The Church Building is Pagan? - Part 2

Adapted from Chapter 2 of Pagan Christianity by Frank Viola and George Barna. Prior posts follow:

Introduction to Pagan Christianity

Traditions Passed Off as "Christian"

The Church Building is Pagan? - Part 1

Following the Constantinian era, church buildings passed through various stages, but little changed with the dominant architectural features that fostered a monopolizing clergy and an inert congregation.  If you follow the development of the architecture of the church building throughout church history, you see a reflection of man’s quest to sense the divine with his physical senses.  While aesthetic experiences can surely turn the heart toward God, Christianity is about connecting with God spiritually.  By the fourth century, the Christian community had lost touch with those heavenly realities and spiritual intangibles that cannot be perceived by the senses, but which can only be registered by the human spirit (see I Corinthians 2:9-16).

 

So really, who cares if we meet in these types of buildings today? What’s the big deal as long as we’re seeking God and fellowshipping together?  If you think this way, you are overlooking a basic reality of humanity.  Every building we encounter elicits a response from us.  By its interior, it shows us what the church is and how it functions.  This principle is expressed in the architectural motto, “Form follows function.”  The social setting of a church’s meeting place is a good index of that church’s understanding of God’s purpose for His body.  Church buildings are not inherently bad.  But, just like any atmosphere, they shape our understanding and functioning of the body of Christ.  At a deeper level, we have managed to orchestrate much psychological and aesthetic experience in them that should never be confused with spiritual experience that we are called to have in Christ.  

 

The next time you go into a church building, translate the architecture by asking yourself how the form affects the function.  Notice how it’s not designed for intimacy or fellowship.  Notice how open, participatory meetings where anyone is free to express Christ are virtually impossible.  Notice how the idea of a church building encourages compartmentalization of church life.  Notice how it fails to encourage natural and intimate connection with other believers.  Notice how it encourages a denial of the priesthood of all believers.  Notice how it is a contradiction of the very nature of the ekklesia – which is a countercultural community.  Notice how it impedes the understanding and experience that the church is Christ’s functioning body that lives and breathes under His direct headship.  This characterizes Western Christianity.  Worship is seen as something detached from the whole fabric of life and packaged for group consumption. 

 

The pulpit fosters a focus on preaching as the central way to know God and grow spiritually as well as elevating and placing the preacher above God’s people.  The pew is a symbol of lethargy and passivity that inhibits face-to-face fellowship and has made corporate worship a spectator sport. The steeple comes from the notion that Christians have to reach into the heavens to find God even though He is with us.  In short, Christian architecture continues to encourage the unbiblical division between clergy and laity and stalemate the functioning of God’s people.

 

So, how did the early church do it without buildings?  There were meetings in homes throughout the cities.  Each home gathering contained roughly 30 to 35 people, but did not see itself as separate from the one church in a particular city.  The entire church in a particular locality would come together for specific purposes in existing facilites by renting or borrowing large spaces to accommodate everyone.  When a gathering grew too large to gather in a single home, it would typically multiply into separate home meetings, but see itself as one church meeting in multiple locations.

 

Church leaders often quote Hebrews 10:25 (“not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together”) when telling members they should “go to church” on Sunday mornings.  But, the New Testament vision of the church meeting is one in which every member functions and participate in the gathering.  The church building defeats this purpose by its architecture. 

 

Real estate owned by institutional churches today is worth over $230 billion.  Church building debt, service, and maintenance consumes about 18 percent of the $50 to $60 billion tithed to institutions annually.  The crazy thing is, all of the traditional reasons for “needing” a church building collapse under careful scrutiny.  The truth is, it’s nothing but overhead.  That’s quite a bit of money to sanctify brick and stone.

Subscribe to 2^nd man united by Email

Follow 2^nd man united on Twitter

2nd man united on Facebook 

Comments

[Brent]

Mike,

Agree with many of the points Viola is making here. I agree churches have become too focused on buildings and there are major issues with money and property values and all that and i also agree that how we design buildings is kind of strange.

And yet, I wonder if the whole bit about calling stuff and labeling things pagan is a bit counterproductive. To me it feeds into this whole sacred/secular mindset a bit too much.

The reality is this is what we have and the Church at large isn't going to abandon all their buildings with their pulpits and pews(or chairs) and most churches aren't going to stop meeting on Sunday mornings in the way they currently do.

