Ex-Church of Christ Support Board

Yes you are right - and I think the 'answer' to that (or one answer) is to actually USE the space for more than weekly 'prayer service'. Such a building should be open EVERY day, and should serve MANY uses. (Large Catholic churches - and most synagogues too for that matter - are open daily, have some kind of services available daily, have libraries open to the public, study sessions going on - it is not a building to have a Sunday morning service in once a week (or three times) but a place for the people to come to and be 'served' in all sorts of ways).

But it does tie up a lot of money, both to build and to run. I think everyone would say that Chartres Cathedral, for instance, or Notre Dame are architectural and historic treasures, and uplifting spaces and all that, but at the same time, they also tie up a ton of 'assets' in a very non-liquid form, and they are very hard to MOVE, if the congregation they were built to serve happens to disperse to the suburbs, or something.

Agri, you are talking about a whole different concept and/or religion. Yes, if a CofC wasn't a CofC then things would be different.

In the cofc, activities are authority based (more so in various branches obviously). Authority is established by CENI for example. There are no local congregation buildings or budgets in the NT. Therefore the building can only be authorized to the extent it is an expedient to carry out some authorized activity of the local church. So given the constraints of this CofC POV then to me a building is not "expedient" due to the magnitude of the undertaking in relation to what it provides.

To the CofC POV, it is backward to argue that since a building is authorized and it cost so much, that it is therefore "authorized" to use it for so many other activities because other wise it would be wasteful and a bad stewardship. You are arguing that because it cost so much you better get your money's worth. I am saying that because of the limitation of "authorized" local church activity that a building will never be cost effective.

.

zeek wrote:I tend to agree with KLP on this. There is no evidence in the N.T. that the first century church ever owned real estate. I've watched 3 different start-up congregations come and go over the years and all three of them were great and thriving as long as they were meeting in schools, homes or where ever they could, but once they took the plunge and bought real estate "the spell" was broken and suddenly rather than being focused on the mission of the church to evangelize and meet needs, the focus immediately shifts to servicing debt and budgets and who is in control.

Couldn't agree with you more. Many churches turn into country clubs once their building is established.

Building a building does indeed divert a lot of money assets into a structure - which, therefore (to me) just reinforces the idea that the building ought to be USED to 'advance the Lord's work' which (theoretically at least) should include 'the mission' of feeding the hungry and teaching folks and such like.

That all requires extra money, though.

onward wrote:Many churches turn into country clubs once their building is established.

One of the things that helped me to finally say "no more" to organized religion, post leaving cofc.

As a child, I experienced some very safe feelings within the cofc. It took me years to realize that those
warm and fuzzy, "safe" feelings, came only at very dear cost.

klp wrote: I understand that having a building is convenient and comfortable in some regards and some benefits. But there is a cost and usually it is more than just a price paid in money because people end up in some sort of fight or power struggle over the building. Or so was my experience.

The building has a tendency to become the focal point of the church, and too often the overriding factor in their perception of what "The Lord's Work" means. These buildings become "the church," and most of the congregations money, energy, and emphasis is squandered on a physical building rather than promoting a spiritual presence in the community.

onward wrote:These buildings become "the church," and most of the congregations money, energy, and emphasis is squandered on a physical building rather than promoting a spiritual presence in the community.

On the bright side, the buildings are usually plain, simple, and frugally / tightly built so as to not waste the lord's money on
maintenance and utilities.

.

I think we can all agree that to build a large and expensive building and only use it three times a week for church services is a terrible waste of resources. A church should either not own a building or make better use of a building they own. None of this wasteful middle-of-the-road stuff that the COC promotes.

I once attended a COC whose building was along the route of a planned marathon on a Saturday. The race organizers asked the church if they could set up a water and first aid station in the church parking lot. Of course not, they were told. This building is for the lord's work, not for entertainment!

Lev