So call me a pagan... 3

Let's get into the main parts of "Pagan Christianity?," starting with chpt 3: The Church Building.

Here, Viola does have some good things to say, and some challenges, particularly as regards how much is spent on buildings and structures by the Church in the West. But as is quickly being seen here as SOP (standard operating procedure) he buries all the good points he makes under an almost intolerable load of garbage- overstatements, mis-implications and outright non sequiturs.

The basic premise of the chapter is this: "Meeting in homes was a conscious choice of the early Christians."

Well, sure. But so was meeting in the synagogue (Acts 9:2) and at the Temple (Acts 2:46). Right?
At least up and until they were thrown out, just as Jesus said would happen.

The next bit goes on to describe Constantine as "the father of the church building." We're given a tour as to the shortcomings of Constantine's character, including his persistence in pagan worship and "the fact that he is reported to have had his eldest son, his nephew, and his brother-in-law executed."

Apparently, us worshiping on Sunday is a result of  Constantine's decree (no mention of  Acts 20:7, 1 Cor  16:1-2) or that Justin Martyr (AD 100-162) said a couple of hundred years before Constantine "We hold our common assembly on the Sun's day."

Viola says "... in AD 327, Constantine began erecting the first church building's throughout the Roman Empire, some at public expense."

Now, there are two unstated assumptions all through this chapter.
1. No church community up until the time of Constantine had ever erected a building or met in a dedicated space that wasn't (at least originally) a home. This isn't true.

2. And even if it was, the assumption is that if Pagan Constantine hadn't gotten us "off track", we'd most likely STILL be meeting in homes.

The whole assumption here is that if the Apostle Paul or Jesus Himself were asked if Christian communities should ever build/own a building they would have declared an emphatic "NO" and that without the influence of a Pagan like Constantine with political motives, it never would have occurred to growing communities of Christians that a space larger than a living room was an option for their public worship.

And that's a pretty big assumption. 

Moving on, Viola describes much of the pagan origins of "church" architecture, the whole big giant pastor chair up front, the platform, the spacial "division" between "clergy" and "laity"...
"The Christian building demonstrates that the church, whether she wanted it or not, had entered into a close alliance with pagan culture... This was a tragic shift from the primitive simplicity that the church of Jesus Christ first knew.
Consequently, the story of the church building is the sad saga of Christianity borrowing from heathen culture and radically transforming the face of our faith... The Christians embraced the concept of the physical temple. They imbibed the pagan idea that there exists a special place where God dwells in a special way. And that place is made with hands. "

And here, we can actually agree. The whole "Sanctuary" idea of the inner sanctum of the church being a special place where we speak in hushed tones and no food or drink (other than the Last Snack) is allowed, and children who run are reprimanded and told to "show respect" is just silly among people who understand that WE OURSELVES (that is, our community/the Church as a whole) is the Temple of the Holy Spirit.

But here's the thing- I think more and more people within the Church get this. They know that the building is not the church, is not special, is not "holy." Not everyone- I understand. But more and more understand that the church is the people and can meet and worship anywhere. Yeah- anywhere- School Auditoriums (though that one personally makes me me shudder for aesthetic reasons), homes, pubs (yeah Pub Church!) and even... dare I say it?... "church" buildings.

But I don't think Viola really agrees with that.

The rest of the chapter is a description of the pagan origins, not just of church buildings in general, but of the architecture, stained glass, pulpits, pews, balconies and even... steeples.

Love this: "Ever since the inhabitants of Babel erected a tower to 'reach to the heavens,' civilizations have followed suit by building structures with pointed tops."  The Babylonians, the Egyptians, the Greeks, the Roman Catholics and finally Christopher Wren are to blame. Occasionally, Pagan Christianity? leans a bit in the direction of the Da Vinci Code.
And then this: "The message of the steeple is one that contradicts the New Testament. Christians do not have to reach into the heavens to find God. He is here! With the coming of Immanuel, God is with us. And with His resurrection, we have an indwelling Lord. The steeple defies those realities."

Huh?

You know, it's not just Da Vinci Code-esque. I'm reminded of some of those Salem Kirban and other books I used to read back in the 80's- the ones that showed the "Masonic" origins of our money the symbols on it- I still remember my uncle pulling out a dollar bill and gravely explaining to me the "satanic" origin of the pyramid and "All-Seeing Eye" on the back.

Here's the deal- Even if I grant Viola's timeline/history on its origin, the conclusion that the steeple defies the reality of a present, immanent God is... silly. It just doesn't necessarily follow. Yes, much church architecture is meant to point to the transcendence of God- a good thing, no? But seriously- the steeple? How many of you have ever looked at a steeple and thought "Oh man... God is SOO far away..."??? How many people drive by and are filled with a sense of God's distance when they see a church steeple?
How many churches even have steeples any more? It seems like an architectural flourish that is vanishing...

