The Future of Church Facilities

[Aaron Blumer] I’m not so sure. It’s evident that much of the congregational singing (or maybe chanting, but nothing like the gregorian we associate w/that word) would have occurred outside on the way to worship, but David’s Levitical singers would have sung praises on the temple grounds… and the early church sang praises in “Solomon’s portico.” So, it’s true the architecture is much more open in that part of the world and the lines are blurred between in doors and out of doors, but the activity of singing in a beautiful—even grand—setting is not a medieval invention.

Can we equate “professional” Levitical singers with today in any way? Did the believers in Acts, who met on Solomon’s stairway do so more than once? Did they do so because of beauty or because of it being a common meeting ground large enough to contain the multitude (Jesus spoke on a hillside…)? Is there any Biblical evidence that the early Church did and/or is supposed to focus on such things? (You cannot count the New Jerusalem… ;>D).

[Kevin Subra]…Is there any Biblical evidence that the early Church did and/or is supposed to focus on such things?

I think the early church was too busy trying not to get killed to build a ‘church’ where they could gather all in one place- it’d make killing Christians like shooting fish in a barrel.

There isn’t any reason that a church building can’t be beautiful, as long as the beauty serves a purpose. IOW, no 14k gold toilet paper holders. But IMO churches are under-utilized. It need not sit empty during the week- church folk can meet for fellowship, workshops, baby/wedding showers, homeschool co-ops, food pantries, Bible classes/institutes… it could truly be the hub of activity for the flock.

[Susan R] It need not sit empty during the week- church folk can meet for fellowship, workshops, baby/wedding showers, homeschool co-ops, food pantries, Bible classes/institutes… it could truly be the hub of activity for the flock.

Susan,
You are singing out of my hymnbook!
If you have a multi-use facility, then at least use it for multi-uses! In addition to the things you mentioned, here are a few more:
- take advantage of your state’s “time-out” or “release” laws and bring public school kids into the church for a time of religious training
- allow CEF workers to hold children’s programs in the church throughout the week
- open the facility for indoor walking during the winter months
- if you want to sell something, open a small but quality bookstore and coffee shop where people can gather throughout the week
- allow groups from the public to use your building and get used to coming there — election day, municipal meetings, etc.
- become the home of a thriving homeschool co-op group (which Susan mentioned)
- begin Evangelism Explosion training and utilize the program throughout the week
- transform the ol’ fashioned Wednesday night prayer meetin’ into a community event = supper for the family, Awana for the kids, Financial Peace University and Bible classes for the adults, etc.

ESPECIALLY if your church has/is one of those glorious ’70s “gymnatoriums,” you have no excuse for not doing at least most of the above, IMHO. The only thing holding us back is tradition and small thinking.

[Kevin Subra] Can we equate “professional” Levitical singers with today in any way? Did the believers in Acts, who met on Solomon’s stairway do so more than once? Did they do so because of beauty or because of it being a common meeting ground large enough to contain the multitude (Jesus spoke on a hillside…)? Is there any Biblical evidence that the early Church did and/or is supposed to focus on such things? (You cannot count the New Jerusalem… ;>D).

Equating Levitical singers with today: sure, why not? They were praising God with music and we are commanded to do the same. And all believers are now the priesthood. I think quite a case can be built that we are Levitical singers (one big difference being that David presumably filtered out those who couldn’t actually sing :D )

Believers in Acts: the verb tenses (and other stuff in the context) indicate they were doing this regularly for a period

Because of beauty or common meeting ground: well, it didn’t have to be either/or. It’s interesting that they chose the temple rather than a synagogue. This is probably because there wasn’t enough room in any of the synagogues, given the number of conversions Acts describes. What we’re really talking about is whether a location that is suitable on other grounds should also be designed so as to turn the hearts of worshipers upward… to lift the act of gathered worship above the level of the ordinary so that we adore our transcendent God in a transcendent way (the uniquely NT element is that since the incarnation we worship the imminent Christ as well, so I do believe there is a place for the “nine people sitting on the floor in a circle with one guitar” kind of worship also).

Early church focus on these things: well, I’m pretty sure there’s no evidence of that and I would argue that they should not “focus” on these things, no. But there’s alot of ground between “focus” and “ignore.”

Why can’t we count the New Jerusalem? Makes sense to me that our present day architecture might be partly driven by anticipation of what we expect to be doing in the future (though I’d personally frown on the idea of trying to build something that is as high as it is wide! :) )

A thought on empty buildings during the week
I’m not against busy buildings on principle… but just something to chew on: in a way, the non-use of the building during the week enhances the significance of its use on Sunday. It’s sort of like when you get your best china out. The fact that it sits in the hutch most of the time makes it doubly meaningful when you get it out.
So I’m not opposed to the busy-building paradigm, but I’m also definitely not opposed to the “dedicated purpose” paradigm.

