Church
buildings are what we sometimes call "expedients." That is, scripture
neither explicitly condones nor condemns them. The fact that we have no record
of the existence of church buildings until the third century may be interpreted
in at least two ways. Those accustomed to church buildings will interpret their
non-existence at that time as an undesirable necessity forced on the people of
God by persecution which was common during its early history. Others will
interpret it to mean that the early ekklesia recognized that its
existence as a local community of Christians did not necessitate a special building.
Whichever of these interpretations is correct, I intend to show why in this day
and age, church buildings are counterproductive to the propagation of the
gospel.
1)
Church
buildings divert large amounts of money from more evangelistic-intensive purposes.
The
typical church building absorbs 40-60% of the local church's budget; a budget
which has no authorization to exist and even if it did, deserves judgment for
its perverted priorities. In contrast, the fielding of cross-cultural
evangelists, Bible translators, and the giving to the needy usually absorbs
less than 10%. In a world of 2.5 billion non-Christians living among the 17,000
"unreached people groups" (distinct cultural groups lacking a
self-reproducing Christian community) and 2.2 billion non-Christians
among the 6500 "reached" people groups (groups containing a
self-reproducing Christian community), and 3000 languages for which the Bible
has not been translated, such financial priorities are inexcusable!
2)
Church
buildings divert people's attention
away from reaching the lost and discipling the saved.
So-called
Men's Business Meetings are dominated with discussion regarding the purchase
and upkeep of this seemingly necessary accessory of middle class American
Christianity. These same men usually spend no time in serious Bible study,
evangelistic calling, conducting evangelistic Bible studies, or in serious
Bible teaching. If Christians spent as much time on evangelism, discipling, and
Bible study as they do on church buildings, it could revolutionize the carrying
out of the mission of God's people. It is a testimony to our spiritual
bankruptcy that we are able to easily invest so much time and care in a
building, and so little in the actual mission of the ekklesia.
3)
Church
buildings actually blunt our evangelistic effectiveness.
This
is probably not obvious to you. I have heard it argued that church buildings
are an important, even indispensable evangelistic tool. I have even heard Old
Testament passages used to assert that we don't really love the Lord if He has
to meet with us in a dilapidated meeting-house. After all, God deserves good
advertising.
If
a building attracts new members, they are almost certain to be (1) dissatisfied
with their present church in which case they will only be getting the same
confusion in a new building, or (2) they are nominal "Christians" who
think that the new building .will give their religion new vitality, in which
case they will overflow the building with nominal Christians. If church
buildings attract non-Christians, it is probably for very questionable motives,
like acquiring respectability in the community. Even if the end justified the
means, it is doubtful that church buildings communicate the content of the
gospel so much as that the church has aligned itself with the values and powers
of this world.
In
truth, church buildings retard our evangelistic impact. In a recent survey
among 32,548 Southern Baptist congregations, it was found that the smaller the
congregation, the more evangelistically effective it was, and also the younger
the congregation, the more evangelistically effective it was. When I say
"evangelistically effective," I mean as measured in baptisms per
hundred "members" per year. A ten year old fellowship of 40 people
will average about 11.4 baptisms per hundred "members" per year. A 35
year old congregation of 40 "members" will baptize 5.5 per hundred
"members" per year, about half the previous rate. A 15 year old super
church of 3000 (commonly found in
It
is argued that super churches offer many services that small fellowships do not
provide. This argument is one of the favorite of the clergyman, for he knows
that if he can pull off building a super church, he will have national stature
in his denomination. I will make short work of his principal argument at once.
Suppose he succeeds in building a super church of 1200 at the end of 15 years.
Based on the statistics available to me (1976 Baptism Rate by 1976 Resident
Membership by Age of Church; a table found in Dean R. Hoge and David A. Roozen;
Understanding Church Growth and Decline [NY: Pilgrim Press, 1979]), this
super church will baptize on the average 67 per year. Sounds pretty impressive,
eh? But the same 1200 assembled in non-institutional house-fellowships of 50,
each which are 10 years old, will baptize 137 per year. So one rather important
service which 137-67= 70 persons in the superchurch's target community will not
enjoy is eternal life. Slightly more important than intramural sports or a 50 piece
orchestra.
Any
necessary function that can be done by a super church can also be done by cooperation
between several small fellowships. You see authors of the conventional wisdom
point to the great number of baptisms of their super church. I point to the
great numbers of baptisms of their super church. I point to the great numbers
who failed to be reached because we did not use the strategy of small
fellowships.
