Churches who are able to meet in their own buildings are blessed.

First, I need to counter a few pieces of spurious logic and sloppy thinking: Meeting in a building isn't an American thing since it was done for over a millenium before a single Christian ever arrived on what is now called America. And it is not a rich thing since churches are built by the poorest of people in the poorest of places. And so what if SOME churches around the world survive and thrive without a building? It could also be said that SOME churches survive and thrive without a written copy of the Scriptures. But isn't it BETTER to have a copy of the Scriptures than not? Of course. Although not the same as Scripture, it is better to have access to a building.

Cramming a bunch of people into a person's home may have been a necessity in the early centuries, but the church got over it the moment they were able to meet openly and publicly.

Buildings are wonderful things if used well. That's what Dan was arguing. And I wholeheartedly agree.

Hi Ken!

I don't really disagree with anything you're saying. Of course we can do lots of things without church buildings and I fully agree with you on that.

I am just so thankful that we have been blessed with a space where we can gather larger groups all together and multiple classes etc. And also being able to open the 7 day a week coffeehouse/art gallery/music venue and have bands and artists throughout the week and see the place packed with college students - which is a major way we are using our space. We couldn't do a lot of those things in homes. As I shared, we have no mortgage on the building so for us it is an incredible opportunity to accelerate many of the things we do having a ministry center and offices and larger rooms etc.

So I am not disagreeing with you and know full well that major life change happens outside bigger church buildings. Sounds like you have an exciting ministry happening. I love meeting in homes and building deep relationships and that's why we have a staff person devoted fully to establishing mid-week home meetings for our church. So I think it is wonderful and thrilling to see what you are doing there and hear your story!

Thanks again for your response you posted here - always feel free to directly email me and hope we get to meet someday!

It seems to me that Paul found the synagogue and the Hall of Tyrannus to be a very useful building that served the purposes of the church in Corinth.

One of the problems with arguing about house churches from the early church is that many private homes functioned as public spaces in a way that private homes do not today.

House churches are great, but it isn't exactly fair to say that the early church met exclusively in homes when we know that they were teaching in the synagogues and temples and they were gather hundreds of people together for large public meals. Surely those were in "private homes" but not in the same sense that we talk about today.

Hi,

So I am not disagreeing with you and know full well that major life change happens outside bigger church buildings. Sounds like you have an exciting ministry happening. I love meeting in homes and building deep relationships and that's why we have a staff person devoted fully to establishing mid-week home meetings for our church.

http://www.youthforjesus.com

At what point did Kimball ever say he needed a church building? He just said he's glad he has one for the opportunities it brings them.

Also, missional isn't about being nice to people, you're right. It is about partnering with God in His mission (which in Kimball's scenario was providing for the homeless). How providing shelter for those who lost theirs is not missional by your standards, I have no idea.

Thanks for your diplomatic disagreement. Clearly, Jesus can use any space, public or private, to convene his body for his purpose.

One trend that troubles me is that the default paradigm for many American believers requires a dedicated church building.

Investing in a church building means adopting a whole set of responsibilities and liabilities. For many groups of believers, these responsibilities draw time, energy, and money away from important activities and initiatives.

This is not to say that the simple/house church model doesn't have responsibilities and liabilities. The problem is that so few groups weigh the options and count the long-term material and spiritual costs before signing the deed or the loan documents.

Joel
Thanks for your statements about "default paradigm" and "drawing time, energy, and money away from…"

Church in a separate building is a system that, 99% of the time, also dumbs down God's people to an extent that their spiritual life "requires" hired staffing to teach and exhort the saints. The cost of buildings and staff combined will force every church in this system to consume 75 - 85% of the giving on stuff that mostly benefits themselves. This is very likable to the flesh, but it is a severe corruption of God's design. Saints are now outsourceing a large amount of the power of the Spirit's presence in their body to hired experts. As Freedy has stated, "we have a staff person devoted fully to establishing mid-week home meetings for our church." This group of believers has no ability to organize or push simple one another ministry on their own. Their spiritual vitality is so weak, they "need" to hire in an expert to push it for them for $60,000+ per year. This also demonstrates that the alleged power of (hired lecture oriented) preaching is extremely weak in that it cannot move God's people to do what God has organically designed them to power-up and do. Two guys, now "need" to be hired to accomplish the elements of "not forsaking the assembly" - considering how to spur one another on to love and good works" and "encouraging one another". This dynamic is consistent across every brand name of church across the country by hundreds of thousands of church buildings. Everyone thinks this is normal and good. Does Dan see this tragic reality?

