VOL 2 NO 1 - "The Edifice Complex"

First, let's talk about the term "house church." Doug Carty of High Point, N.C., makes a cogent point when he states that this phrase puts too much emphasis on the house, and not the church. He prefers the phrase "church in the home." On the other hand, Randel Israel of Atlanta points out that the term "church" is not found anywhere in the Greek New Testament, and, in fact, the term "church" is of Latin origin and has been superimposed upon the Greek word "ecclesia". Also, Israel points out that the English word "church" primarily means "a building set apart for religious worship." If this is so, even the phrase "church in the home" has connotations of brick-and-mortar rather than living stones.

We're not going to quibble over terminology, even though we recognize that because words are what we use to communicate, words are very important. However, almost any term you want to use has been coopted by, and corrupted by, the institutional church. This means that it is becomes a constant necessity to define and explain terms. For example, when you say "minister" to almost any Christian, he will entirely misunderstand what you are saying, and think "professional clergyman." To avoid this problem, you either have to come up with another term for "minister," which will be unusual, and will have to be explained, or you will continue to use the perfectly good term "minister," and explain what it really means. Either way, you have to explain and define your terms.

So, we will continue to use the term "house church," or "home church," realizing, of course, these terms are not perfect. They are just convenient handles to quickly and roughly communicate something about the radical Christianity we espouse.

We see that many of us go to great lengths to avoid using terminology that would associate us with something as profane as architecture. However, I would like to point out that the issue of where you meet is very, very important. It is, of course, not as important as the living stones that are being plastered together in the ecclesia, but it is still important.

Will a building destroy the nature of the house church? You bet it will!

I am fascinated by how often people who think like we do on many, many different points, will balk at any emphasis on meeting in the house. Why is this?

One reason, I think, is super-spirituality. Let the organized church worry about buildings, these folks say, but we're going to worry about building the body of Christ, and we can do that anywhere, in any building. This sounds good, but it is entirely unrealistic. Architects and business consultants have realized for a long time that buildings and their accoutrements will affect people's moods and relationships. One thinks of the proverbial banker's desk and visitor's chair. When you sit in the chair, the desk is about neck-high, and you feel very small and very inferior to the banker. Take another example: suppose you want to have close, intimate communion with your brothers and sisters. You go to a church building. You put the chairs in a circle. You're still faced with the open spaces that kill intimacy, and make it hard to hear. You've got cold fluorescent lights overhead. And you've got decades of acculturation to deal with. When you're in a building, you're used to thinking institutionally and formally.

Let me quote from a writer who believes in church life, but who thinks the building worshipped in is not important. Cliff Bjork, in a generally favorable review of a Gene Edwards article in Searching Together (Vol. 18:1,2 - 1989), states the following:

I do not believe that the answer lies in forsaking "church buildings" in favor of "living rooms." Nor are sweat shirts and jeans inherently more conducive to effective fellowship and ministry than three piece suits and neckties. It seems to me that such proposals merely exchange one external "hang-up" for another. To prove that there were no "church buildings" in the first few decades of the church's existence is to prove nothing. There were also no automobiles or telephones or computers or printing presses or...or...or. Should we also view these advances as detrimental to church life? Or does the real problem actually lie in the way we use these tools? If a church "building" is worshipped more than the One in whose name we gather, something has certainly gone wrong. If such is the case, selling the building and crowding into a living room will do little to solve the problem. What is needed is a change of heart and mind, not of location and surroundings...

It is just as easy to spawn and perpetuate false teaching, factionism, groundless ritual, and stifling traditions in a living room as it is in a "church building." And one can be deliberately ostentatious in ragged jeans and worn-out Reeboks as in a well pressed suit and polished wingtips.

I do not believe that the answer lies in forsaking "church buildings" in favor of "living rooms." This is a half-truth, and like all half-truths, it is entirely misleading. Of course, exchanging church buildings in favor of living rooms is not the whole answer. It is however, part of the answer. In fact, it is a necessary part of the answer (although it is not sufficient in and of itself).

Sweat shirts and jeans are not inherently more conducive to fellowship and ministry than three piece suits and neckties. At this point, you will have to excuse me. Heretofore, I have been measured, rational, and moderate. But I refuse to be measured, rational, and moderate when one tries to defend neckties. Ladies and gentlemen, if you want to grab hold of a piece of wisdom that will bless you for the rest of you&Frontier.sitÆ Mac SEAÙP&

It is just as easy to spawn and perpetuate false teaching, factionism, groundless ritual, and stifling traditions in a living room as it is in a "church building." This is not true. Although false teaching, factionism, groundless ritual, etc. can easily be spawned in a house, it is not true that they can be easily perpetuated in a living room. Why? Because it takes the living Christ living inside his people to keep the ecclesia alive without bureaucracy, ritual, and building. And soon as the life of Christ is replaced by fleshly substitutes, the house church dies, because there is not bureaucracy, ritual, and building to keep it alive. In fact, as human flesh moves in on a house church, you will begin to hear calls for one or more of three things: pastors, buildings, and neckties. Why the call for a building? Because human flesh loves illusions of permanence, beauty, and protection. And if Jesus isn't providing those things, fleshly religious people are going to instinctively look to a building for a substitute. If this is not convincing to you, go randomly visit 100 "churches" that meet in a building, and tell me in how many of them did you find the life of Jesus. I'll bet you'll be lucky to find one. This is not to blame the death and fleshiness on the building, but it is to say that the building is the outward sign of the death and fleshiness that is within.

While we're on the subject of church buildings, lets talk about the furniture inside of church buildings.

