A question I’ve been reflecting on about church buildings

joechristianwarrior · Friday at 7:39 PM

Hi everyone,

I’ve been spending time rereading the Gospels and Acts, and something has been standing out to me.

When Jesus said, “Follow Me,” He didn’t seem to connect discipleship with buildings or institutions. He taught on hillsides, roads, and in homes. Stephen later said, “The Most High does not live in houses made by human hands” (Acts 7:48).

Yet today, church buildings often represent the largest financial focus of Christian communities.

I recently made a short video exploring this question from Scripture. My intention isn’t to simply "criticize the Church", but to reflect honestly on whether our modern structures line up with Jesus’ teachings about worship and caring for the poor.

I’d love to hear your thoughts:
Do you think church buildings help discipleship, or can they sometimes distract from it?

Grace and peace to you all.

dms1972 · Friday at 8:30 PM

If its all about impressing people and other churches with some grand structure then I agree that is wrong. Practically however IMO its not wrong to have a building to congregate, worship together, and minister the sacraments, hear God's Word read etc. Are they not supposed to be places of public worship of God to some extent (ie. in accordance with the Christian Faith), even though there are ordinances such as Baptism and Communion for believers. Its quite possible poor people attend some of those huge cathedrals.

timothyu · Friday at 11:38 PM

Its never been about buildings or institutionalized religion. Those were misguided human concepts. God no longer lives in a sacred space other than in the repentant. Jesus said the foundation/rock His church (following) would be built upon would be truth from the Father alone. Church meant a movement, a way of life, the meaning of religion. Yet man institutionalized that 'religion, removed the Way... the movement and returned back to the ways of the Sanhedrin, eventually removing the truth from the father (the Kingdom) and turned it into yet another empire of man with and the frills. The only thing Jesus said we were to have was a way of life that no one could tear down or destroy. The only upkeep was in following the Father's will, and you could take it with you anywhere. Truth from the Father, not from man.
Matthew 16: 17And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

JustaPewFiller · Saturday at 11:46 AM

I think its important to remember the size and age of the churches instead of making a blanket statement.

In my area we have 1 church currently that does not have a building. They either rent space here and there as they can or try to find a park to have their service. They are in that odd size - too big to gather in someone's house, but too small and not enough funds to rent something long term or buy something. In all honestly, not having a place is currently their biggest hurdle. Meeting at a park isn't always practical. Need a permit (and those take time), maybe it is raining, too hot, too cold, someone nearby decides to blast loud music, etc, etc.. Likewise finding a place to rent has its own hassles.

Most of the churches in my area are small - 99 or less. In truth, many of them would be overjoyed to have 99 on Sunday morning. They are in either old (50 year old +) building they own or rented buildings. They don't really have the $ or the people to consider much in the way expansion or fancy trappings. The building money in these type of churches usually goes to upkeep of the old building and the old systems, (hvac, electric, plumbing) maybe some type of AV upgrade if they can afford it.

To be fair we do have a few 500+ member churches and their buildings are very nice. I think these big churches may be what you were going for in the video?

https://worshipleader.com/leadership/worship-in-the-average-church-in-america/

But - from the article above, large churches, mega churches and super-mega churches just make up around 2.501% of churches. Small churches (99 or less) make up 60% of the churches.

I agree that lavish spending by churches on fancy buildings, etc isn't a good thing. But, I'm not sure the data indicates that the majority of churches are doing this. I'd argue that we have far more churches in the "we need to pray we have funds to cover the needed roof repair" category than we have churches in the, "let's put a $1million dollar chandelier in the entrance-way" category.

timothyu · Saturday at 12:53 PM

Isn't it interesting that people think a church must be a gathering place in the same way people think God's Kingdom is a place.

FireDragon76 · Sunday at 4:09 AM

timothyu said:
Isn't it interesting that people think a church must be a gathering place in the same way people think God's Kingdom is a place.

The word church in English and many Germanic languages originally referred to a sense of place dedicated to a specific sacred function Church comes from the Greek kyriakos,, meaning "(house) of the Lord".

FireDragon76 · Sunday at 4:13 AM

dms1972 said:
If its all about impressing people and other churches with some grand structure then I agree that is wrong. Practically however IMO its not wrong to have a building to congregate, worship together, and minister the sacraments, hear God's Word read etc. Are they not supposed to be places of public worship of God to some extent (ie. in accordance with the Christian Faith), even though there are ordinances such as Baptism and Communion for believers. Its quite possible poor people attend some of those huge cathedrals.

Poor people did of course attend cathedrals.

The buildings weren't originally developed to impose hierarchy or classism, but often were down to practical consideration: housing a large number of people in worship. The architecture of traditional churches is based off the Roman basicila, which was a kind of public forum used to conduct law and business.

The video comparing church buildings to idolatry doesn't do justice to the deep theological or spiritual meaning that church buildings have had throughout history. Church architecture represents sacramental imagination, something I doubt that somebody working from a radical restorationist paradigm wouldn't understand. God doesn't just sanctify persons, but also the material world when it is rightly ordered and dedicated to a holy use.

