Here's my short opinion: Large churches (mega-churches specifically) are able to dip in those large resources in order to serve the surrounding community and poor. For example, the church I went to in Louisiana was approx 4,500 in size with a budget of around 8.5 million. They went on 17 mission trips around the world, served the needs of New Orleans through a "Dream Center" that included a mobile medical unit, dental unit, veterinary clinic, etc. We fed the hungry, clothed the poor, provided school supplies, ministered to the lost...all because we were fortunate to have vast resources. Not only that, our church tithed to world missions, and surrounding "smaller" churches. After Katrina our first offering went to a devastated church in New Orleans...this after we lost over half our members to relocation. I think the important question in all of this is, "What is the heart of the church?" If we don't care how small a church is, then why should we care how big one grows. Should the mega-church start turning people away? Just my 2 cents.

The problem comes down to whether you neglect the poor and needy.

And I'm not talking about food closets or soup kitchens. Many times I see churches that hand out food and clothes, and they think they're doing just fine in regards to the needy. But the needy can't afford to participate in their churches.

The poor people can't afford to engage in the very same activities the rich can. Every time the pastor says, "You gotta read this book!"—well, they will, once it makes it to the public library. They can't afford the books and videos and CDs in the church bookstore. They can't afford your conferences. They can't afford your classes—even the ones that are tuition-free; they can't afford the books. The special banquets that are "only" $20 per person are way beyond their budgets. They have to sit out the men's and women's retreats, the concerts, the mission trips. Their kids can't afford to do any of the youth group activities.

And these churches don't even think about this problem. Because, to them, money isn't a problem—and if you don't have any, you need to go find a better job. Or so one of my previous pastors advised me when I was short of money one month.

But when you have a pastor who is likewise on a budget, they'll be the first to recognize that the Kingdom of God doesn't consist of, and shouldn't be based on, expensive activities.

If the fancy, opulent worship center is a reflection of the church's ignorance about the poor's needs, then yeah it's a problem. If it's not—and I would venture to say the Catholics' cathedrals aren't about showing off the wealth, but of making something beautiful for God's sake—then it's not.

Mega churches are convient whipping boys. But the numbers I have seen is that mega churches spend less per person on personell and building than most smaller churches. Yes there are extremes on both the large and small side. But having worked in small church and being a current member in a large church, I have done budgets in both. My small church spend a higher percent on building and people.

The area that you don't mention, that I think is an issue with the large church is that in a small church everyone knows who the poor that attend the church are. In a large church the poor are as anonymous as they want to be and as anonyous and everyone else. So I could not go to my small church without being very aware of the couple of very poor families (that drained church resources and were not ever really truly helped).

I know there are poor people that go to my church now, but I do not know any of them personally. I do not have a relationship with them. I don't worry about the money. I do worry about the relationship.

I think it depends on the theology of the megachurch. If it's preaching health and wealth theology, then yes, they are doing harm. Many people in these churches are duped into thinking that if they continue to tithe and even give above and beyond the tithe, they will be rewarded. It's often said that it will come back to the giver 100-fold.

But if a church is teaching the unadulterated gospel, then though the church may grow to megachurch size, it won't be off the back of the givers. Sure, the church will be built up by the offerings, but it will give back much more to it's congregants. Like good teaching that prospers their souls and does much good work in the community.

It is so typical, such as Deron's comments, to lavish praise on how much the mega church does to serve the poor. They can give a big pot because they have a big pot of money coming in. If that is as far as you think or examine, then you have left yourself ignorant and largely self centered. I was in this mold 15 years ago. God used a unique mailing from my cell phone company to point me to look at the PERCENTAGE of where the money goes, not the hype and the amount. The percentage was staring me in the face every week in the bulletin, but I ignored it. I was blind. God woke me up.

Leadership Journals own article on normal church budgeting shows the average percentage is 14% of the giving goes out the door. The believers who give the money consume 86% of it. Also, when asked about it, the leaders and followers claim that this is all godly and that you would not have the 14% to distribute to the poor and reach the lost if you did not "invest" the 86% in spiritual comforts for the believers. Do you recall the Pharisees calling their giving "corban" - dedicated to God, to justify not helping their own parents but putting the money into the temple system?

Every church, one pastor or fifty, 100 seats or 5,000, with few exceptions will consume around 86% of their "giving" - cough couph - pooling. Protestants have taken their institutionalized faith / stewardship from their Roman Catholic heritage. It is completely unreformed. Only the words are changed. The priesthood of the believer is rendered meaningless. That is why we have our own pews or theatre seats facing a lectern. That is why our gatherings are mostly ceremonialized rig-a-morole that contradict what God's Word has asked for in a believers gathering.

"How can evangelical church leaders justify spending millions and millions of dollars on facilities and salaries while the poor suffer?"

1. They are walking in the flesh, not the Spirit. They posture walking in the Spirit. They hype the small percentage that goes beyond the givers as a huge sacrifice when it is not. God is not fooled, but His people are.
2. They have never seen a real leader doing it differently than what is systemic.
3. Their excuses are legion.
4. No "leaders" are confronting the issue. They could not be a "leader" if they did.

K.W. Leslie
If it's not—and I would venture to say the Catholics' cathedrals aren't about showing off the wealth, but of making something beautiful for God's sake—then it's not.

If their understanding of the beauty God desires of His people is buildings and vestments, then they demonstrate their ignorance that God is ONLY concerned with building a beautiful people, a bride for His son. He has told us in multiple locations that He does not dwell in buildings made by hands. We are His building not made with hands. We are His temple. Beautiful buildings are a large distraction or substitute or idol for what God has said He wants. We are an ugly people, when we distract from God's desire for beauty. Will you give Him what He wants or what you prefer?

There is a very simple way of doing church life where 100% of your giving goes beyond yourself to serve the poor and reach all nations.

Amen, Tim. Amen.

Mmm...Skye, historical context of which is missing from Bad Catholic's apologetics, and your reasoning/thinking...

In the ancient world the Temple was the center of the community, and thus reflected the communities status both "spiritually" and "economically"...ipso facto, a crap ton of "wealth" was poured into the temple from high and low on the economic chart.

Now, you note the use of the latin, which is a polite segue to Rome because like the other ancient societies the Romans were no different than those in the Middle East, nor the far East, which, oddly enough, takes us to the North of Rome to the Northern Territories, hence forth called Europe because they too poured their wealth into their shrines, places of worship, etc; and this wealth came from the high and the low because, well, like the ones before them in other lands they too felt that dumping a crap ton of wealth into their temple show how,
1: Great their deity was,
2: how great they were as a people/city/kingdom,
and
3: How sad and pathetic everyone else is/was.

Therefore, if we skip and jump through time to the 6th-through-21st centuries we, we being humans of all religions/faiths/troupes dump a lot of monies into our popular edifice.

Oh sure, we have all sorts of reasons for it, but the primary one that we haven't got the huevos to admit is that our particular Worship edifice is a direct reflection on us.

In short, it really doesn't matter if it's a "Christian", "Pagan", Buddhist, or "Other"...everybody does the same damn thing...which, if we ponder the greater portion of this observation we the Christian faith should be spiritually disturbed a great deal...

