Intellectuelle

I've been wrestling with this topic off and on over the last 6 months or so. On one hand, many congregations put far too much emphasis on the physical portion of their gatherings (the buildings, the clothes, the services outside of the sanctuary), on the other hand, God was so very specific in describing the appearance of the Tabernacle in the Old Testament, that I can't believe He doesn't care at all how well we steward our meeting places.

In part it depends on our environment. A persecuted gathering in Iraq or China wouldn't and shouldn't invest a significant amount of time in setting up big stained glass windows in the basement of the fish market they're forced to meet in.

At the same time, if they chose to lay a piece of carpet temporaily and remove their shoes during the service in a heartfelt gesture of honoring God, would He not be blessed by that?

Here in the states, I'm convinced that we have too many churches and too many pastors concerned with bigger buildings to keep people in instead of equipping them to be sent away to be about the Father's business.

After as much time as I've spent wrestling with this topic, I find myself thinking we might actually be better off without most of the church buildings we have.

Keep it clean, keep it functional, keep the bills paid.

NO BIG SCREEN TVs FOR FOOTBALL!! :)

How 'bout a kitchen.

Is a building itself a ministry?

Yes.

Must a building be beautiful and updated in appearance in order to truly glorify God, or for the church that meets there to do God’s work?

“Beautiful” is excellent. “Updated” – some of the very worst church architecture and renovations I have ever seen are “updated”.

Is it important to have a nice, attractive building with comfortable facilities that might draw more people and make church members feel good about it, or a functional building in combination with some sort of ministry into which money is being put instead of the building?

Comfort is optional. :)

How important is it to be “demographically aware” when building and/or renovating? Does it matter whether or not the facility appeals to a certain demographic? Ought the building match the demographic of the people who attend, or of the area in which the building is situated?

I suppose it depends on what you mean by “demographic”. Ethnicities? Economic class? Age groups? Local architectural style?

Is it right to fund-raise in the community in order to fund renovations of a church building?

If the building is listed, such that the owner is legally required to keep it in good repair and to use more expensive approved methods/materials for it, then I would totally approve of applying for any relevant government grants. I think that soliciting non-members for contributions would be probably counterproductive, except in cases of buildings that are so historic or iconic that the community as a whole could be expected to feel that it is important.

How is “ministry” defined in a church – is it legitimate for a church to exist largely to minister to itself?

Yes, but not as a rule (excepting, for example, a situation where everyone in a given community belongs to the church).

Can it minister to itself while ministering outside its walls?

It must.

At what point does “ministry” become self-serving?

When the balance becomes disproportionately self-serving, especially in relation to its available resources. It would be a judgment call as to when it crosses to disproportion.

Of course, when judging this balance, it has to be kept in mind that the ministries engaged in by a given congregation don’t have to be channeled through organizations at the congregational level. For instance, my parish is very small. Aside from children’s religious instruction and one youth group, we don’t have any ‘ministry groups’ on a parish level. However, many of the parishioners are extremely active in such groups or other apostolates on a non-parish level. This activity, though, does not show up on the parish financial statements – it would probably seem that the upkeep of our very beautiful, small, historic church building is disproportionate if you only looked at the parish balance sheet.

How necessary is a steeple? Let’s say a church had a beautiful steeple – an integral part of the building design – yet it’s become weakened and is in need of replacement. Can God be glorified in not replacing the steeple, which in a sense disfigures the building?

Yes, if necessary, although church architecture has a vocabulary featuring steeples for a reason. I would be perfectly happy not to have a steeple if it were truly impractical or disproportionately expensive; I would not be happy if I suspected that the “anti-steeple” party were using this as an excuse to make the church look less like a church.

Is a run-down church building bad advertising? Does a run-down church building say that the members don’t care about their building or their church? Does it say that the members don’t have the resources to do good work for God, or don’t care enough to find any? Does a run-down church building mean that the members don’t care about God, or about themselves as a church?

Quite possibly; to some people; maybe; I hope not.

I would say that if a church is noticeably more run-down and less beautiful than the home of a typical member, there’s a problem. (Obviously, though, an old, large church with a now-tiny congregation may not meet this test. Such a congregation has a different problem.)

What are the underlying motives that might drive the passion of a congregation to renovate its church building?

Almost anything. A virtuous passion to glorify God; a vain passion to glorify one’s own ego; a vicious passion to destroy beauty and subvert the gospel by desacralising places which should be specially ordered towards God.

Ought a building “continue” just because it has a history and tradition of being “continued?”

Maybe.

Is it possible to glorify God in allowing a building to go un-renovated? What factors would need to be in place for this to be so?

