If You Build It

I’m pretty sure I know which “nameless” Baptist Church Platt is talking about and of a former member of that church the idea of building a new building isn’t a bad thing. Where it becomes bad is in being poor stewards of that money for the building. Why build a 23 million dollar building when you can spend 5-10 million on something that will do the job? Where this really is illustrated though is in comparison to that same church’s mission budget. When your building fund is 23M and your mission budget is barely over 100,000$ its a big issue. In this case its not about the cost of the building its about the building cost in comparison to your other efforts.

Aren’t we supposed to “all things for the Glory of God?”

Mr. Hardy makes an excellent point.  And yes, I do agree with you and believe it has lots to do with motives.  Go back and read about the tabernacle and especially the temple.  Wow.  Do the math on the current value of the gold and silver.  Wow.  The craftsmen and artisians were gifted for that purpose.  If I remember correctly, some 20,000-plus were employed to attend to the temple.  But a case could be made that the temple and today’s church buildings are not to be compared because the Shekinah Glory, the presence of God, dwelt in the Holy of Holies of the temple.  I know when my Bible-preaching church got out of our gym and into a more traditional building and chapel, our congregation tripled.  Many more people are now being well taught and it may be because we are in a better building.  I think it all comes down to stewardship.  Once again, you are very thought-provoking.

Of course, but some might say it’s like stepping over a homeless man to get in your Porsche, then driving to the Glory of God.  

I’ve been thinking about that account of the perfume a lot recently, especially the version where Judas was the one saying “You could have given it to the poor”.  I wrestled with this   when I went to a Catholic church and heard the cost of every part of the church itemized. What about the poor? The Catholic church does a lot for them as well. And just because we give a tithe that keeps a building going doesn’t mean we can’t also give generously to other causes individually. I never had to choose between a tithe and sponsoring a kid for another month. Besides making us sound a little like Judas, it also sets up a false dichotomy.  (Of course, I’m thinking normal church building funds, not the example Platt used. I want to judge the motives of people spending millions like that, but again, it makes me feel so darn Judasy.)

All that being said, here’s another thought grenade on the topic of church buildings. The Catholics I talk to know the history and purpose behind each piece of art and architecture in their places of worship. What bugs me is being a Baptist who worships in a pretty building with a steeple and stained glass windows, designed with a purpose all of us members are either ignorant of or just don’t care. I think it’s wrong if you’re spending money on a building of worship with the purpose of it looking a certain way and don’t know or acknowledge why. 

If I understood it correctly, Platt’s message in that book was “your duty is to bring more people to Christ.”  If your church needs more space to bring more people to worship, who will in turn bring MORE people to worship, is building not part of fulfilling this duty?

For the record:  I really disliked that book, mostly because of the overwhelming number of contradictions in theory that it contains.

What were the contradictions? Just curious.

I’m not sure, but what Drice might mean is that “Man’s chief end is to glorify God. Not only in our ministry, not only in our preaching, but our architecture. What do people see when they drive by our church? Do they see a shopping mall-lookalike, implying that the Kingdom of God is just another form of capitalism, or do they see a God-honoring temple, where the Lord would be pleased to dwell.  Paul says in 2 Corinthians 6:16: “What agreement has the temple of God with idols?” Important things to consider when building any church (temple) for the purpose of worshipping God. If this takes a fair chunk of money to build, so be it. But the key is: “Does it glorify God?”

Mr Porsche should read Amos 5.

Like you, Chad, I read author’s books and blogs because they’re a lot smarter than me. Reformed writer Douglas Jones said this on architecture in the publication Credenda/Agenda:
“We as Christians should want our architecture to express the values we hold most dear…Our architecture should also reflect a Sabbath refuge of peace and warmth. But churches, especially, should aim to express the peace of heaven, not the plasticity of a TV studio…In short, our churches should have the feel of a royal feasting hall rather than a funeral home or a [movie] theatre…Such an architecture won’t be cheap, but the Church should do it and not neglect her attention to mercy, if she spread out the construction over several generations.”

See my next post for the rest

Good thoughts. I don’t think it’s wrong to build a beautiful building, in fact, we know that many of the master builders on the great European cathedrals did see their work as an act of worship. Also, to a mostly illiterate population, the Cathedral itself elevated the thoughts of the people and told the stories of the Bible in stained glass, mosaic and rich tapestry. 

