House Versus Church Building

Hopefully, our church will soon begin construction on a needed new sanctuary. And though there are lots of good reasons (facilitating for future growth, opportunities to diversify ministries, etc), it raises serious questions for others. While some might question the wisdom, others question the very legitimacy. In his Pagan Christianity, Frank Viola writes a chapter entitled “The Church Building: Inheriting the Edifice Complex.” The chapter is devoted to making the case that church buildings should have no place in contemporary Christianity. After all, Christians did not erect special buildings for worship for the first 300 years. Thanks to Constantine, the church went from house churches to holy cathedrals, and in so doing, it followed the path of the pagans in constructing temples to honor God. As Viola laments, “the story of the church building is the sad saga of Christianity borrowing from heathen culture and radically transforming the face of our faith.”  Viola closes with the challenge that believers come to realize we are neither biblical nor spiritual by supporting church buildings.

If what he says is true, than we certainly should stop all building plans and even sell the property we are worshipping on. Is there any substance here?  There is, for sure, something to be said for not building a faith around a building. All too many Christians have become more excited about brick and mortar than word and prayer. And all too often, ministry ends up serving buildings rather than buildings serving ministry.

But Viola is missing some important things. First of all, is there any real difference between the brick and mortar of a living room and the brick and mortar of a separate building set apart to do worship?  Does it make sense to say that one is organic in one and institutional in the other?  Aren’t they both organic and institution, organism and organization?  It seems like he is setting up false dichotomies. Furthermore, to suggest that the home is the only legitimate place to meet for church misses the fact that the early church first met in the synagogue. It was persecution that necessitated meeting in a home—not God declaring that the house is the only legitimate place to worship.

But there is something else that needs to be said, and it gets to the heart of our faith. God has made us both spiritual and material. As part of created matter, God declared it all--the trees, the ground, the flesh, the brick and mortar--good. God has chosen to use things like baptism and the Lord’s Supper as physical, earthy reminders of salvation, of Jesus’ work on the Cross.

To my amazement, he uses my physical body as a means to do his work, glorify His name. Can He not—does He not—use other material means to declare his glory?  Like the bread and the cup, can a building not also represent an earthly form of a heavenly reality? Can it not exhibit art in a profound way—even as the “most mathematical of art forms”, as Sittser puts it in his wonderful book, Water from a Deep Well??  Having lived in Europe for seven years, I have seen enough Cathedrals to realize that they were some of the greatest settings for people to come and know and experience God. Like ships, they have carried believers to salvation—from the outer narthex to the nave and to the sanctuary. They have served to remind people we are on this journey from world to kingdom. Like any church building should, they have functioned as a stage where the drama of salvation plays out.

While we are not building Notre Dame (it’s actually a concrete tilt up), I hope it will serve as a stage where the drama continues. And maybe in time, used for the glory of God, serving the ministry, God’s kingdom will be advanced far more effectively because it stands.

On the surface, there is a spiritual ring to the notion that we are to be liquid versus solid, organic versus material, house rather than building. But Sittser gives the needed clarity in describing our sacramental faith: “This is no abstract, ambiguous, sentimental, ephemeral kind of spirituality. It is body and blood, water, bread, and wine.”  And could we not add, in some cases, concrete?

Comments

[Chris Mildner]

If the church of the first 300 years had been in Oregon, they sure would have built buildings! Additionally, they were limited by their transportation systems and lack of outdoor lighting, which prohibited access to worship outside a concentrated geographic area, and had a tradition of hospitality, all of which naturally resulted in small home churches.

As Christians we are called to worship, fellowship and pray for and minister to one another and VBC offers opportunities to do that as a body, in small groups and individually. We also have opportunities to minister to and pray for our local community. Not everyone partakes of all these opportunities, but likely not everyone did do so in early church times either. But the more opportunities we have to do this things in various settings, the more people's varied needs will be met by VBC.

What we need to be aware of is that despite all these venues, people still get lost in the crowd. Jesus was always aware of who was in the crowd following Him and who was the most lost. My prayer is that however we operationalize VBC's ministries, the lost will continue to find God through us.

[Tommy]

I read the book and didn't see anywhere where Viola and Barna argue that buildings are wrong and that Christians should always meet in homes. Their argument seems to be that modern church buildings, rather than buildings in general, have lots of effects that conflict with the new testament teaching. Here's an excerpt from the authors to the very question of buildings. This is from their book discussion page http://www.ptmin.org/answers.htm

"We never say it's wrong to meet in a building. (A "building" and a typical "church building" are two different things, and we're questioning the purpose/function/usefulness of the latter.) I don't believe there's anything wrong with meeting in a building in and of itself. We point out in one chapter how Paul of Tarsus rented the hall of Tyrannus for apostolic meetings in Ephesus. I myself have held apostolic meetings in a rented building for a short space of time to raise up a church or to hold a lengthy conference for a network of churches. I've also seen some church buildings renovated to be more conducive for every-membering functioning. Interesting stories on that score.

The church in Jerusalem did use the Temple at times, but it wasn't in the way that many people assume. The Jerusalem saints didn't meet in the Temple per se. They gathered in the Temple courts (Solomon's porch) which was a large outside area with a roof over it. They did so for a certain period of time to hold apostolic meetings. This was during the birth of the Jerusalem church. They also used it to accommodate the large city-wide council they held regarding a schism in Antioch."

[JD]

I think there is something beautiful when people gather together in one place to praise God. I think a church provides that, a place for us to gather and worship God. It also provides a place for one to come to if they just need some time with God. Granted you can go almost anywhere for that. But, what if someone like myself just wanted to go somewhere and pray in the presence of Christ? What better place then the church.