Dan is excited to have special buildings for his community of saints. Is God excited that these saints will perpetually need hired experts to push at great expense what he has designed them to push for each other and their community for free?

Do we need a specific command from God that says "Thou shalt not erect buildings that require hired experts to help my people grow up in crowd oriented settings and reach the lost."? God has made it clear enough with His revelation focusing on one another oriented gathering instructions, giving that goes beyond the givers, and instructions on leaders refusing the right to be paid. The power of men's traditions tells us the specific command is needed.

I know in the end I won't be be the one giving to each according to what they have done at the last day, but I am willing to be His messenger to help His people line up their actions with His instructions.

Ken
I don't think church buildings are an "American thing…a rich thing". I think it's a flesh thing that the evil one knows how to coddle and nurse along to help his cause of mediocrity and the saints don't even know it.

my friend tim,

why is it bad for the church to finacially support someone to be devoted full time to the furthering of the kingdom? do you financially support any missionary organizations? do you realize how much more effective a missionary can be when he has a support org to help him with the more organizational responsibilities? now he can focus on the main goal of spreading the gospel. same thing for church staff. they allow for specialization. let people focus on their strengths. if a church spends 60k on an expert to be more missional- and it results in one more saved soul, was that worth the investment? at what price do you say the church should not invest in the building up of the kingdom? i fully believe that this system leads to excellence more often than it leads to mediocrity. sorry i don't have numbers on that to back that up... :)

Tim,

You are arguing that buildings and paid clergy are elements of the flesh and not the Spirit. You call them both a "corruption of God's design." Are you serious? You say they are just "likable to the flesh" for those of us who are too "weak" for the real thing.

Why then did God COMMAND the Israelites to build a temple and tabernacle? Why is there so much ink spilled over how to care for the Levites? Why did he waste so much of Scripture describing in detail a building and a professional class of clergy that were the same two categories of expenses as the "severe corruption of God's design" you seem to think we don't need today?

Obviously Christians can waste too much money on their buildings. Of course there is too much emphasis on staff-centered churches instead of empowering the laity.

But Jesus PREACHED IN BUILDINGS! And *gasp* was paid by his supporters to do it.

nate
Do you see any distinction in paying someone to push you, the giver, to do that which God designed you to do for those around you, versus to push the gospel to those who have not heard and have no one to tell them, and to establish a core fellowship to further reproduce? There is a HUGE difference here.

Your question: "if a church spends 60k on an expert to be more missional- and it results in one more saved soul, was that worth the investment?"

No, not at all. A yes answer here is what justifies believers BUYING ministry to themselves with what they call "giving". It also justifies assuming that one soul saved could not have been saved without the hired expert. Did God need that hired expert to gain that one soul in a nation loaded with millions of messengers who could tell him for free? I say not even close. I see God as bigger than that.

Your question: "at what price do you say the church should not invest in the building up of the kingdom?"

The church should invest far more than it currently does. Paying $60,000+ per year to give believers who have heard 1000+ sermons to hear another 1000 is not "building". It is perpetual dependency. It is dumbing down, tearing down God's people from doing what God designed them to do for each other for free. It is a complete denial of God's design for leadership reproductivity. God NEVER asked for His people to hear a professional Bible lecture every week of their lives. He did ask us to reach all nations. He did ask us to not forsake spurring one another on to love and good works. You are devoting 75 - 85% of the giving to provide what God never asked for and 14 - 25% for what he has asked for. There is a huge difference between building and perpetual dependency.

You say: "i fully believe that this system leads to excellence more often than it leads to mediocrity."

1. The average believer in the wealthiest nation on earth gives 2.3% to the church and 75 - 85% of that buys stuff for himself. Excellent or mediocre?
2. A pastor-teacher will preach in a church for 20+ years. When he leaves, someone has to be hired to do everything he did. No one was "fully trained to be like him". Luke 6:40 He did not "entrust to faithful men who would teach others also" 2Tim. 2:2. He lead perpetual dependency rather than reproductivity. Excellent or mediocre?

I was once held your views of the body of Christ. God opened my eyes to see that His word very clearly calls for something far different than an institutionalized form of faith. I can only serve a small piece of the pie here. Don't allow tradition to trump truth.

Dave
"Why then did God COMMAND the Israelites to build a temple and tabernacle? Why is there…"

The NT is full of instruction on how different the New covenant is from the Old and the radical difference since the Messiah has come and paid once the price for all. God's "pattern" for his people has changed. Check out Stephen's awesome testimony in Acts 7. Read the whole thing for the answer to most of your questions but don't miss "However, the Most High does not dwell in temples made with hands...". There is much more but space is limited here to break down the twisted basis for many church traditions of men.

