A while back I posted thoughts based on the book, "Distant Voices*, concerning the birth of the church buildings with their stain glass windows. This is part two of that subject.

Jesus was interested in the poor, yet when the magnificent buildings were erected to fit the desires of the middle-class the poor were left out.

To back up just a tad I would like to talk about a man named Isaac Errett, who was the editor of the Christian Standard In Cincinnati. Errett wrote in the 1860s against the expensive buildings and what they stood for. He said, "Costly edifices of worship, costly decorations, costly dress, and costly equipage are all inimical to the humility and simplicity of the religion of Jesus." He went on to say, The mission of the church is preeminently to the poor. The wealthy in the church should never forget it and should enter her walls in plain attire, and be "one in Christ Jesus,' with the poor and lowly." He continued, "As wealth increases, and the church grows in popular favor, the tinsel, and glitter, and gaudiness of a carnal world replaces the humility, and simplicity, and affection of a spiritual Church."

Within a few years Errett was polluted, as many have been throughout history. He made a complete turn-around in his thinking when in 1868 he was called to the Church in New Castle, Pennsylania to deliver the dedication sermon for its new $90,000 building. The book tells us that this was the church-home of the wealthy Phillips family that financed Errett's magazine. People usually cater to those who pay their salaries or back them financially. It takes a strong faith-minded person to be unswayed by power and popularity.

The building dedicated was described by the newspaper as "built in Florid Gothic Early English Style with stained glass windows with richly colored borders and heads."

Now Errett changed his tune. He defended the lavishness of the building. He now decided "pride did not prompt it...that money has been laid out for permanency rather then show." In defending the Central building against Franklin's censures, Errett said the congregational leaders were not vain and proud men, but "whole-hearted, humble, earnest men engaged in a noble enterprise." He also reminded the people the construction of a large building required it "be more or less ornamental to save it from being ungainly and offensive to good taste.

(GOOD GRIEF!)

Another astounding statement made by Errett was that such buildings would attract the poor, not repel them...that poor Catholics are not unwilling to go to the most splendid cathedrals and poor Jews are perfectly at home in their most costly temples.

May God save us from such reasoning.

Franklin summed up...Will the poor find this house of fashion and splendor the place for them? He answered, "They will not, nor will the Lord, who requires the poor to have the gospel preached to them, go there."

John Rowe, Franklin's associate editor wrote, HOW TO DRIVE AWAY THE POOR. "There must be a correspondence between the gorgeousness of the edifice and those who take possession of it. If you build a temple of fashion, you must expect the fashionable ones to make their grand Sunday rendezvous."

Men such as Franklin, Rowe, and Lipscomb believed that the building of great church buildings basically grew of of "carnal pride." Such buildings, they thought both reflected and helped create an ethos that worked against the lowly spirit of Jesus and the gospel.

Something else from Franklin to think about:

"We would blush to talk of the "ancient order," the "gospel restored," returning to the "primitive order," the "Man of sorrows," who "had not where to lay his head"---and teaching, "Be not conformed to this world, but be you transformed," "Love not the world nor the things of the world," in this temple of folly and pride."

Do you have a *Church* building built to bring people to *it*?

-- Anonymous, November 18, 1999

Answers

What would you do to accomodate say, three thousand people, who would like to worship together. And answer my question about why God's temple was so lavish in the Old Testament.(Seriously) Second, the mission of the church is not the poor, it is the lost, just to correct Mr. Errett. Our mission is Matthew 28:19. Our church building is not large compaired to what I have seen but we hold 800 in attendance on Sunday morning. I did freak out when we spent $20,000.00 in stain glass windows. I dont think something like that will happen again. Yet we have an incredible "Care and Share" ministry that takes care of the poor in the community along with many other minitries that carry on beyond our community.

Our church was not build to bring people to it, but to worship in, according to the amount of people we had arriving. Myself, I perfer to be in a smaller church. It is easier to help a smaller church grow than a larger church. But!oh no, what if the smaller church begins to get to bigger and have to move into a larger building? Does that mean they have done something wrong? I have seen "larger" churches do more for the poor than a smaller church who is struggeling to pay the preacher.

I cant condem large churches because they are bigger or nicer than others. But what about all the lavish items in the church? Do you really want to be "primitive" or "ancient" and sit on the floor. Where do you begin with "lavish" when we are talking about how Jesus worshiped. A building with pews was more than they had. And the apostles along with Jesus did go to the temple to worship and pray. The temple was an architectural marvel of its day.

-- Anonymous, November 19, 1999

Amen, Nelta, preach on!