Why?

Because, we, as a people, haven't changed a bit in five thousand years...you'd think we, as Christians would catch a clue here and realize the whole purpose of being a "Christian" ergo, follower of Y'shua, G-d himself is that we would be different than the world around us...not like the world around us.

Which this all is a round about way of saying I agree with Tim.

We Christians have an Edifice Complex...and we really should give it a lot more thought.

I think the point about the geographical model of Catholic parishes vs. the demographic model of megachurches (dare I say evangelical churches in general?) bears some examination. Due to chronic illness I've lived in deep poverty (by American standards) for years. I've been blessed to have basic food and shelter for years, thanks to the tender mercies of government and affiliated programs, but am also very aware of the flaws and gaps in that system. But I would NEVER recommend that someone in seriously compromised circumstances trust the evangelical church to correctly interpret, much less consistently deal with the real spiritual, emotional, and material needs in a seriously helpful way. I've had some positive, supportive interactions within the evangelical community for which I'm very grateful, but overall my experience has been negative - especially harmful when one is already dealing with significant traumas in a variety of circumstances.

I say this as someone who has been deeply involved in the evangelical community for over 20 years ... my entire adult life. I've been involved in multiple churches in several communities over those decades, as well as quite a few parachurch organizations. And I will say with great confidence: We, as a movement, are REALLY, REALLY bad at dealing with the realities of people's lives. We have very little real vision for the kind of love and commitment that dealing with those realities actually represents. That's a lot bigger problem than how big or fancy one's sanctuary is. And it certainly won't be solved by ditching sanctuaries altogether.

I might add that we need to beware the tendency to view those we are helping materially as a "drain" on church resources. To a large degree, that's what the resources are supposed to be there for. And the fact that our support does not result in a dramatic change in a person's or family's circumstances does not mean they aren't helped. Why do we presume that we are not called to walk alongside someone long-term? or that their needs will eventually go away if we - and, perhaps in the forefront of our judgments, *they* - do the right things?

As someone else has already said, churches of any size can hurt the poor (and the rich) by not giving them what they really need...the pure gospel handed over with NO strings attached.

If churches, mega or not, turn people back into themselves, then they are doing them no favors and may actually be handing them damnation...and not salvation. (read the Galatian letter)

Thanks.

It appears that there is a consensus of criticism, if not downright anger displayed in the comments posted. Everyone has their facts, details, and even anecdotal stories to throw at church organizations over the conditions of how the poor are being dealt with. As a pastor I have personally seen that most of those doing a lot of complaining, fail at the basics of helping the poor in their own lives on a daily basis. Yet Jesus spoke of this subject as a much more personal issue rather than organizational structures fulfilling this task.

Matthew 25:43 “I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me.'”

While I agree that many, if not most churches, are failing at caring for the poor, individuals are failing even more consistently. I have been personally struggling with this issue in my own life, which is why it all seems so clear to me. So I would say take a look at your own coffers first and not the local churches, mega-churches, or whatever first. I think you will find a reflection of individuals who claim to follow Christ in the failings of those organizational structures failing at caring for the poor. That attitude of the poor being a “drain” on the church is far more prevalent in the attitudes of individuals about their own checkbooks.

"So I would say take a look at your own coffers first and not the local churches, mega-churches, or whatever first."

I agree.

Anyone want to take a guess as to how much money is locked up in Church real estate just in the United States alone?

Now, imagine, if every Christian decided that instead of locking all their giving into an edifice, but into a local community project to make everyone's life a little or a lot better...what do you think would happen in the US?

What if we gave our monies to the poorer nations to build water plants, power plants, medical clinics, hospitals, and schools...what do you think would happen in the world?

So, what do we do?
I think we should seriously have a discussion amongst ourselves, and contemplate the very tangible, and very real subject of money, materialism, and greed that has grabbed hold of us.
And in truth, there are only two questions we need to ask, and discuss...

What have we accomplished with our church buildings in the US?

What tangible accomplishment has our particular building provided to the world?

I think every Christian, not just pastors, but every Christian in the US should be discussing this in their congregation.

If using as much gold and wealth to build large churches and plating thrones is useful to the poor, then double, triple, quadruple the amount of gold and wealth to highlight these cathedrals and basilicas.

"Do Megachurches Hurt the Poor?"
Yes, but no more than the 100 member - 1 pastor church. In case someone missed my point above, the percentages are very losely the same between the two. There are a few institutionalized churches out there that really squeeze the budget and send 50% out the door. This is better, but much of the same assumptions are at play.

"Give to your local church first." We are all told to "bring our gifts into the store house..." Every parachurch ministry must trumpet this line every time they ask for money because they are told they are lower on the priority list. The pew and pulpit routines are the top priority. Actually, many or most "para" church ministries are far more reflective of actual Biblical priorities for building the kingdom or Christ's church than the weekly Bible lecture routine and it's accesory packages. This O.T. quote is twisted to demand that the local church is the store house - the temple system of today. Tragically, the institutionalized version of church will not store up a nickel. It will be spent within a month or two, and 86% of that is to benefit mostly the "givers" of the money.

Another statistic that bears on Mark's comment is that the average evangelical giving unit gives about a 2.3% yearly. I have a Leadership Journal comic that illustrates this. This system wide. Our exmega church did a survey and sent it out to us elders that said something like 70% of the giving was done by 10% of the giving units. (Not exact but closely representative. I would have to dig into the files to get the exact numbers.) Some churches could differ from this. This is in a wealthy Silicon Valley town. I believe this 2.3% average is mostly true because God has no reason or motivation to bring conviction on his people to give more when He knows systemically that 86% of that is going to be spend on pew flush and accessories, not what He has asked for.

I read the articles and ads in Leadership Journal about how God blessed so miraculously the Whatever Mega Church as it raised $65 million for their new complex to the praise and glory of God. I have no doubts they actually all believe it was God's power. In view of what God has revealed He wants for His people, I think it was all driven by the power of traditions of men. There is real power there. But if God was involved, and that same fellowship was raising money for reaching all nations and serving the poor, the take would have been 10 - 100 times or more that amount. Has anyone out there ever heard of a church capitol campaign to fund missions or mercy? In our exmega church's $8 million double sized gymnasium project, they included a $40,000 sum to help a church in Latvia. .5% going out the door of the gym.

Having exited those forms, I have developed a store house, an immediate faucet, and a planned regular distribution strategy for giving.
1. The paycheck goes into the account and my set percentage is taken out and moved to a giving account.
2. Every month, set gifts go out automatically from that account to ministries we have chosen.
3. Every month the remaining amount adds up month after month storing up for special needs as God directs.
4. My wallet has two sections. Every time I go to the Versatel machine for cash, a certain percentage goes into the spending side of the wallet and a certain percentage goes in the giving side of the wallet. The giving side is for immediate, on the street, or where ever situations where God prompts for a gift.
I find this approach to be very helpful and keeps me prepared to follow the many ways God leads. I don't give a nickel to buy myself a Bible lecture. I haven't yet found where our two-way communication God asked for strict one-way communication for His people.