Whoever has led you to this understanding is not "correctly handling the word of truth". 2Tim. 2:15. You need to be a Berean who examines the scriptures daily to see if what you have been told is true. Acts 17:11 Paul, who wrote inspired scripture commended the Bereans as "more noble" because they did this with his teaching. It is an action of great respect for your teachers. They might not like it but God wants you to.

Nate, good thoughts.

Dave, Jesus wasn't "paid." Missional support is radically different than lifetime religious employment. I see nothing in the NT which would indicate the need for a professional clergy system.

Greetings John and others,

I don't mean to be naive, but how is missional support radically different than lifetime religious employment.

The church I attend pools its resources to allow many people to focus on various tasks full time. These tasks include, teaching, evangelism, running a homeless shelter, counseling addicts, operating a thrift store, providing a social services counselor to help the working poor navigate the complex regulations related to subsidized housing and food stamps and we do hire people for cleaning and maintaining a huge building. Is all of this unbiblical or only when we encourage one of our number to devote themselves to the word and to prayer and the rest of us pitch in to cover their expenses?

I am challenged by this conversation (although we have gotten a bit afield from the building issue) but I guess I am missing the "radical" difference that is so obvious to you. Even the Didache assumes a class of paid teachers.

This discussion is bogged down in generalities and theory. What's your experience with how a building affects ministry. Do we mistake more activity, more people, and more money for more ministry?
My church acquired a building about 5 years ago after renting space for a number of years. It now attracts more people (attendance grew from about 70 to 120) but I sense that the spiritual vitality has plateaued. People who show up to be entertained will come to this nice facility. The long-time core members became worn out and jaded through the process of getting the building up and running. There's more money coming in but it mostly goes back into maintaining the building, buying AV equipment and hiring someone to coordinate it all. Leaders spend much of their time administering and figuring out equipment and repairs of roofs and windows.

Ethan
You make a common felt statement that I can respond to.
"The church I attend pools its resources to allow many people to focus on various tasks full time. These tasks include, teaching, evangelism, running..."

I will draw a big distinction (radical difference) between ministry that benefits the givers and ministry that goes beyond the givers. (Seems totally obvious but not in institutionalized faith.) This is very clear in Paul's instructions to the Ephesian elders on good eldering in Acts 20. Paul teaches them his example in "meeting his own needs" while ministering to people around you and then gives Jesus words as support. This concept is amplified in 1 Cor. 9 (Make sure you follow the spiritual economics lesson to the end of the chapter.) Paul was suicidal about ministry for free.

The NT does not teach pooling resources to benefit mostly the givers. It teaches giving is to be directed at needs beyond the givers. This ought to be a very simple understanding, but the institutional system has corrupted giving so drastically that pooling is seen as the same. It is the opposite. Whatever staff and buildings in this ministry that benefits the givers CAN and SHOULD be done by the people of God for free. They will be a stronger and truly reproductive body for it rather than a consuming, spectating, cheerleading, write-the-check-I'm-done body.

Tradition teaches that paying experts to "focus" on ministries will benefit the body. Simple observation beyond the bogus assumption that bigger numbers = bigger ministry, will see the results are perpetual dependency rather than reproduction. We are a body designed for reproduction; multiplication not addition. There is no need for focus. The apostles "devoting themselves to the word and prayer" does not mean they were suddenly on a payroll out of an offering plate. Institutionalized faith would like us all to think it does.

Ethan part 2
You go on to describe many ministries that go beyond the givers. Hiring people and facilities to do these ministries is still giving because it is directed beyond the givers. However, there are many ways these ministries can be done with less hiring and more volunteers. EVERY member of the body is to be serving and active withe the poor, orphans, widows and those chained in sin. There is greater blessing and reward in serving for free. 1 Cor 9. Millions of American believers EXCUSE themselves from personal involvement in ministry because they write a big check, or any check at all. Volunteer focused ministry can only be done by faith. Hiring based ministry can easily be done by sight and without faith.

Now I want to draw a "radical difference" between funding ministry you can see and ministry you cannot see - meaning around the globe.

1. Every unbeliever in our country has a believer within 1 mile or a relationship within 1 relational connection with which to hear the gospel in face to face plus personal follow up mode (in contrast to one-way communication or never even seeing the speaker). The majority of the globe has no witness like this. It is HIGHLY STRATEGIC for us stewards to direct God's resources WHERE they are needed most.