This nuance and depth is best shown in the life of St. Francis of Assisi. He embraced a life of radical poverty as a medicant (beggar). But he had a love of churches as a place dedicated to the service of God. His theology was Incarnational, not Manichean, where even the material world could participate in sanctification.

Dave G. · Sunday at 4:37 AM

I went to the "church of the woods" for a decade or two. Out in the wilderness I encountered God in many profound ways, as much so if not more than in any building. Different culture though. And a little tough to gain support in a rainy season ! But God is still there, just maybe no people. Especially wealthy elite types that you see at the white building with a steeple and Lincolns or Lexus, otherwise new cars in the parking lots there of.

See, the true church is in the hearts of man either way.

timf · Sunday at 6:25 AM

Organizational systems are what Satan needs to make his move to try to take over the world. Back at the tower of Babel God indicated he was not happy with collectivism. However Satan needs it as he is not able to be everywhere at one so he needs to leverage his influence through hierarchies.

Organizational systems can efficiently process components. However Christianity was supposed to be about relationships (us with God and each other). Systems tend to inhibit and even kill relationships.

It is unlikely that a house church will be attractive to many because there is no room to hide and all that is unpleasant about each of us is easily exposed. Relationships are difficult. We are perhaps told so often to love one another because we are so unlovable.

dms1972 · Monday at 2:14 AM

FireDragon76 said:
Poor people did of course attend cathedrals.

The buildings weren't originally developed to impose hierarchy or classism, but often were down to practical consideration: housing a large number of people in worship. The architecture of traditional churches is based off the Roman basicila, which was a kind of public forum used to conduct law and business.

The video comparing church buildings to idolatry doesn't do justice to the deep theological or spiritual meaning that church buildings have had throughout history. Church architecture represents sacramental imagination, something I doubt that somebody working from a radical restorationist paradigm wouldn't understand. God doesn't just sanctify persons, but also the material world when it is rightly ordered and dedicated to a holy use.

This nuance and depth is best shown in the life of St. Francis of Assisi. He embraced a life of radical poverty as a medicant (beggar). But he had a love of churches as a place dedicated to the service of God. His theology was Incarnational, not Manichean, where even the material world could participate in sanctification.

You make some very good points.

I should have added of course that the poor folks (of previous centuries) contributed a substantial amount for the building of some of the cathedrals. But the video is one-sided. Much of medieval church construction was done to the glory of God, for instance who remembers many of the architects?

dms1972 · Monday at 2:23 AM

timf said:
Organizational systems are what Satan needs to make his move to try to take over the world. Back at the tower of Babel God indicated he was not happy with collectivism. However Satan needs it as he is not able to be everywhere at one so he needs to leverage his influence through hierarchies.

Organizational systems can efficiently process components. However Christianity was supposed to be about relationships (us with God and each other). Systems tend to inhibit and even kill relationships.

It is unlikely that a house church will be attractive to many because there is no room to hide and all that is unpleasant about each of us is easily exposed. Relationships are difficult. We are perhaps told so often to love one another because we are so unlovable.

Isn't there a bit of difference between hierachy and collectivism?

I agree though with the gist of what your are saying. I don't like house-groups, but I maybe haven't experienced a good one. Bible studies and smaller meetings are fine though.

Tooti · Monday at 3:40 AM

timf said:
Organizational systems are what Satan needs to make his move to try to take over the world. Back at the tower of Babel God indicated he was not happy with collectivism. However Satan needs it as he is not able to be everywhere at one so he needs to leverage his influence through hierarchies.

Organizational systems can efficiently process components. However Christianity was supposed to be about relationships (us with God and each other). Systems tend to inhibit and even kill relationships.

It is unlikely that a house church will be attractive to many because there is no room to hide and all that is unpleasant about each of us is easily exposed. Relationships are difficult. We are perhaps told so often to love one another because we are so unlovable.

I'm afraid you are mistaken. Lord Jesus established His Church as an organisation.
Organisation is something good in itself, it's just Satan abused something that is good.

dms1972 · Monday at 4:30 AM

The metaphors in the New Testament: eg. The Vine and the branches, The Body etc. suggest an organism, moreso than an organisation, and yes there is a difference. There had to be some degree of organisation because that's needed as a church grows in numbers, but that wasn't to supplant the understanding of the Church in terms of the images of the New Testament. The organisation needed at least in the local church fellowship was to be by means of the spiritual gift of Governing or Administration and the appointments of Elders and Deacons.

timf · Monday at 4:56 AM

Isn't there a bit of difference between hierachy and collectivism?

A hierarchy is necessary to run an organization. When people are turned into components, someone needs to direct the function of the components.

The most basic organization is an army. Which mankind has found necessary to defend or attack other organizations. Even at the tribal level organization concentrates power such that it can be applied to get what the people in charge want. Corporations are economic collectives that crush smaller individual enterprises.