Most 'social justice' stuff is a political, social, or religious sham to promote power and influence to a select few who want to be able to distribute (or keep for themselves) a collection of other's resources - in order to promote and facilitate their own agenda.

In order to be a good steward of finances - one would really have to know where their money was going and what it was being spent on. You'd really be better off buying the pope another jewel for his robe than blindly giving money to a good cause because you've been guilted or shamed into giving. Shame = sham. You have millions - these people have nothing. That's what I refer to as the "shame game".

“For we dare not class ourselves or compare ourselves with those who commend themselves. But they, measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise.” (2Co 10:12 NKJV)

When we compare an American culture - to a third world culture - we are not being wise. It takes thousands of dollars to live in the American culture. There are millions of people out their struggling - and you probably personally know some. Why not help them out? Why does 'helping the poor' always have to be crossing social class, political, or other artificial boundaries? Why does 'social injustice' always end up being solved by giving to government or religious professionals? Why is starting a business and employing people seen as evil? I know plenty of business people who have paid their employees and not paid themselves - because the money wasn't there. Yeah - the owner may do great in wonderful times - but he/she is last in line in the hard times.

“"Why was this fragrant oil not sold for three hundred denarii and given to the poor?" This he said, not that he cared for the poor, but because he was a thief, and had the money box; and he used to take what was put in it.” (Joh 12:5-6 NKJV)

Judas was a pro at the shame game.

Is the money going to Judas the thief, or is the money going to help the poor? Does the Megachurch even publish their financials? If not - then how do you know the pastor is not a Judas? For that matter, how do you know the mayor or the congressman or the president is not a Judas?

A while ago I left a comment on You Tube about a megachurch in Detroit that provided its pastor with a tax free 5 million dollar mansion to live in. Someone responded to my comment by shaming me for my disagreement on the matter and proceeded to tell me that the church gives 1.5 million dollars to charity. I simply responded and asked as how the math worked out on that. A 5 million dollar mansion for the pastor and 1.5 million to charity? I just don't get it here. I guess the poor do get the leftovers. Of course the the theology of this particular church lent itself to this kind of opulence.

One must avoid the 'argument according to charity' (a fallacy of my own making) This advocates that the legitimacy of a group, church or organization is based on the fact that they give to the poor or give money to charity work. If this were true strip clubs and Hustler magazine would quality since I'm sure they all give to a good cause. The so-called argument is also designed to deflect criticism by instilling guilt in the one offering the criticism.

Lots of food for thought here.

The comment about the real issue (and problem) being the spending and giving habits of individual Christians really resonated with me.

In addition to the Scripture given by Jerry, this one also came to mind from Matthew 26 (with parallel accounts in Mark and John):

'6 And when Jesus was in Bethany at the house of Simon the leper, 7 a woman came to Him having an alabaster flask of very costly fragrant oil, and she poured it on His head as He sat at the table. 8 But when His disciples saw it, they were indignant, saying, “Why this waste? 9 For this fragrant oil might have been sold for much and given to the poor.”

'10 But when Jesus was aware of it, He said to them, “Why do you trouble the woman? For she has done a good work for Me. 11 For you have the poor with you always, but Me you do not have always. 12 For in pouring this fragrant oil on My body, she did it for My burial. 13 Assuredly, I say to you, wherever this gospel is preached in the whole world, what this woman has done will also be told as a memorial to her.”'

Can it be that there are circumstances where it is important to focus an act of costly worship directly upon God Himself and not simply through our giving to Him in the person of the poor and needy? In our case this would be a symbolic act, such as beautifying the venues where Christians gather for worship, and especially to memorialize Christ's saving Death and Resurrection. Could this be a situation not of either/or, but both/and?

I do also believe prosperity gospel supplanting the true gospel in many quarters of modern Christendom is a problem. On that note, I recently read a book released in April of this year entitled, "Bad Religion: How We Became a Nation of Heretics" by Ross Douthat. I found it a very illuminating read of the history of Christianity in the U.S. If CT hasn't already reviewed it, likely they will. Perhaps the moderators would be so kind as to post a link if/when that happens.

Karen
Can it be that there are circumstances where it is important to focus an act of costly worship directly upon God Himself and not simply through our giving to Him in the person of the poor and needy?
I seems you are trying to equate and even elevate the symbolic gesture over the functional reality. You are trying to suggest that the actual body and person of Jesus is the same as your symbol of Him, there for to push lots of money into your symbol is the same as or better than actually obeying a command of Jesus that benefits "one of the least of these". This is pure poppy cock. Jesus told us that unless we are willing to help "the least of these", we will not enter the kingdom of God. This determinative statement is NEVER said of symbolic gestures. Has your heart and mind been deeply mislead by men in vestments posturing as spiritual leaders in an institutional system into this dark false teaching? I say yes. You did not come up with it on your own. Here, as the Pharisees did, you "nullify the commands of God for the sake of your traditions…"

"In our case this would be a symbolic act, such as beautifying the venues where Christians gather for worship, and especially to memorialize Christ's saving Death and Resurrection. Could this be a situation not of either/or, but both/and?"
It is so sad to see the shallow human rationalization trumping the clear Word of God that so passionately states that the only venue for the presence of God and the manifestation of the power, purity, and holiness of God is His people - buildings not made with hands. I know you know the scriptures I appeal to, yet they are rendered meaningless in your affections and priorities. You rejoice in that which is the exact opposite of what God is looking for to demonstrate himself.
It is not only "in your case", this is in the case of every believer who puts 86% of his money on the pulpit and pew routine for a special hour in a special building. That's about 99.9% of believers in this country, not just your name brand. Symbolic act? No it's an actual disobedient act.

What if we truly do believe that our buildings are used on behalf of the poor?

In my community, you would be hard-pressed to find a suitable area in which to host a food pantry, have classes/job training, have child care during those classes (with appropriate facilities), offer free short-term counseling (through a paid pastor), or serve larger community meals (with a commercial kitchen). All of these things are offered by our church, and our building empowers us to do it. Could we do all of these things in a person's house? Yes, of course we could. But I have been plopped in a situation where we have a building and a commitment for it to be a community center.

For the record, I also believe that the house church movement holds potential for impacting the lives of the poor and marginalized as well- I'm a huge fan, in fact. But let's not take cultural forms and make absolute truth out of them. The Bible offers precious little about the forms that Church should take; in my opinion, that makes us nimble and responsive rather than strict and "my way only."

"What if we truly do believe that our buildings are used on behalf of the poor?"

Belief and reality are two very different animals, hence the reason why I said that we need to ask these questions...

What have we accomplished with our church buildings in the US?

What tangible accomplishment has our particular building provided to the world?

These questions aren't to instill doubt in our faith, but rather to actively review our priorities and methodologies to determine if we are focusing on ourselves by way of "rationalizing" our spending vis-à-vis "community outreach" through upgrading/updating our buildings and facilities.

Sometimes, the building becomes the...well, pardon the comparison, tombstone of the church that once was there.

Perhaps an illustration...and yes, I do poems as well...

"Here lies this magnificent stone, service to the poor it's throne
Given so many, so much it had plenty
but to itself it gave most to its own."