2. The harvest is much riper in many countries other than ours. It is HIGHLY STRATEGIC to put our money where the harvest is because that is where God is working and wants our investment.

3. It is HIGHLY STRATEGIC to hire national missionaries to reach their nations and their neighboring countries rather than to send Americans. India and the Philippines are countries with thousands of believers ready to be sent, but their country has no financial basis to send them. You can send 10 or more nationals for 1 American. This kind of ministry is not easy, but it can be done.

Ethan part 3
These kinds of HIGHLY STRATEGIC ministries cannot be done when American believers are giving in much higher percentages:
1. For buildings and staffing that benefit mostly themselves.
2. For hiring people to focus and exempt themselves from giving face time.
3. For giving a false higher value to ministry they can see with their eyes.

Can you now see the "radical" difference?

Great post - a lot to think about! I am growing in my distaste for the feeling that we "need" stuff - including buildings. I would point out, however, some in the early church did have a "building" - it was called the synagogue. In places like Berea we can assume that since the Jewish leaders listened and responded positively, the synagogue was continued in its use (they didn't see a part with Judaism, just a fulfillment). Nonetheless unless we can find a passage that points to the biblical necessity of a church-owned structure (we can't) I don't see any need to argue for "better" or more optimal ministry becuse of one. Good post...

Hey Tim,

Wow! Thanks for that thoughtful and non-polemical answer. I greatly appreciate the distinction you draw between giving that funds ministry for the sake of others and giving that funds ministry largely for my own benefit. That is a helpful lens that I had not considered. I am not sure that this precludes ministries of teaching and preaching but I have some more to chew on.

I am not sure that 1 Cor. 9 is as clear as you seem to be, but I'll return to it with fresh eyes after this conversation.

I wonder, would this same distinction apply to property and buildings. That is, would you consider a sanctuary a poor use of money but a shipping warehouse for a disaster relief program okay?

Thanks for the conversation.

I think if you really need a building - God will give you one. And there are very legitimate reasons for God to want a building.

And if you go out and try to get it yourself (outside of His Will) - he'll give you a thirty year mortgage. At least it will give you 30 years to figure out - maybe this wasn't God. That's 10 years less than Israel's desert experience.

I'm not quite sure which scripture says - Owe no man (except the mortgage and auto broker) anything.

Whatever happened to "Take no Purse with you" ... or "A Worker is worthy of his wages"?

A well respected missionary friend of mine told me a sure sign that the Lord was calling her to return home - was that the finances had dried up.

Hi Ken - Thanks for the thought provoking article. However, some critiques: You seem to take for granted that the early church did not have buildings, and it needs to be shown. It also needs to be shown that this was not just circumstantial. In the OT and in first C. Judaism places of worship figure strongly, and we don't see a critique of them as such in the NT. Of course there were Jewish synagogues in the Roman world and some of them became Christian synagogues. Also churches that met in people's houses in the roman urban context are most likely references to the exceptionally large houses or households of the wealthy, which were opened up for other believers because they were the only places available (not out of a concern to "not have a building" - they were centralized meeting places and in that sense more akin to our church buildings). Urban romans were generally either wealthy with a lot of resources (the few) or lived in very cramped quarters that don't really resemble our modern homes. Remember as well that the NT church took advantage of the special status accorded Judaism by the romans. When this was possible the synagogue seems to have been preferred (we see no movement away from synagogues because "now we are Christians"). But as the distinction between Judaism and Christianity increased, the Christians were left without coverage and the Roman Empire did no like unrecognized groups of people meeting without permission. Thus, house churches and catacombs. Finally, I think that the Greek term ekkleisia implies a view of the church that would lead to a public meeting place. Worth looking into. I don't disagree with house churches. But let's not spiritualize something that pretty clearly circumstantial. The other part of your premises that I question is the notion that if the early church did it, then we must too.

The issue is not, "Where we are supposed to meet?", but rather,

What type of relationships are we supposed to have?

. . . and, what are we supposed to do when we meet together?

1 Corinthians 11 warns us against creating division, but institutional churches encourage division by dividing people by demographic from nurseries, to youth groups, to geriatric Sunday Schools. "Leadership positions" also create division.

1 Corinthians 14 says that each is to bring something to contribute (a psalm, a teaching, a language, a revelation, a translation), but institutional churches grant a voice to only a select few, and the majority voice goes to one.

Do house churches do better? I'd love to find out.

Wow, great comments! I am so glad that I am able to be a part of what God is doing in and through the OutofUr community and particularly thankful to Dan for his obvious humility and willingness to engage on a subject that, for many, can be quite touchy. The discussion going on here is great and by no means do I intend to curb that with this response.

