Comments on: Does the Church Need a Building?

By: Sandy

Sandy — Thu, 26 Aug 2010 19:43:00 +0000

What I wonder is why people don’t build community centers instead of “church buildings.” They can meet there weekly as a congregation of believers, but also host meals and needed services to the community, so all feel welcome there. Having lived in the south all my life, I am very frustrated with all the churches that spend more money on buildings than on helping people. We are the temple of the holy spirit and don’t need a building to “house God” like they needed in the Old Testament. Forget fitting into the culture and do what is right regardless. As for Africa, why not meet in the mosque? Perhaps it would soon turn into a Christian congregation rather than Islam!

By: jonathan

jonathan — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 19:35:42 +0000

what did the Holy Spirit tell the Africans to do? Did their fancy building hinder or enhance what scripture tells us about how the Gospel cares for poor, hungry, thirsty, & dying people? Who cares about the culture…Jesus transcends that…i think answering these questions helps us get closer to knowing the answer to yours. I’ve never been to Africa, but I think my neighborhood could do with a few less buildings and a whole lot more people who live a life that looks like Christ.

By: Friday Links :: jasonpetermann.com

Friday Links :: jasonpetermann.com — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 12:31:47 +0000

[...] Tony Morgan asks the question, “Does The Church Need A Building?” [...]

By: Jeff Wright

Jeff Wright — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 16:43:46 +0000

Enjoying the discussion here. I’ve built churches with hammer and nails abroad as well as “built” them with my tithes and alms here in Denver and all over the world. For a living, I work with churches utilizing local movie theatres (US equivelent to a mango tree?) to plant, or multi-site, or transition to one way of being more missional and incarnational in their community.

I concur with many of the statements being made and do believe that cultural, geographical, socio-political context has a heavy hand to play within this debate. I can understand that a building in West Africa or even certain cities in the US can show a commitment and permanence to remain. How many of these places have had zealous missionaries, evangelists, or planters come and leave over the years? Sometimes these buildings, as in the middle ages or the Spanish missions, may bring jobs, commerce, trade, learning, and art to an area and ultimately be for the good of the whole community.

Yet, as mentioned above often the buildings usurp God’s purpose and consume resources that could be better used to feed, clothe, and take in the widows, orphans, and strangers. My questions are do these facilities have to be the nicest building in the village or have better (mostly unused) living room furniture than most of our homes? Does it have to have monthly utility bills that are larger than most median household incomes yet remain empty most of the week? Is it sustainable in a good and bad economy?

While we say we don’t have to do church like the Acts church we often end up following the culture around us whether it’s the Muslims building a Mosque or the “flavor of the month” church’s coffee shop or teen rec room full of Wii’s and PlayStation’s. I just can’t help wonder if we lack imagination and then the faith. I know I do most days. I pray that God works through our churches, people and buildings, despite our mistakes, poor choices, luxury and comfort driven selves, and egos.

By: Dave Bailey

Dave Bailey — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 11:13:24 +0000

I think it’s fair to say that the Book of Acts tells us what the Early church “did”, not what the church-at-large-and-forever should “do”. They were making it up as they went along – led by the Spirit and by circumstance and by need. One minute they were the toast of Jerusalem and they needed deacons to administer the massive amount of practical ministries that they put into place, the next minute they were dismantling everything and “getting out of Dodge” as persecution mounted. It’s very unrealistic to use the Early Church as a “pure model”.

We have received a Great Commission and basically we should do whatever works to facilitate the accomplishment of that commission to the best of our ability. Church buildings should be “facilities” – in other words, whatever we have for buildings should realistically be facilitating the fulfilment of our commission and calling. That’s it, plain and simple. If that’s not what they’re for we’ve already lost our way.

Unfortunately, I suspect that a lot of buildings get built to fulfil the ego needs of the builders no matter what we say our real motives are (which is why a Building Program can often devastate a church body)…

We say we build buildings “to the glory of God”, and to that my response is always, “Really?” We need to get a little honest with ourselves. Has a fabulous Mormon temple ever made you want to become a Mormon? Has a cathedral made you want to leave your evangelical roots and become Catholic. Has the most amazing mosque in the world made you seriously consider become Muslim? Buildings don’t mean a lot to unchurched people… it’s only as they’re used for ministry that they take on any significance.

So whatever you have – or don’t have – use it like crazy to touch people for Christ!!!

By: Hal Hunter

Hal Hunter — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 20:50:33 +0000

A church “needs” what it takes to respond the the Great Commission in its place. At least a part of the spread of house churches in China seems to be government antipathy to visible, organized congregations, not the planters’ exegesis of Acts regarding what a church properly looks like.

If buildings result in people hearing and responding to the Gospel, I am all for buildings. If house churches or tree churches or internet churches work better in a given setting, I am all for that, too.

By: Arturo Machado

Arturo Machado — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 20:06:55 +0000

I see so much collective wisdom in this blog. I just think we need to be sensitive to the voice of the Spirit of God, which usually speaks through people. Church is about people, about meeting their need collectively, as well as providing opportunities for growth and mission.
Of course we all know that where two or three are gathered in His name, there He is in our midst. There is a collective anointing and impartation in group gathering, but that doesn’t necesarilly mean a church building.

By: JD

JD — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 20:04:03 +0000

Let’s all remember that even when meeting house to house, these early Christian’s were still gathering at the temple for teaching. Does the church need a place to meet, yes. Does it have to be a building owned by the church. In order to be a church, no. Having said that, depending on the culture it can help or hinder growth. Even large cell churches as in South Korea have a larger place to meet (albeit they are only allowed to attend about once per month due to size).

By: Tom Doyle

Tom Doyle — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 19:55:21 +0000

Not judging anyone, however we waste more on buildings then anything. It’s about people not a steeple. Buildings are only brick and sticks. People always remain.

By: Nick Henderson

Nick Henderson — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 19:52:30 +0000

The early church teaches us what we should do, not how exactly how we should do it. Each culture is different, one model works some places and it may not other places. There has to be some relevance to the culture, if the culture looks at buildings as a good way to spread His Word the Good News then use it and use it wisely. I think you can still preach and teach the people that the church is not about a building – it’s about people. As long you do not rely on that building; as long as you do not worship the building and as long as you do not hide behind a building – then there is nothing wrong with a building – a place of worship and a place where Christians can huddle, but the field they play on is the world (community). Use that building to glorify God and use His word to go out and evangelize and disciple.