Viola and Barna: Pagan “Church” Buildings?

In Chapter 2 of Pagan Christianity (hereafter, PC), Viola and Barna take on both the history and value of the traditional church building. I’m going to go over some of the highlights of this chapter.

How I’d like to handle these chapters is to list what I call “Green Flags” (things that really ring true), “Red Flags” (things that don’t ring true or seem illogical) and neutral, interesting points (such as interesting facts, “so what?” statements and books cited that I just may want on my Christmas list – often from writers Viola doesn’t seem to like!).  If I get really wordy (like this post) I will divide Green and Red into two posts over two days.  Today: the Green Flags!

Green Flags:

1. “The New Testament always reserves the word church (ekklesia) for the people of God.  It never uses this word to refer to a building of any sort.” (14)  Amen to that!  The Church is the people of God.  No argument there.
2. “Meeting in homes was a conscious choice of the early Christians.” (15)  And it is a conscious choice of the organic fellowship groups we’ve been involved with for the past nine years!  Of course, this leads to a bit of a Red Flag (see below)!
3. “These homes [where the Church met] were never called temples.” (15)  Jesus is the Temple.  Amen and amen.
4. [Basilicas, the first dedicated "church" buildings, promoted by Constantine] were wonderful for seating passive and docile crowds to watch a performance.  This was one of the reasons why Constantine chose the basilica model.” (22)  This is one of the greatest arguments against church buildings as they stand today: creating the weekly “show” that has emerged in so many congregations (“The concert and the pep talk”, as I have mentioned).  While I will later argue (in the next post) that being a mere recipient is sometimes a good and godly thing, I think that this criticism of church buildings is quite legit; it calls to mind Robert Webber’s advice that we as a Church need to remove the terminology of “stage”, “audience” and “performance” from our worship vocabularies (Planning Blended Worship – sorry!  I couldn’t find the exact page yet!).
5. “… a loss of intimacy and open participation…” (25)  For the solution to this, I will refer you to the Red Flags below; however, I agree that intimacy and open participation need to be restored, and the BCB (big church building) doesn’t really lend itself to this!
6. After describing the long evolution of the church building sanctuary, the authors describe the pulpit, which “elevates the clergy to a position of prominence… it puts the preacher at center ’stage’ – separating and replacing him high above God’s people.” (34) This criticism resonates with me; as my friend/pastor Alan would say (ironically, in this case), “That’ll preach!”  I think that sanctuary designers are enslaved by certain preconceptions: elevated stage, rows of pews (or folding chairs), everything facing in one, boring direction toward the pulpit.  Why can’t we mix things up a bit?
7. “Every building we encounter… explicitly shows us what the church is and how it functions… it teaches what is important and what is not.” (37-8)  I think that to fool people into thinking that the pretty buildings on the corner are “the Church” is to rob many of what could be an invitation, to “close the doors of heaven” on many who would come over for dinner a decade before setting foot in a church narthex.  You’ll see below that I do not totally agree with a completely negative assessment of the church building, but I do intensely agree that we need to change the image that the word “church” places in people’s minds.  “[Certain] Social locations can teach good and godly people very bad lessons and choke their lives together.” (38)
8. (The BIG Green Flag) “Most contemporary Christians mistakenly view the church building as a necessary part of worship… [but] real estate owned by institutional churches today is worth over $230 billion.  Church building debt, service, and maintenance consumes about 18 percent of the $50 to $60 billion tithed to churches annually.” (41, emphasis mine)  The authors argue that a house church can use “more than 95 percent of its shared money for delivering … ministry, mission and outreach to the world.” (41)  I just kept nodding and nodding during this portion!  Owning a church building, versus the early-church habit of converting homes or renting buildings for worship and fellowship, is so often just a waste!

Okay… before going on to the Red Flags tomorrow, (believe it or not, I have mental room for some…) I will offer a few final thoughts about the merits of this chapter:

I have begun chanting (much to the irritation of a few friends), “The Church around the world need never, ever build another church building!”  Now, before you get all mad and tell me all the reasons why this is a horrible thing to say, let me suggest something: some churches are so large and could so easily share their space with smaller parishes and congregations!  What if your local megachurch (I’ll pick on Calvary Church in Charlotte, NC, for example) offered three or four smaller churches (plants, aging congregations) a very modest rent to use their space?  What if a lot of their weekday activities (Bible studies, ESL classes, knitting circles, choir practice, youth group etc.) were transfered to other locations such as parks or homes so that smaller congregations could hold their weekly services (any given day of the week or rotating churches on a given Sunday) in their sanctuary?  What if a 30-member parish met in the fellowship hall while a 90-member congregation met at the same time in the prayer-chapel?  Oh, and all that rent can help the megachurches honor God by aiding in paying off those ridiculous mortgages that waste God’s money.

I’ve been part of three churches that shared buildings.  I hear it’s rather common in other countries.  It forces congregations to acknowledge each other and to cooperate.  That can’t be a bad thing!

While we’re at it, what if we did some major redecoration, like putting the pews in a circle around the pulpit so people could see each other?  Or, like many liturgical churches, why don’t we put the pulpit off to the side?  Many churches never plan on buying a building, and I think they are happier for it!

These are just a few ideas.  I’m sure a creative Body of Christ can come up with some major great ideas!  I’d love to hear them.  Here’s my one rule: please don’t comment just to say, “Church buildings are evil!  Burn ‘em all!”  Let’s dialogue on creative, constructive things to do with the buildings already in our possession.