As an (extreme) example, I can only quote from Daniel Mitsui (who has the website with the wonderful clock posts I linked recently) about St Peter’s Basilica in Rome and its predecessor:

Constantine's Basilica was a repository of a thousand years of art, iconographically and historically one of the greatest Churches in Christendom. It was in bad disrepair, but the motivation for razing it was simply to build something big and modern (in this case, meaning classical and humanist).

And not to mention the scandal of the Borgia Popes demanding that the rest of the church finance the project - imagine if the Pope decided to tear down the Lateran Basilica and build something Mahoneyesque [see here] in its place - and wanted your diocese to pay the bill. I've heard that certain financing methods used at the time provoked a theological squabble in the German states that has yet to be resolved.

Considering the countless great medieval churches that were destroyed or stolen in the subsequent wars of religion, I have to regard the construction of that building as one of the most colossally wasteful projects in Catholic history. And frankly, it's rather ugly anyway.

If the Christian life is about doing without so that others might have, how does renovating a church building fit into this paradigm (if this is indeed a legitimate paradigm)?

I don’t know that it’s a legitimate paradigm. On one hand, we should give enough time and money to charity that it hurts. On the other hand, the pointed question “why are we wasting money on expensive ointment instead of giving to the poor?” is not exactly given full Scriptural approval.

Certainly we need decent, safe places to meet. We need places in which to worship. We need places to minister from. But...should we spend very large sums of money on a building...because we can? How does one decide?

If we really can, maybe we should, sometimes. God isn’t only Truth and Goodness, He is Beauty too, and Christians should mediate this beauty to the world, and give it back to Him as well.

Thanks for engaging my questions, y'all. Atlantic, thanks for being so thorough! You've given me some things to think about.

Yes, I wonder how that passage you refer to regarding the poor (Matthew 26:6-13) might relate to the question. Haven't had the chance to think through it, though...perhaps I should!

See, I'm torn. On the one hand, I understand and appreciate the symbolism as well as the "cost" of beauty, yet on the other hand, some of the most significant experiences I've had that have showed me what really matters have had nothing to do with aesthetics.

And when I think of the disproportion of wealth in the world, and how "western" my sensibilities are, and think of an economy in which the "haves" give to the "have nots" (not coerced, mind you), I get a different perspective on the questions. When I think outside of my little cultural box...

Mark, good point about the tabernacle. The practicality question that you mention concerns me as well. Unfortunately there can be many, many considerations involved, which complicate things...

Bonnie,

Loads to think about there! I think that as with many things there is a balance to be struck.

I don't think we ought to be aiming for grand or ostentatious buildings, but it can reflect badly on the message if the builidng is cold, smells musty and looks generally uncared for.

It might give the impression that you don't care much for the people who sit in the pews week by week, or for the community in which the building situated.

I could say more but I must run and pick up my son from school!

I've thought about this before, too, and I think it's great to allow people to use their natural abilities and talents to bless the body. If someone feels a burden to update aspects of a church building then I don't think we should oppose this. However, if a church building is "updated" every two years then I think we should reevaluate the motivations.
I've gone to church in a house, in a school gym, in a traditional chapel, and in an annex. I can't say that the atmosphere contributed too much to spiritual enlightenment but I can appreciate the care some will put into their building- for safety reasons at least!
I think as long as we don't place the aesthetic building project above the needs of the members then it's ok to fix things up once in a while.

You don't need a building at all... but given that we use buildings, I think it should generally come under the attitude which we should have in all things: give our best to God. If we value excellence, then when doing something we should do it well, and that would include the design, the building, the materials, and the upkeep.

I see the recycling of older church buildings, and while I understand it, it makes me a little sad. Sentimentality probably- that people sacrificed to create something, and then the congregation so changed or dwindled that the building had no purpose for them any more. But I guess that reality should temper the temptation to create something lavish in earthly form at the expense of what we are building spiritually. As in all things... there is simply the principle of moderation and the view of the eternal.

We don't have to spend lots to be careful of making something of worth.... and I think that is what we mix up on sometimes. Perhaps it is the fact that there is too much given into the hands of a few decision makers, instead of allowing the whole body of the congregation give according to their gifts and skills.

I do think we should give attention to the physical property of our meeting places. It should exhibit the care we have for the things of God generally, so if all run down because of lack of care, that says peoples priorities aren't quite right ( to me anyway). What? No one can pick up trash or do a little maintenance here and there? No one to lift a paint brush or plant a shrub or two?

This post inspired a post of my own. Here's most of it:

It seems to me that churches will undertake a building project when there is a need rather than simply for aesthetic reasons. Of course, these projects also will involve updating the facilities and improving the overall appearance of the church.

I think the question should be left to the decision makers, whether that is the pastoral team, the elders, or the entire body of voting members. They know their congregation, their community, and the particular needs of their church. They also know what they can and cannot afford.

