup for the next ultimate smackdown.
Item 3. Author’s Point: Occasionally a rented a public facility, a school was used. Hah! See, it’s not just houses!
My thoughts: I realize it’s unfair to nitpick given that my views obviously do not align with the mystery person this article was written to, but I find myself in agreement with the author here. There certainly is a precedent for public facilities to be used (see Item 1). What this has to do with church buildings being built seems to be at best tangential.
Item 4. Author’s Point: Persecution played a part in where to meet.
My thoughts: I know this is getting repetitive, but I agree again. Where I disagree is when he points out that it justifies using church buildings during more tranquil times. While history by no means reflects it (see the comment thread on Kristi’s blog, link above, for more of my thoughts on the topic of church history), the New Testament was written to people that it assumes will be persecuted. Verses such as 2 Timothy 3:12 (“In fact, everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted,”) come to mind.
The reasons for this lack of persecution can be discussed at another time, but to try and use a lack of persecution as an argument for church buildings seems to be a bit short-sighted, especially given the possibility of persecution in our lifetimes, and the plights faced by our brethren around the world.
Item 5. Author’s Point: There is no foundational, spiritual connection between a worshiping body of people, and the place of their meeting.
My thoughts: Buried in all of these other points, I would say this is probably the strongest thing the author has to say on the topic, at least in my eyes. This point truly diffuses the importance of the topic altogether, and is worthy of consideration.
I shall mull further on this point.
Item 6. Author’s Point: The “house church†theory would suggest that no congregation could grow larger than that which can be accommodated in a private home.
My thoughts: Here we go with those scare quotes again.
The best reply to this point I can offer is this verse:
“What then shall we say, brothers? When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church.” 1 Cor 14:26
It says everyone. As in, each member of the church. So, to address the point at hand, yes, I see the worth in congregations being small (20 or less people). Beyond this number, it’s difficult to know one another well, and its very difficult for everyone to be able to contribute verbally to the meeting. Is there some rigid size that is an upper limit? Of course not. The experience of others seems to indicate that 10 to 20 works best.
Furthermore, the author goes on to entertain some thoughts about taking the house church model to a more rigorous test: why don’t house church members require the body of believers to live in the same place? His point is to call such thoughts absurd, I find it amusing that this would be an argument against house church when we live in a culture that is more disconnected and individualistic than ever. I think his point is a great idea, in fact two of our house church members just moved in with the couple who owns the house where our church meets :P.
Item 7. Author’s Point: There is archaeological evidence that there were church buildings in use after the time of the apostles but before Constantine.
My thoughts: A valid point, but not necessarily of great importance, as it seems to me that the argument revolves around the actions of the apostles, not their predecessors – whether those predecessors be 100 years in the future or 1000.
Conclusion
I must confess that I was a scad bit unfair to the author, as the article wasn’t written to convince specifically me, and therefore my answers to some of the points serve the purpose of me using this post as my own soap box =P. It seems to me this article was written not to really convince anyone, but just to serve as an apologetic’s guide to dealing with house church loonies. :P
It’s getting late, and I’m supposed to be moving all this junk to another house in roughly 36 hours. Please comment, disagree, agree, do what you do.
FL: Kid tricks the other team to hold up a sign that says “We Suck”, gets suspended – oopsie-doo.
So have we left the land of good-natured, reasoned dialogue? If so, I missed the sign. :)
I knew the tone of this article would raise some hackles, but I figured they were already raised, so why not? I would have liked to see a more reasoned response from you (disregarding the author’s fallacious tendencies). Still, I appreciate your interaction with his ideas.
To be honest, I’m ready to put this fracas behind me, especially since I think we’re in fundamental agreement on the “weightier matters” at issue:
1. Believers should meet–somewhere, anywhere, everywhere.
2. Believers should consider the poor (in money and spirit) before themselves in all their decisions–clothes, cars, houses, churches. (I’m not so great at this where “my own” stuff is concerned, but asking the Lord to help me.)
3. The contemporary Western church has surrendered to its individualized, disconnected cultural norms, instead of being countercultural.
4. The pursuit of bigger, brighter, louder is often (nearly always?) at odds with the “aims” of biblical Christianity. (On this topic, would love to talk with you sometime about Neil Postman’s “Amusing Ourselves to Death.”)
Thanks for the dialogue. We’ll have to arrange an outing to the public house of record (The Brick Store Tavern) to discuss these matters further.
Yeah, I realize I was unfair to the writer, but I think it was either:
1. be unfair
2. not comment on the article at all.
I think what really turned me off to it was that it was written in the style of a lot of political essays I’ve read. You know, where the author is so completely sure of his position and how much righterer he is, that compromise would be some sort of weakness. Perhaps I do the same thing, if so, smack me up-side the head.
Maybe that’s just me being a sensitive little sissy, though.
I would say we are in agreement on those things you listed, and it’s good to see them listed in a concise format as such.
The Brick Store Tavern seems to be a great place of discussion, no matter the topic, from my previous experience there.
Yes, I am in complete agreement with the bulleted list too. And I’m also in complete agreement with Brick Store Tavern, gift from God, blessing to men, alleilu, alleilu.