Sheer,

Thank you for your thoughtful response. That being said, I am not that interested in the national question. I'm not going to change anything on the national level of the USAmerican church, nor do I believe that there is one answer on the national question. I can only speak for my context, which I described in my earlier post.

And I also recognize that, in the words of Cornel West, I need to "Interrogate my hidden assumptions." And honestly, my assumption had consistently been (for years) that buildings are self-serving edifices that only represent an earthly power grab for churches. I spent college and seminary years increasingly persuaded toward the house church movement as the "faithful remnant" among an idolatrous consumer model of faith. Then I was called to a smaller congregation than I was used to (125-ish) in a small network of villages.

I have since come to recognize that, while we (USAmerican Christians) have been sold a consumer model of faith, buildings have the potential to be resources used to help the poor/marginalized. Just like churches can give tons of money to charities in order to avoid actually meeting with the poor and marginalized. But I don't want to get off track from the issue of buildings, just to say that charity is far from a panacea and buildings do not need to be the tombstone on which an irrelevant dispenser of religious goods and services sits.

My hope, prayer and commitment is that our church building continues to be a partnership and trust with our area to offer a space in which reconciliation can happen safely. And again, I also believe that the house church/simple church model has an important corrective and is a faithful model of Church as well.

All envy is a sin. This article is stems from envy. All envy is a sin.

Reader
You are a part of one unique church. It is clearly out of the main stream, but for good reasons. You must be part of the .5% of saints with a building that use it for the purposes God asked for. I don't think anyone would even try to make a case that God is against all use of buildings. That makes no sense. The only case against buildings is against the dominating purpose of those buildings - lineing up saints in rows for expert driven one-way communication and age segregation that nullifies all the instructions for teaching and building up the body of Christ. In today's system, it is the "parachurch" that is doing the actual work of the church. They need buildings. Citi Team, Real Options, Teen Challenge, etc.

Tim, what you twist or interpret my question to mean certainly is "pure poppycock," but I don't think your interpretation and my question are pointing to the same thing.

Interesting that in the OT, God makes it very clear (e.g., in the Prophets) that the "sacrifice" He desires of His people is the care of the poor, etc., and that He rejects ritual sacrifice if it is not accompanied by this merciful lifestyle. Yet He also gave detailed instructions to Moses for the sacrificial ritual worship of the Tabernacle, including the structure of the Tabernacle which was ornate and beautiful with articles for Temple service overlaid with precious metals, etc. This Tabernacle/Temple worship was not optional for the people of God.

Also, the prophetic visions of the ongoing worship in Heaven we have in the Scriptures in both Old and New Testaments (e.g., Ezekiel and Revelation) is quite beautiful and, again, gold and precious stones are mentioned, among other things. In this biblical context, we see what is clearly a liturgical, ritual expression of worship/sacrifice. The worshippers are not focused on each other. While all the worshippers certainly participate, in concert repeatedly bowing down toward the Throne, using other symbolic gestures (e.g., throwing crowns), and repeatedly singing hymns, etc., they are *not* focused on each other nor taking turns sharing or leading. Rather, they are focused on God Himself, and Christ alone leads them in their offering of worship. The Epistle to the Hebrews pictures for us the Heavenly Reality of which the ritual worship of the Tabernacle/Temple is a type and picture, with Jesus Himself as our High Priest and also our Holy Sacrifice (the "Lamb") offered on the altar. Literally, where it says in Hebrews 8:2 Christ our High Priest is our "minister," the Greek is transliterated "liturgist" (i.e., this is not a free-form, each-one-takes-a-turn-to-share/lead, charismatic praise fellowship or house Bible study--not even close, nor is it some kind of practical service of love--like all those "one anothers" we find throughout the NT. Rather, it is akin to the ritual worship of the Jewish Temple sacrifice). Also, where the NT talks about the "ministry" of the members of the Body, the royal Priesthood, ministering to one another or having a "ministry" of some sort of care for others , it uses a *different* term from that of Hebrews 8:2. It uses the term we transliterate "deacon" in English, meaning "servant." You seem to conflate the two ideas, which is perhaps somewhat understandable if you are only using an English translation of the Bible (though the contexts of these two kinds of "ministry" are obviously different, even in the English. (Do you read Greek, by any chance? I don't, but I have been taught this by those who do, and I have a Strong's Concordance where I can look this up.)

We don't find God in the OT condemning the people faithfully bringing their gold, tithes, etc., into the Temple. A good portion of this went to support the Priests and Levites and their families. This was still the practice in Jesus' day and you don't find Jesus, nor even His disciples after the Resurrection, discontinuing or even criticizing the ritual worship required of faithful Jews. They didn't quit worshipping with their fellow Jews--they got kicked out of the synagogues as the friction between Messianic Jews and unconverted Jews heated up! Even after this point, there is no evidence that Christian liturgy made the kind of break with Jewish liturgy that most modern Protestants imagine. So I think that even simply looking at the Scriptures, it isn't quite the either/or picture that you make of it.

Certainly hypocritical ritual worship (like that of the Pharisees who opposed Jesus) is condemned. You won't find me arguing with that at all. It suffices perhaps to note that in spite of that condemnation of hypocrisy, Jesus doesn't tell the Pharisees to cease to tithing of their mint and cumin, etc. He challenges them about the heart attitude (mercy) and the generous alms and care for the poor that should accompany such tithes and ritual expressions of faith.

The abuses of power and worldliness and corruption in various parts of the Church have been well documented throughout her history and it should come as no surprise that even where traditional Christian liturgy has been abandoned (the modern "mega-church"), this is still a temptation and a snare to many Christians. It is certainly to be decried and fought whenever and wherever it occurs. On the other hand, historically the Church (even with her understanding of the corporate gathered worship as liturgical ritual sacrifice) has always led the way as well in practical compassion and care for the poor--both spiritual and material. There was no such thing as widespread public health care and public education systems, welfare, or orphanages, etc., anywhere in the ancient world. All that is a direct result of the birth of the Christian Church.

Finally, I have read on more than one occasion that the voluntary charitable gifts of highly religious Christians (i.e., those most likely to be regular weekly attenders in the corporate worship of local churches) far outstrips that of their less religious or more secular peers. It would be interesting to take a survey to see if the charitable giving patterns of "highly religious" who gather in smaller groups in unadorned house churches is all that different than their "highly religious" counterparts in more traditional churches. On the other hand, in the most traditional churches of all (the Eastern Orthodox), it is not a virtue to broadcast one's giving practices, but folks are encouraged to do it secretly as taught in the Gospels (i.e., not in a way that can be reported via statistics of some sort), so it might be a bit more challenging to get the most accurate picture there.

Concerning buildings - I think what 'Reader' is describing is awesome. I wish all of the assets called 'churches' in America were much better utilized and much more available to the community. If they were, maybe the community would have a more favorable opinion of the church.

I have a 'church' that I pass almost every day where people used to cut thru the parking lot to avoid traffic on a congested street - or if the cross street were blocked too - they'd turn around and go back where they came from. They put up gates into the parking lot - with a sign - "No turning around here" I laugh every time I go past there. It's so prophetic about most 'churches' - sinners aren't allowed. "No turning around here".