Personally, I think churches should expand and update their facilities as needed. And I think this should be done in the most cost effective way. Some churches may need to factor in their growth rate in order to adequately address their needs. But a needs-driven building project is almost always going to be a reasonable expenditure of church funds.

The more difficult question is whether churches should update their facilities for purely aesthetic reasons. (Usually facilities that are old and dilapidated may need repair for other reasons—handicap accessibility, safety, or other maintenance issues. I would consider such things as needs-driven improvements.) I’m speaking of undertaking a building project for the sole purpose of making the place look nicer. Is it worth our tithes and offerings to beautify our churches?

Assuming that the church is being fiscally responsible, I think so. By fiscally responsible, I mean that the church is not neglecting their other responsibilities, like paying their staff and supporting missionaries. The church operates on tithes and offerings. And I think church leaders recognize the huge responsibility of spending God’s money wisely. Tithes and offerings are given for furthering the gospel, for the work of the kingdom, for the glory of God. Can we legitimately say that beatifying our church is kingdom work?

Again, I think so. Here are my reasons: We often think of external beauty as a superficial and worldly consideration. But God made the world beautiful for our enjoyment. We are drawn to beautiful things. Plus, there is such an interconnection between the external and the internal. Just as physical illness causes a soul to suffer, our external appearance often affects our internal well-being. We may be talking about buildings and paint, but the external appearance of our churches may have far-reaching effects—internally and eternally.

(1) A beautiful church may enhance our worship. If our church is beautiful, we can take pride in the place where we worship. If it is a pleasant and comfortable place, we will be more inclined to go. And, while there, the appearance of the place may add to our overall worship experience. As we look at the various features and details, they may turn our heart to the things of God.

Just as worship music can be an idol, instead of leading our hearts into an attitude of worship, there’s always the danger that we will make these external things into idols. Some also may be distracted by certain things. But, for most people, these concerns can be addressed by making wise decisions—you know, just avoid putting up things that would distract like a 100-foot statue of Jesus.

(2) A beautiful church also may draw new people. Not only will we be more inclined to go, a beautiful church may cause others to be inclined to join us. We wouldn’t feel embarrassed to invite people to our church. Along with other considerations, this may be something a person who is looking for a new church considers in making her decision. Even passer-bys who don’t know Jesus may want to see what’s inside.

When I would mention to people that I attended Harvest, they knew exactly the place I was talking about—the location, the buildings, the bookstore--all of it made the church stand out. It was one of the nicest properties in the community. People just loved being there. Even people who didn’t attend services would come and shop at the bookstore. New people constantly were visiting and adding to the church.

(3) I would even say that a beautiful church can bring glory to God. David said, “Here I am, living in a palace of cedar, while the ark of God remains in a tent.” (2 Sam. 7:2) It was important for David that the house of God was something worthy of bearing His name. Of course, God no longer dwells in buildings. But, still, we hold out our churches to the world as places of worship, places where Christians gather to worship God. If we have the means, why not tell the world that the church is alive and well and that we love God and are willing to invest in the things of God? “For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.” (Matt. 6:21)

There’s always the danger of having the wrong focus and sending the wrong message, but I think aesthetic considerations are important because that which is external will reveal a lot about ourselves and what we value.

Beauty isn't everything, and it can deceive, but I was reminded of the story of Russia's conversion to Christ, when Prince Vladimir sent his envoys to different lands, and they came back from Byzantium saying,

And we stepped on the Greek soil, and they showed us their place of worship. And we knew not whether it was heaven or earth, for nowhere had we seen such a beauty, and we know not even how to speak of it. We knew only that God was there with people and that their service was better than anywhere. The beauty we've seen there will now never go, for never will you take the bitter if you have tasted the sweet. Likewise, no longer can we practice paganism.

Chong-what a wonderful least of reasons, and appreciated the a propos anecdote from Atlantic.

Often it seems that we equate 'beauty'with vanity, why is that ? there are many times that beauty is intrinsically tied to the spiritual, and that gets misunderstood too! I remember some unbelievers on a forum who were deriding the Christians seeming over emphasis on gold- due to references of "golden streets" etc. Perhaps what we have is a failure to communicate...maybe residual gnosticism? An idea that anything that engages our sense is something lower or unworthy of God. If you think about it , that is really very perverse thinking.

But again- I loved Chongs rationale in assessing the place of beauty in this context.

Thanks for the discussion, all! I appreciate the perspective.

I will confess that my main difficulty is the price tags attached to line items on a major renovation list -- they are HUGE. The ratio of renovation expenses to funds given other ministries, even in a "well-to-do" church, can be staggeringly large.

But make no mistake; as a professional musician and amateur photographer I have great appreciation for beauty. I think that music, real music, can be a ministry in itself and is therefore worth spending money on. My own conversion, even, was partially brought about by deep beauty and symbolism of both the visual and aural varieties (yes, I believe in sacrament!).