[Susan R]

[Kevin Subra]…Is there any Biblical evidence that the early Church did and/or is supposed to focus on such things?

I think the early church was too busy trying not to get killed to build a ‘church’ where they could gather all in one place- it’d make killing Christians like shooting fish in a barrel.

Wow. By your thinking, Susan, we could pretty much discard Acts and the Epistles as circumstantially and culturally pointless because we are not under persecution as they were, and therefore irrelevant for today. I do not consider the Word as being so fenced in, or finite. Its truth is transcendent by the intent and character of the Author.

Nowhere in the Epistles are buildings given any hint of attention. That is my particular point. It was a non-issue. Buildings have become “the church,” and have become the focus of the church in many ways, including the “place” where everything happens (as you further suggest), which again, is not hinted at in Scripture regarding the Church. The coming together of the saints is the focus, not where they come together. It is the fact they do assemble together somewhere, and what they do toward one another, not the facility, that matters.

Jesus did not instruct about buildings in anyway regarding true worship or discipleship. Buildings are extraneous to Christianity, and not anyway the center or essence of it. This would bring us back to the utilitarian focus of such things, rather than the extravagance of them.

I would agree with you that buildings should be well used, if we choose to have buildings. They just cannot become the defining focus of the Church.

[Greg Linscott] Not sure if the example of Jesus is relevant to this discussion, since local churches hadn’t been established.

Greg, my only point regarding Jesus is that He did not focus on buildings. He preached wherever He was at. If His focus was aesthetics, He would have said/done something in that realm. He did not.

The fact that the early church did not focus on buildings at all does say something. To build a theology of buildings on what they did not do seems weak at best.

There are advantages to buildings, as you say. There are also big disadvantages (and we have a big building, and experience both). A building makes a meeting place easier to find (I guess that is good if your people don’t attend often?), but most everything you state (counseling, etc.) can be done in many different formats. A church owned or rented facility is not required.

[Kevin Subra]

[Susan R]

[Kevin Subra]…Is there any Biblical evidence that the early Church did and/or is supposed to focus on such things?

I think the early church was too busy trying not to get killed to build a ‘church’ where they could gather all in one place- it’d make killing Christians like shooting fish in a barrel.

Wow. By your thinking, Susan, we could pretty much discard Acts and the Epistles as circumstantially and culturally pointless because we are not under persecution as they were, and therefore irrelevant for today. I do not consider the Word as being so fenced in, or finite. Its truth is transcendent by the intent and character of the Author.

Nowhere in the Epistles are buildings given any hint of attention. That is my particular point. It was a non-issue. Buildings have become “the church,” and have become the focus of the church in many ways, including the “place” where everything happens (as you further suggest), which again, is not hinted at in Scripture regarding the Church. The coming together of the saints is the focus, not where they come together. It is the fact they do assemble together somewhere, and what they do toward one another, not the facility, that matters.

Jesus did not instruct about buildings in anyway regarding true worship or discipleship. Buildings are extraneous to Christianity, and not anyway the center or essence of it. This would bring us back to the utilitarian focus of such things, rather than the extravagance of them.

I would agree with you that buildings should be well used, if we choose to have buildings. They just cannot become the defining focus of the Church.

You are taking a short statement I made about the reality of church history and reading WAY too much into it. It is a historical fact that during times of persecution, the church met secretly in houses. A significant factor in how the church chooses to gather is the cultural climate of that time and place. If they had been free to build places of worship, why wouldn’t they? Of course the meeting of the saints is the focus, and not the building itself- but when discussing how and when and where the church meets, it isn’t wrong to consider the impact of culture and freedom to worship.

There are places today, like Kenya, where meeting in a ‘church building’ is suicide. Warring tribes will set the church on fire with the people in it, and stand outside with rifles to shoot anyone who tries to escape. But that doesn’t mean that Americans can’t build and meet in church buildings. The American mindset very much expects there to be a church building set aside as a place of worship, and our freedom to worship, and the lack of Biblical principle indicating otherwise, tells me that having a church building in the US is a pretty good idea. So- IMO we can’t dismiss as insignificant why people would or would not choose to meet in a designated ‘church’ building.

Hope that clears up what I meant by my post.

