Money in Buildings or People?

That still doesn't answer my question. Why was no ruckus made of the Washington National Cathedral? No one says "its cost was too much". No one says "it was an edifice to one man". I doubt many can even name the senior pastor there.

I submit that no one raises these questions because it is a gothic stone church that looks exactly like gothic cathedrals in Europe. (to say nothing of the fact that the cost of building churches in this style are nearly twice the cost of using modern building materials). Indeed, in New York there are three such structures.

I also feel the mentality of "the money could have been used to feed the poor" is a worn'out cliche. There is more to the function of a church than feeding the poor. How's about feeding souls? How's about teaching the poor to feed themselves?

There are no references in the NT of Jesus condemning the Jewish people for the amount of money that was speant on the Temple in Jerusalem.

If the poor want to get together and build a build a grand church that reflects their honor to God, let them. It is wrong for others to tell them "you can't do that, because you're poor".

If a rich man wants to donate a statue of Jesus to his church, let him. If someone wants to donate money for a new church organ, or a new school building, or a homeless shelter, or a new fellowship hall, or chapel, or a bell tower, or a new pulpit bible, or a new stained glass window, let them.

Should Michelangelo have not created all of his religious artwork because the money could have been used for the poor? What about the leaning tower of Pisa (It's a bell tower for a church). What about Westminster Abbey? What about Notre Dame? What about St Patrick's Cathedral?

If the rest of us have a problem with it, maybe we need to decide if we're being righeous, or if we've simply "coveting our neighbor's church".