“There was no special building or other tangible wealth with which to associate “church”, only people!” So wrote the late  the late Walter Oetting in a significant little book, The Church of the Catacombs Christians did not begin to build church building until about 200 A.D. This fact suggest that, whatever else church buildings may be useful for, the are not essential either for numerical growth or spiritual depth.

  The early Church possessed both these qualities and the Church’s greatest period of  vitality and growth was during the first centuries A.D. In other words, the Church grew fastest when it did nit have the help—or hindrance—of church buildings. But if it is really true that church buildings are not essential either for growth or spirituality, why do churches today depend so heavily on buildings? Is it true the Church suffers an “edifice complex?”

 A WITNESS TO OUR IMMOBILITY. Church buildings attest to five facts about the Church today. First, church buildings are a witness to our immobility. What is more immovable than a church building? And yet Christians are, supposedly, wayfaring pilgrims. Christians are to be a mobile people. The gospel says “go” but our church buildings say “stay.” The gospel says “seek the lost,” but our stuctures say, “let the lost  seek the Church.”

 A WITNESS TO OUR INFLEXIBILITY.  Second, church buildings are a witness to our inflexibility. Once the building is up and in use, the Church program is largely determined. The Sunday morning service allows the direct participation of only a few—dictated by the sanctuary layout. The problem at heart is not one of poor planning. It us a mater of the inherent limitations of church buildings. Buildings are, by nature, inflexible. They are inflexible and encourage inflexibility—or worse—stagnation.

 A WITNESS TO OUR LACK OF FELLOWSHIP. Third, church buildings are a witness to our lack of fellowship. Church buildings maybe  worship places, but usually are not friendly places. They are uncomfortable and impersonal . Church buildings are not made for fellowship, for “koinonia” in the biblical sense. They are made for worship and worship without fellowship becomes something cold and divorced from mundane reality. In probably 90 percent of all church buildings the sanctuary seating consists of wooden pews arranged in rows and fasten securely to the floor. The pews are arranged to make it nearly impossible for the worshippers to see the face of any other worshipper. It is as though the idea would be to isolate each worshipper in his own private booth so he can only see the minister and not be disturbed by others present!  But if we are to worship the Lord together, we need to communicate with each other as we worship; we must be able see each other. For many congregations are sensing this lack of fellowship in churches are so are building new structures with something called a “fellowship hall.” Real biblical Christians fellowship such as experienced by the early Christians is lacking in most churches today.  And so a stranger may attend a Christian church for weeks and never encounter the warm winsome, warm fellowship that draws a person to Christ. Such a situation would have been impossible in the early Church.

 A WITNESS TO OUR PRIDE. Fourth, church buildings are a witness to our pride. We insist that our church structures must be beautiful and well, appointed---which usually means expensive. We justify this on the basis that God deserves the best.  But such thinking may be a little more than the rationalizing of our pride. We might also say that we are ambassadors for the King of kings. But this does not justify spending vast resources to build embassies. We may forget that our King is at war, and we are called to be his soldiers. We may, for instance, feel that we must have beautiful buildings in order to draw sinners to the church, and thus to Christ. But two things are wrong here. First, the concept is wrong. The Church is to seek the sinner, not vice versa. Second, the motivation is wrong. We try to attract sinners by appealing to pride, which Christ never does. We say that our church buildings must be in harmony---in style and value---with the architecture of the community. But this may only be a brand of conformity of the world. A gospel with the New Testament dynamics does not need the appeal of an attractive building. In fact, a fine church structure may simply attract the Pharisees and repeal the poor. That has, after all, happened in church history.

 A WITNESS TO OUR CLASS DIVSIONS. Finally, church buildings are a witness to our class divisions.  The early church was composed of rich and poor, Jew and Greek, black and white, ignorant and educated. But our modern church buildings advertise to the world that this is not so today. The new family in the community goes for a drive and looks over the neighborhood church buildings. They choose the one that looks like “their kind”---one that would contain people of approximately the same income, education, and color as themselves. The fault lies deeper than mere architecture. But the building is a witness. It is a signpost telling the world of the church’s class consciousness and exclusiveness. What then should be done? Should we abandon the use of church structures? This is precisely what I suggest. A different kind of architecture is not enough. Remember, during its vital 150 years the Christian Church had no church buildings. In those days it was mobile, flexible, humble, friendly, inclusive---and growing rapidly.

He who loses money loses much;
He who loses a friend loses more;
He who loses faith loses all.
...

»About
»Contributing
»Copytights
»"Thank You"

»Links