So I’ve been reading through Pagan Christianity: Exploring the Roots of Our Church Practices, and I must tell you—Frank Viola and George Barna have put words to a burden of mine—our church buildings!
Let’s skip the architecture and art paintings and get right to cost and function of our buildings:
Cost:
In the United States alone, real estate owned by institutional churches today is worth over $230 billion. Church building debt, service, and maintenance consumes about 18 percent of the $50 to $60 billion tithed to churches annually. (p. 41, emphasis mine)
Function:
The social location of the church meeting expresses and influences the character of the church… Every building we encounter elicits a response from us… The social setting of a church meeting’s place is a good index of that church’s understanding of God’s purpose for His body… The church building is not designed for intimacy nor fellowship. (pp. 37, 38, 40, emphasis mine)
So the guys have a point. How could we in our right minds dismiss these charges altogether? How could we try to explain away these charges?
- They are not altogether unwarranted.
“The building is an architectural denial of the priesthood of all believers” (p. 42).
Are you kidding me?
That last quote from the book…
I don’t see the connection.
It’s like saying the White House is
an architectural denial of the
voting rights of U.S. citizens.
No, it isn’t. It’s a representation
and a function of the executive
branch of the U.S. gov’t.
RE: the “priesthood of all believers”
- while I believe it to be true –
I don’t think it means we’re supposed to
do away with organized church.
(The book of Acts shows the Jerusalem church serving as mother hen.)
And it seems from Paul’s letters to Timothy, there is and always will be
a need for pastors in the church.
T.C., I agree that The social setting of a church meeting’s place is a good index of that church’s understanding of God’s purpose for His body, but I rather take this as a criticism of the modern likeness of megachurches to shopping malls, and of many churches being merely functional. Our meeting places should reflect the glory of God when we have the means to do so.
The building of Solomon’s temple was not according to God’s intention yet God still gave the design and blessed the temple. In the same way, God never instructed His Church to build buildings for the exclusive purpose of worship, yet He has blessed millions who have put their resources into such buildings. However, too often these “sacred” buildings have become a form of idolatry for the Church.
R,
While I see your point, the book is speaking to pews arrangement and pulpit as a stage. That face-to-face is denied. That’s the point the book is make, whether they’re spot on, is another issue.
Damian,
Of course in their critique Viola and Barna want to champion the house-church model as the solution to institutionalized church, not just megachurches.
Jay,
The point the book is making is that our buildings have taking away from organic church and so on.
Viola has nothing against buildings in themselves, as houses are also buildings. The problem is when the buildings become the temple rather than the believer. In the same line, when one person in the congregation takes the role of a priest or priest like figure (sole pastor) it has a tendency to rob the equal participation of the other members of the body. The problem is that buildings constructed to have a “sacred” feeling are robbing from the truth that the believers are the temple of the Holy Spirit, and that God never has and never will reside in the buildings people have built for Him.
The problem is when the buildings become the temple rather than the believer. In the same line, when one person in the congregation takes the role of a priest or priest like figure (sole pastor) it has a tendency to rob the equal participation of the other members of the body.
Jay,
I agree with the building becoming a “sacred space” and the believer is not aware of this gross misrepresentation.
But there’s a place and time for the preacher/pastor, so that believers may hear the instructions of God through Scripture (1 Tim. 3:15; 4:13).
Notice I said sole pastor. I have nothing against pastors or leaders in the Church. The New Testament Church model does not have a single pastor ruling over a congregation. The leading and ruling of the congregation is done by a team of elders or overseers. Pastor or shepherd, is one of the gifts of ministry. In Acts 20:28 we see Paul instructing the elders of the church of Ephesus to feed/ποιμαινειν the flock of which the Holy Spirits has made then overseers/επισκοπους.
Jay,
I’m with you. Yes, a plurality of elders/pastors is the NT evidence. But one of them must assume that role of teacher, which requires, a standing before the believers and sharing (Eph. 4:11; 1 Tim. 5:17ff).