Plus, the question  of helping the Sudanese refugee (or any third world/developing nation) isn’t so simple as many well intentioned bleeding heart Christians would like it to be, as if we could just airlift the 23 million to the dessert of Sudan and everyone would be healthy and happy. What they need is what we need, Gospel transformation from individual hearts, to families, to churches, to government and economic systems. This takes money, time and long term-investment along with equipping indigenous leaders.

When it comes to buildings, churches need to consider heart motivation, as in, what is the reason for the building. Is it made to glorify God artistically, is it all about function, or is it supposed to show off? God is concerned with the heart, so where is the heart of the church when it comes to building the building?

Exactly! What is my motivation? Are my intentions pure? To others my gift of worship could be well short of their’s, but To God it may be a Palace built for a King to live in.

Doug Wilson also chimed in on this Theme in the same C/A issue, Volume 11, Number 3:

“In ancient Israel, when the people drifted away from God, [they regularly did so in] their worship on the high places. It was unbelief that drove them, but…they knew that religious worship required height, groves, blood and a cultivated sense of the numinous…we are just as disobedient in our worship as they were but…we just make up something that fits in with the zoning regulations and call it good.”

The point is not how much money we spend on church buildings, but how much we are trying to use it well. If we want our church buildings to look like huge shopping malls, who is the God we are implying that we worship?
Wilson Continues,
“If we worship the local baals, then our houses of assembly will soon resemble them…and this is why the modern church looks like a shopping mall, sprawling and flt,
Visa and Mastercard accepted…We hustle and sell because we think we need the customers. We market the church because we think the Gospel is a product…But Jesus said that we cannot serve both God and Mammon. We build structures that make people think they are expected to buy things, just like they do at the mall. And this is why our churches look the way they do.”

Here again, the problem is not that Churches are spending too much, but that they are not spending it to make a church. Instead, many mega-churches are made, again, to look like malls. I’ll quote Wilson again in one last post addressing uber-pragmatacism, which may be what Platt is trying to advocate.

Doug Wilson again, same issue.

“Another American baal is the god of pragmatism. This ugly little god is why modern Christians gravitate to the multi-purpose building.  One [concern many Christians have about buildings] is that it be ‘used more than one day a week.’ The strange thing is that the …desire expressed is not for a daily exposition of the Word, or for more opportunities to sing Psalms…but that the facility must be used by us for the majority of the week. The thing is like a time-share condominium for God, where he gets the place for a couple hours Sunday Morning, and the rest of the time all that square footage needs to be available for our little occupations–basketball games and concerts, to name a few. Thus a sermon is preached beneath a backboard and a hoop not as a temporary and regrettable necessity, but as a monument to pragmatic efficiency…”
“We have a lot of thinking to do, and after that, a lot of work. Our English word  church descends from the Greek kuriakos–house of the Lord. I t would be nice to be able to invite one another, as each week draws to a close, to come and worship the Lord in such places. But first, we have to build a few.”

That last paragraph sums it up, for me. The problem is not that Christians are building churches with church money, rather than pouring it all into missions (and being careful not to “sell” the gospel), but that we are not doing it well.

So, build it. If it is honorable, He will come, and be pleased.

Genesis 4:2-5

Thanks so much for your thoughts Chunter.  And everyone else, I do appreciate the discussion.  

Right now, I go to a church that is more like your gym Mr. Gaston. We were a church plant that in a year has grown to 800+ people on Sundays. I think the main reason for that is in our leadership is very focused on preaching the Bible, and being good stewards of resources. They stress community involvement along with local and worldwide missions. They also stress individuals finding places to serve and if you see a need in the community they will assist you in any way to help you meet that need. Its more along the lines of what I think the “churches” in the Bible were like. Its not a building, or a pastor, it is a community and people will flock to it when they see groups of people doing things not for recognition but because its the right thing to do.

Right now the church has no debt, but they know eventually we will need a larger building. But they pray we will be able to do that and not change the fundamental core values that attracted many of us to that church in the first place. Where Churches fail is when they determine that in order to build this building we have to cut back on missions and doing the things the Bible instructs us to do. 

Mr. Gaston I like it when you say Bible-preaching church because in to many instances that I have found many churches are not Bible-preaching churches. Without knowing you and your church I would like to say that maybe you had to build the building because of what God is doing in your church. Its not the building that tripled your congregation but the presence of God there. 

I think that both points are valid.  There is no excuse for the value difference on $5,000 for missions and $23M on a building for ourselves. However, building facilities to worship and train disciples can’t be wrong either.  Platt’s church doesn’t meet in a field, but they have moved  a large portion of their budget to missions, which is the heart.

And, I can’t believe that enormous baby is you!!!