So
does the size of super churches constitute an unbiblical practice? Perhaps not
directly, but (1) the great numbers they fail to reach in their target area and
(2) the antiscriptural practices they tend to require make them of highly
questionable stewardship.
So
what does this have to do with church buildings? The larger the congregation
becomes, the more pressure there is to buy a building, but the less efficient
it becomes at winning converts. Furthermore, the purchase of a building puts
even further pressure on the congregation to build the congregation into a
large body, which steadily decreases its evangelistic effectiveness. If you are
still skeptical at this point, I refer you to the table referred to above in
the Hogs and Roozen book. Convince yourself that what I say is true.
Super churches tend to attract more transfer growth--people who want to go where there is an institutional smorgasbord, and a nationally known super church "pastor." Non-institutional house-fellowships on the other hand tend to attract people who rightfully have problems with the institutional church. To us, these people don't fit into our churches. To them, our culturally perverted form of the ekklesia impresses them with its many contradictions. .
4)
Church
buildings discourage the employment of
more evangelistic-intensive methods.
If
as we have shown, smaller and younger fellowships are more
evangelistically intensive, then the outstanding financial obligations of a
building tend to discourage the sending out of the nuclei of new of new
congregations for several reasons. First, it is a rare clergyman or
"Eldership" that will send forth its best members to start a new and
possibly competing work across town. Second, the money these members contribute
is coveted for the local leaders pet projects, like phase 8 of the building
expansion. Third, a clergyman rises in the pecking order of clergymen according
to the size of his organization, not according to number of new congregations
he has started. This is just a political fact of the clergy system. The
benchmark of the size of his organization is the size of his church building.
All of these factors work together to put great pressure on you to finance
church buildings, and to thus discourage the more evangelistic intensive method
of proliferating the community with autonomous but interdependent small
fellowships.
5)
Church
buildings are a symbol of "success" in terms of financial and
management prowess of the Eldership and dynamic leadership of the clergy.
This
is certainly a bad motive for constructing a building. You may wonder how I
know that this is a motive for the construction of buildings, given the pulpit
rhetoric to the contrary. First, in the modern institutional church, the
primary purpose of the sermon is not to build mature Christians but to advance
institutional goals, including building programs. Second, the true motives of
men are frequently couched behind rhetoric. In the political realm, it is
frequently called "ideology." In the religious realm, it is
frequently called "theology." In both, its purpose is the control of
people. I mean people like you and me! And as power can be had via the
development of institutional machinery and a building is a useful accessory to
this end, we continue to have church buildings.
But
how do I suspect that buildings are a symbol of pride? Their image is printed
on church letterhead alongside the clergymen or "staff." Their price
tag is used as the benchmark of clergy stature. I have seen this done from the
pulpit and through the media, and in private conversations with the clergymen.
Also, their existence is consistent with the general materialism of American
Christianity.
6)
As an
accessory to the institutional church, the building reinforces our faulty
understanding of the ekklesia
as
being either the building or the organization which principally meets in
that building. In the presence of the building, we habitually think of the ekklesia
in terms of this accessory until we cannot think of it in any other terms.
This is especially bad where people cannot afford property. The gospel is
positively hindered where people can ill afford to construct a building; but
feel the force of habit to do so. This occurs in the inner city or in the
Two-Thirds World. It is especially sad to see congregations selling
"their" inner city real estate to reinvest in the outer suburbs to
protect "their" assets from the ravages of white flight. Then they
sell to a religious group which repudiates all they ostensibly stood for. Such
a practice only demonstrates that their commitment was not to the
community but to themselves, their organization, and the protection of their
own capital.
Further,
church buildings tend to actually stifle the cultivation of genuine fellowship
and interpersonal communication. The church building is designed to reinforce
the model of the ekklesia principally as an audience; not as a community
of mutually accountable and mutually serving participants. The present
tradition of organizing the church's life around the pulpit performance of the
clergyman is a child of the Protestant Reformation; not of the New Testament.
7)
The budding
encourages the centralization of meetings under its roof so as to justify its
expense. But this centralization of
meetings is the exact opposite of what is needed.
For
one thing, the most effective penetration of the community occurs when the
gospel is communicated outside of the confines of the building out in homes and
other locations. For another thing, decentralization of meetings would
encourage the development of nonclerical leadership. This would in turn make
better use of existing human potential and would provide more non-institutional
contexts in which non-Christians or Christians on the fringe would feel more
comfortable. But, of course, the clergy and the institutional church are
nervous about giving "lay" leaders too much independence. After all,
they might split off and start a new organization of their own.
