In chapter 2 of this provocative little book Viola and Barna come on strong against the “church building.” They argue that a church owning and meeting in a building, as we typically do today, is unbiblical, of pagan origins, and works against the spiritual health of Christians. They believe that moving the church’s central gathering from a private house to a devoted building “is based on the benighted idea that worship is removed from everyday life.” (38)
Let me say on the front end I do believe we need to rethink how we use our church buildings. It is a worthwhile question – what justifies the cost of a building? Do we pay tremendous overhead for a meeting place we use once a week? How many small churches struggle to pay their utilities and maintenance bills on a building they simply do not need? Is that the best stewardship of God’s money? How can we use the buildings we have in a way that glorifies God, strengthens the church and blesses the community to which we have been sent? A great example for effective use of a church facility is Sojourn Community Church in Louisville, KY. We would also do well to pay attention to the design and aesthetics of our meeting places because these things do have an impact on our worship. We should not dismiss the issue, or some of the problems the authors point out with owning a building.
However, I do not believe the church met in homes because of a developed ideology. Rather, I believe they met in homes because it was the most natural context in which to gather. And as the church grew some homes were devoted to such gatherings and functioned more like our modern church buildings. While their account of the history of church buildings is generally informative, it is a bit heavy handed and too quickly dismisses the Puritan’s take on the meeting house. The Puritans were concerned with many of the same issues Barna and Viola are concerned with and sought to answer them according to Scripture.
I would also agree that the church should continue to gather in people’s homes, in smaller groups beyond the greater gathering on the Lord’s Day, for the purpose of prayer, devotion to Scripture, the development of fellowship, the practice of hospitality and evangelism and more. I have argued for years that the church cannot experience New Testament Christian life apart from being involved in one another’s lives and spending time in one another’s homes. Yet I believe this can be accomplished without sacrificing the larger gathering on the Lord’s Day. I’ll give more of my thoughts on worship in the next post this weekend.
I just don’t find Barna’s and Viola’s arguments convincing. The early church did not have corporately owned buildings, and the church buildings we have today often create problems for the church. I agree. At the same time, the early church members did not own individual copies of the Scriptures. Scripture was never read privately in the Bible, but only in the context of a gathering. Today every Christian has multiple bibles and unfortunately most see little value in reading the bible in the corporate context. What is the solution? Throwing out our personal copies? Returning to the first century context of a shared text read only in the assembly? I wouldn’t buy that argument either. I think there is a need for reformation as it relates to the church and her buildings, just as their is need for reformation as it relates to the Christian and his bible. Reformation in use, not repudiation of use.
I am the Lead Pastor of Redeemer Fellowship; husband to Jen; Dad to Katherine, Elias, Madeline, and Kilian. If you're in town you can probably find me in the local coffee house or running through the neighborhoods.
{ 6 comments }
I think you make some really good points. I am currently in the process of planting a house church network in Cleveland, Ohio. Much like you, I agree with the point made by the authors about church buildings, but I am hesitant to go as far as saying it is THE way that the church should do things. I will whole heartedly tell you that I think house churches are one of the best ways to see discipleship and growth happen. I know for me personally it has caused me to be challenged and stretched in a lot of ways and I think I would find it very difficult to go back to “normal” church. I do realize however, that this isn’t for everyone. It is just as arrogant for someone to say that house churches are the only way to do church as it is for someone to say pews, a steeple, and hymnals is the only way to do church. We can’t forget that culture and context have to play a huge part how we do church.
Joe thanks for blogging through this book, I haven’t had a chance to read it yet, but your interaction with it is making me want to get to it a little quicker.
I don’t have a copy of the new book and it’s been too long since I read the first version, so I can’t remember if Viola (& Barna) address Acts 2:45-47, particularly this part: “Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts.” Clearly it’s not just homes where they met.
Joe: Great comments, as usual.
By way of example, I wanted to make mention of how our church uses its buildings in a way that, I feel, is God glorifying and not wasteful. We currently own 6 buildings, all of which have been built within the last 10 years on the same property. About 4 years ago (before I was a pastor here), several of the pastors came to the conclusion that we were being wasteful and needed to better utilize the facilities that were built in a way that was serving the community. Thus began the beginning of Effingham Christian School. Now, my office is on the top floor of a building that is used to house a classical Christian school that educates 100 students grades Pre-K through 8th. Next year we will begin High school as our 8th graders move up and will expand into some of the other building spaces that we have. In fact, we are beginning now to run out of room for all that they are doing, thus leading us to question whether or not we need additions. The church pays for the buildings (utilities, maintenance, janitorial services, etc.) and the school is able to focus on solid, classical, reformed Christian education. It’s a beautiful thing — and I have the great privilege of teaching from time to time!
The other side of the coin is that I’ve been in a church as a former pastor, that is now as we speak spending nearly $1 million to renovate old buildings. The facilities are functioning AND very large as they stand right now. The congregation has been declining for several years. The church itself is in an area of town that has not experienced any great turnover or growth in the last 20 years. They do not, nor have they ever had any vision or desire to be missional in any sense of the word. Why then should they presume upon God’s grace and borrow such a large amount of money for renovations? They say it is to provide better ministry — I say it’s to appease themselves in order that they feel as though they are doing more than going through the everyday motions. 60% of their budget goes toward facilities and staff. It is self serving and shameful.
These two examples in my life are a testament to both sides of the argument. I think it all depends on the people’s attachment to the facilities and what they are being used for.
Sorry this was so long!
The population issues alone are enough to justify buildings now. There are probably more people in Chicago than there were in the whole of the Middle East in the First Century. Obviously things have changed a bit since then.
Hey Joe:
I think there is something about the “church building” that often gets overlooked in the discussion. In our culture, a building speaks of stability, value, and legitimacy. When you can point to a builiding within the community it means something to the community.
In Ethiopia, for example, they do not take the church seriously at all without a building. In that culture a building says something positive about an organization.
I’m not saying you can’t have a church without a building. Rick Warren did not have a building for the first 10 years or so of their church. You can have schools that meet in homes, clubs that meet in homes, and churches that meet in homes. But the physical structure in the community can make a positive and powerful statement to the community.
Just my 2 cents worth,
Scott
Joe –
Barna’s ecclesiology is so poorly conceived that anyone who ever read Acts 2 ought to be able to dismantle it, but when he teams up with enthusiasts like Viola (or, as he did in a previous outing, with James Rutz), he’s simply dangerous spiritually to other people.
This book slipped under my radar, and I’m glad you’re giving it the full treatment. Nice work.
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 5 trackbacks }