There are big churches and they need large spaces to meet in and I don't think it was always wrong for them to buy or build a building. Sure in some cases it was probably misguided but certainly not every time.

I just hope that this doesn't fuel some sort of mentality that Christians who are apart of churches like this aren't real Christians and the remnant are those who do it like the early church in houses or whatever. I know this isn't what Viola is saying but I can see how some would interpret it this way and I think you have to careful and aware of how people will hear what you're trying to say.

I agree it can and often times does breed passivity, but I would also argue that God uses and has used this method in remarkable ways, people's lives are impacted by the Spirit every week through this method and Christians all over the world have buildings and sermons and the like and God is advancing His Kingdom in tremendous ways. I've seen it time and time again.

In fact the churches I know of getting it done in great ways are the ones that consistently communicate that it isn't about the building and the church service is only a catalyst for the real life of the church that happens everywhere else, whether that be homes, or parks, or work, etc. Most churches have small congregations that meet in homes where everyone does participate. And yer they do have large buildings with stages and seats facing the stage and all that and one person who teaches and a band who leads music. Some of the most powerful moments with God in my life have been in these venues, moments where God has spoken to me and changed the course of my life and drawn me deeper towards Christ.

To me, the key is this. Whether you have a building or not as a church, the key is what are you making central and primary? If you don't have a building that's fine, if you think it's house church all the way, that's great, but to me that isn't the real issue, the real issue is what do you focus in and make central and primary.

If you make it all about a building, then that's a serious problem and if you teach people that church is a building, that is a huge problem. I too am annoyed when people refer to a building as the Lord's house or something along those lines. Christ must be central and primary and we must teach and model that the church is the people of God together as one body. His presence dwells in and among us as that body and we all have a role in that body.

I just don't think labeling church buildings as inherently pagan, (if that's what Viola is doing, is really all that helpful). Now many of his points again are well taken and I think right on, I just think he goes too far and is actually pretty insulting to a lot of churches and individuals who God is using in enormous ways.

There are tons of churches who hide in their buildings and have basically died without knowing it because of stuff like this, but there are a lot of healthy vibrant Christ-centered churches who have
buildings like those described here and have weekly services with sermons and music and stages and lights but they also serve the poor, and see hundreds come to Christ each year and help people grow in Christ and have small meetings in homes where everyone contributes and uses their gifts.

God uses many different expressions of church life and this is one that he uses, if people are Christ centered.

[2nd man united]

Right on Brent.

Yes, people do mistake this material as an attack or an insult. I personally didn’t take it that way when I first read it many years ago. I think Viola is very clear, factual and gracious in his delivery. He doesn’t demean people who go to church buildings, as he went to one for years. He doesn’t claim that you’re not a Christian if you go to one. I’m just not sure sometimes how to communicate truth without offending people. I wish it were possible.

Let me use a metaphor. Since I’m a basketball player, let’s talk about shooting. Let’s say someone who has never played basketball comes along and teaches me how to shoot with terrible form and balance. I shoot like this for years and yes, I do make some shots. Years later, a really good shooter comes along, sees me shooting and graciously comes over and starts to explain to me that I was taught all wrong and that my first teacher may have been well-intentioned, but was simply misinformed. Now, I may get offended no matter what the person says. Or, I may be delighted to finally receive what I’ve been looking for. Practical help to make me a better shooter.

I think people are having trouble with the word pagan. I believe it’s just a word that describes origins. He’s saying that these practices are not intended for the church. I don’t think it’s used here in the sense meaning “evil.” But, when Viola asks the question “Where did all of our practices come from?,” they trace back to pagan culture and religions. They were borrowed, adapted and labeled with a Christian theme. Does this mean God can’t and isn’t using the Church in the midst of their “pagan” practices? Certainly not. He used an ass to get His message across. In fact, most of us got saved through the institution with all of its misaligned practices.

I believe the point of the book is to enlighten people to why they do what they do, show them it’s not necessary and provide a better, Christian way to match our beliefs. To say that we are a body and then go and do the things that we do don’t match. It’s simply a call to match. Now that you are Christians, let’s experience the reality of it instead of just talking about it. How we meet together is central to this reality.

The modern church building makes it exponentially harder to function as the body of Christ. That’s what it’s all about. It’s about getting rid of whatever hinders the functioning of the body of Christ how it was intended to function.