Money in Buildings or People?

Deut 12:30-32
and after they have been destroyed before you, be careful not to be ensnared by inquiring about their gods, saying, "How do these nations serve their gods? We will do the same." You must not worship the LORD your God in their way, because in worshiping their gods, they do all kinds of detestable things the LORD hates. They even burn their sons and daughters in the fire as sacrifices to their gods. See that you do all I command you; do not add to it or take away from it.
NIV

 

You must have totally missed my point about OT Centrpital evangelism and NT centrifugal evangelism on the first page, which concepts Chet was also trying to get across in his own words.

[ March 07, 2002, 07:18 PM: Message edited by: LP ]

 

KJV Exodus 25:
17 And thou shalt make a mercy seat of pure gold: two cubits and a half shall be the length thereof, and a cubit and a half the breadth thereof.
18 And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them, in the two ends of the mercy seat.
19 And make one cherub on the one end, and the other cherub on the other end: even of the mercy seat shall ye make the cherubims on the two ends thereof.

 

I think the size of a church's building has to do with the indigenous nature of churches. A local church is, to some degree, a reflection of the culture in which it exists. Culture tends to push us to extremes of either extravagance in a building, or guilt over a nice one (why isn't this money given to the poor? critics will ask). The local church has the responsibility before God of striking an appropriate balance in this decision. The building should be nice and of quality, but not extravagant. I think Baptist churches excel in building buildings that are functional and attractive w/o undue extravagance and ornamentation.

 

I am ashamed and embarrassed to admit that since being stationed over in Hawaii and looking for a new church that the actual look of the building mattered to me.

I live on Oahu, right near Honolulu airport and Hawaii just doesn't much space for churches and for some reason there isn't a traditional looking Baptist church over here. The churches we have visited and seen are like old storage buildings that have been fixed up a bit and made into churches. I guess since I grew up in such a beautiful church with gorgeous stained windows it is what I was looking for.

I can honestly say now that I have grown up, matured, or whatever else it could have been that the size and look of the building means nothing to me. The church we have visited the most is a rather old, non pleasant looking building that is in a rather rough area. It got so bad that in the parking lot, we have 2 men on parking lot duty for every service just to watch over our cars.

Being in the military and moving all over the place every couple years sure does make it hard to choose a church and call it your own as once you get use to it, you move.

Aloha and Mahalo!

John

 

Only widows 60 years and over were to be taken "into the number," if they were "widows indeed" and met certain requirements.

Some will say that Paul here is referring to deaconesses, and indeed he is. Widows weren't allowed to freeload. They had to be about the Lord's business if they were to live of the Gospel.

The younger widows were to marry.

Giving periodic aid and comfort to those in need despite their estate is one thing, supporting them is another, and there are very stringent guidelines.

[ March 08, 2002, 12:34 AM: Message edited by: Aaron ]

 

Find some Godly men and it could happen!

Much easier said than done. A DECENT single man is hard to find...(especially over age 40)...a GODLY SINGLE man takes a MAJOR MIRACLE..LOL!
LOL!

 

One aspect of church buildings I think we conservative Baptists feel uncomfortable about is the aspect of beauty in the building. We don't want to seem ostentatious, so we almost make it seem like "homely" is synonomous with holiness! It doesn't have to be so. In fact, it shouldn't be so! God is the Creator; and He made some magnificent sights! (Here in CA, Yosemite is some of the closest to heaven that I can think of.) The bright colors of huge varieties of flowers. The sunrises & sunsets in their many hues. The interesting patterns & colors of different breeds of horses, or cats! The list is endless. God enjoys beauty, and made it for us to enjoy. There is no reason why we shouldn't enjoy beauty in our homes or church buildings, but we don't have to ignore the needy to do it!
Gathering together those gifted in art in the church family, there can be tasteful (and inexpensive) beauty: the color(s) of the walls, a reverent, joyful piece of artwork here or there (whether banner, painting, a handmade stained glass or plaque...),a bouquet of flowers and cleanliness all go to making a lovely (but not ridiculous) "home" for the church family.
As I said, while I have mixed feelings about a church having a building, if they do it can be done "multi-purpose" as one person pointed out. And it can be lovely, without neglecting the Gospel or the poor.
And that one brother is correct: there are many things that we small churches cannot do; at least the "normal" way we expect to do them. If a church can work together as a family more, there would be a lot more happening...even if it meant find new ways to raise money for a church bus (if that's the goal) or ministering more effectively to widows, etc. Too often I believe we expect to keep a 21st century life style, and still have all we think we want at church too. That is where much of this "menu" attitude about church comes in. [What flavor? Can I have mine my own way??]
True Christianity is based on love & sacrifice. We American believers don't "do" sacrifice too well, until we've gone through a few hard knocks.
Perhaps that is why God is allowing this country to go downhill so much...perhaps it will result in the purification of the Church! I pray so.

 

Nope ... didn't miss it. I thought it was a bad point.

 

Nope ... didn't miss it. I thought it was a bad point.</font>[/QUOTE]Perhaps, then, you could paste in several Scriptures that would indicate that the NT church was to primarily be about doing centripital evangelism....

[ March 08, 2002, 08:20 PM: Message edited by: LP ]

 

I don't see anything about "centripetal" evangelism in the NT. In fact, I can't even find that word in Scripture any where. Furthermore, I am not sure why you want me to respond to a non-issue. That fact that you have a forum to float an idea does not validate the idea. IMO, it was an idea with no Scriptural basis.

First, you see no real evangelism mandate in the OT. There is a day coming when Israel will be the light to the Gentiles. That day has not yet come.