Viola makes some good points- current church architecture often faces everyone the same way and inhibits interaction between people. Amen! "Instead, it creates a sit-and-soak form of worship that turns functioning Christians into "pew potatoes." Preach on!
This is exactly why churches like Solomon's Porch (who meet in a "church" building, and Mars Hill Bible Church (who meet in a converted mall) and The Evergreen Community (who meet in a pub) all do so in a round, or near-round. To let people look in each others faces, speak to one another, and have interaction. I'm with Frank- I wish more church communities, wherever they meet, would rearrange their worship spaces and make room for dialogue.

He says "Contemporary Christians are spending an astronomical amount of money on their buildings." I agree.  Absolutely. When I see some communities get bigger and bigger and bigger and spend millions renovating sports arenas just so they can be one ginormous church, rather than planting many other communities, it makes me a little queasy. I think our priorities are out of whack on this issue. I wish more church communities would consider planting and remaining at more manageable sizes so such vast amounts wouldn't have to be spent. We're potentially going to start a second worship gathering across town at another pub this year. If we do that, our entire Sunday morning overhead will come to something like $1200 a month! And I love that I'm seeing more and more communities think this way.

But back to what I said earlier about Viola and Barna burying all of their good points pretty quickly under a big steaming pile of "What the...?"

Just as they've got me nodding along and thinking "Now we're getting somewhere. This makes a lot more sense," they drop this "It is high time we Christians wake up to the fact that we are being neither biblical nor spiritual by supporting church buildings. And we are doing great damage to the message of the New Testament by calling man-made buildings churches...

John Newton rightly said, 'Let not him who worships under a steeple condemn him who worships under a chimney." With that in mind, what biblical, spiritual, or historical authority does any Christian have to gather under a steeple in the first place?"

Yeah, go ahead and read that last paragraph again. It ends the chapter on such a bizarre and self-contradictory note that my eyes actually bugged out of my head when I first read it.

So, let me get this straight. John Newton urges us to be tolerant of those who worship in less-traditional or less well-appointed places- to see their worship as true and valid also. And Viola says "With that in mind, what biblical, spiritual, or historical authority does any Christian have to gather under a steeple in the first place?"???

Here, again, is the big, huge, glaring problem in this whole endeavor. The de-legitimation of any but the author's idea of what constitutes "New Testament" Christianity, namely the house church, to which he refers numerous times in this chapter alone. Let's paraphrase Newton in answer to Viola: "Let not him who worships in the house condemn him who worships under a steeple."

What biblical, spiritual, or historical authority does any Christian have to gather under a steeple in the first place?
The authority of the presence of the Lord Jesus Christ! The one who promises that WHEREVER two or three are gathered in His name, there He is. Yes, in house churches, and tiny baptist churches and big ol' mega churches, even ones that probably spent waaay too much on their building, and yes, even buildings (gasp) with steeples on them.

Here's the question: Can a church community own some kind of facility, and yet still function organically and missionally, and structure its corporate life (including  its worship) in such a way that people are encouraged and expected to be full particpants? 

You tell me. I know what Viola and Barna seem to be saying- what do you all say?

Comments

[Joe Thorn]

Excellent words Bob.

[david]

maybe if we let someone "live" in our church buildings we could call them "houses". then it would be okay as long as we don't have a steeple?

i'm still waiting to see what he says about the '87 world series. one of the best ever!

[len]

bob, I won't be disappointed if all the "church" buildings in the west are sold tomorrow. Also.. No question that we sometimes worship our buildings. But to say that those who gather in them are de facto pagan is really a reverse idolatry. You make some great points above, in critique, and thanks for also pointing out the good stuff.

[len]

Oh... to answer your closing question, yes, and yes. But I admit, the longer the building has been around, and unless the elders carefully guard the ethos, it can be a huge challenge because our buildings do shape us in turn in this nutty culture.

[len]

You know, I am beginning to wonder if the "failure" in the framework of Barna and Viola is a failure to embrace paradox. Somehow word and Spirit dwell together, structure and the wild wind work together. We work for the kingdom, yet nothing we do can bring it to being. We live between the times. I ran up against Oscar Romero again today, and I think he captures it..

It helps, now and then, to step back
And take the long view.
The kingdom is not only beyond our efforts,
It is beyond our vision.

We accomplish in our lifetime
only a tiny fraction of the magnificent enterprise that is God’s work.
Nothing we do is complete,
Which is another way of saying
That the kingdom always lies beyond us.

No statement says all that could be said.
No prayer fully expresses our faith.
No confession brings perfection…
No set of goals and objectives includes everything.

This is what we are about:
We plant seeds that one day grow.
We water seed already planted.
Knowing that they hold future promise.
We lay foundations that will need further development.
We provide yeast that produces effects beyond our capabilities.

We cannot do everything
And there is a sense of liberation in that.
This enables us to do everything,
And do it very well.
It may be incomplete, but it is a beginning, a step along the way,
An opportunity for God’s grace to enter and do the rest.
We may never see the results…
We are prophets of a future not our own.

[Bruce Gerencser]

The building in and of itself is not the problem. It is the inordinate money and time we spend buying them and keeping them that is the problem.