Great post, TC. You said, “there’s a time and place for the preacher/pastor…” I say – Amen! But most congregations give an inordinate amount of time for one individual to preach with. The inordinate balance of place (space) you have already noted.
Catholic architecture emphasized preaching much less than the eucharist, but it was still dominated by clergy “servicing” the people. I don’t see that in the NT.
An interesting contrast here.
Jeff
I think there should be more church planting and less church building!
I agree with Brian to an extent. Sometimes we go far too the side of buildings, then too far into debt.
But to repent of buildings? No.
Bill,
What do you consider an inordinate amount of time? The writer to the Hebrews as his readers to remember the leaders who taught them the Word of God (13:7). Time must be devoted to instructing the Word (1 Tim. 4:13).
Jeff, which of the many links do you have in mind?
Brian, I’m with you.
Apprentice, that’s the point of cost in the post. Perhaps we should keep some of our buildings.
Wow what a fun discussion! :0) Korean churches have been doing “cell groups” way before the term even came to exist. I like the concept of meeting as a church in a designated building then valso meeting in each others’ homes for small groups. I think the NT church initially met in the Temple. And they became “house churches” when the persecution no longer afforded them the saftey of meeting in the Temple (public).
R,
I’m for both places, public and privately. Paul seems to have enjoyed both (Acts 20:20).
When the Mark of the Beast comes, indebted churches will have to find a way to keep their members within the official payment system, or the churches will cease to exist.
I’ve posted a free e-book, Walkabout: The History of a Brief Century, on the Web. It discusses this matter along with many other things. Here’s a relevant quote:
“Also, you should realize that here in the States, so many people attend church because most of our churches are actually a form of social clubs. Their religious teaching has deteriorated into something rather bland that has been called Moralistic-Therapeutic Deism. To attract members when the evangelistic fervor is gone, churches have to have all these lavish buildings and sports facilities, and all that, normally, has been financed by issuing bonds. Five or ten years later, the bonds begin falling due, and suddenly the fundraising of the church has to become truly effective. That’s why you find them making members pledge themselves to firmly planned giving with computerized invoicing. If church members couldn’t use the payment system, the churches would go bankrupt and the preachers would be out of a job. And remember, he that serves God for money, will serve the devil for better wages.”
Yeah, the buildings will cease to exist, you mean? Who cares?
TC, if one person speaks for 45 minutes and the entire congregation speaks not at all during the meeting, that could be considered inordinate.
Likewise, if the teaching elders/overseers are never present at a meeting but that one of them takes the floor from all others present, that could be considered inordinate.
Also note: the structure I just described was instituted long before the recent innovation/compromise of cell groups. Investigating the origins of that structure *could* give us pause about the motivation behind it. Qui Bonum? Who benefits?
By the way, that Hebrews quote isn’t past tense, is it? Hmmm…
Btw, amen that there’s nothing automatically wrong with having a building. As with so much else, it comes down to the details…
I’ve known larger house church groups (20+ families) that bought an extra house just to meet in. Even if you knock out a wall, it still has much more resale potential if or when the group (or the Lord) moves on.
Bill,
In the fashion of Jesus, a starting point, people oft time would just listen and then ask question when he was done.
Sometimes we just need to sit and listen and then ask questions. We do it all the time. Don’t we?
There’s nothing intrinsically inordinate about it. Now if the speaker were to go on and on, without regard for people and time, then you have a case.
Yeah, from the time of writing, those particular leaders were dead but note vv. 17, 24.
It’s what we make of our meeting place and time together.
TC, for how many minutes would you estimate, based on the Gospels, that Jesus would sometimes speak before being interrupted, or responded to?
In all my Sunday Pew Sitting experience, the featured speaker ranges from 15 minutes to 45 or more. I know some churches add open mike time afterward, which is something, but that is a “patch”. I suspect we need total redesign.
Not to seem argumentative. I’m still appreciating the back and forth. to which:
On Hebrews 13:7, do you actually find it necessary to conclude that “those particular leaders” were dead? Why?
