The Narrow Path Ministries

Have you noticed that Jesus never commanded His disciples to put up a church building? Nor did Paul. Remember Jesus said, "Upon this rock I will build my church", so we know He was and still is in the "business" of building His church, but never even implied that a building should be built for His church. Paul started many churches, but never, as far as we know, built a building, or directed new believers to build one. Some have said that Rome would not have allowed that. Maybe, but God knew that Rome would not be in charge indefinitely, so if a building was essential to start a church, one would think that He would have mentioned it somewhere in His word. Apparently, Rome allowed synagogues, where they did not acknowlege Caesar as their true King, so it is possible that they might have allowed church buildings, as long as they did not encourage rebellion.
It appears to me that the absence of directions to build church buildings is by design. I see many problems with church buildings:
1. It gives the illusion that the building is the church, not His people.
2. Too often, it forces congregations into debt and a prolonged plea for money or financial pledges, which many members can't afford.
3. Preventative maintenance and improvements on a building becomes the focus, rather than focusing on preventative maintenance and improvements of the real church, God's people.
4. Rather than having the building vacant most of the week, many Christians feel that they must plan events there, to be good stewards. This often creates a feeling of obligation to start programs that otherwise may not have been started. The need to fill a vacant building should not be the reason to start a program. Rather, it should be the leading of the Holy Spirit.
5. Whatever the size of the building is, it appears that often the goal of the leaders is to fill the building, and beyond that, overflow it, so that plans can begin to build a LARGER building, or to buy a LARGER one.
6. Too many indians, but not enough chiefs. Remember Jesus looked on the multitudes and felt compassion for them because they were like sheep without a shepherd. I have seen many crowds in churches that appear to be sheep without a shepherd. I don't believe there is a pastor alive that can properly and effectively "shepherd" even 20 people, let alone 100,or 200 or 500 or 1000. The Creator and Shepherd of the very 1st church, Jesus, only had 12 disciples in His congregation. Of course, the 12 disciples were most likely married with children, so Jesus was, in effect, discipling them too. If Jesus, the Son of God, could only handle 12 disciples at one time, why do ANY pastors today think they can effectively handle more? Obviously, Jesus had thousands of disciples who followed Him, but He primarily poured His life into 12 men over 3 1/2 years. Isn't that what pastors or shepherds are supposed to do?
If you have no more than 12 families in a local church, a larger building is not required. Usually one or more of the families has a home large enough to accomodate everyone. In this way, no church member has to "fall through the cracks". All can have a close relationship with their shepherd, and the shepherd can properly care for, not only his own family, but also the church of God. See 1 Timothy 3:4-5 Obviously, if the church grows beyond that, it's time to consider starting another one.

I would point out though that special buildings designated for Christian meetings were appearing as early as the 100s. At first they were modified houses, but later in the same century, they took on special identifying characteristics as "houses of worship".

I see many problems with church buildings:
1. It gives the illusion that the building is the church, not His people.

I think that problem is actually caused by the failure to translate ekklesia. Correctly translated, no one would get the idea the building was the church, or a church.

We have a new preaching pastor and he closes every service saying "now go out and be the church".

Correct, Homer. The word ought to be translated as "assembly". Indeed, almost every translation renders the word as "assembly" in Acts 19:41, and NONE of them render it as "church". Otherwise the town clerk would have been dismissing "the church" when he sent home the large assembly of supporters of the goddess Artemis.

I am in near complete agreement with the original post about the dangers of the church 'building'

But, to balance comment, I would point out that importance of religious buildings in Paul's ministry (Especially)

When Paul visited a city/town, he almost always went to the religious building first to share the Gospel and find potential disciples. The synagogues that Paul visited were vital to his project.

So, perhaps the problem is not so much the existence of religious buildings... but the idea that they are the end and not the means. I think of Christian church buildings as the contemporary equivalent of 1st century Jewish synagogues. They are places where potential disciples happen to be. They are the most obvious place for us to identify disciples and future disciples for more authentically 'churchy' purposes.

'Preachers went to the unsaved, and teaching was not supposed to be a performance by one man. Nor was one man supposed to be the center of every single one of our Sunday meetings together (unless that one man is Jesus).

The Church was made up of believers and disciples who met 'together', broke bread together, shared all things, talked together, and loved one another. This 'sermon time', 'Pastor roles', and pews are the problem and the death of Christian community. All this comes from the Catholic traditions and model of church service, it is the 'institutionalized' church that is horribly wrong, and unbiblical. The Church was originally made up of disciples who met, prayed and studied together, wherever. Some disciples (overseers) should help other disciples facilitate meetings and help serve those studying praying and singing, and if need be keep an ear open to address any false doctrines, that is all the role was meant to do. As a small group leader, all I do is encourage the group to focus on God or Godly discussion, whatever seems profitable to a godly meeting, and help assure the facilities are available for this to happen. Leading them means to create the environment where they disciple each other, grow together, and love one another around Gods Word.