It's just the proportions of what funding goes where that cause me to wonder...

I thought a little bit about the passage concerning Jesus, the vial of expensive perfume, and the poor: Jesus contrasted himself to the poor in that He would only be among them for a short time, but the poor would be with them always. He wanted the disciples to allow the woman to honor Him while He was there because the poor could be attended to after He was gone.

I’m not sure how or if this applies to renovation of a church building, because renovation is undertaken for the purpose of keeping a building in operation for some time into the future. It can consume funds that might otherwise go to the poor, or some other ministry or work, for a long time (especially if there is debt involved).

You have raised a number of very stimulating questions about church maintenence and I want to thank you for pointing them out. I have plenty to think on, including the many comments that have been posted.

I think everybody looks at church buildings differently. My wife and I, and our families share many precious memories from the congregation that we all grew up in. When we look at a church building we don't look at the architecture as much as we look at the spirit of community and family that is found there. Yet, I am sure that there are just as many people that have had to lead a very mobile life and have moved from one congregation to another. What is important to them may be entirely different than what I see. And, then of course there are new converts, who may look at a building in a completely different way than any of the rest of us.

As an adult, when I would have the chance to visit "home," I would often drive past the old building where I spent many happy years growing up. I didn't really see the bricks and the doors and windows so much as I noticed the floor of a classroom where as a teenager several of us were volunteering some Saturday time to help refinish some of the old classroom furniture, and where we over sprayed the tarpaulin that we had spread out and left a permanent memorial to our ineptness.

I didn't particularly notice the chipped and fading paint in the baptistry so much as I could hear in my mind the great confessions that I and so many of my friends all expressed there, and how cold that water was even on a Wednesday night in June.

As the years passed many families moved to newer, safer neighborhoods and that old building took on a new function in a decaying part of town. A clothing room, soup kitchen and addiction counseling programs were operated from the building. I am pretty sure that there are people that worshiped in those years have memories too.

From weddings, to funerals, to baptisms, to school promotion time, to pot luck suppers, every generation needs to experience those things, and when they have those memories, the esthetic look of the building becomes less important.

A few years ago, when I drove past the location while home visiting my mother, I found out that the building is no longer there. Time and changing needs took its toll. The city felt that a new elementary school was needed and so they purchased the property. A parking lot exists now where that church building once stood, and as corny as it sounds the chorus of an old 60's song always comes to mind when I think of that property, "They paved over paradise and put up a parking lot."

Church buildings are a tiny glimpse of paradise, and their consideration goes beyond mere monetary considerations. How much are memories such as the ones I have shared worth?

This post really struck a nerve with me. I think our church too often ministers to itself, that it's gone beyond lack of balance and to the point where, if you want to minister outside the church, you're nearly on your own, while if you want to minister in a program supported by the church, you can guarantee you'll be doing something for the church, and more often for the building than for the people. (Yes, I've said things a time or two ... still trying to stir things up.)

I think my congregation renovates whenever it has some spare money because of some strange amnesia that there are other ministries. What do you do with extra money? Build/repair something. What about the poor? The hungry? What, is OUR congregation supposed to do something about that?

I think we (my congregation, not necessarily yours) also miss an important point from the tabernacle -- not just beauty, but that the work was done by members and didn't cost as much as if it had been contracted out to outsiders. How much more does it feel like OUR church if we did the paintings?

I'll stop here but I really have to sympathize with the original point. Granted that beauty is legitimate and it's good to have a safe place to worship -- that still doesn't mean we have our priorities straight.

Thanks for your comment, Weekend. That's what my questions were getting at. I do want to have a perspective that is fair to all aspects of the question, that all may have their proper place.

I think that a church must first define its ministry(ies) in terms of needs, capabilities, and human and spiritual resources before it can decide what to do about its building.

Dear in Christ,
Greetings to you in the holy name of our lord Jesus Christ. In 2006
There happened a fire accident in Andhra Pradesh fifteen hundred
Houses were burnt. But every one whose houses were burnt was able
To construct their house but there is only a family means my family
Could not build house on account of poverty and financed singes of
Only the foundation was made . we are having god in this world though
We are poor . as we are family of god conidial daily prayers we are asked and preying the lord . but when the government did not do any help the document news paper document, photos are here with us.
I don’t ask you help fully but if you can help fully but if you can give us some help that god .god would lift you up in spiritual word bless you. I don’t like to give you fully burden of house making much as you can help. We feel the deem that as the investigation of job. We hope that god would up hold and lift us up as their good disciples . but we are having god . if you help us we will be always will be yours with great generosity thanking you
Yours in Jesus Christ
Deva das