[Aaron Blumer] Equating Levitical singers with today: sure, why not? They were praising God with music and we are commanded to do the same. And all believers are now the priesthood. I think quite a case can be built that we are Levitical singers (one big difference being that David presumably filtered out those who couldn’t actually sing :D )

I am not a descendant of Levi (or of Aaron) for that matter, so I cannot be a Levitical singer. Our priesthood is not that of the OT, but of an entirely new people (or we would probably need to exclude the ladies from singing, right?). The qualification of our priesthood is not natural birth, but spiritual.

[Aaron Blumer] Believers in Acts: the verb tenses (and other stuff in the context) indicate they were doing this regularly for a period

And then? Anything more after that? Their practices do speak. It seems very evident that utility was their motive.

[Aaron Blumer] Because of beauty or common meeting ground: well, it didn’t have to be either/or. It’s interesting that they chose the temple rather than a synagogue. This is probably because there wasn’t enough room in any of the synagogues, given the number of conversions Acts describes. What we’re really talking about is whether a location that is suitable on other grounds should also be designed so as to turn the hearts of worshipers upward… to lift the act of gathered worship above the level of the ordinary so that we adore our transcendent God in a transcendent way (the uniquely NT element is that since the incarnation we worship the imminent Christ as well, so I do believe there is a place for the “nine people sitting on the floor in a circle with one guitar” kind of worship also).

It seems that you are applying both, but the second (“to turn the hearts of worshipers upward…”) is wholly of your own input. There is no Biblical indication of this reasoning in the text, right? I get what you are saying, but not from the text.

[Aaron Blumer] Early church focus on these things: well, I’m pretty sure there’s no evidence of that and I would argue that they should not “focus” on these things, no. But there’s alot of ground between “focus” and “ignore.”

I’m just looking for Scripture to back that up, Aaron. Anything from the Epistles would help me greatly.

[Aaron Blumer] Why can’t we count the New Jerusalem? Makes sense to me that our present day architecture might be partly driven by anticipation of what we expect to be doing in the future (though I’d personally frown on the idea of trying to build something that is as high as it is wide! :) )

Because it is for a different time and place as well. It is something God builds (not believers). It is a place where only believers are allowed (no unbelievers). It will be beautiful, but how do you use the New Jerusalem to argue for a church building of any kind?

The fact that the early church did not focus on buildings at all does say something.

Kevin,

First I would counter with the fact that they did focus on buildings, namely houses or else no one would have arrived at their meetings had some focus and determination not been given to where they would meet.

Secondly , the book of Acts is generally and mostly descriptive, not prescriptive and in the case of the meeting style of the church in Acts, their meeting in a house, under a tree, by a lake or anywhere else simply is that, a record of where they met and none of which requires us similitude or denies us any liberties in the matter.

Thirdly, the unique set of factors that existed, particularly in the first three centuries for the church, must be observed, namely that they did not have a great deal of social acceptance and in fact were quite persecuted so many of their meetings we deliberately subtle or disguised all together to keep themselves from being vulnerable.

A fair parallel can be seen in 1950’s-1990’s Soviet bloc countries or as Susan noted, Kenya. It is not that believers in these contexts do not wish to own property so that they are able to meet in one convenient location, rather in the use of some wisdom they do not make themselves easily available to persecutors.

But I will say this, I impressed with your due diligence regarding peripheral theological issues in that while suggestions are made that we take this view or that view, you generally rebut with a theological context for your argument and a request for support from the propositions of others.

But to a larger audience and particularly to those that take the descriptive record in Acts that believers met in homes as some kind of prescriptive charge to the church as a whole that Bible we should meet in homes, you are in error. This again is descriptive not prescriptive. Certainly believers are at liberty to meet in homes but neither are that denied the liberty to pursue a central building for larger assemblies. But your point is taken, that in the pursuit of reasonable facilities, it is a blot on an assembly if the facilities becomes the focus and not the gospel.

[Kevin Subra] Because it is for a different time and place as well. It is something God builds (not believers). It is a place where only believers are allowed (no unbelievers). It will be beautiful, but how do you use the New Jerusalem to argue for a church building of any kind?

Well, I’m not talking about arguing for a building vs. not for a building, rather for the nature of the building.

Kevin, in general you’re taking a kind of selectively reductionist approach to Scripture on many of the points we’re making here. For example, yes there are many differences between us and the Levites but there are also many similarities. The spiritual similarity—which you acknowledged—is far more important than any genetic one. Anyway, the point I’m getting around to here is that any time we apply Scripture at all we look at the original setting, look at our own, then look for similarities and differences. Those similarities and differences shape the application.