Karen:

I think many of us have a hard time with the liturgy because we don't see Jesus himself participating in it anywhere in scripture. He wasn't a part of the 'ruling class' of synagogue officials - he never held an earthly office/title/authoritative position. My opinion is that at some point your doctrine has to come down to - "How did Jesus do this?". Jesus didn't buy land and build buildings and dress his disciples in funny clothes. At least their is no scriptural evidence to support that type of behavior.

The word 'synagogue' itself orginally meant a group of worshippers - not a collection of long term assets. Now 'church' and 'synagogue' mostly means land and buildings. The meaning of 'church' was skewed somewhere along the line. The people who believe in Christ are the 'church' - not the land and buildings and services. Take away the land and buildings and services - and you've lost nothing. The most valuable asset of your 'church' Karen - is YOU - and the other precious saints you fellowship with. Take away the liturgy - and you've lost nothing. Take away YOU - and we've lost - and we've lost BIG. If the only way you'll stay is with liturgy - then I'd keep it too - not because of it - but because of you.

I do have a hard time when the Megachurch spends a couple grand on the stage setup for the next teaching series - but I have a much harder time when any church doesn't publish their financials. To me, they are hiding something.

Back on subject - does the Megachurch hurt the poor? I'm not of the opinion that people are poor because they lack finances. They are poor because they spend more than they make.

Jerry writes: "I think many of us have a hard time with the liturgy because we don't see Jesus himself participating in it anywhere in scripture."

Jerry, forgive me, but if you don't see this, it is because you are blind to it, not because it is not there. Jesus was not a Jewish Priest because He wasn't born into that family line (for the Jews, the Priesthood was Aaronic). So, of course, He did not serve as a Priest in the earthly Temple while He walked on earth--but HE WAS A FAITHFUL PARTICIPANT, a worshipper, and He never spoke against the Jewish Priesthood, etc., which was established by God.

In the Gospels we see Him in synagogue regularly. Conservative Bible scholars generally agree that the Gospel language reflects that He was a traditional Jewish Rabbi who would have taught according to synagogue customs, as in Luke 4:14-30, as well as outside the synagogues as an itinerant preacher/teacher. First century synagogue worship included a fixed order of readings from the OT and liturgical prayers, etc., ( e.g., from the Psalms). It is also reported in the Gospels that He and His family went up to Jerusalem to participate in the Feasts of Temple worship as commanded in the Scriptures and that this was their regular custom. So what you claim about Jesus is false--He was nothing if not also an observant pious Jew!

If you want to understand who and what Jesus is in His relationship to us, read the Epistle to the Hebrews, where He is "our High Priest" "according to the order of Melchizzedek," who holds His position in perpetuity. We would have no understanding of who and what a High Priest is and does were it not for the patterns given through Moses to the Jewish people as types that pointed to the nature of "worship" as ritual sacrifice in Heaven, and from which the first century Temple worship in which Jesus participated was derived. From that, we know that this worship is liturgical and involves ritual sacrifice symbolic of the people's whole lives (i.e., of their repentance and self-offering to God) and of God's offering of Himself to us.

I must disagree that the most valuable asset of my Church is me and the other congregants. The most valuable asset of my Church is Jesus, Whom I receive within her through the regular reading and preaching of the Word of God and in the Mystery of the Eucharist and her whole sacramental life as well as in the Holy-Spirit inspired loving actions of my fellow Christians.

In no way do I want to deny that "church" and "synagogue" refer only secondarily to the building and rather primarily to the gathered people themselves, but what they are doing when they gather in this context is always ritual and liturgical! It is definitely wrong and hypocritical when the liturgy offered by the people is in stark contrast to how they actually live their lives, rather than a symbolic expression of it, but to just throw out biblical liturgy and true apostolic Christian tradition because it can become hypocritical is to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

As for you last point, certainly there are a lot of people, especially in the developed world and in this country who are poor because they spend more than they make, but by far the poorest of the poor in this country and the world over (i.e., the majority of the poor worldwide) are poor because they have no means to make money and no prospects, and this is mostly traceable to the greed of others, wars, injustice and the dreadful sin that disfigures life on our planet, including the poor themselves.

Karen
"Tim, what you twist or interpret my question…"
What you say in your rebuttal proves I twisted nothing. Your twisted appeal to Moses and the Tabernacle / temple worship suggesting this justifies fancy "places of worship" is tragic nullifying of N.T. teaching and instructions. Did not Jesus say that location for worship is of no significance, only "spirit and truth"? The Father is still looking for you to worship Him as he asks for this era of His kingdom building. You still need a beautiful building? Do you need a direct command for that?

"Also, the prophetic visions of the ongoing worship in Heaven … is quite beautiful and, again, gold and precious stones are mentioned, among other things. In this biblical context, we see what is clearly a liturgical, ritual expression of worship/sacrifice."

Again you are letting traditions of men trump the Word of God, all the while using the Word of God, just like the Pharisees, and the Devil himself - out of context and twisted. You use the OT of the past and the Revelation accounts of the future to justify beauty in worship now. All the apostles and Jesus himself must have missed your leaders Biblical interpretation because none of the them said anything about the need for beautiful buildings or ritual expression for the church now. Everything they said and modeled is what you deplore or minimize - "taking turns sharing or leading".

"The Epistle to the Hebrews pictures for us the Heavenly Reality of which the ritual worship of the Tabernacle/Temple is a type and picture, with Jesus Himself as our High Priest and also our Holy Sacrifice (the "Lamb") offered on the altar. Literally, where it says in Hebrews 8:2 Christ our High Priest is our "minister," the Greek is transliterated "liturgist" (i.e., this is not a free-form, each-one-takes-a-turn-to-share/lead…"

Not a free-form, each-one-…? How do you know it's not this? Let me prove the opposite. Just keep reading in Hebrews, same context and get to chapter 10 where Jesus, our High Priest is mentioned again along with offerings and sacrifices. Three specific instructions follow with the transition "Therefore, brothers…"
Let us draw near...
Let us hold fast…
Let us consider how we can spur one another on to love and good works, not giving up the habit of meeting as some is, but encouraging one another…

Wow!! Interactive expression, that which you have been lead to depricate and demean is that which God is looking for. You substitute your non-organism ritual for the relational design of God. You substitute platform driven chant for High Priest driven expression from the gathered priests. You are following men, not the Word of God, just two chapters away.

"Also, where the NT talks about the "ministry" of the members of the Body, the royal Priesthood, … it uses a *different* term from that of Hebrews 8:2. It uses the term we transliterate "deacon" in English, meaning "servant." You seem to conflate the two ideas, which is perhaps somewhat understandable if you are only using an English translation of the Bible …"

Here again Heb. 10 shows this word wrangling (serving vs worship) is driven by institutionalized experts is a ruse - mere arguing. I left out "…and all the more as we see the day drawing near." Time is short Karen. Follow the truth, not tradition. You don't need a greek expert for any of this. Please, look it up yourself. Also read the warning that follows this for those who "go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth…" We have dialogued on this many a time. Do you need more from God's Word to see the error of your leaders?