But there are a few themes I’m picking up on that I’d like to engage on and hopefully we get some more discussion out of it!

1. Buildings as an American/Rich thing.

Thank you to Dave Terpstra for first pointing out my faulty logic on this one. He is right, churches meeting in buildings is not original either to Americans or to the rich. That said, I believe a clarification may be well-served here. While it is true that the church has been meeting in buildings for a very long time and in a great many cultures and economic climates, this by no means makes them a necessity. What I was trying to point out is that it is a uniquely rich thing that a local church should see a building as a necessity.

The reason for this, I suppose, is because we have a hard time imagining what any sort of gathering would look like without a building. But that is merely a reflection of our own entrenchment in the things of this world. We are like fish in water…we don’t know any other reality. Or, if we do, all we know is that when we leave the water, we die.

But let’s ask this question: if it suddenly became illegal in America for churches to own or meet in buildings, would the Church in America then cease to exist, or would we find other alternatives?

Tim is right, this is not a rich or American thing at all. It is a flesh thing which turns comfort and convenience into idols.

2. Buildings may not be necessary, but they are at least better.

Dave Terpstra was also the first to bring this up, though it soon became an echo of others. And on this one, too, there is a degree where Dave is right. The logic is simple: it is better to have a hammer than nothing at all. Right?

Maybe.

In reality, it depends on what the project is. If framing, absolutely. If tightening a nut, not so much. Buildings are a tool, plain and simple. There are many things for which they are a valuable resource and make the process go much smoother. For example, if a church wants to do some sort of VBS, a building is going to be pretty important. But not everything is going to require a building. In fact, there may be some things for which a building is actually the wrong tool to utilize. Evangelism and outreach come to mind, but that is another can of worms.

The bottom line is this: buildings are only “better” so long as they serve the intended purpose which is a question of style/form, not function. Discipleship is our goal, correct? Programs can help with discipleship (and in such cases, a building may be required), but programs are not required for discipleship to occur.

Discipleship, then, doesn’t need a building.

But, there is another side to this. It may just be that having a hammer turns everything into a nail, when another tool would actually work better. Having buildings tends to limit our ability to think about how we can accomplish our intended goals without them. Which is what may have happened with the folks displaced by wildfire – the hammer got the job done, but a wrench (people’s homes) probably would have been better.

3. The early church used buildings like synagogues and the Hall of Tyrannus.

Thanks for bringing this up, Ethan. Actually, it is a good question: if we don’t need buildings, why was Paul using them? To answer, I’d like to ask a question of my own:

What makes us think it was the building that Paul was after and not the audience?

In context this actually becomes quite clear. Acts 19:8-20 indicates that Paul went first to the synagogue and then to the Hall of Tyrannus. And what was he doing? Holding services, of course! Wait…nope, not at all. He was “arguing persuasively” and “discussing” – why? Verse 10 tells us why: so that all the Jews and Greeks who lived in the province of Asia heard the word of the Lord.

In other words, the only reason the buildings are mentioned is because they indicate the audience who Paul was evangelizing. He didn’t go to these locations because he needed a place to meet. He didn’t even go to these places because they served as a great place to host a discussion that he could invite the unsaved to.

He went there because that is where the lost already were!

Far from justifying the use of church buildings, this is an indication that we need to get out of our church buildings and go to where people already are: malls, stores, restaurants, clubs, parks, etc.

4. Early Church: Prescriptive or Descriptive?

It has been a more subtle theme, but the question is still there: so what if the early church didn’t meet in buildings; how do we know whether this was just what happened (descriptive) or the way it was supposed to be (prescriptive)?

And the answer…we don’t.

Actually, I lean more towards the descriptive side, that is, that the early church met in homes and not buildings because that’s all they had. I don’t think that the New Testament writers are trying to convince us that buildings are bad or shouldn’t be used.

And if you’ve been paying attention, I’m not trying to convince anyone of that either.

Rather, I’m trying to maintain that the FUNCTION of the Church is not dependant on the FORM that it takes. More importantly, I want us to consider that even though the function of the church is not dependant on its form, the form still matters for the function.

I know that’s somewhat confusing, so let’s see if we can clear things up a bit.

The Church should be making disciples of Jesus Christ – that is its primary purpose. There are a number of ways to do that, not least of which is with a building. But…and this is a big but (you other brothers can’t deny)…the building is not a necessity to accomplish this purpose. More importantly, it may very well be that the building gets in the way of what God really wants, even if good is still being accomplished through it.