To me the question is WHY? Why do we have the building or are building a new one? Perhaps the greater issue is the consumerism that all of us are infected with and how that affects how we look at having Church buildings?

If the buildings are used and actually needed then I have no problem with them. As long as they are treated as earthly objects and not divine sanctuaries I have no problem.

In our area most Church building programs are not because of need. They build because they can. They need a fellowship hall or a gym. They want a nicer sanctuary,etc

The bottom line.........what is the reason, the motive for having the building? What will it be used for? Are we going to be indebted to buy the building? Will that affect our ability to minister?

There are about 200 church buildings within a 30 minute drive of here (here being Ney,Ohio Population 325) Most of the buildings are used 1-3 hours per week. Millions of dollars a year are spent on these buildings.........to what end?

Bruce

[Dan Brown]

Another howler in the text: The "idea that there exists a special place where God dwells in a special way" wasn't exclusively pagan; it was present in the Old Testament as well. (Not that it's relevant to us since the tearing of the veil.)

[alan hirsch]

Bob, you make good points about the book here. It is a pity that there is such overstatement in the book. It has a message that we need to hear. My main concern is the lack of redemptive approaches to culture. They have a section on their website where Frank responds to criticisms http://www.ptmin.org/pcobjections.htm

Take care and happy 08!

[Bob]

Alan! Great to "see" you! Still hoping to have you guys move here to PDX!! :) And to spend some more time with you when you do!

Yeah- That's my take- that the overstatement, but also a couple of the assumptions and conclusions basically comprise a poison pill in this book that will keep it from having much impact beyond those already on their way out the door of "church" and looking for an excuse as to why.

I've seen the "objections" site- reading it's updates in fact, and have responded in some of my other posts on the book to things said there.

I don't know if I'll go chapter by chapter through the whole thing- it's starting to feel a bit like piling on at this point- Maybe I'll start summarizing... but I have a feeling there are still some doozies to come!

Thanks for stopping by!!

[Nick Melazzo]

I'm no fan of buildings either, but what about Paul in Ephesus spending 2 years or so in the lecture hall of Tyrannus in Acts 19? Seems like sometimes it's the thing to do missionally, which is really the problem here. Mike Frost is right, if you adopt the theology of Missio Dei then mission must be the organizing principal of your church. I've not read it, but it sounds like these guys make the same mistake that the more institutional Christians they critique also often make: trying to find some pure and pristine ecclesiology that is, in Platonic style, based more on ideal form than on effective function. Even if they demonstrate the holes in those arguments championing tradition for purity's sake, if they maintain the same paradigm, they've not really helped all that much. The question isn't really who introduced buildings, it's whether a specific building will help or hinder a specific community as they incarnate Christ amongst a specific culture. Sometimes, when you get kicked out of the synagogue, the lecture hall is the best thing going. Pubs aren't bad either. ;)

[Pistol Pete]

You make a good point that the early Christians met not only in homes, but in the Temple (or synagogue). And, they contributed financially to the upkeep and staffing of these through their "temple tax". No where does Jesus or anyone else in the New Testament advice them to stop doing this.

It wasn't until they were sort of "escorted" out of the Jewish worshipping community that they began to need separate gathering spaces. Because of the climate of persecution, the best settings were homes. When the persecution drew to a close, under Constantine, public buildings could be constructed.

No worship building/gathering place is perfect in itself. It simply needs to be the best tool to proclaim the Good News that is currently available.

[Fred]

Looks like a case of the pendulum swinging back to the other extreme. We need to have a balance. God desires our worship. Jesus told us to make disciples. He didn't say to worship God and make disciples in any particular location or building. As long as we are doing what God wants and the focus is on Him, we can gather together in my living room, a large building, a pub, or down at the lake.

[lombard]

I think people struggle with this because we can't agree on what parts of what we see of the early church in the NT are prescriptive and what are purely descriptive. I agree with the idea that if church is really the people, then of course it does not matter where we meet. What matters is how we go about following Missio Dei.

I wonder, however, is there something to say for sacred spaces and places? Are there elements that are important to include to help us focus our worship as can happen more easily in a sanctuary vs. a pub, for example? Maybe not necessarily a steeple, but what about altars and communion tables and candles . . .

[Joey]

yes.

[Dan Brown]

Different strokes for different folks. Altars and such do nothing for me except remind me of the lousy churches I was forced to attend as a child.

[rob winger]

i agree about the money/building thing but...
there's a church in the greater kansas city mo area that has already spent millions on 3 building projects, and plans another one in the near future in order to accomodate their ever growing congregation. (over 6k in worship each weekend)
presently, they give over 10% of their $10 million plus budget to mission work. the plan is to build one more time, then retire the debt quickly (which they will do) and be able to fund missions with incrdible resources. i know the pastor and leadership of this congregation, and that they are absolutely committed to this.
so...one size doesn't fit all. but generally speaking, the Church does spend more on ourselves than we should.