George Barna in *The Second Coming of the Church* makes a note that for every $1 spent by the average church on the poor, $5 is spent on a building (or maintaining it). Nowhere in the New Testament do we see mention of a congregation owning a building, nor mention of spiritual gifts of managing property, landscaping, designing, etc. But there is plenty on taking care of the poor and gifts of generosity and mercy. Why the misbalance?

We often cite the biblical example of setting aside on the first day of the week to defend the contribution we do in our services, BUT the precedent we cite wasn't a general contribution, but rather talking of what we would call special contributions -- all the funds collected were going to help the needy of Jerusalem!

That said, I don't oppose buildings, just the assumption that every congregation must have a building for assembly. This past weekend, I heard Rick Warren via satellite simulcast say (and he may have been quoting someone else) "When we build a building, we shape it to fit our church. From then on, our building shapes our church". We may build it in a way intended to glorify God, but God didn't ask us to: "... let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven" (Matthew 5:16). We are to glorify God not with buildings, but rather in our service to others.

I love the spirit of the church that I was apart of in Texas. This month marks their two year birthday. When we started, we made the determination to never own a building, rather to emphasis people. Too bad we didn't fully consult God on that (We plan, God laughs). In March of 1998, we started renting the fellowship room of a struggling church, while they were in the main auditorium. There was several joint services and in June, they asked to merge with us, on whatever terms we named. Suddenly, we owned a building and a sizeable piece of land, most of it unused. Now, this building's neighborhood had seen better days. The land was sizable, and the building didn't quite fit our needs, so plans were drawn up to refurbish the building, and over time that is being done. All the main rooms are being converted to multipurpose rooms, etc. Now, as far as the poor goes, -- well, the two main building refurbishment plans give a hugh chunk of the building permanently to the poor, for a food pantry and clothes closet. The rest of the building is being converted for use as a community center the rest of the week (other than Sunday), meaning outreach classes and other projects that don't require permanent space are there for use (no pews anywhere in the building!). Long range plans for the campus include a dedicated building to serve the poor -- including a medical examination room (land is set aside), and other land is to be converted to ball fields with the intent to use them to provide constructive activities for the kids in the neighborhood (who tend to be poor and missing a parent). In the long range plan for the campus, beyond refurbishing the existing building and parking lot and the construction of an outdoor prayer chapel in the wooded corner of the property, all development is to be for community service to the neighborhood.

So the questions I have are: 1) why do so many congregations feel that a sign of congregational maturity and arrival is the owning of a building for assembly? 2) if we insist on owning a building, in these days of regional churches that people drive to anyway, why do we put buildings in "nice" neighborhoods rather than in areas where the church is needed to serve? 3) why do we spend so much money on buildings that make it convenient for us to assemble in, but do little to nothing to help us serve the Living God by helping the needy, other than some closet stuck in the corner of the building. How many churches do you know that own buildings that could shelter the homeless, at least on a temporary basis, such as in the event of local disasters?

Let's take pride in our God and what He can do, not our buildings and their campuses!

Ok, enough rambling by me.

-- Anonymous, November 19, 1999

To Nelta:

A very thought provoking message. I say I agree with most of what you have written. On the flip side, I am pioneering a church and at the moment we are meeting in my home. The biggest feedback I have gotten from visitors is that they did not like meeting in a home and preferred to meet in a "church building". I don't really believe in a "church building" as such, but do recognize that at least on Sunday morning we need to have a place big enough to accommodate everyone.

Sincerely,

-- Anonymous, November 19, 1999

Carefull of your semantics here!!! Some will have a heart attack concerning what the "Church" is... i.e. The Church is not a building, or how can you have a church over there... Isn't there only one church?... And how can it be "your" church? Isn't it Christ's Church? etc. etc.

Even though WE ALL KNOW that you are refering to "The body of believers located in your home town. Or the church building, etc... Some people must be technically correct in their divisive spirit. Unity holds no meaning to them.

On the other hand, Paul does say in Philippeans the first chapter verse eighteen... "But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice."

Ditto,

-- Anonymous, November 19, 1999

I am amazed! I thought this post would be something everyone agreed on.:-)

Jeff, I didn't respond to your post answering part one because you didn't deal with the N.T. but brought in the temple of the O.T. I have never thought we could go to the Old to prove the New because the systems are completely different. In the Old there was a certain place for worship. However, when Jesus died on the cross that system was fulfilled. Then when Jesus had the discussion with the woman at the well we are told what the new system was all about. No longer would there be a *place* to worship. Now it is individual...heart of individual to God. Each Christian is a temple of God. God is interested in individual worship to Him.