If you have kids and they are getting B’s when they are capable of A’s, you know what I’m talking about. B’s will get them by and may even be good, but you want better than just “good” for them, don’t you?

__

Once again, thank you for being willing to tackle such a big subject like this (and all of the rabbit trails it takes us down)! I am encouraged that we can disagree respectfully and consider that a living representation of iron sharpening iron.

Looking forward to the continued conversation!

Tim,

Good insight on the distinction between giving for your own benefit and giving for the benefit of others.

However, 1 Cor 9 is not supportive of your overall thesis. You need to look at in its context of chapters 8-10 as well as it's much broader context of the factions in Corinth in light of Roman patronage. Paul believes that Jesus "commanded" that workers in the Gospel make their living from the Gospel. The whole point of ch. 9 is that Paul is choosing to forgo this right because it has become a stumbling block in Corinth.

Paul is contextualizing here so that nothing hinders the Gospel otherwise he would not argue so forcefully for his right that you appear to say he and others are not entitled to.

This is an extremely interesting post! And, I am thrilled to have read this Ken...I do believe what you say is modestly & quite true. And, it presents a much more realistic factor of "what's happening in todays world", The Church. Its not just about stepping OUT of the church perse'~its more a FACT that people are starving to become accepted of who they are...why they are that way...And, unfortuantely & often people who have encountered being bullied perse' through frevilous misdemeanors~they vanish in a flash where judgements or forceable out comings are NOT what Gods wants--no matter what excuse they have.The blaming game of hogg-wash and studpidity amounting too not much. Especially if we are percieved behaving in leadership being caught in divisions displaying what is written in LEVITICUS 19:15....not good. God explained to Moses there the importances in various laws of serious....and these sort of items depleat church attendances and/or involvements. The Church inside should behave like the church outside~but they don't..So often, they decieve themselves by displaying false power heading into danger-zoned areas of loss-instead. In my opinion Ken you are somewhat correct! Church can be found on facebook, a coffee shop, or in the park. The buildings are internaly suffering from poor choice movements, and often times if not more so leadership chosen of the NOT so healthy balanced...So, this leaves a door open for church be known on facebook...daily devotionals world wide really! If you watch R E A L close...the participation levels just might astound some folks! BUT, the music at Willow Creek Church is the most beautiful...and its fountains of choice~books too!I love some church buildings~but i prefer healthy ones affirmed by good action observances..Rahab cool~post...

First things first: the church building is not a temple - we are the temple. So the form of the meeting place is not prescribed.

So the question about buildings is a pragmatic one. You can meet in a park, or homes, or a coffee shop, or a big building. The important question is what you want to do, and the venue needs to support that.
If it's about pumping people up, you'll need a big place for a lot of people and a band. If it's fellowship, probably homes work better. Or coffee shops or cars for discipleship.

Wow-this was a hot topic. What I find interesting is the streams of thought running through the posts. Very clearly some are mvoing into the mode of let's questions the validity of our choices? Are they our only choices? What is paradigm and what is Scripture mandate and what is Scripture open to choice? What is it we are doing because we can-ie. have the money to do or how is what we are doing advancing the Kingdom? Since I am natural "pioneer" likes cutting edge stuff-the idea of letting go of traditional paradigms is appealing. However-being married to someone who became as a Christian as an adult-there was no way he would have visited someone's home-he found his way to a church and went annoymously for a while before he realized who Jesus was. I do believe there is a place for church buildings. Our church built an addition-mortgage free-very humble building, no bells or whistles-but still cost 500K.

trierr
"The whole point of ch 9…become a stumbling block.
V.12 makes this point. Is this now "the whole point of ch 9"? This conclusion ignores so much of ch.9 and the NT.
The "broader context" of ch 8-10 in no way demonstrates that Paul's passionate example was limited to the local Corinth situation. The rest of the NT proves that. He did this in Ephesus - Acts 20. He did this in Theselonica - 2Thes. 3: 1-15. There are other scriptures as well.
Here is more of "the point"
v. 16 - 18 Reward for ministry free of charge and not using rights.
v 19 - 23 Free ministry is key to heart connections with people - any kind of people. (Are you aware of the lack of mutuality, heart connection, and ministry reproduction between clergy and laity system wide?)
v24 - 27 Reward reinforced - specifically relating to his commitment to serve for free.

I'm not surprised by your exegetical approach. I don't think even 1 out of a hundred commentaries out there will be fully contextual on this issue with ANY text, because they won't get published if they are not "institutionally correct". The institutional boat is a big old ship with a lot of dollars, predictability, status, comfort, ego, and tradition on board that does not want to get wet. God has used it, but He has eternal rewards for those who will go beyond current levels of faith. I hope you're ready to leave Ur.

