Post by buildings on Jul 15, 2006 19:14:28 GMT -5
Church Buildings As Seen By One Methodist
Does the church have an edifice complex?
By Howard A. Snyder, Dean of the Free Methodist Theological Seminary in Sao CHALLENGE ------ March 1972 Are church buildings a help, or a hindrance in the spread of Christianity?
If you had asked, "Where is the church?" In any important City of the Ancient world where Christianity had penetrated in the first century, you would have been directed to a group of worshiping people gathered in a House. There was no special building or other tangible wealth with which to Associate Church only people'! So wrote the late Walter Oetting in a significant Little Book "The church of the Catacombs". Christians did not begin to build Church Buildings until about 200 A.D. This fact suggests that, whatever else Church Buildings may be useful for; they are not essential either for numerical Growth, or spiritual depth. The early church possessed both these Qualities, and The churches greatest period of vitality and growth were during the first Two Centuries A.D. In other words, the church grew fastest when it did not have the help or hindrance, of church buildings. But, if it is really true that church buildings are not essential either for growth or spirituality, why do churches today depend so heavily on buildings; is it true that the church suffers?
Church buildings attest to five facts about our church today.
A witness to our immobility. First, church buildings are a witness to our immobility. What is more immovable than a church building? And yet Christians are supposedly wayfaring pilgrims. Christians are supposed to be a mobile people. The Gospel says, "Go", but our church buildings say, stay". The Gospel says, "seek the lost", but our structures say, "Let The Lost seek the church".
A witness to our inflexibility. Secondly, church buildings are a witness to our inflexibility. Once the building is up, and in use, the Church Program is largely determined. The Sunday morning service allows for the direct participation of only a few--------dictated by the sanctuary layout. The problem at heart is not one of poor planning. It is a matter of the inherent limitations of church buildings. Buildings are, by nature, inflexible. They are inflexible, and they encourage inflexibility,---or worse----stagnation.
A witness to our lack of fellowship. Third, church buildings are a witness to our lack of fellowship. Church buildings may be worshipful places, but usually they are not friendly places. They are uncomfortable and impersonal. Church buildings are not made for fellowship, for "Koinonia" in the biblical sense. They are made for worship, and worship without fellowship becomes something cold, and divorced from mundane reality. In probably 90% of all church buildings the sanctuary seating consists of wooden pews arranged in rows, and fastened securely to the floor. The pews are arranged to make it nearly impossible for a worshipper to see the face of any other worshipper. It is as though the ideal is to isolate each worshipper in his own private booth, so he could see only the face of the minister, and not be distracted by others present! But, if we are to worship the Lord together we must be able to see each other. Many congregations are sensing this lack of fellowship in the churches, and so are building new structures called a "Fellowship Hall". Real Biblical Christian fellowship, such as experienced by the early Christian, is lacking in most churches today. And so a stranger may attend a Christian church for weeks and never encounter the warm, winsome fellowship that draws a person to Christ. Such a situation would have been impossible in the early church.
A witness to our pride. Fourth, church buildings are a witness to our pride. We insist that our church buildings must be beautiful, and well appointed---which usually means expensive. We justify this on the basis that God deserves the best. But such thinking may be little more than the rationalizing of our pride. We might also say that we are ambassadors for the King of Kings, but this does not justify spending vast resources to build embassies. We may forget that our King is at war, and we are called to be His soldiers. We may, for instance feel that we need beautiful buildings in order to draw sinners to the church, and thus to Christ. But, two things are wrong here. First, the concept is wrong. The church is to seek the sinner, not Vice Versa. Second, the motivation is wrong. We try to attract sinners by appealing to pride, which Christ never does. We say that our church buildings must be in harmony----in style and value with architecture of the community. But, this may be only a brand of conforming to the world. A Gospel with New Testament dynamics does not need the appeal of an attractive building. In fact, a fine church structure may simply attract the Pharisees, and repel the poor. That has, after all, happened in church history.
A witness to our class divisions. Finally church buildings are a witness to our class divisions. The early church was composed of rich and poor, Jew and Greek, black and white, ignorant and educated. But our modern church buildings advertise to the world that this is not so today. The new family in the community goes for a drive, and looks over the church buildings. They choose the one that looks like "their kind" one that would contain people of approximately the same income, education and color as themselves. The fault lies deeper than mere architecture but, the building is a witness. It is a signpost telling the world of the church's class-consciousness and exclusiveness. What then should be done? Should we abandon the use of church structures? This is precisely what I suggest. A different kind of structure is not enough. Remember, during its most vital 150 years, the Christian Church had no church buildings. In those days it was mobile, flexible, humble, inclusive-------and growing rapidly.