On Hebrews 13:17 & 24: what are you seeing there that applies to the speaking function of leaders? Surely you’re not assuming that “leader” equals “speaker”? Are you?
Again, I really appreciate this openness, TC. Whatever does or does not match the NT, I absolutely agree that God can do wonders with any group of believers. In Him, all of these things become, indeed “what we make” of them.
What we’re seeing in many mainline churches is a closing of church buildings because it has stopped doing mission/evangelism. The people got stuck on the structure and forgot about what’s important. So maybe going back to the basics is a good thing–a mixed blessing.
Bill,
Heb. 13:7 seems to be saying that these particular leaders were dead based on injunction to remember them and that they spoke the word, in the past.
Yes, the leaders spoke, this in no way means leaders=speakers. Per v. 7, some of them spoke the word.
And neither can we remove the synagogue influence on the early church practices, which the spoken word was a part of (1 Tim. 4:13).
No competent scholar I know denies this.
Kevin,
You’re right. Buildings have become a major distraction: costly and sacred spaces and so on.
Past speakers aren’t necessarily dead. Apostles were itenerant, after all.
All overseers do not necessarily speak. So I still see nothing in vv.17,24 that supports your argument.
Synagogue liturgy was not sermon focused because Rabbinic discourse was not the same as Greek oratory.
That said, I’m very much in favor of good preaching. I simply question whether it needs to be offered one to five times a week, and whether it ought to dominate every meeting at which the entire congregation assembles. Where is that aspect of scripture’s instruction?
Bill,
That they were alive at the writing of Heb. 13:7 may be a possibility, but what we’re after is that fact that they spoke the Word of God and were recognized as leaders.
Some overseers spoke the Word as v. 7 bears witness to that fact.
But neither am I contending for a sermon-focused liturgy. The sermon, the word of God communicated, has its place when the communities of believers gather.
Yes, I’m all for good preaching too.
PS: We don’t know what 1st Tim 4:13 changed into after “until I come”. Ephesus was in a crisis after all.
If my church just went through a patch where formerly influential false teachers were being thrown out and brand new elders being appointed from scratch, I’d hope to God Timothy stuck around and preached his heart out daily… for a while… but not ad infinitum.
Ah! But 1 Tim. 4:13 evidences it as a staple within the life of the church. For example, Paul instructs the Galatians: “Now the one who receives instruction in the word must share all good things with the one who teaches it.” (6:6, NET)
Yes, the crisis of Ephesus shaped Paul’s instructions to Timothy, but the preached Word has its place in the regular life of the assembled people of God.
I told you the book was CRAP!
Mark, I’ve found points of disagreement here and there.
LOL !
TC, feel free to suggest whether I am reading Viola wrong, but it seems that as though he is positing an “either-or” approach to this discussion – either we have a local church building with a pulpit and a plurality of elders, one of whom is the pastor or we don’t have that and have communal meetings with everyone being in charge in some capacity.
My question is: Sir, why not both? Why not have the church come together for the public exposition of the Word and administration of the ordinances on a Sunday morning…as well as having opportunity for small cores of Christians coming together to edify each other with God’s Word and prayer.
Does the communal elements necessarily require it being done with an entire church, as opposed to a group of believers in a home, for instance? I’m not sold on the former, to be honest…
Douglas, you get the impression of an either/or in many places, but then they seem to be making some concessions as well.
So far, the major motif of the book seems to be about the “priesthood of all believers,” each member functioning as gifted and doing so spontaneously.
For them, the way of doing traditional church hinders greatly the priesthood of all believers.
I hope this helps.
OK, thanks for the clarification
Douglas, my pleasure.
Our bodies are the temple of the Holy Ghost. I don’t think that God is as interested in buildings of brick and mortar as He is interestef in the buildings His hands has made. The gathering of the saints and the presence of God is not limited to buildings. Christ in you the hope of glory. The Church should be beyond four walls, effectively living and preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom of God.
May peace and joy be multiplied unto you allm