"We don't find God in the OT condemning the people faithfully bringing their gold, tithes, etc., into the Temple."
What does this have to do with anything in the N.T.? We are the temple. We are the priests. This should not be new to you. Should we bring the gold and tithes to ourselves? That is what institutionalized givers do - sadly.

"Even after this point, there is no evidence that Christian liturgy made the kind of break with Jewish liturgy that most modern Protestants imagine."

The evidence is all there in simple reading, no greek. I think you don't want to see it. Can you imagine what that temple was like with no curtain? Did God make a mistake in allowing the temple to be destroyed? Meeting in homes is all there. I don't see where you see lining up the saints all facing a vestured man with a ritual of platform driven directions? Where? Protestants are mostly still stuck in ritual practices that are sacerdotal rather than organism dynamic. You have a lot of systemic commonness with them.

"Certainly hypocritical ritual worship (like that of the Pharisees who opposed Jesus) is condemned."

There are two rituals, baptism and the Lord's Table. Everything else is "ritual" multi-gifted participative expression by God's people. That is certainly an oxymoron. Do you have a text for a platform driven ritual? Zero out the 58 one another instructions and you have hypocrisy like the Pharisees because you almost zero out the "new and living way" Heb. 10.

"It would be interesting to take a survey to see if the charitable giving patterns of "highly religious" who gather in smaller groups in unadorned house churches is all that different than their "highly religious" counterparts in more traditional churches."

As someone who meets organically, let me tell you it is very different.
1. 100% of what I give goes out the door. Do your church leaders tell you what percentage of your giving goes beyond buying rituals for you?
2. When God knows that 86% of your giving is going to buy stuff for yourself and other wealthy people, he has little reason to lead you to "give" more. More will go to what He has not asked for. When He knows all your giving is giving, then he has reasons to lead for more giving. Do you understand these two substantive differences that are huge? I've said this many times before but it has not registered yet.

I think one thing that this article misses -- and that is much clearer in Bad Catholic's two posts -- is the aesthetic difference between a megachurch and a Catholic church. There is no uplifting of the human spirit in walking into a megachurch, no real beauty. All is functional and simplistic and utilitarian. Big screens, crappy banners. Of course none of it is worth the money.

But with a Catholic church, one gets a sense of the transcendent, an uplifting closeness to God in the stained glass, the statuary, and especially the tabernacle. And THIS is the reason that Catholic churches are "for the benefit of the poor", a point made much better and more clearly in Bad Catholic's original post than in your summary of his point. A megachurch is utilized on weekends and at the midweek service, perhaps. A Catholic church, ideally, is available for anyone -- rich or poor -- to stop in at any time to pray, to visit Christ in the tabernacle, to utilize the Stations of the Cross or the confessional. It is something that lifts them out of their poverty much more than a monetary hand out would.

Thanks, Matthew. I agree. I'm reminded of the words of Jesus who said:

"Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God."

For Tim I would just say, I could live without a paid clergy (though I believe they are worth a paid living to the Church and this frees them up to be available full time to the members and others in need). I could live without beautiful buildings to meet in. But having now discovered it, I could never live without the Liturgy of the Church, how it commemorates and illumines the meaning of the Scriptures, every event and person in our salvation history, and allows me to receive bodily the grace of God (i.e., the Person of Christ Himself) in the Mysteries (sacraments). This tells me I have value and worth, body and soul, to God even when I have nothing to give Him--either symbolically or in the person of the poor and needy. It tells me that I am not just created for material comfort in this life, but am created in His image for union/communion with Him.

What does it say symbolically if we invest all our offerings *only* in meeting the *material* needs of the poor (not saying this is what your "100% out the door" goes to pay for)? I think it might suggest that we believe man is not more than the physical needs of his body and that there is nothing in this world that transcends our material existence. Even if we deny this with our words, "actions speak louder than words." Beauty (visual and musical) as an expression of truth and transcendence serves no *utilitarian* purpose, and that is why it is uniquely suited to the proclamation of the gospel. God does not love us for what we can do for Him or for our usefulness. He loves us for our being. For those who invest not only in serving the practical needs of others for Christ's sake, but who also invest in beautifying and sanctifying parts of the Creation for use solely for the worship of God and thus also serve our more critical spiritual needs for truth, beauty and meaning, I will use the words of Christ,

“Why do you trouble [those who do this]? For [they] have done a good work for Me."

Karen:

I would totally disagree with most of your post. Jesus was of the tribe of Judah - He was not a Levite - thus not a part of the Jewish priesthood by inheritance. Jewish law would have disallowed his participation in the priesthood. The liturgy in the Old Testament is very much associated with Aaron.

He was(is) a high priest in the order of Melchizedek - not the order of Aaron. Hebrews makes it very clear:

"Now if perfection had been attainable through the levitical priesthood—for the people received the law under this priesthood—what further need would there have been to speak of another priest arising according to the order of Melchizedek, rather than one according to the order of Aaron? (Hebrews 7:11)

Hebrews depicts the two as being distinctly different and separate - Jesus was not of the order of Aaron - He was from Judah. He was of the order of Melchizadek -

For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. It is even more obvious when another priest arises, resembling Melchizedek,
one who has become a priest, not through a legal requirement concerning physical descent, but through the power of an indestructible life. (Hebrews 7:14-16)

We don't know anything about liturgy and Melchizedek - but we do have the scriptures and what Jesus implemented :

God replaced the Jewish priesthood with an eternal priesthood - He put fisherman and tax collectors (and YOU) into that priesthood. His (replacement) priesthood wasn't about natural inheritance or education. His priests weren't elite - they were common. Education doesn't exlude one from the priesthood - but it certainly isn't a prerequisite.

But YOU are a chosen race, a ROYAL PRIESTHOOD (2 Peter 2:9).

And have made US kings and PRIESTS to our God. (Rev 5:10)

He doesn't live in temples or buildings - He lives among His people:

And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit. (Eph 2:22)

If you want revival - you don't build bigger buildings and add more hierarchy and liturgy - you build community and include the priesthood (all believers). The money goes to the priesthood (like always) - but that's no longer the professional clergy (Aaron) - that's all of the believers (Jesus' priests). You invest in Christ. Christ may be poor - but there's plenty of poor who aren't Christ - and the later could prove to be a very bad investment.

If you omit the real priesthood from your building - and instead implement the Old Testament priesthood - you can't have revival - just a stale old shell of what the glory used to be. It's the difference between Moses' tabernacle - and David's tabernacle. It's the difference between the Levitcal priesthood and Melchizadek priesthood. Many people are praying for revival - but God is never going to revive the Levitical priesthood ever again. He can't - to do so He would be denying Jesus.

I agree with you 100% that Jesus is the most precious resource in the church and I'm sorry if I ever fail to put Him first and foremost in any and every way. If we agree on that - we could both be wrong 100% on everything else - and it wouldn't really matter much :)

Jerry, please reread my comment to you. You apparently weren't following all that I was saying. For one thing, concerning the OT Priesthood vs. that of Melchizedek, I affirm what you claim here I deny.