For example the idea of the sacrifice of praise being directed upward is not completely from Aaron’s imagination (or the imaginations of believers past who viewed it that way). Rather, it derives (somewhat complexly, yes) from several things that are revealed. One line of derivation would be this: the OT is full of allusions to the sweet smelling savor “rising” to God from the sacrifices. It’s a metaphor of course. But then Hebrews identifies our praise as being a NT parallel to these sacrifices, hence the language “sacrifice of praise.” So instead of a sweet smell rising, there is now a sweet sound rising.
Other evidence could be added to this. I’m just illustrating what the process is.

What I mean by “reductionist” is that you’re reasoning along the lines of “I’m not a Levite so absolutely nothing about them can possibly have anything to do with me.” This is narrowing the range of legitimate application too much. The “selective” part is apparent in your attitude toward Acts. Susan points out that our situation is different and you respond that we might as well throw Acts out then, indicating that you see a strong correspondence between us today and the early church of the Acts era. But Susan is right that there are differences. None of use are Jews and most of the early believers were (until you get several chapters into Acts). So if “I’m not a Levite” renders some OT texts completely meaningless to us, we can’t turn around and say that “I’m not a Jew” has no bearing on how we interpret Acts 2-4.
In reality the similarities and differences shape the application in both cases, whether OT or Acts.
It isn’t a very strong argument to reason from the silence of Acts on the matter of buildings that the church today should not concern itself about such things. Besides being an argument from silence, it has the weakness of not employing a sound application process that accounts for differences in the setting (as well as the fact that Acts is narrative vs. the directly prescriptive instruction we find in the epistles).

Wow! Talk about rabbit trails — we’re going “over the river and through the woods” of theological and cultural verities and preferences.

Whatever happened to answers for poor Diane and her small-town church…? :>)

Any more thoughts on brick and mortar issues…or even click and mortar?

It appears to me, in all fairness, that Kevin’s response regarding the “Levitical singers” issue is based on the proposition quoted below and no where do I see him asserting an absolutist kind of reasoning (it might be his theological reductions are based in absolutism but I am only regarding the context of this singular issue) suggested by the characterization, “I’m not a Levite so absolutely nothing about them can possibly have anything to do with me.”

[Aaron Blumer]
Equating Levitical singers with today: sure, why not? They were praising God with music and we are commanded to do the same. And all believers are now the priesthood. I think quite a case can be built that we are Levitical singers

Rather he is specifically addressing, without comment as to the whole of the matter (and not really revealing his line of reasoning on the whole matter and only to the matter of the proposition) that “a case can be built that we are Levitical singers”. And to that he does fairly and accurately reply:

[Kevin Subra]
I am not a descendant of Levi (or of Aaron) for that matter, so I cannot be a Levitical singer. Our priesthood is not that of the OT, but of an entirely new people (or we would probably need to exclude the ladies from singing, right?). The qualification of our priesthood is not natural birth, but spiritual.

Now it might be Kevin over-reaches regarding Biblical reductions between the varying economies, I don’t know nor do I wish to make such a claim seeing I don’t have enough information regarding this theology (and as well sometimes and unfortunately, Covenant and/or Reformed believers are unable to accept certain boundaries or reductions in the varying economies), but here I cannot see Kevin espousing absolute or uncritical reductionism or see it in his reasoning, rather he is simply addressing quite specifically the proposition, again, that “a case can be built that we are Levitical singers”.

This would be a very, very, very hard case to make seeing that whether one is Reformed, Catholic, Lutheran or Dispensational, to be a Levitical singer one must be a genetic Levite during the OT economy of the Theocracy of Israel. Now it might be proposed that we, as believers, are a “kind” of Levitical singer, but that is not what what proposed nor that to which Kevin was responding.

And this is not to say I agree with Kevin on the issue as a whole, that is making determinations about buildings and reasons why they can be justified, even ornate ones since I do believe they are appropriate in many cases. But along the lines of this particular point I simply had my observation regarding his argument or response.

And now returning to the topic at large, while it is critical to note that where the protocol for the varying economies limits us we must limit our theology and practice…where they do not limit us, where we can find valid kinds, types, examples and so on, they should not be dismissed in lieu of forced or overreached reductions that reflect a misaligned prejudice and deny discovery and principle.

we’ll get there eventually!

I Googled “building a church” and found http://www.churchbuilding.com/ this website and a .pdf of http://www.churchbuilding.com/wp-content/uploads/final_brochure.pdf] “Find God’s Will for Your Church Building Project” . I blew through it quickly, but it looked like it had some practical advice and many Scriptural references. I’ll leave the in-depth analysis to others- the laundry is calling my name. http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php] http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-chores003.gif