Does the church have an edifice complex?
By Howard A. Snyder, Dean of the Free Methodist Theological Seminary in Sao CHALLENGE ------ March 1972 Are church buildings a help, or a hindrance in the spread of Christianity?
If you had asked, "Where is the church?" In any important City of the Ancient world where Christianity had penetrated in the first century, you would have been directed to a group of worshiping people gathered in a House. There was no special building or other tangible wealth with which to Associate Church only people'! So wrote the late Walter Oetting in a significant Little Book "The church of the Catacombs". Christians did not begin to build Church Buildings until about 200 A.D. This fact suggests that, whatever else Church Buildings may be useful for; they are not essential either for numerical Growth, or spiritual depth. The early church possessed both these Qualities, and The churches greatest period of vitality and growth were during the first Two Centuries A.D. In other words, the church grew fastest when it did not have the help or hindrance, of church buildings. But, if it is really true that church buildings are not essential either for growth or spirituality, why do churches today depend so heavily on buildings; is it true that the church suffers?
Church buildings attest to five facts about our church today.
A witness to our immobility. First, church buildings are a witness to our immobility. What is more immovable than a church building? And yet Christians are supposedly wayfaring pilgrims. Christians are supposed to be a mobile people. The Gospel says, "Go", but our church buildings say, stay". The Gospel says, "seek the lost", but our structures say, "Let The Lost seek the church".
A witness to our inflexibility. Secondly, church buildings are a witness to our inflexibility. Once the building is up, and in use, the Church Program is largely determined. The Sunday morning service allows for the direct participation of only a few--------dictated by the sanctuary layout. The problem at heart is not one of poor planning. It is a matter of the inherent limitations of church buildings. Buildings are, by nature, inflexible. They are inflexible, and they encourage inflexibility,---or worse----stagnation.
A witness to our lack of fellowship. Third, church buildings are a witness to our lack of fellowship. Church buildings may be worshipful places, but usually they are not friendly places. They are uncomfortable and impersonal. Church buildings are not made for fellowship, for "Koinonia" in the biblical sense. They are made for worship, and worship without fellowship becomes something cold, and divorced from mundane reality. In probably 90% of all church buildings the sanctuary seating consists of wooden pews arranged in rows, and fastened securely to the floor. The pews are arranged to make it nearly impossible for a worshipper to see the face of any other worshipper. It is as though the ideal is to isolate each worshipper in his own private booth, so he could see only the face of the minister, and not be distracted by others present! But, if we are to worship the Lord together we must be able to see each other. Many congregations are sensing this lack of fellowship in the churches, and so are building new structures called a "Fellowship Hall". Real Biblical Christian fellowship, such as experienced by the early Christian, is lacking in most churches today. And so a stranger may attend a Christian church for weeks and never encounter the warm, winsome fellowship that draws a person to Christ. Such a situation would have been impossible in the early church.
A witness to our pride. Fourth, church buildings are a witness to our pride. We insist that our church buildings must be beautiful, and well appointed---which usually means expensive. We justify this on the basis that God deserves the best. But such thinking may be little more than the rationalizing of our pride. We might also say that we are ambassadors for the King of Kings, but this does not justify spending vast resources to build embassies. We may forget that our King is at war, and we are called to be His soldiers. We may, for instance feel that we need beautiful buildings in order to draw sinners to the church, and thus to Christ. But, two things are wrong here. First, the concept is wrong. The church is to seek the sinner, not Vice Versa. Second, the motivation is wrong. We try to attract sinners by appealing to pride, which Christ never does. We say that our church buildings must be in harmony----in style and value with architecture of the community. But, this may be only a brand of conforming to the world. A Gospel with New Testament dynamics does not need the appeal of an attractive building. In fact, a fine church structure may simply attract the Pharisees, and repel the poor. That has, after all, happened in church history.
A witness to our class divisions. Finally church buildings are a witness to our class divisions. The early church was composed of rich and poor, Jew and Greek, black and white, ignorant and educated. But our modern church buildings advertise to the world that this is not so today. The new family in the community goes for a drive, and looks over the church buildings. They choose the one that looks like "their kind" one that would contain people of approximately the same income, education and color as themselves. The fault lies deeper than mere architecture but, the building is a witness. It is a signpost telling the world of the church's class-consciousness and exclusiveness. What then should be done? Should we abandon the use of church structures? This is precisely what I suggest. A different kind of structure is not enough. Remember, during its most vital 150 years, the Christian Church had no church buildings. In those days it was mobile, flexible, humble, inclusive-------and growing rapidly.