Ecclesiology 4 - A New Church - part 3: The Building

     We continue our examination of Howard A. Snyder's The Problem of Wineskins, but first, let me reiterate those contributions of my own, not from the book:

(1) I am convinced that the reason Snyder's dynamic plan for church renewal has not yet succeeded is the lack of acknowledgement that no plan for church renewal can succeed until we start with a renewal of the individual Christians that make up the church.  To this end, I recommend to anyone attempting to implement these principles start with a focus on prayer and meditation, coupled with built-in safeguards to see that each member understands the principles and is able to use them on a daily basis through some means that do not allow for a digression into a sort of lip service.  The main focus of this effort is to be the utter annihilation of Self.

(2) Any person or group attempting to implement these principles will undoubtedly encounter legal and financial issues inherent in any corporate organization.  I am neither a lawyer nor an accountant, so I cannot guess what these issues might be beyond the need to file for a tax-exemption status.  The new church would do well to seek out the advice of a lawyer and accountant early to determine how best to deal with these matters before they become serious issues.

    Speaking of finances, I've always found it intriguing that, when presented with a missionary idea, our Western churches can never afford it, but when the boiler in the building breaks down, we take out a bank loan to cover the cost.  In my opinion, a church should never indebt itself to anyone; the fact that we can't afford it is, to me, a pretty clear indication that God doesn't want us to do it.  God's plans are never stymied by lack of funding.  Which, coincidentally, brings us to the next chapter in Wineskins.

    Perhaps the single biggest roadblock to the church's ability to fulfill its mission is our buildings.  It is illuminating to note that the only building God ever ordained for worship was a tent.  In answer to the ensuing arguments, no, God did not ordain the Temple in Jerusalem.  God never asked for it.  Construction of the Temple was completely King David's idea (see 2 Sam. 7:2).  [As far as that goes, David's kingship wasn't God's idea, either (see 1 Sam. 8:4-9).]  David died before construction began, so the project fell to his son Solomon.  God even tried to talk Solomon out of building it; "Concerning the house which you [not I] are building..." (1Kings 6:12-13, emphasis mine).  Nor is there any indication in the New Testament of God ordaining buildings for the Christian church.  Archeologically, the Church appears to have not started constructing buildings until about 400 AD, about the time Constantine's Western philosophy was taking over the Church.

    Our buildings say 5 things about the Church today:

(1) They are a witness to our immobility.  Although the New Testament makes it abundantly clear that Christians are to be a pilgrim people, our buildings serve as a great anchor, tying us to a specific point in space and time.  The gospel says "go," but our buildings say "stay."  Jesus says "seek the lost," but our buildings say "let the lost seek us."

(2) They are a witness to our inflexibility.   Once a building is erected, we cut our program options by at least 75% and our available funding by as much 50%.   Once the building is up and in use, our programs and budgets are largely determined.  Communication becomes one way - pastor to people.  This is not due to poor planning.  Buildings are, by definition, inflexible and they encourage inflexibility or, worse, stagnation among their occupants.  Note - I checked with the Financial Administrator in my own church before typing this paragraph.  It turns out we do reasonably well in this regard.  Approximately 30% of our total annual budget goes into building maintenance, utilities, landscaping, security, IT, etc.

(3) They are a witness to our lack of fellowship.  In probably 80% of church buildings, sanctuary pews are arranged in rows and bolted to the floor, making it nearly impossible for a worshiper to directly see the face of any other worshiper.  It's as if we find the community of Christ to be a distraction from the serious business of one-on-one communion with the pastor as, indeed, fidgety children are often actually told is the case.  To have a true community worship, we must be able to see the tearful eye, the euphoric smile, the blissful gaze of our fellows, even the odd chuckle at that fidgety child.  This is, after all, what "fellowship" means.

(4) They are a witness to our pride.  We usually insist that our edifices be beautiful and well-appointed (i.e. expensive), and justify it on the grounds that God deserves the very best.  But this is exactly what led David and Solomon to displace God from the ordained mobile Tabernacle into the non-ordained stationary Temple.  Or perhaps we say that we are ambassadors for Christ.  True, but that doesn't mean we need to build an endless collection of ornate embassies.  We often say that our church buildings must be in harmony with the surrounding neighborhood, but aren't we, as the Church, called upon to stand out rather than blend in?  These arguments are little more than sophomoric excuses for our profligate pride.

(5) They are a witness to our class divisions.  Do you recall in a previous post Snyder's comment that a sociologist can tell the age, race and class of a church by looking at the building?  One doesn't need a degree to do this.  New families moving into a neighborhood do the same thing all the time.  They drive through the neighborhood looking for a church where they think they might fit in, where they can feel at home, where they can be among "their kind of people."  They want to worship with others who are similar to themselves in terms of race, education, income and political beliefs, and they generally judge this by the architecture of the various church buildings.  I know this to be true.  As a child, my family moved about every 18 months, and my parents used to take this drive on a regular basis.  I can say from personal experience that an overwhelming number of your best potential members never cross your building's threshold.  They drove by, took one look at your facade, and kept going.  They have no idea how warm and welcoming your group is; your building told them to move on.

    So, what should the Renewed Church do with our buildings?  Ideally, we would obey the command of Christ to "sell all that you have and give the money to the poor...and come follow me" (Matt. 19:21).  This will be very difficult for many churches.  In the West, we define our congregations by the buildings in which they meet.  We distinguish the Methodists from the Baptists largely by where they park their cars on Sunday morning.  It is our buildings that give us a sense of identity.

    But, is this really necessary?  Must we subdivide ourselves like this?  Is there something inherently wrong with all Christians simply defining themselves as members of the Church universal?  What is it in human nature that makes us want to create smaller and smaller circles of "us" with correspondingly larger and larger groups of "them?"

    Back to Snyder: "But where would Christians meet?"  In homes, just as they did in the first century.  "But houses are too small!"  Only if the church is too big.  "But we need large-group corporate worship."  True, but it is sufficient for the congregation to rent a small hall, storefront or garage [or even a city park in the spring and summer months] where it can meet for corporate training and worship once or twice a week rather than spend hundreds of thousands of dollars per year on a building than only gets used five or six hours every week.  "But people would not be attracted to a garage or storefront."  Well, there are two kinds of people - those who are committed to Christ and those who aren't.  "But a garage or storefront would be too small." That depends on your church's objectives.  Healthy growth is growth by division, the congregation splitting into subgroups each time they outgrow their space.  Superchurches are not necessary.  Besides, for those rare occasions when the entire body needs to assemble, there are plenty of ways of doing that online with little to no expense involved.  "But that would mean churches of only 50-100 people.  That's too small to carry out a church program."  Only if you insist that the program must include a men's group, a women's group, a youth program, a senior citizen's club, Sunday School classes, midweek prayer service, training programs, five boards and ten committees.  With a flexible program that is not edifice-centered, this is not necessary.

    So, how do we fit in? Again from Wineskins: "any church that spends more on buildings than on outreach; holds all its gatherings in the church building; puts construction before missions and evangelism; refuses to use its building for anything other than sacred functions; and measures spirituality by the number of bodies present within the four walls has an edifice complex and is almost totally ignorant of what the Bible means by the church...In these days...the traditional church building is an anachronism the church can no longer afford.  This is not to say no community of believers should ever hold property.  But it is to say that any property, any building, should be held lightly, and should be an expression of a clear biblical understanding of the true nature of the church.  Any building so held must be functional - a means, not an end.  The road back to the Middle Ages is all too easy to take."

Pax