Church buildings --good or bad idea? > Likes and Comments
date
newest »
newest »
I believe there are pros and cons of each, and because of that, each church needs to evaluate its needs and pray for direction. I have been a part of everything from megachurch to home church.
Home churches don't have to worry about not getting enough tithes to keep their doors open. Everybody knows everyone else, so prayers can be sincere, and Christian support is personal. Home churches are easier to hide from government oppression.
On the downside, they are also easier to develop into cults, easier to fail at meeting the needs of the congregation, and more difficult to bring new members into. They also frequently do not get enough members to have a diverse, Biblically-based leadership, especially if they are independent of other churches. They also are extremely limited in how much they can grow.
Megachurches have their own benefits and problems. Most successful megachurches are built with communities of generous, wealthy people. They have an amazing ability to provide services and outreach, and most of them do this (at least the three I am most familiar with and have visited or been a part of). They can raise volunteers to meet their needs more easily than small churches and home churches, which frequently have the same "go to" people. They also usually have a constant supply of new volunteers, which prevents burnout.
The downsides are that they frequently need astronomical budgets. They tend to overcommit in an attempt to meet everyone's needs and wants. When giving is low, they turn to renting space or setting up coffee shops and other businesses inside the church or on church property, which I personally believe is unBiblical since they are using the church to turn a profit. Although they usually have enough qualified people to serve in leadership, it is generally impossible to personally know everyone who is nominated for those positions. This makes it easier for unqualified people to get into those positions. They also tend to attract superficial Christians who are only there for what the church can give them, like the seed that fell on rocky ground in the parable of the sower. And, of course, they tend to preach watered-down religion to fill seats. Since megachurches rarely can run on their own, they also frequently have a ministry team--music ministers, senior pastors, etc. Although the Bible gives clear direction on what Biblical church leadership is, ministry teams are an invention of man, and they frequently have power issues.
I'm going to lump churches over 500 in with the megachurch and churches meeting in specific buildings with fewer than 500 into "regular churches." Like megachurches, regular churches also struggle with budgets. Maintaining a building costs money, and few congregations consider that their numbers may not always remain stable or increase. The smallest churches are usually built with donated labor and not to code. Yes, government codes are, in some cases, garbage, but for the most part, they are there to protect people. Not building to code can cause more expensive maintenance problems, which are sometimes then serviced by unqualified people. Thankfully, God usually smiles on these churches and doesn't allow major catastrophes to strike. Like home churches, small churches struggle to find volunteers and struggle to find enough solid leadership. They also do not usually provide many services, or the services provided are subpar. (For example, I am thinking of a daycare run out of a church basement that eventually had to close because of flooding issues. Had there been a fire instead, it would have been difficult to get all the children out.)
On the other hand, everybody usually knows everyone else, so they can make informed decisions about leadership. They also generally provide more support and personal relationships than bigger churches. Small churches are more likely to stick to Biblical truths without whitewashing them, as long as they are not attached to a denomination that has sold out. Generally, since people are poorer in small churches, they are more willing to do volunteer work for the church to make up for their lack of financial donating power.
In my opinion, small churches are less intimidating than home churches and megachurches when you invite new people to them, but it would be interesting to hear other people's opinions of that.
Jennifer, thanks for a very serious, meaty, and thoughtful post!Jennifer wrote: "[home churches] ...also are extremely limited in how much they can grow."
Of course, that's assuming (and for most folks, the assumption is natural!) that in a home church, the math has to be "one church = just one house." But there are certainly indications in the New Testament that some local churches in large cities met in more than one house (and in fact would have had to, in order to accommodate large congregations --the Jerusalem church, for instance, won 3,000 converts on the day of Pentecost, and soon increased its membership to 5,000). All the believers would be united as part of one congregation, praying for general needs and cooperating in outreach and service under the same body of leaders, no matter whose house any group of them happened to meet in.
I am indifferent to the building used. I think a larger central building is just the likely result of trying to meet the needs of many. If the congregation of the faithful gets large enough, a single home may not suffice any more.I cant imagine that there would be some biblical reason that larger building should be shunned. Christ himself defended the temple. But I do know some who feel that early Christians met in homes and we should to. I do not subscribe, but I also would not avoid it. I too like the smaller groups for the community and fellowship. In the Catholic church were I go (which I would describe as austere....), I have made an effort to know the people around me, but most people there, I have no idea who they are. And most do not do any of the social stuff either, so...It hard to get to know them.
I do love meeting people. All of them are special in their own way, and interesting in their life stories.
Anyway...big building or small, if its doing the good work, I have no issue.
There is room for both large churches and home churches. Where my family and I attend now is a fairly large church, so we have a robust group of men and women who support the pastor and help keep the big cogs turning.Within that, we are all encouraged to join a small group. The idea is to provide a group that not only digs further into the sermon that week, but to also engage in the fellowship missing in large churches.
There's no restriction on anyone who wants to have people in their home (couldn't stop them legally), but if a person wants to be recognized as part of the church, they must sign-up and agree to a few basic rules about content and behavior.
So far, it's worked over the last six years with only a few glitches.
It's universally recognized that the Christian community in New Testament times met primarily in private homes (though Jewish Christians resident in or visiting Jerusalem also worshipped in the Temple, while it still stood), and there are New Testament texts that refer to this. (Church buildings are neither commanded nor explicitly forbidden in the New Testament.) The use of church buildings developed later, and actually not until around the middle of the 3rd century (the oldest one uncovered by archaeology, a re-purposed private home, dates from ca. 240 A.D.).
Independent scholar Dr. Tom Wadsworth (PhD. in New Testament, Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2022) is the author of an Internet article on the subject, "About the First Church Buildings" (here: https://www.tomwadsworth.com/answers-... ), which I found informative and helpful. He not only discusses the first church buildings, but also looks into statements about the subject from Christian writings in the period from the early 2nd century on into Constantinian times.