8)
Church
buddings are a loud statement to the poor and to thinking unbelievers that our
institutional accessories are more important to us than maintaining lean and
streamlined practices which allow us more money for the poor or for the
fielding of missionaries.
To
get a feel for how buildings positively hinder our finance of world mission,
let us try to think of what it will cost to reach the remaining 17,000
unreached people groups (defined above). About 3000 of the 17,000 remaining
unreached people groups need the Bible in translation as well and nearly all of
these languages need the language reduced to writing. (That is, the language
does not yet exist in written form). Each one of these unreached people groups
could easily absorb a missionary's entire career. Including expenses of the
mission, logistical support, and an accompanying family, we would easily be
talking about $30K per year in constant 1989 dollars. Over a 40 year career,
this amounts to $1.2 million. This is equivalent to about one building of about
500 capacity in
Now
at this cost, the reaching of every remaining unreached people group would be
attainable within one generation if the personnel could be found. There are
about 125,000 missionaries around the world at present. But unfortunately,
nearly all are working among the "reached" people groups. Another
17,000 each targeted to an unreached people group would not be unattainable in
this generation. Ideally, a team of workers should be sent to each remaining
unreached people group. Then we could easily use another 100,000 missionaries
and Bible translators. But would the funds be available? Not as long as we prefer
to finance church buildings and oversized multiple staffs on the payroll.
Consequently, since the money needed for fielding the needed numbers of
missionaries is tied up in real estate and since the number of countries closed
to traditional "church-supported" missionaries is vastly increasing,
self-supporting missionaries will need to become the norm.
9)
As a symbol of
power, the church building can be a source of great infighting.
When
we give to the "building fund," some of us really have strings attached
to that money. That money is not really given to the Lord but to ourselves.
Consequently, when a church split develops, a primary concern is over who will
retain ownership of the property.
10)
The church building contributes to the perversion of our
understanding of money in its relation to the local ekklesia.
The
outstanding obligations of the building put pressure on us to pass an offering
plate. "Pre-offering" or "pre-collection" arm twisting
(devotionals) by the deacons or elders assume that all of the Christian's
giving is to be done through a so-called local church treasury, which is
administered by the Eldership by means of collection during meetings. It is
also becoming a widespread practice to secure pledges to pay for church
buildings. By means of "faith-promise" banquets. These practices
combine to form an oppressive system of pressure tactics for securing money to
pay for our buildings and other institutional accessories. The saints, if left
to their own devices, might give to more evangelistic-intensive purposes.
11)
Our predominant dependence on church buildings has
probably contributed to the zoning laws in some places which prohibit religious
meetings in private homes.
If we did not depend on church buildings, such laws would probably never have come into existence.
12)
Church buildings tend to reinforce our dependence on the
clergy.
If
nearly all of the meetings occur in the building (and a substantial
number must if we are to justify its purchase), then the clergy will be nearly
all of the teaching talent needed. This has disastrous results. First, it
discourages the development of non-professional leaders. This in turn prevents
the development of the kind of Christian maturity which would be necessary to
free the saints from their dependence on the clergy and the institutional
church. The dependence on the clergy tends to not encourage the people to study
the Bible for themselves. Then they become accustomed to getting the Bible
second-hand from the clergy. All of this becomes a vicious cycle.
13)
If a revolution were ever to occur, church property could quickly be confiscated and liquidated.
Buildings
would make it much harder for Christians to go underground since they will have
invested so much capital in the building. They would be much more traceable
through all the legal documents associated with the corporation and the
building and would thus be more vulnerable. Since the assets are not put to
their best use while in the form of buildings, their confiscation is not such a
loss. The usable capital is already tied up. Its confiscation might very well
be the event that finally awakens us to the fact that the ekklesia is
merely the people and not the building or the organization.
So
are church buildings contrary to scripture? Not directly. But they tend to
reduce the evangelistic effectiveness of the people of God in many ways and
they tend to go hand in hand with the anti-scriptural institutional model of
the ekklesia. Therefore from the standpoint of good strategy,
stewardship, and clear thinking about who we are as God's people, we would do
better without them. Where should you then meet? Try experimenting a little. I
have been in small fellowships that have met in homes, parks, school buildings,
offices, barrooms, and banquet rooms. Each has its advantages and
disadvantages. But in every case, I think you will find that disposing of the
building will be very liberating and will free your thinking to explore other
ways to "de-institutionalize" yourself.