And to whoever said something about a great number of people *worshipping* together and needing a bulding....well, a large group cannot do what we are taught the gatherings were/are for. Unlike the O.T. gatherings we are to meet with fellow-Christians for encouragement and edification....interaction one with another. There is no scripture, in the first place, for formal worship in a group setting (or any setting, in fact.) When Christians meet together it is not for *worship* but to give each the encouragement they need to go back into the world and do good deeds. This cannot be done in a large setting. Christians must know those they are among. They must know their needs...they must be able to confess their sins one to another and this doesn't mean to walk up to the front in a *formal worship* (with no feed back) and ask prayers for sins (without naming the sins) or for sins...*if they have sinned.* That is pitiful.

-- Anonymous, November 20, 1999

Nelta, I somewhat agree, but I have concerns. One of my professors in Bible College once said he wished that he could blow up the chapel into little toothpicks. Radical uh? Well, in his mind he thought that the students spent too much time there than in real ministry. I agree with him. We can definately spend too much time, money, and effort on the building rather than on real ministry. In my last church, we had a winter bird congregation that depended upon revenue in the winter- but during summer it was "hell". Because we had to cut where we could in the budget to keep running. In fact, if it was the difference between me or the morgage- the building would win. In many places real ministry does not get accomplished because we need to take care of the grounds, which are never used for ministry.

But, the concern I do have is that there are rather large churches who do much ministry to the poor. A congregation can still have a building to house them, and still have a very dynamic ministry to the poor. Not all congregations are blessed (or cursed) to have a 78 million dollar building to house 16,000 worshippers. But, even in a place like that ministry can and does still go on- even in the purest and truest sense.

-- Anonymous, November 21, 1999

"Another astounding statement made by Errett was that such buildings would attract the poor, not repel them...that poor Catholics are not unwilling to go to the most splendid cathedrals and poor Jews are perfectly at home in their most costly temples."

There's nothing astounding about that statement. It's absolutely true. Have any of you folks ever been to Europe...?

You don't have to choose between helping the poor & building beautiful monuments to God. Medieval Catholics did both with equal fervor & love.

Our ancestors, mostly peasants & poor working people, were uplifted, inspired, and spiritually transported when they walked into Notre Dame de Paris, or Chartres, or St. Peters Basilica. For them, going into such a church was nothing less than a foretaste of paradise. Nor have these grand building lost, over the centuries, their ability to move visitors deeply. The lack of such buildings in the U.S. is a great pity.

-- Anonymous, November 27, 1999

Nelta, Where do you meet for encouragement every Sunday? Are you suggesting that there should be no large buildings over a certain square footage or are you suggesting that there should be no buildings at all? I do believe the OT temple has some validity in reference to this argument. Please answer my question to the OT temple. Humor me. Yes, I do understand today, we are the temple. I am going to have to disagree on the formal worship. Certainly it was nothing close to what we may consider today but I believe there was order to their meetings wherever they may have met. All through out the NT there is evidence of group settings. Post that as another question and we can debate that later. I believe the early church met to worship in spirit and in truth together. They took care of each other, the believers. As an individual part of the body they tried and reach those in need as given by the tremendous example of Jesus.

-- Anonymous, December 02, 1999

Jeff, to jump in here.

several scriptures mention meeting in homes -- See Philemon 2 for one such example. It would appear from Acts that the church meet in the local synagoges where the Jews and Christians got along.

Where can we meet? Well, I live in an area where the population has just exploded in the last few years, and the churches that have buildings are typically running multiple services and their parking lots are a nightmare. It would look like about half of all the churches around here are not in buildings. Local policy allows private interests to rent space in the local public schools after hours, and it seems like every school around here has a church meeting in it. My congregation meets in a movie theater, for now, but we have run out of space there and are looking for larger quarters. There are also churches in apartment complex and subdivision clubhouses, at the YMCA, in fact, just about any place that can be set up fairly quickly for mid-size to large meetings that is otherwise empty on Sunday mornings seems to have a church meeting there. Given the scarcity of land for church campuses and competition for similar parcels of land from the school district, my young son is probably going to grow up thinking that it is unusual for a church to own a building, since there seem to be so few church buildings relative to the number of churches around here.

Why, oh why, is the modern thinking so entrenched in churches must own buildings for assembly? The building is much more a status symbol than a means for assemblying the saints for edification and building them up.

And Jeff, should I wear a tux to your church's "formal worship"?