"Compassion International doesn’t need a building in order to help orphans."

Really? Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I'm thankful they do have a building so they can stay warm and dry while they open up all those envelopes each month.

Did the early church have the "idols" of electricity? Computers? Blogs?

The Crab and the Oyster

The crab plays on the weakness of the oyster. It watches to see if the oyster in some remote place opens its tightly locked door to gather some pleasure out of a few rays of sun and some fresh air. At this relaxed moment, the crab secretly throws a little pebble into the shell which prevents the oyster from closing his house...then the crab comes along, finds the door open and devours a meal inside.

It's no accident that it was at his relaxed moment, after getting up from his afternoon siesta and taking a walk on the roof of his royal house, when David saw Bathsheba. The rest was history of his downfall.

The germ of the situation: David should have been in the battlefield in the spring of that year when kings usually set out to fight. Instead of carrying out the marching order, he remained in Jerusalem and basked in the sunshine on the rooftop of his royal "building."

Today, we have our own "marching order": Go and make disciples of all nations (Matthew 28:19-20). After we receive God's promised gift (Acts 1:4), let's not hang around for too long on our "building" rooftops in our respective "Jerusalems," lest we may catch a glimpse, in our relaxed moments, of our own "Bathshebas."

Good reminder: Jim Bakker and his "buildings" - the Heritage U.S.A., Christian theme park, the frontier-style Heritage Village housing complex, the Heritage Grand Hotel, the PTL water park, the high-rise Heritage Tower Hotel, Heritage Village Church, and a massive state-of-the-art television complex.

The road to perdition is paved with good intentions. Like the crab and the oyster, beware of the Enemy's shell game.

Dear Ken,

I’m not sure what the 1st point “being missional involves more than just being nice to people” has to do with buildings but the 2nd point is certainly germane to buildings (and any other ministry tool). The challenge is whose definition do we use for “convenience” and “necessity”? If Compassion International can feed 50% more children because of the conveniences of the building, I would call that building a necessity. But who makes that call? Would you consider the house you meet in a convenience or necessity and what criteria should we use for making the decision. If a house is a necessity, at what size does the house become a convenience? 2,000 sq ft? 4,000 sq ft? 10,000 sq ft?

I definitely agree that, in general, we have far more church owned facilities than we need to be the church (and many are ill-suited for ministry anyway). And that needs to change because far too many resources are going into consumer-style Christianity. However, we don’t make decisions “in general”; we make them for specific cases. That brings your 3rd point into play. Buildings may be preventing churches from doing what God really wants them to do. The issue for me is not whether it’s called a 2,000 sq ft house, a 4,000 sq ft house, a 10,000 sq ft house, a church-owned facility, a community building, a YMCA, a synagogue, a coffee shop, a theater, a bar, a blues club, or other. The issue is, “Where is God at work in your world and where does he want you to join him and what facility do you need/would work best to accomplish that mission?” Buildings are benign (until they’re occupied), to be used as needed.

I really appreciated your respectful tone. Too often we vilify people with whom we don’t agree. The solution does not reside in any one person; it’s found in the clash and collaboration of ideas and perspectives. I trust you’ll receive my comments above as the next step in a process of working toward an understanding together.

Blessings,
Bill

The early church did have buildings. They met in the temple for some time with thousands in attendance.

The 'houses' they met in weren't always small either. They were more like open court yards. Have you been too eastern Europe or the mid-east and seen the old houses? The early disciples used the larger houses as the number of disciples grew. American residential properties don't typically lend themselves to meetings of large numbers of people. My grandfathers 'barnyard' would have worked and been similar in appearance.

Now consider the owner of one of these houses. They have a large house because they are possibly better off than the average Joe. They open their house to a small group, then a large group. Before each meeting, they make sure the house is in order. After the meeting, they clean up. The added wear is quickly seen and fixed. Did the church meeting in there home financially help with these repairs? I hope so, but I'm sure most of the expense was considered a gift to the ministry. And, I hope the community helped clean up.

So, by letting the church meet in their house they became the janitor and caretaker of the building. And, if the church is helping with the added maintenance, how is this any different than a church having a building today? The only thing I see is someone with a higher vested interest in keeping the building in shape, since they hold the deed to the building. (Oh, yeah, property tax is being paid on it, too.)