FireDragon76 · Monday at 5:28 AM

dms1972 said:
The metaphors in the New Testament: eg. The Vine and the branches, The Body etc. suggest an organism, moreso than an organisation, and yes there is a difference. There had to be some degree of organisation because that's needed as a church grows in numbers, but that wasn't to supplant the understanding of the Church in terms of the images of the New Testament. The organisation needed at least in the local church fellowship was to be by means of the spiritual gift of Governing or Administration and the appointments of Elders and Deacons.

The organism metaphor was used by Romantics in both East and West (Mercersburg, the Paris School in Orthodoxy), but I actually think Metropolitan John Zizioulas Eucharistic ecclessiology is more pastorally sound and more consonant with the eschatology of the New Testament and early Church. The Church is both particular and catholic at the same time. This has resonance with some forms of Protestant ecclessiology as well (Lutheranism, Congregationalism, many form of Anglicanism).

RamiC · Monday at 5:29 AM

I live in the UK where the first church buildings were made from wood, and shelter for gatherings is essential most of the year, otherwise they would be subject to the weather, which changes unpredictably.

The imposing buildings and tall steeples were for pragmatic reasons, to make the location visible to those on foot or horseback, who had no printed maps to help them. They also worked as waymarkers for those merely travelling for other reasons, not just to get to church. The bells were to let people know that a gathering was going to happen, when there were no watches, no mobile phones, no radio.

A lot of very early churches were built close to where Saxon Cheifs used to hold meetings, at Yew trees. The Saxons used Yew trees as meeting places because they look distinctive and do not change in appearance with the seasons. The Christians who wanted to convert the Saxon leaders turned up to preach at the Yew tree when there was a meeting, and where they were successful they tended to build the church at the spot where the Saxon cheif had accepted Jesus. Or perhaps they just built the church near the yew tree because people knew where the Yew trees were. We have Yew trees that have been growing since before stories about some guy in the middle east who could heal anything and came back from the dead arrived here.

The actual church, on a local level, is any group of Christians who have been called by Jesus to be together and acheive something for Him...that might be via your own denomination's local building, it might be every Christian at your workplace, or it might be based in your own living room, or at the nearest ancient Yew tree!

RamiC · Monday at 5:48 AM

FireDragon76 said:
In Norse mythology, Odin made the first people from the Yew tree, and the symbol of the tree also exists in Christianity as an axis mundi, just as it does in Norse mythology. So the use of trees as marking a sacred space is a point of contact between these two worldviews.

The Saxons followed a belief system related to the Norse one, and marking the conversion spot from a Saxon Cheifs meeting at a Yew tree makes sense to me. We even have a few churches where they have used older Saxon grave marker stones in the base of the church walls, either because stones were in short supply or maybe in the hope of saving the soul of the guy who was already dead. Please note, there were no Bible's yet.

dms1972 · Monday at 6:55 AM

FireDragon76 said:
The organism metaphor was used by Romantics in both East and West (Mercersburg, the Paris School in Orthodoxy), but I actually think Metropolitan John Zizioulas Eucharistic ecclessiology is more pastorally sound and more consonant with the eschatology of the New Testament and early Church. The Church is both particular and catholic at the same time. This has resonance with some forms of Protestant ecclessiology as well (Lutheranism, Congregationalism, many form of Anglicanism).

I think what I was meaning is that the organisational element is secondary. I am not refering to the Romantics, but the New Testament metaphor of the Vine and the Branches. Churches are fellowships too. There needs be some organisation of affairs but they not an organisation in the modern sense like in William Whyte's "The Organisation Man". That sort of managerialism is not IMO what church leadership should imitate. Leadership involves spiritual gifting.

FireDragon76 · Monday at 7:39 AM

dms1972 said:
I think what I was meaning is that the organisational element is secondary. I am not refering to the Romantics, but the New Testament metaphor of the Vine and the Branches. Churches are fellowships too. There needs be some organisation of affairs but they not an organisation in the modern sense like in William Whyte's "The Organisation Man". That sort of managerialism is not IMO what church leadership should imitate. Leadership involves spiritual gifting.

Here Christ is speaking of a mystical reality, not necessarily reducible to earthly institution. Many of the images in the Gospel of John have this nondual Trinitarian logic in this way.

I sometimes don't think Christians realize how much even Protestants can smuggle in clericalist assumptions.

Ideally, particular churches do recognize a process of spiritual discernment and calling, both by the individual and the congregation together. Many churches still use this very language in fact (most Mainlien Protestant churches continue to use this language), but the issue is that it often gets reduced to secular logics of utility in practice, especially owing to the legacy of 1600+ years of Christianity being a de facto state or cultural religion.

com7fy8 · Tuesday at 8:12 AM

joechristianwarrior said:
Do you think church buildings help discipleship, or can they sometimes distract from it?

It's like how you can use a pagan's yew tree.

We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

A question I’ve been reflecting on about church buildings

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Everyone's suppporter

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads