Logan Wolf, church planter in Utah, approached me (Jacob) a week ago and asked to write a post on church buildings. I read the post he sent, and honestly, thought it needed a little balance. So I asked Chris Talbot to write a rebuttal. Keep in mind church buildings are a secondary issue at best, although I’d probably say tertiary. So neither Chris nor Logan are going to start another denomination over this. But the disagreement can help sharpen all of us as we young guys consider things like buildings and what to do or what not to do with them in ministry. Logan is up first, and Chris will offer a rebuttal soon.
___________________
When I was on deputation I had several pastors tell me how I needed to start a building fund right away. “You’ve got to build a building,” they 
said.
I don’t want a church building.
As I look at the Bible, church history, the underground church, as well as the house church and portable church movements today, you would be hard pressed to convince me that a building is necessary. I understand the benefits of a permanent facility and I’m not saying every church that owns property needs to sell it (though for some that would be a step forward). It’s just that from what I have observed, there is a tendency for church buildings to become thieves, taking what ought to be given to the community in which the local body lives and serves.
Church buildings steal money. There is no such thing as a cheap building. Regardless of whether you’re talking about constructing a brand new facility or renovating an existing one, you are always talking thousands of dollars. And the costs never stop. On top of monthly payments there is utilities, insurance, maintenance, and so on. It’s easy for a large portion of the budget to never cross the property line. Though a twenty in the offering may not come close to that month’s electric bill, it can buy a dozen Bibles to give away at the fair. Or it can be divvied up between a couple homeless guys. Or it can help get another missionary/church planter on the field.
Church buildings steal energy. Not only do permanent facilities involve ongoing costs, but they also require ongoing work. They need weekly cleaning, regular upkeep, and landscaping. Such tasks often fall on the congregation, and rightly so. If you have a building, you should take care of it. Still, I have been in more than one church where the pastor encouraged people to get involved in the local ministry and then preceded to ask for volunteers to clean and cut the grass. I know that with a building such jobs are necessary, but I think a great disservice is done when they are labeled “ministry” and thus elevated to the same level as say handing out tracks or feeding the poor.
Church buildings steal focus. Because buildings never stop taking money and energy, the attention they demand is constant. In fact, the more money and energy needed to keep them running smoothly, the more attention they garner. When you are dumping large amounts of money and energy into something, you are going to focus on it. I enjoy being in services where I get to hear from missionaries or church planters. However, more than a few times I’ve listened to presentations dominated by a building program. They show pictures of the construction and talk about how much more money they need to finish it, while the real reason they’re on the field takes a back seat. What about the people? What opportunities are there to share the Gospel?
Again, I’m not saying church buildings are wrong. I do think that they have the potential to do more harm than good; that those ministries that have property should step back and evaluate their situation so as to be as effective as possible. What are your thoughts?
11 comments
Patrick V McDaniel says:
May 14, 2012
Logan, I think you are on the right path here, but I also think you are only half way there. You have listed the negatives of church buildings (and there are many), but there are also positives of having a church without a building. For me personally I find the best option to be house churches. House churches are the best in my understanding not only because of the lack of commitment to a building and the costs that entails, but for several other reasons 1)because of the way it encourages church to = family rather than church = building, 2) We have a Biblical example of church being in the home, 3) it limits the church from turning into an institution/company, 4)houses are viable in nearly every culture on earth.
Though I find the house church to be the best case scenario (and it has taken years of Biblical study for me to get here), I do not want to demonize churches with buildings or minimize the impact these churches with buildings have had. I am only speaking of what I think is best and what I am being led to practice in my ministry.
Logan Wolf says:
May 14, 2012
Patrick, you’re right–there are positives to church buildings. I acknowledged that. However, again, I think there are dangers we all need to be aware of. I like the warning you offered about “church” being associated with “church building.” That should concern pastors. Are we guilty of relegating ministry, worship, and community to the confines of the property lines?
