1. There are a lot of empty dead shells of churches here. I have seen so many of them they are becoming to be boring to us. This reinforced the idea that the people make the church, not the building.

2. The old cathedrals here are amazing. I was just at St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome in October. It is amazing and quite beautiful. But, the first thought while I was there was “Wow, they must have gathered a lot of money from a lot of people to have made this and to fill it with all this art.” I have been in very small rural churches in Guatemala that probably sent money in the 16th – 20th century to support Rome’s taste for art and grandeur. That money should have stayed local.

3. We currently attend a church that is a simple office space building that is shared with a couple other congregations. The first time we went there we were convinced we had the wrong address. The building is quite cold and uninviting. It is not an easy place to send a possible visitor to. They would be intimidated and may not enter. So, I do think we do need some sort of space that is distinctive and inviting. Something that sets us apart from the typical “world’s building”. It doesn’t have to be a crystal cathedral, but something inviting.

Much of buildings has to do with wealth. I don’t see much need to leave monuments of buildings but they are certainly wonderful to worship in.

Churches as living congregations can and do thrive in every place imaginable. The Spirit of God lives in our hearts and as we fellowship with others, we can worship our Father in all of them.

The first question seems to be addressed by Randy, Jean, and others. I don’t think I disagree with your assertions… I think that the New Testament emphasis is certainly on worship amongst believers as those who now have the spirit indwelt among them. We do not need to go to a temple to worship; the Spirit is constantly present within us when we gather, well, wherever! I don’t think that it should be a *primary* aspiration of a church to measure it’s healthfulness or effectiveness by its facilities, but rather by whether or not it is able to perform its own particular role as a part of God’s kingdom in the particular time and place it has been planted. Two of the most effective churches I’ve been part of never had spaces to call their own.

On the other hand, many churches will have buildings that can serve the greater goal of their mission. Necessary? No. Common? Yes.

This is where my issue come in to play: IF you are going to have a building, THEN it should be treated as yet another way to honor God by making it as beautiful and functional as possible. I am of the view that God is seeking to redeem all of Creation (new heavens and new earth) not just our individual souls. Reflecting God’s beauty through good art, good music, good architectural design can be part of that ongoing redemptive work. Beauty is not gratuitous; after all, God created beauty and called it good.

Now, mind you, I don’t think its in any way sinful to build something that is poorly designed… we are called to be good stewards of our resources and sometimes that means building a simple shack.

But good design also does not have to be glitzy and expensive, just well planned and executed. Good design can help buildings (or websites, or kitchens) be more hospitable, more able to serve a specific purpose–ultimately, more effective. So when a church is going to meet in a building, and the community has a say in how that building will be put together, I hope that we can look at its design as yet another way to honor God with our best. A secondary goal to be sure, but I hope it can be a goal none the less.

The Bible Study I am involved in just studied Acts 7 – Stephen’s sermon to the Sanhedrin. In anger, the religious council condemned Stephen and stoned him to death. The reason? Blasphemy. He dared to speak against the temple. This is what Stephen said:

“The Most High doesn’t live in temples made by human hands.
‘Heaven is my throne,
and the earth is my footstool,
Could you ever build me a temple as good as that?
asks the Lord.
Could you build a dwelling place for me?
Didn’t I make everything in heaven and earth’
You subborn people! You are heathen at heart and deaf to the truth. Must you forever resist the Holy Spirit?”

Like Randy said, the move from the temple to the person of Jesus was radical, and the religious leaders of the day refused to go along with it. Yes, the apostles gathered in the temple post-ascension but part of that was logistics – it was the only venue in Jerusalem large enough to handle the crowds that wanted to hear the teaching and pray together.

I think emphasis on beauty and majesty of space moves the focus off of the person of Jesus. He is the only one who can save, forgive, heal. He is worth all the attention, all the praise and all the glory.

As one scholar puts it… “When Christianity was born, it was the only religion on the planet that had no sacred objects, no sacred persons, and no sacred spaces.” (James D. G. Dunn)

The Bible says that since Christ is risen, we Christians have become God’s temple through his “life giving spirit” (1 Cor. 15:45). Through his Spirit, he takes up residence in us, making us his house or temple. This is why the NT never refers to the church as a building, but always as a people.

I happen to love architecture and buildings and believe it to be an area of creative gifting and honorable vocational pursuit. However, our culture is fixated on the physical, material and temporal and this negatively warps our thinking. I believe many Christians tend to make church buildings idols allowing them to replace the NT understanding and practice of the church as people and the body of Christ.

I think there is much to be gained by seriously considering divesting ourselves of the noose of church as building, and getting back to a more NT understanding and practice of the church as people.

I suppose I wouldn’t call a church building insignificant but I would sure pay more attention to what goes on inside than the structure.