But this is not what happens on Sunday at 'church'. At church we are 'taught' that one man, 'The Pastor' (or priest), does everything for us. He evangelizes, teaches, organizes, reaches out for the whole congregation! Or does he? No they don't, and how could they?'
I wrote on this subject here, and other places, such as below at:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7859956-32/
http://www.christianforums.com/t7859956 ... st66923484
My posts there are #28, 45, 97, 316, 333, 334. I have posted more on this subject elsewhere. This is an important topic, as control of our Sunday time together, and the use our time together, is vital to our friendships and relationships in the church and family. This institution is suffering and deteriorating quickly. And maybe it should. We need to take a step back to see what is truly going on within the institutionalized churches, and why it is wrong.

"I don't believe there is a pastor alive that can properly and effectively "shepherd" even 20 people, let alone 100,or 200 or 500 or 1000... If Jesus, the Son of God, could only handle 12 disciples at one time, why do ANY pastors today think they can effectively handle more?" (Dwight)

Absolutely true. Pastors can decide to pastor, or dominate, it is their choice. The later is the norm no matter how sincere they believe themselves to be. Small or home churches are not the actual answer though, as many of these end up being smaller versions of the institutionalized churches. Believers just wanted a place to go to be with one -another, and do what real believers can learn to do: share, commune together, study together, pray, sing together. The problem is not the building, it is the pews and the priestly traditions. In most every single 'church' on Sunday the people are corralled, subjected, stuck in these theaters, forced to look at the pulpits, and with no escape or alternative. These are not what love filled meetings and community should look like, nor what God intended true friends and family to model, nor what: to love one another, resembles.

TheEditor wrote:The synagogue arrangement was not prescribed nor proscribed by God, as far as we know. It served a utilitarian function for the Jews in that it allowed them to hear the Scriptures being read. It would follow that since we have no need since Gutenberg to assemble to "hear" the Scriptures being read, then the function of church fellowship would be just that--fellowship along with it's intended results; exhortation and etc.

Yes, the synagogue served a utilitarian function for the Jews. It also served a utilitarian function for Paul. Similarly, the presence of thousands upon thousands of buildings in which religiously inclined people gather on a weekly basis may serve a utilitarian function for disciple-making people today.

But I agree that churches in general are an innoculate; they give you just enough of the real thing to prevent you from getting it.

I don't disagree that many churches give people a false-sense that they are saved Christians without really teaching them what it means to be a genuine disciple. That being said, I feel your statement is a bit too cynical. One could also argue that contemporary churches give people just enough of a sniff at genuine discipleship to whet their appetite.

There is nothing available in a church (save the sense of strenghth and the rush one gets from a crowd) that you cannot get in a small family setting.

I find it helps to think of the 'church' as a band of small groups (there is power in numbers, by the way) mixed with a pool of people who could potentially engage in that sort of setting and are more likely to hear about such things because they attend the church.

The trouble with us as humans is we, like the ancient Israelites, want to be like the surrounding nations. They have their buildings, so we need ours. They have ---- (fill in the blank) we need that too. Plus, let's face it, just as most accountants would rather the IRS stay just as it is (good for business you know), there is a really big feduciary interest in keeping Christendom just as it is. Don't kid yourself

There is always the possibility of hidden (or not so hidden) motives no matter what one does. One could be opposed to church buildings and institutions b/c they want to stay under the radar (for whatever reason). They could oppose them b/c of some past hurt (rather than actual preference). They could oppose them b/c they fear in a larger setting they couldn't be as 'in charge' as they are in a small group setting. They could oppose them b/c there'd be 'competition' from other voices. The list could go on.

Personally, I think it is a waste of time to argue CHURCH BUILDINGS vs. HOUSE CHURCHES. The debate frames it as an either/or when, in reality, we should view it as a both/and. There are definitely positive ways that kingdom people can utilize the church building and there are positive ways that kingdom people can utilize a gathering in a home. There are also potential dangers in both. What's more, a lot of time the actual practice overlaps. Some church buildings house something that looks more like a house church. And some house churches end up behaving just like an institutional church, just tinier. I also think it's a fairly stale argument. Most kingdom churches have already moved on from viewing Sunday morning as the end and are seeing it more as a means to pull people into more focused discipleship ministry.

Matt Wrote:

There is always the possibility of hidden (or not so hidden) motives no matter what one does. One could be opposed to church buildings and institutions b/c they want to stay under the radar (for whatever reason). They could oppose them b/c of some past hurt (rather than actual preference). They could oppose them b/c they fear in a larger setting they couldn't be as 'in charge' as they are in a small group setting. They could oppose them b/c there'd be 'competition' from other voices. The list could go on.

And another reason is that a person might not want to feel obligated to give money for a building. Some churches seem to have a desire to become very big, but why not start another church instead? About 100 years ago, one church in Nashville Tennessee planted over 30 other churches. They kept one or more large tents for the purpose, and would start a church in a tent and when that church was established they would move the tent and start another.

But I think you can have the best of both worlds. Where we attend there are three Sunday services where there will be a sermon, worship in song, communion, and an offering. Then there are adult classes with lots of discussion and several small groups and bible studies both at homes and at the church through the week with a Celebrate Recovery program on Friday evening which has brought people to Christ. It doesn't need to be "either/or" as Matt indicated.