A community owned building is like socialism, though. If I don't own it, who cares. It's a rental, lets use it up. Its not my job to clean it, fix it, maintain it. This, however, is clearly NOT a christian attitude, but very prevalent. Whether an individual owns the building or the congregation owns the building, the community MUST be part of caring for it. This is good stewardship and showing gratitude and the love of Christ to those who do the bulk of cleaning/maintaining.

In the catholic church priests often live in an attached rectory. The protestants moved a little further away and called it the parsonage. The parsonage became taboo, so now the the pastor lives across town in his own property for 'investment' sake and privacy (God forbid someone knock on his door during an off hour!)

One church near where I grew up had the caretaker living in the church owned house next to the church. This may be the better approach. No one expect the caretaker to do spiritual ministry, only physical ministry.

So, deep down, the question of owning a building is is more about who cares enough to clean/maintain wherever the church meets.

As for the missional part, camp out at the church with those there in an emergency. Be ready to help, 24/7. When the emergency passes, those touched will move back to their home, and you can return to yours. Somebody can be at the church ready to help whoever with whatever, whenever. My kids have spent so much time at the church, it is like home to them, helping with the food pantry, cleaning, fixing things, setting up, tearing down. They have seen counseling going on, praying for people, sharing with people, fellowship. (During all this, we rarely saw the pastor.)

What is your attitude toward community owned property?
How much do you care for the place your church does meet?
If your church rents a facility, do the owners see a Godly witness in how you care for their property?

>But let’s use “need” appropriately:
>Compassion International doesn’t need a
>building in order to help orphans.

Using this logic, you don't NEED a house either. Sure it's convenient, but you don't NEED one. There are thousands of people living on the streets all over the world. After all, Jesus never owned a house, or rented an apartment, or even owned his own car/horse/donkey!

I don't have cable/satellite television in my house, but most of you 'need' it enough to squander money on it. ;)

What really is a NEED then? Or, is this 'quarreling about words'?

Interesting discussion.

Something that hasn't been addressed: A church building is a visual reminder of Christ within a community. If every Christian met in homes or rented schools and community centers we would disappear from veiw of the unsaved who are inundated constantly with the world's enticiments.

To say we don't "need" church buildings, or that we "should" try to do without them, is basically a put down of God's created world. It is the dualism of Plato that says matter is evil, and only spirit is good. It can become gnostic. God created all aspects of creation, material and spiritual, and we are to use them to glorify Him. Or, per Genesis, to have proper dominion. Our problem is we don't do that, we often have the tail wagging the dog instead of vice-versa, or we "abuse" buildings instead of "using" them. But, to put them down as wrong is simply a misunderstanding of God's creation. Much better to "use" them as instruments of His glory, which of course requires us to be led by the Spirit in how, when, where, and why we build them.

Randy,

Thanks so much for your comment. I must apologize if I've ever come across as saying that church buildings are bad. I'm well aware of the deficiencies of gnosticism and also painfully aware of how invasive it is in Christian theology.

I, in no way, think all matter to be bad. I don't even think church buildings are bad. As you say, they are instruments (or tools) to be used.

My suggestion wasn't that buildings ARE wrong, but that they CAN BE wrong...they may not be the most useful instrument or tool. Of course, that depends on what the goal is.

And sometimes, the goal is such that buildings are the wrong tool.

Hey Ken,

OK. Cool. I agree our goals according to Scripture should be evangelism, salvation, discipleship, life transformation, extension of the Kingdom, etc. etc. I also think those goals can be well supported via the proper use of buildings and property. As we have both said, that can certainly be abused or misused. Sort of like we all need housing, it's just a matter of wisdom regarding that. What I don't really agree with is the idea we should, for some reason, try hard to make all this happen without buildings. If God really leads that way, fine, but I think the more normal usage of God's resources, spiritual and physical, will most of the time include usage of the physical aspects of His world in various ways. Colleges have campuses. Hospitals have campuses. Jesus said "occupy" until I come. While I agree buildings and property can be misued, abused, poorly managed, designed without wisdom, etc. etc. - I do think that the NT goals of Scripture can most of the time be furthered, not hindered, with the appropriate use of buildings and the like.

Blessings!

Buildings are not by their nature inherently good or evil. However, the resources to build, maintain, insure, pay taxes, utilities, staff, cleaning crew, etc... could arguably be put to better use since most church facilities run into the millions, tens of millions or even hundreds of millions of dollars to construct and yet sit practically vacant most of the time. The last conventional church I was involved with spent well over $100,000 on electricity each year.

Can you worship without a building? Yes!

Church Outside the Box
www.WhereTwoorThree.com