We agree the NT affirms that the limitation of Priesthood to Aaron's family has been superseded by Christ's Priesthood, which is also reflected in the Priesthood of all believers and that the limited and temporary and ineffectual nature of the OT animal sacrifices has been superseded by the effectual and eternal Sacrifice of Christ. Follow me so far? What I am arguing does NOT change in the NT is the biblical understanding that worship of God is by its very nature 1) liturgical when it is offered formally by the gathered Body (Hebrews 8:2 calling Christ in the context of the gathered worship of God's people our "minister" where literally it means "liturgist," reflects this), 2) priestly in its function, and 3) involves the offering of sacrifice. Now, does my former post make more sense?

All the historical and biblical evidence shows *formal, gathered* Christian worship historically from NT times has always had the nature of a liturgical sacrifice--a participation in time and space in the ongoing eternal Sacrifice of Christ in the heavens. This liturgical nature of biblical formal gathered worship is also seen in the visions of Ezekiel and the Apostle John in Revelation as on ongoing eternal Heavenly reality. There are little hints of this in the Scriptures. For example, in Revelation 7:10 it says the throng of worshippers "cried out in a loud voice." It does not say they cried out "with loud voices." In other words, they are speaking in unison--this is only possible when worship is liturgical. The angels do the same thing, so there is a back and forth between the angels and Elders and four living creatures on the one hand and the worshipping throng on the other. In this formal worship context as well, all the worshippers are oriented in the same direction--towards the Throne of God. So this is why I disagree with Tim that the context of the formal gathering of the members of the Church for worship is a kind of charismatic free for all. It certainly is interactive, but not in the spontaneous and horizontal way he imagines (or gives me to imagine from his comments, at least!). In Orthodox worship, whenever he or the congregation are praying or presenting the offering of the Eucharist to God (which is most of the liturgy), the Priest/Presbyter faces the altar with the rest of the congregation (i.e., he is one of us). There are moments during the liturgy when he also faces and addresses the congregation who always (except during the homily) have a reciprocal response.

All this is not to deny that these forms and rituals point to a reality that is ultimately to be how the believer lives his whole life (not just in formal worship)--as a pleasing offering and sacrifice to God. His service to others and stewardship of his resources and of the creation is priestly by nature, and his whole life is to be a reflection of this.

I think I did misread your post Karen. I agree that the Lord accepted the priesthood of that time - at least what God had intended it to be - not what it had become. I'm sure He could see the intent and get beyond the corruption. I have no doubt that the liturgy of that time had deep and significant meaning to Jesus. I have no doubt it has deep and significant meaning to you too. If I belittle that (your experience with Christ) in any way - I'd be in gross error - and instead I would desire to participate in that experience of Christ.

.

Jerry, thanks. I have also misread folk's comments on more than one occasion--it's easy to do. I would be remiss if I didn't also acknowledge that there is certainly still a place for more spontaneous worship as well and the intent of the heart is always a key with God. He dwells "in a high and holy place," which is also paradoxically "with him who is humble and contrite in heart." (Isaiah 57:15).

Have a great weekend!

Karen
"In this formal worship context as well, all the worshippers are oriented in the same direction--towards the Throne of God. So this is why I disagree with Tim…"
It is clear your plum-line of truth are the vestured men and their traditions in your organization, not the word of God. If you are seeking to posture a future worship event to today, do you have a throne in your sanctuary? You have an altar. Where is this altar in the Revelation text? "before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands, 10 and crying out with a loud voice…" Are you clothed in white robes and have palm branches in your hand? Do you actually cry out with a loud voice or do you use a liturgical voice? Even here you have it messed up and it all leads you to reject the very clear, specific instruction in the Word I have listed for you. I'm sure you have lots of emotion in your efforts but your obedience is severely misdirected. God wants obedience far more than any ritual.

"… that the context of the formal gathering of the members of the Church for worship is a kind of charismatic free for all. It certainly is interactive, but not in the spontaneous and horizontal way he imagines (or gives me to imagine from his comments, at least!)."

These comments clearly register that the scripture I gave means nothing to you. You suggest it is all my imagination, when it is clearly the specific Word of God. "Free for all"? This is your imagination that rejects a simple understanding of "one another" in it's mutuality, intimacy and humility.

You have joined a system that has far greater interest in posturing a ritual routine called worship rather than the worship of obedience to Christ, one of which is serving the poor.

Tim, just to clarify--with regard to the ritual/liturgical vs. body-ministry aspects of Christian worship and ministry in the NT, I'm saying BOTH/AND. I am not ruling out the "one anothers." I'm just pointing out there is also a liturgical context in Scripture. You are the one, it seems to me from your comments, who is trying to make this an issue of either/or.

Karen
No, you are not clarifying. You are trying to spin what you said earlier which was to hype liturgy, even with zero instructions to do so and to deprecate one another expression as a charismatic free for all.
Again I ask, do you have a throne in your sanctuary? You have an altar. Where is this altar in the Revelation text?

"before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands, 10 and crying out with a loud voice…" Are you clothed in white robes and have palm branches in your hand? Do you actually cry out with a loud voice or do you use a liturgical voice? Even here you have it messed up and it all leads you to reject the very clear, specific instruction in the Word I have listed for you.

Do you know the difference between an instruction to do something now and a future occurrence that has no instruction value for imitating it now? There are millions of people, like you who follow their sacerdotal leaders and are sucked into thinking the glitter and gold and pomp and ritual are what God is looking for to enhance worship. It is not both / and based. You don't do both / and during your official ceremony. I have done my best to convince you with the Word.

Tim,

Not that I think it will matter to you, since all that seems to matter to you is your *own* interpretation and application of Scripture, but the "throne" is actually the name given to the communion table in an Orthodox church because it is also symbolic of God's presence among His people. In fact, “altar” in the Eastern Orthodox tradition most commonly refers not to the communion table itself, but to the whole area around the table also known as the “sanctuary” and which symbolically represents the place where God’s glory is made manifest and where those who have died in Christ and the angels reside. What is the Lamb doing “standing as though it had been slain in the midst of the throne” (Rev. 5:6), if that “throne” is not also a place of sacrifice? From an Orthodox perspective, the scene in Revelation is eschatological--meaning not merely future, but meaning the end of history, i.e., outside of created time and space and eternal. Being eternal by nature, it is also ongoing from the beginning of creation. Is not Jesus described in Revelation 13:8 also as the Lamb slain *from the foundation of the world*? What can this suggest, except that this spiritual reality of God’s holy nature and its expression in the incarnation, death and resurrection of God, the Word, is not only made manifest at a certain point in history, but has existence from the beginning of creation? In Orthodox Christian understanding, the communion of self-giving, self-sacrificial love is the very nature and eternal mode of existence of the Holy Trinity. This “outside of time/space” nature of eternal spiritual reality is also how we understand that in Ephesians 2:6, the Apostle Paul can say that believers have been “raised up and made to sit with Christ in the heavenlies” (past and present tense) even though those he was addressing in this epistle were clearly still (also) on earth. In other words, within the Church, the eternal reality of God in heaven intersects with redeemed humanity on earth within space and time. This being seated with Christ in the heavenlies is understood within Orthodoxy not as a metaphor, but as spiritual reality itelf.