As for NT evangelism, the mandate of the Great Commission is to make disciples through church planting. The fact that "Baptize" is in the Great Commission testifies to the fact that the primary purpose of evangelism is the building of churches so that disciples can be built. You do not see any believers in the NT that are not a part of the local church. The goal of evangelism is worshippers who worship the Father in spirit and in truth. That worship takes place in the context of the local church.

Whatever you might mean by "centripetal" evangelism, I think it would be better to stick with biblical descriptions. The NT mandate is to build churches by building disciples.

 

Let's deal with just this first issue for now, since that is where any understanding must start:

Here are JUST A FEW Scriptures indicating God's methodology of Evangelism in the OT. In fact, this is THE MAIN MESSAGE IN THE OT.

As a side note, it is scary that one can be a Pastor and yet miss such primary things. Not just you, though, but MANY, MANY, MANY Pastors. But it is supposedly Biblical to keep the sheep in the congregation SILENT while giving clearly erroneous messages such as "there is no real evangelism mandate in the OT, except in the future."

Here are some books you should get hold of:

Unveiled at Last by Bob Sjogren

Mission in the Old Testament: Israel As a Light to the Nations by by Walter C. Kaiser

(BTW, I utilize the same terms centriptal and centrifugal that Kaiser uses to explain in a word the more complex Biblical concepts.)

[ March 09, 2002, 03:14 PM: Message edited by: LP ]

 

LP,

You wrote...

&gt;&gt;As a side note, it is scary that one can be a Pastor and yet miss such primary things. Not just you, though, but MANY, MANY, MANY Pastors. But it is supposedly Biblical to keep the sheep in the congregation SILENT while giving clearly erroneous messages such as "there is no real evangelism mandate in the OT, except in the future&gt;&gt;

I understand what Pastor Larry is saying because I have a general understanding of his eschatological point of view. And as a general principle I agree with him. The Nation of Israel had a primary mandate of ATTRACTING the other nations while the Church has the Great Commission as their mandate.

In any case I am troubled by your ad hominem against Pastor Larry.

HankD

[ March 09, 2002, 04:35 PM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

Another thread taken over by those trying to impress others with meaningless diatribe.

Ernie

 

What it has to do with it is exceedingly a lot. It is the core issue that makes the whole building tumble down, so to speak. But apparently this core issue is "meaningless diatribe" to some.

The OT instructions about building buildings are used by people today, mostly pastors, to justify their new building programs--you are aware of this, I am sure.

But if one understands the context of WHY in the OT those buildings were built, and often built lavishly, which was specifically with centripital evangelism in view, it then becomes illigitimate to use the OT passages to justify NT buildings, b/c the mode of evangelism in the NT is centrifugal. Or, as said above, "the Nation of Israel had a primary mandate of ATTRACTING the other nations [with the land, their buildings (temple), law and people], while the Church has the Great Commission [TO GUT] as their mandate." In the OT, the Money went to means of evangelism. In the NT, it went to the same. With almost ALWAYS under 10% overseas missions budgest in modern churches, and almost always &gt; 75% budgets for building and their maintenance, something is obviously very, very wrong.

And yes, it is very scary when A PASTOR uses those OT passages to justify practices of building modern church buildings, and forwards that historical Israel had no God-given role in evangelizing the surrounding nations. Because if one misses that, THEY ARE NECESSARILY MISSING THE WHOLE MAIN REDEMPTIVE THREAD OF THE BIBLE, which started in Genesis 12:1-2 and ends with the last word in Revelation.

The book "Unveiled at Last" I posted earlier makes that thread the plainest.

[ March 10, 2002, 03:23 AM: Message edited by: LP ]

 

LP,

I do not disagree that Israel was to be a light to the nations. My point was that you made an invalid inference out of that with regards to NT evangelism. YOu attack me because I "do not know something" when in fact I do know it; I believe you have misapplied it.

I did not use any OT passage to "justify" the building of NT buildings. I used the passage to illustrate that those who say nice buildings are always wrong and waste of money that could be spent elsewhere are saying in spite of biblical revelation and not because of it.

The excellence of our God should be shown in everything we do, even in our buildings. I have no use for people who do shoddy things in the name of "spending more on evangelism." It is pure rhetoric in most cases. I think most churches should spend more on evangelism. But until God's people turn loose of their money it won't happen. I would for us to spend more but I can't because we don't have it.

I simply don't see the main problem as the buildings for the most part.

 

Pastor Larry:

Would you consider that, in some things, you are part of the problem with the church and not the solution? Would you consider that, whatever training for ministry you underwent, it lacked some very vital and key things?

Consider taking this course:

Perspectives on the World Christian Movement

You can take it on-line or at locations around the world. You can even take it for graduate or undergraduate credit.

Here are Christian leaders who have commented about the course: http://www.perspectives.org/endorsements/ldrendorse.html

Here are Christian organizations that have endorsed it: http://www.perspectives.org/endorsements/agencies.html

 

Back to the topic and amen a thousand times over to it.

Take a look at the buildings available to rent or borrow on a Sunday: almost all of them. So what do we do? Build more of them! It's bizarre. Small churches, by the way, will not have many widows to support (one or two?) and the simple physical help of the others can go a very long way towards providing her support with little need for great amounts of money.

California is NOT your 'conservative' sort of place, but the school buildings can still be rented out on the weekends for churches. Seventh Day Adventists and other Sabbatarian denominations are often happy to rent their buildings out on Sundays to other Christians. In large cities, there are often conference and lecture halls which are available on Sundays at very reasonable fees.

There are so many people who need help... so little red tape is really necessary...

A lot of our churches are not really churches at all. They are fancy Christian Country Clubs.

No.... I don't feel strongly about this....