One little comment: You quoted 1 Cor. 14:26. But in verses 33(b)-35 of the same chapter, St. Paul also wrote:
“As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.”
Huh?
I definitely spelled “allelu” wrong.
church buildings blah blah did somebody say “the brick store pub”??
Okay, I’ll be serious for a moment. I just read the article and while I feel his tone is defensive, I can at least see where he’s coming from. His critique though to me ignores what I believe to be the most important reason for foregoing building expenditures which, as Jamie also stated, is caring for the poor.
At the end of the day, I have not been able to reconcile spending so much money internally maintaining facilities when those facilities don’t facilitate feeding, clothing, and sheltering the poor as a primary function. To me if you’re paying so much for real estate, there should be people sleeping there, otherwise it seems to me to fly in the face of a lot of what Jesus and the “epistlers” wrote. I could go into more scriptural detail here but for now I’ll assume we’re on the same page here.
To me, housechurch (along with other simple church formats) can solve this inequity. What we are able to give we can channel directly to the poor and those doing apostolic ministry. The longer I’ve practiced housechurch, I am almost to the point where, if for no other scriptural reason, I would practice church this way for this reason. I like the fact that Paul sends greetings to “so and so” and “the church in their house” and so forth. I like that it tends to tear down the priest-class idea. I like that everybody can contribute something. I like that it is relationship-centered. But it’s the church’s care for the poor that sometimes keeps me up at night worrying the most.
Why spend the money on a building when you don’t have to?
Interesting thoughts from all. The article made some good points, but it’s disappointing to see so many well-meaning believers polarizing themselves on issues such as this one. “All of those house church people are misguided” or “all of those people going to big church buildings are sinners” are needless statements that only make the problem worse. Not saying anyone here is doing this, but the article certainly was, and I have read similarly extreme articles by house church supporters.
The important principle, to me, is that we need to see a functioning expression of the body of Christ in our lives. Whether that meets in a building, home, or park, the container does not legitimize or de-legitimize the body of Christ. We should always be seeking to participate in, encourage, and sanctify the body. If that means God leads us to meet in a building, so be it. If that means God leads us to let homeless people live in our building, so be it. If that means God leads us to sell our building, so be it. Any and every option should be available to the Lord to require of us. One of my concerns is that the unavoidable structure and commitment that surrounds a large building used solely for church purposes makes it difficult to move quickly when the Spirit leads.
Above all, though, the issue of the poor is by far the one that haunts me the most as well. It’s hard for me to justify the big, multi-million dollar buildings with sound equipment and marble tile and stonework facades when I hear about war-torn Sudan and persecuted Christians in China.
To d10′s point, some would argue that large churches are able to contribute to causes to a degree that a small group of people physically cannot–unless you happen to be filthy rich. On the other hand, large churches can be quite lavish in their means to reach others or a particular generation. I heard a pastor say once: “The generation that we are trying to reach [18-25 year olds] is quite fond of flashy things and gadgets.” It’s unfortunate when a church spends enough money to fund a small soup kitchen on plasma displays or production costs.
Conversely, if God has blessed a congregation with a large building, we can’t really demean that blessing because we may disagree with that money spent. A good example is my church back home. We wanted to build a family life center because our current building was simply getting too small. So the church committee prayed about it, and lo and behold someone donated over $50,000 worth of stock to our church. Three days later the stock split, resulting in even more confirmation to us that God wanted this building built.
While I disagree with lavish overspending and I certainly appreciate and agree with everyone’s view on helping the poor–a biblical view that I wasn’t really aware of until I started attending d10′s house church, I think that in the debate of “big church vs. house church” the correct stance is not in either extreme. Why? Because that creates division. If you love God, then you love your brothers and sisters correct? Therefore we should love people regardless of what size of church they go to and strive to build them up in the light of Christ. I think Britt made a great point one night at house church, and I very roughly paraphrase: “Why are we arguing over little things like doctrine? The Church should stand together because we all have one thing in common: Christ died for us!” I think this same argument applies here.
I honestly think that if you ask any biblical Christian: “What is your stance on helping the poor, or what about the widows?” most of them–or at least those who have read the new testament to any degree, would agree with d10′s point. Unfortunately the problem comes when you ask someone to act upon that ideal. I’ll be up front, the last time I gave money to a homeless man was my second year at Georgia Tech. But in the same light how many other doctrines do we fail at? Loving one another, avoiding lust, avoiding greed, praying continually, etc. the list of sins goes on. The fact is we are not righteous just because we give to the temple or to the poor, we are righteous because we follow Christ and adhere to his teachings. Christ was a humanitarian–and I totally agree with that, but he was Christ first =D. What I’m trying to say is don’t give to the poor because it makes you feel good, do it because Christ commanded you to, and the result of which is treasures in heaven!
Please believe me when I say that I am by no means justifying a mismanaged mega-church, and I’m not trying to offend anyone here. I would just like to throw my perspective into the mix here and what Christ has convicted me towards; being a worship leader for a mega church and a regular house church goer.
I struggle with these ideals constantly =D.