When you can no longer meet the mortgage on your facilities and the bank takes over your church and sells it to a developer, you’ll be forced to meet in your homes or at bars or in a park downtown. Then The Church will no longer be a lamp under a bushel but the salt of the earth. The church eschatological will once again look like the church primitive. The model left by our Lord was not of a multi-national corporation but a dispersed family scattered abroad.
And another pleasant side effect is that freed from the financial bonds of a building and a staff and utilities bills and buying donuts and coffee every Sunday the Body of Christ will suddenly have amazing excess amounts of cash to send to poor missionaries like me.
Note: This rant partly inspired by Frank Viola and partly by Jim West.
i like Frank and the idea of a dispersed church that is people and not buildings.
But how about Hebrews 10:24-25? Meeting together, at least in these frigid northern wastes, requires a building, rented if not owned. Small groups can meet in homes or pubs, but they can never have the diversity or broader links of larger churches. I’m not suggesting megachurches (which have other problems) but there is a lot to be said for congregations of a hundred or two, which need buildings.
I like the idea of meeting in homes or bars or coffee shops and then monthly or quarterly have citywide meetings in a larger venue. There we could encourage one another and stay connected. Our city of 50,000 could have some great meetings if all believers met together. The Deacon board could spend much more time taking care “widows, orphans and the needy” if they didn’t have our huge facility to keep running.
Hmm the networked church of living stones with a cornerstone
Nice thoughts, all. Amen, David. One balancing point: simply getting kicked out of a building doesn’t automatically produce christians who are ready for the kind of “advanced citizenship” that house church can sometimes require. Remember what Red said about Brooks in the Shawshank Redemption – “Institutionalized”. (Ever hear of the jumping fleas and the shoebox?)
If all you jettison is the building, but not the clergy/laity system… well, then that’s all you’ve jettisoned. But don’t get me wrong. If that’s my choice, lose the building. Meanwhile, God willing, we’ll all keep learning in our spirits…
Thanks for posting this.
Bill, I have been contemplating the clergy/laity system lately. My last read was “Reimagining Church” by Frank Viola, and I really agree with many of his points. I have been a member of a large, conventional body for many years and have much invested there in relationships. To break away, might jeprodize the same. We do have a small group that meets weekly and we feel that time is beneficial. The use of God’s funds, and the double standard of clergy/laity are the main areas I believe need changing. The lay members do not have much of a say in what goes on.
Dad, I really wanted to steal that Viola book! But then I’d have you and Doug upset at me. What I admire so much about your circle of friends is that they are committed to the church and also the small group. I don’t think the two are mutually exclusive. An organized church with a well-trained pastor is going to impact a community in ways that people meeting in their homes never will. The current reality is that churches have been planted and built all over the world with much faith and sacrifice. Even so, I think there are cultural and historical trends that are calling into question denominationalism and building-based fellowships.
David, I think I agree with you. I read Viola’s book and agreed with a lot of it – and reviewed the first part, still intending to review the second. But when it comes down to it there are so many important things which churches like mine do which couldn’t be done by groups small enough to meet in homes with no full time staff or buildings. Perhaps small groups can do evangelism, but can they do youth work or social action in deprived areas? It takes a lot of people and time, not to mention buildings, to be effective in these aspects of what we are called to be as the church.