-- Anonymous, December 02, 1999

I guess I should redefine "formal" to an order of worship. I did get a good laugh from that. My thought is, praise God where ever you are meeting. We are filling the walls to the brim and already have three services. I dont care where we worship, abandoned K-Mart or whatever, but there is not a place in this town that could house as many people as we have. The debat here is to build this multimillion dollar building on the grounds we have but I am against that as well. What a waste. I suggest planting a church south of us where there is not one for people to go to. So I get in this debate and it is suggested that buildings are wrong. What to do, what to do? What is the differance in paying rent or paying to own? Was'nt it the point that someone is starving?

-- Anonymous, December 02, 1999

The difference between buying and renting is that, either way you end up with office space in constant use, and some conference space that gets good use. Buying gives you large rooms/auditorium(s) that sit idle most the week. Renting, you pay for the large room(s) on a as you use it basis.

Also, if you buy, you are locked in. If you rent, moving later to other facilities (larger?) is a lot easier. Where I currently attend, renting means it's a lot easier to tell visitors where you assemble. We just tell people we are in that movie theater near Cary Towne Center (a large local mall).

To me, buying only makes some sense if you sense God is pleased with your size and has no intention of letting you get bigger, AND you are running a school/daycare in your building, or otherwise have a good use for all the space during the week. I know of one congregation that owns a building located near two hospitals and a nursing home, and rents out space for events to doctors, for classes, etc.

-- Anonymous, December 02, 1999

opps

I meant to emphasize that I don't believe that buildings are necessarily wrong, but rather we are too quick to build them.

I heard Rick Warren say in a simulcast a couple of weeks ago that expressed some of my worry at the lack of thought we give before we build: "You shape a building for your ministry, and from then on your building shapes your ministry". For some context, Rick Warren leads a church that grew to 10,000 before they built a building; the building was something like the 72nd place they met in the first 10 years of the church's existence. They now have 15,000 in attendance on an average weekend.

-- Anonymous, December 02, 1999

Jeff, this is the third attempt at answering your post. The first time I was completely finished...tried to send it, and my computer froze. The second time I got started, decided to go out for coffee and lost what I had. Now, maybe this will work.

<< Nelta, Where do you meet for encouragement every Sunday? >>

I have no certain day for gathering with other Christians for encouragement. We gather any time..anywhere, any place as the early Christians did. Meeting together on Sunday for formal stuff is foreign to scriptures.

Are you suggesting that there should be no large buildings over a certain square footage or are you suggesting that there should be no buildings at all? >>

I am not against Christians pooling their funds and either purchasing a place or renting a place to do their activities as long as it is just considered a business deal between them, and not a *church* building where people go to church. Nor a place where people are taught is something bought with God's money as Christians give to God (it is His anyhow.)

<>

If you understand our bodies are the temple of God that should answer your question about the OT Temple. Also, consider Jesus' discussion with the woman at the well. That also should answer the question. The OT practices are not connected to the NT era at all. In fact, ISTM that when we try to justify something we are doing with the OT we are insulting our Savior, Jesus.

I am going to have to disagree on the formal worship. Certainly it was nothing close to what we may consider today but I believe there was order to their meetings wherever they may have met. All through out the NT there is evidence of group settings.>>

Absolutely! Christians met together often, they ate together, they had interaction as they encouraged one another unto good works. Notice the scripture says they encouraged one another...not one man standing and encouraging the group. Let me put a quote in here as it concerns what we are talking about in this paragraph. (From a Church Bulletin from Colorado)

The *evangelist* announced his resignation and expressed his appreciation that God had granted him the noble opportunity of "ministering to the saints." He had been with them five and one-half years (preaching to the choir nib) and felt it was time to move on to other *evengelistic fields.* In his concluding remarks, he stated, "We pray you will find a suitable man to break the bread of life unto you." GOOD GRIEF! His idea was the bread of life cannot be broken without the employment of a professional ecclesiastic. The saints would suffer from spiritual malnutrition without him. How far have we drifted?

<>

Worship is between a Christian and God. He looks at the heart of the individual. There is no where in scripture where the early church met to worship.

They took care of each other, the believers.>>

Absolutely...amen and amen.

As an individual part of the body they tried and reach those in need as given by the tremendous example of Jesus.>>

Another big AMEN AND AMEN.

Jeff you and Mark were discussing what to do when there are VERY LARGE numbers of people meeting together. The purpose of gathering together with other Christians is to interact with them and encourage and edify one another. This cannot be done in large groups. Christians much know each other...they must know their spiritual and physical needs. What is a good number? IMO about 40 people can do this successfully. Other numbers might also work.

When others are converted and the numbers swell then there needs to be a swarming. Until this is done the encouraging and edifying and confessing our sins one to another cannot be successful.

I had another thought here, but forgot it. Maybe later!

-- Anonymous, December 02, 1999