Of course worship in spirit and in truth is not limited to a particular location (like the Temple worship of the Jews), and so an Orthodox parish can be planted anywhere there are people (and many do still start out in someone's living room). Nor is it limited to a building so, of course, Orthodox Christians can pray anywhere at any time. The goal of all Orthodox prayer (personal or corporate) is to become consciously, experientially, aware of God’s Presence with and within us at all times so that we may truly and increasingly live according to that truth. Ultimately (and with this I feel confident you would agree), the goal is to cultivate our hearts as an “altar,” a place where the glory of God, His sefl-sacrificial love, can be made fully manifest. That is all I have to say--I don’t want to take up any more space in this thread expounding something not related to the post.

karen
"Not that I think it will matter to you, since all that seems to matter to you is your *own* interpretation and application of Scripture,"

Wow, 2 slams in half a sentence.
1. Of course it all matters. We are part of the same family and body. I am interested in your eternal reward that comes from obedience to the Word, not ceremonies contrived by men to symbolize rather than actualize obedience to specific instructions.
2. The scripture I give needs no interpretation except to interpret away it's obvious meaning.

Crowd oriented, sacerdotal expert driven, ceremonialized gatherings of believers is the exact focal point for why the poor are served in such minisquel fashion - the point of this blog. The whole rig-a-ma-role sucks up a huge percentage of the giving, dumbs down God's people to zero prepared expression, and makes one hour at one place on one day a focal point of "worship". It's a contrived system that does not match up to the Word in plain English.

Tim writes: ' . . . and makes one hour at one place on one day a focal point of "worship".'

Tim has obviously never participated in Orthodox Christian worship. :-)

:) Karen, you have told us all about it. I don't need to visit. Do you know where your giving goes? Does your church tell you? The typical church that requires a special building and a hired ceremony leader / Bible lecturer, plus others, then a large percentage of your giving is buying goodies for yourself, not where God asked for your giving to go.

Unlike the Bereans, Acts 17:11, who had a "more noble faith" because they examined daily what Paul said to see if it was true, you are unable to do the same with your hired men. You just take it all in and call it good. Even when it is showed to be in error, you cannot handle the truth. You can only handle traditions of men claimed to be true for a long time. Catholics are in this same boat, claiming they are the truest because they are the oldest and have one organizational system. Very sad. :(

@tim, do you yourself follow the Bible, you sound more like you just have your own agenda. Paul wrote his letters to churches. Churches were written to by Paul and told to follow specific instructions. People gather together in churches for not only teaching and the collection of money (2Cor 8 and many others), but for the celebration of the sacraments of baptism and communion. From the OT:
Jer 3:15 "And I will give you pastors according to mine heart, which shall feed you with knowledge and understanding."
This obviously involves preaching and listening.

Eph 4:11 "And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;"
Again, preaching and listening.

On top of that, the pastors were to be paid, as they were the leaders and shepherds.
1Cor 9:14 "In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel."

Acts 11:26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

1Cor 16:1 "Now about the collection for the Lord’s people: Do what I told the Galatian churches to do. On the first day of every week, each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income, saving it up, so that when I come no collections will have to be made. Then, when I arrive, I will give letters of introduction to the men you approve and send them with your gift to Jerusalem. If it seems advisable for me to go also, they will accompany me."

Not only did churches have preachers and teachers, but Paul was obviously an overseer of the churches.

@tim, do you yourself follow the Bible, you sound more like you just have your own agenda. Paul wrote his letters to churches. Churches were written to by Paul and told to follow specific instructions. People gather together in churches for not only teaching and the collection of money (2Cor 8 and many others), but for the celebration of the sacraments of baptism and communion.
Jer 3:15 15 "And I will give you pastors according to mine heart, which shall feed you with knowledge and understanding."
This obviously involves preaching and listening.

Eph 4:11 "And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;"
Again, preaching and listening.

On top of that, the pastors were to be paid, as they were the leaders and shepherds.
1Cor 9:14 "In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel."

Acts 11:26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

1Cor 16:1 "Now about the collection for the Lord’s people: Do what I told the Galatian churches to do. On the first day of every week, each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income, saving it up, so that when I come no collections will have to be made. Then, when I arrive, I will give letters of introduction to the men you approve and send them with your gift to Jerusalem. If it seems advisable for me to go also, they will accompany me."

Not only did churches have preachers and teachers, but Paul was obviously an overseer of the churches.

Gary, I appreciate your efforts with Tim, but in my experience, Tim's agenda makes him blind to many things, and he won't be able to "hear" what you have said. I'm not the only one who has tried. Just for the record, I'm in my 50s and have been a student of the Scriptures for nearly as long! The Orthodox Liturgy is more saturated with Scripture (and its proper interpretation "for those who have ears to hear") by far than any other form of worship service I have been in.

Jesus identified "the love of money" as the root of evil. Is the issue one of buildings and their value, or the attitude that leads the church to want wealth? When believers in Christ choose the desire of wealth as a means to security, social respectability and personal esteem, then we have given in to the "love of money". At the root of the issue is whether or not we trust God enough to live within simple means. Yet, Is there a time when we accept the expensive "nard" or "perfume" as Jesus did? The key problem is what we expect to gain from our giving or from what we build. If our purpose in the church is to glorify Jesus Christ, it will take form in actions that mirror Matthew 25 as the body of Christ is living to feed the hungry, visit the sick, clothe the naked and care for those in prison or disenfranchised. Money may be a helpful tool, and church buildings may help people to worship meaningfully, but the ultimate expression of the church's devotion is not found in the throng or the multitude, but in the private and austere moments of service and sacrifice. This is the kind of worship that God called the people to in Isaiah 58, and it is the kind of fasting that will restore and heal. I long for this and I pray that there shall be a new kind of church to develop when we let go of our insecurities and die to our selves.

The growing size and luxury of mega churches definitely raises the question of priorities in many peoples minds. The secular world, and Bible believing Christians alike are often confronted with the question of how a church can justify spending so much of its funds on a pretty building, if indeed the building is not the focus as they church claims.
Surely the answer comes down to more factors than are immediately seen. The size of the church, and who they plan to minister to are huge considerations when looking at this problem.
Practically, if the church is growing and doesn't fit in its location, the crowding problem will begin to turn others away. Secondly, if the church plans to minister to "the world" its often understood that you have to appeal to the world on their level. Buildings of great size or beauty are believed to attract people, believers or unbelievers. The general age of attendant and income are often included in this as well, but in what ways should this differentiate in the body of Christ? Going to church in a well known, luxurious location can be assuring for an uncertain believer. That being said, if the focus is who the luxurious building can attract then it will have potential as a ministry in itself.
All this is logical, and seemingly Biblical, as long as the priority is ministry and not simply comfort and fame.

In addition to the money spent on the buildings and comfort of the building itself, the church cannot sacrifice its intentional giving to the poor during this process. If it robs from giving to the poor, or the congregation's time in serving the poor and eventually welcoming them into the church's life, it is certainly not living up the to expectations that society or Christ has. This can rightly be called hypocrisy and should be righted quickly.