For Church Buildings | fwb21 says:
May 15, 2012
[...] Church Buildings by Chris on May 15, 2012 • 10:50 am No Comments In response to Logan’s contra church buildings, Jacob asked me to write a rebuttal, weighing the reasons for church buildings. Disclaimer: I do [...]
Rachel Conlon says:
May 17, 2012
I enjoyed reading your article, and I agree with the danger areas you presented. I think often we do equate the church with the building and spend more money on upkeep than outreach. Choosing to have a house church is necessary in many countries and sometimes in the early years of a mission church.
However, in this culture, I believe having a church building creates a legitimacy and permanence which is important in attracting visitors. I remember when my family was planting a church, we held services at our house. Many visitors were leery of attending,
afraid that we were a cult or unstable group that would close at any time. By contrast, finally completing our church building and opening for services underscored the fact that we were in the city permanently.
One final thought about house churches… Though the meeting place doesn’t have to affect the philosophy, I believe there could be a temptation to become lax with services, outreach, and pastoral authority. I’ve known several families who attended house churches.
Some had no pastor and shared the leadership among a group of men. They also did not practice tithing. In fact, some of them only met in their home because they were mad at all the churches around them! I am sure these cases are a rarity, but I still believe that having an actual building does make it easier for Christians to invite and minister to the unsaved.
Thanks for a very interesting discussion!
Logan Wolf says:
May 18, 2012
Rachel, I know what you mean about people being leery of meeting in someone’s home. Speaking to pastors around the state prior to moving here, we found such groups were generally perceived as cultish (ironically enough). That being the case, we’ve never met in our house but are using the conference center of a hotel. Thanks for your comments!
Dear Diary | loganwolf.net says:
May 22, 2012
[...] was for Jeremy Riggs titled “The Danger of Disunity” and the second was for fwb21 titled “Against Church Buildings.” Based on the feedback I’ve gotten, I trust both were helpful and sparked meaningful [...]
Kevin Scott says:
May 23, 2012
Logan,
I’m sympathetic to your arguments here. But one of the things we’re learning at our church is that genuine community is always rooted to a place. If we want to build a Christian community, and not just a worship service, we have to think carefully about how buildings and “place” figure into that.
The thing about meeting in a home is that a relationship usually has to precede an invitation. That’s not all bad; in fact, it’s probably very good. But local ordinances can make it difficult to have public meetings in private homes too.
Great topic. Thanks for writing about it.
Kevin
Logan Wolf says:
May 30, 2012
Kevin, you’re right about community being rooted to a place and I agree–it’s difficult for that place to be a house. I’m not a proponent of house churches. I am a fan of what we would call “temporary spaces” (e.g., conferences rooms, school auditoriums, theaters). Such public places are generally perceived as being neutral, making it easier to invite people in. I appreciate your comments!
Kevin Scott says:
Jun 5, 2012
Logan,
I didn’t communicate clearly. I think homes are great for community. That’s probably the best thing about meeting in a home.
It’s the temporary spaces we’ve found to be difficult places to build community, because by definition you only have them for a few hours per week. They might be great for gathering a crowd, but not as great (in our experience) for creating a family/community.
Hope that makes more sense.
Kevin
Logan Wolf says:
Jul 16, 2012
Kevin,
Sorry for the misunderstanding (as well as my delayed response). I see what you’re saying. My concern is that I think it would be more difficult for people to come to a house unless you have already developed some sort of relationship with them prior. (At least I’d be hesitant to show up at a stranger’s house.) I like public spaces for the reason that they offer a more neutral, less threatening space for those I haven’t met before. Thanks for your thoughts!
Kevin Scott says:
Jul 31, 2012
Logan, you’re exactly right. Those who come are mostly those with whom someone in your church has developed a prior relationship. That means impersonal outreach campaigns are going to be less effective. But I’m still not convinced that’s a bad thing. If relationship-building and personal outreach are your strategy and strength, it can be a good fit.