We need a theology that integrates body building and church buildings.
Ron sider (“Cautions Against Ecclesiastical Elegance,” pages 14–19) and Thomas Howard (“Expensive Churches: Extravagance for God’s Sake?” pages 18–23) address head-on the disturbing question of what kind of church building is both honoring to God and appropriate for our day. Neither writer gives a categorical answer about what is right for all churches for all times.
How can North American churches get their priorities right as they build their places of worship? Every church contemplating building construction should enlarge its perspective to encompass the whole church of God and all its needs. The amount of money a church gives to missions and relief programs often reflects that church’s vision for the work of Christ worldwide. But the quality of their place of worship can also reflect how much they love God (see Haggai 1:4).
To gain worldwide perspective, Christians and churches have a responsibility to keep informed about events in all parts of the world, not just in North America. Missions and relief organizations and the news media can supply information about the physical and spiritual needs in various countries. The act of praying regularly for the needs and political problems of other countries, as well as for the Christians and missionaries there, will help broaden our understanding and rouse our compassion for the world. If our idea of God is great enough, our passion to worship him absorbing enough, our awareness of the needs of the world vivid enough, and our love for our fellow human beings deep enough, we are then adequately prepared to seek our answer to the more mundane question of building construction.
Without suggesting that the Bible prescribes only one type of church as the “pure church” or that only one type of church building is divinely appointed and appropriate to it, we must, with the Holy Spirit’s help, bring our churches more into line with biblical priorities. For some, this could involve selling church property; for others, it may mean better use of present facilities and restructuring the church budget. For still others, it may require the adoration from the heart of a Bezaleel, skilled by God’s Spirit, or from the woman with costly ointment, to fashion a place of worship that will truly reflect the perfection of our God. We cannot condemn all “splashy” churches in one fell swoop. Nor can we condemn the rigorously functional gospel hall on the second floor of an office building or in the storefront of the business district. The structure is not important if it houses a living organism of spiritual strength.
The extensive use of gold and other precious “unnecessary” materials in both temple and tabernacle reminds us that sin is not determined by the cost of materials. Beauty has its own place, pointing beyond itself to the One who created all things “in the beginning.” Our concern for beauty, moreover, should be matched with a concern for simplicity—and both should be subsumed under our love for others and our desire to glorify God. A church can praise him by the beauty of its buildings. It can praise him by the faithfulness of its members. These are not mutually exclusive, but only the second is essential.
We all glory in glass cathedrals made with our own hands. When we say that our own church’s immediate needs are the most important, we exhibit an “edifice complex” and dishonor God. (The Tower of Babel did not draw men near to God.) It is time we became less concerned with church building and more concerned with building the church—the body of Christ—so long as we remember the body is not just food and drink but also has a soul.