Pews. They line you up so you can fellowship with the back of your brother's or sister's head. They don't promote intimacy, but rather cold formality. They also cost a small fortune. To Hades with them.

Pulpits/Lecterns. As Gene Edwards often points out, these came from Martin Luther. Luther had been given control of formerly Catholic cathedrals. He was preaching in one of them, needed a place to prop his notes, looked up and saw on a pillar the little rostrum or pulpit that the Catholic priest had climbed up to in order to read weekly announcements. Luther ripped out the old Catholic altar, and replaced it with the Protestant pulpit. This is used today to make the person standing behind it feel Big and Important. It is made to awe you, the humble pew-sitter, to keep you from asking questions, and from falling asleep. Its very presence is intimidating to dialogue, communication, and sharing.

Altar rails. An altar in the Old Testament is a place where a sacrifice was slain. The OT foreshadowed the sacrifice of Jesus in the NT, so it seems to me that the only "altar" in the NT was the cross, upon which Jesus was slain. This, however, does not stop the very many institutional churches who put little padded benches up front and call them "altars." But, even if they are called "prayer benches," or something similar, they still reinforce the idea that there's something going on up front in front of the audience. And, as I am sure you know, in the NT church, there was no front, and there was no audience. The altar is just one more piece of religious furniture that reinforces spectator Christianity, the kind that Watchman Nee said engendered "passivity and death."

So far our critique of church buildings has focused on two main points: their obscene and wasted expense, and their frequent use as idolatrous substitutes for the worship of Christ. However, there are other reasons we should avoid church buildings like the plague (I am indebted to the NT Restoration Newsletter for these insights).

-Buildings are harmful to church life because they permit the church to grow to such a size that it is impossible to have intimate fellowship anymore. How many times have you heard Christians say, "This was a wonderful church back in the old days when we were small, but now we don't know anybody." A house church can never grow that large, because not everyone can fit in the living room. (Which means, incidentally, that for house churches to grow, they must divide and multiply.)

-Certain normative NT practices can't be accomplished easily in a large church setting. For example, weekly partaking of the Lord's Supper, taking of the Lord's Supper with one loaf and one cup, partaking of the Love Feast, and mutual participation and sharing are easily handled in a house church setting, but not so in larger institutional churches.

WARNING!! The Surgeon General has determined that in a random sample of American church buildings, a majority were found to contain gases and vapors which induce stupor, boredom, and mindlessness.

We close with miscellaneous comments by several house churchers concerning buildings.

-"Why not have a special building?... Undeniably, the all important and overriding reason is the total absence in scripture of the instructions to construct such buildings. If we obey the commandment in Deuteronomy 12:32, we must not add to God's word. It is only logical to assume that if God wanted us to have buildings, He would have so ordered in His word. Consider that all of the gospel and letter writers in the New Testament, with the exception of Luke, participated in temple worship. It is highly significant that not one of them ever built or instructed anyone to build any type of Christian building. This includes Paul, Peter, and John. The absence of special buildings in the New Testament is noteworthy to say the least."

-"It has never been the way of God to extend His witness through a building made with the hands of human beings! ...His method of extending his witness is through the flesh, blood, and bones of the believing body of Jesus Christ, and not a building! The entire book of Acts verifies this doctrinal truth! How much do we think this truth grieves the heart of God to watch His body operate in the method of unsuccessful Jewish method of witness extension... confining the primary energies, ministries, and vision of God to a building! ...The commission of God to His body is to go to people in their environment, not invite them into an edifice! ...Can we get out of this inward focus, this building mentality, and into the real ministry?!!

DIALOGUE...

I agree with you completely about preaching every Sunday morning. I would like to see dialogue and conversation much more in the life of the church. I "preach" every Sunday and would love to see a sharing of vision, dreams, and understanding of the faith. My question is, how do you do it? Even in Sunday school classes, most of the teachers lecture. When I teach Bible studies, I refuse to lecture. I engage the people in conversation, but I often find the people unwilling to get into it. Many of the people seem to want the lecture or one way sermons, or perhaps they are afraid of any alternative. I would be interested in seeing suggestions for ways to create the dialogue environment.

There are a couple of things you could do to create this open atmosphere so people will be a little more willing to share. In keeping with NRR's radicalism, you could close down your church building, move everyone into homes, and then leave town. I bet they'd all talk then, probably about you. Too radical? My point is this. Whether you know it or not, you intimidate these folks. You don't do this because you want to. They, like you and the rest of us, are victims of the system. They have been well trained to listen to the expert. You, my friend, whether you present yourself as one or not, are their resident expert. They pay you good money to be their expert. Your're not just battling the apathy of these folks, you are battling the system which has created a passive, apathetic crowd in the first place. This thing has destroyed manhood in the church. It has't been so great for womanhood either. For quite some time, my wonderful wife drew pictures on the bulletin in the traditional church setting. She's a wonderfully intelligent and genuinely spiritual person with uch to offer in a meeting. When I asked her why she drew pictures, she replied that she had no reason to do anything else because everything was already planned anyway. So, what's my answer? There's not one, really. The system we've created for Christianity is really busted. You can't put bandaids on a broken arm. You don't polish the brass on a sinking ship. You don't bother to close a screen door on a submarine. You don't storm the gates of Hell with a water pistol. You just can't fix the Church system.

That's great, you say, but do I have any practical suggestions that are not quite so radical? Well, you could change the location of your small groups. Have them in someone's living room. You get them started and then leave to get a cup of coffee or something.

I don't mean to make light of your dilemma. You only want the best for the good folks in your fellowship. Try turning them loose a little. Step back some. Trust the Lord in them. You may be surprised at the result.

DIALOGUE...

Comments...