By Kit Shangpliang,
Today in Shillong, walk into the Church building, you see its awesomeness standing in proximity to the homes of impoverished families. Have we ever thought why we revere the buildings so much that we spend huge percentage of the community’s resource in raising, maintaining and beautifying them? Have we been more successful in raising buildings than raising builders of faith? Have we ever asked why we do Church like we do? Is institutionalisation of the Church a blessing or a bane? Have we failed to do things by the Book? All hard questions – contemporary Christians (churched and non-churched) are beginning to ask.
What if Jesus in physical form landed in your Church today? Would he say ‘fair enough’ or would He take his usual tough stance and say ‘do away with this irrelevance of formality and this unnecessary extravagance’? Back in time – no wonder that when the Lord entered the drama of human history, His authority was arduously challenged (see Mark 11:28). He did not fit into the religious mould of the times. According to Christian writer Frank Viola, “Contemporary Christianity is guilty of the error of the Pharisees. That is, it has added a raft of humanly devised traditions that have suppressed the living, breathing, functional headship of Jesus Christ in his Church”. While one might argue that Christ is still the undisputable Head of the House, there is ample evidence to suggest that, in reality ‘He is (just) the unseen guest’.
Grand Architecture:
While principally, no one can dispute the awesomeness of God, have we ever thought that this awesomeness is being misrepresented in the breathtaking architecture of the building? The intention could have been good but not absolutely right. People including faith leaders tend to see the proxy splendor of the worship place while the true splendor of the Worshiped gets lost in it. The early Christians were the only religious people on earth who did not erect sacred buildings for their worship. The Christianity that conquered the Roman Empire was essentially a home-centered movement, yet, we so easily forget that they turned the world upside down with out the buildings (Acts 17:6). They grew rapidly for the first 300 years without the help (or hindrance) of Church buildings.
Historically, the design of Church buildings dates back to the Greco-Roman world and Emperor Constantine (320 AD). While, we won’t want to easily agree that the Greco-Roman architecture has pagan origins – certain believers understand that such origins could be redeemed (meaning that even distorted cultures could go through a spiritual cleansing of sorts) before people actually live those cultures. But very few have given some thought to how the remnants of those cultures could linger slyly.
It is UK’s former Prime Minister, Winston Churchill who said, “Firs we shape our buildings, then they shape us” – he cannot be more right in this context. That said, history confirmed that the church buildings promote laity-clergy divide, a divide that needs to undergo scriptural scrutiny to see if it deviates from the intention of the first century participative Church in its divine organic form.
Emperor Constantine added professionalism to the Christian faith, therefore, worship became more professional, dramatic and ceremonial. The professionals performed the acts of worship while the laity looked on as spectators. The upshot of it all was that there was a loss of intimacy and open participation among believers which is one of the features of the first century Church. Then came the internal designs of the building that killed the early Church spirit of mutual exhortation. The performer-spectator format is not a thing of the orthodox congregation alone – today, it is practiced religiously in the handclapping and electric-guitar playing congregations, big way.
The magnificence of our Church buildings is a little detached from the real world or for that matter, the spiritual world. It offers solace to the weary souls, during the few hours that they spend there, but somehow in a subtle but strong way, disputes the omni-presence of the Almighty who can provide timeless solace. The message that lies in the grandeur of these buildings unconsciously tells, that God is present inside the building and not in the human heart. This message then promulgates the needless divide between sacred and secular. The resurrected God is relevant to both the sacred and the secular. Once people of faith understand that, they will also understand that responsible incarnational living is beyond those few hours in Church and beyond its four walls. He wants a 24×7 relationship and practice. In fact, Church and Christian life should be more about what happens from Monday to Saturday – but sadly, worship fails the Monday tests.
Back to the structures, deceptively, the masses have been drawn to the emotional appeal of prestige and majesty of the structure- Certain sects of Christianity don’t talk much about this issue but we all let our buildings do the talking. While the church, globally, is obsessed with the outward appearance, our inward beings have suffered.
Now, compare budget allocations and ratio – Mission: Buildings, Giving to the Poor: Beautification of Buildings, Justice Issues: Real Estate. Everyone would agree that there is more theological and scriptural interests in Mission, Giving to the poor and Justice Issues and very less or no such interests in the other areas. While crores of rupees and billions of dollars are being overspent in construction, very few, publically question the biblical sanction of that overspending (Schools and hospitals excluded). Besides, in many places there is very weak or no church constitutional support to stand by this huge salvaging of resources in raising and maintaining these structures. It is also true, that our faith systems have under-spent on the great commission – the spreading of the good news and the raising of justice and rights issues. Faith agents have been led to mis-prioritise their operations – and have been led to compromise the mandate of faith itself.
The situation therefore warrants a relook which is long overdue. Church organisations, need to seek clarity of purpose on the overspending issue – discuss and frame clear cut guidelines for local Church committees to follow. Leaders cannot tweak the verses of the Book to satisfy community’s prestige. We need to rediscover His purpose. We need to pride not on the extravagance of the colored-glass buildings that we have – but on the extravagance of His Grace and His Love.
Huge Gatherings
Church organisations everywhere, spend their fortune in huge gatherings. It is there, that they plan, strategise and evaluate their operations. The size of the delegation that gathers in such public assemblies is important to the clergy, yet very few ask questions on the credible outcomes of these proceedings. In life’s journey, we understand that God means business with us and expects us to mean business with Him. Perhaps, an honest evaluation (formal or non-formal) of the business sessions of these assemblies is needed.
While these big events help create the spirit of brotherhood, they also add value to the show of strength therefore adding weight to the offertory bags. When it is important to plan and review, it is equally important to do this within the realistic economic means and not getting lost in merely following man-made institutionalised traditions. As Minister and Bible Scholar, John Stott puts it aptly, “The hallmark of an authentic evangelicalism is not the uncritical repetition of old traditions, but the willingness to submit every tradition however ancient, to biblical scrutiny, if necessary, reform”. The same goes with innovations.
Because these organizations are huge, their gatherings reach levels of extravagance and their overhead cost runs astronomically high. We have churches in rural and urban northeast India with sizeable economically poor members hosting such humongous gatherings – spending more than they can afford on such legalistic events hosted at newly built marbled buildings. With urbanisation, the increase of urban poor and the rise of social challenges, the biblical and practical need is for the Church to allocate its budget and spare more human resource on mandates worthy of its Call – Mission.
Conclusion
When institutionalisation became necessary, systems took over and accessibility to the leaders became difficult. After all, institutionalisation and hierarchy comes with longevity that even, young and hand-raising churches, are catching up – faster than the old players. Compare this with Jesus’ accessibility to the people – you see the difference. There is need, therefore, for institutionalisation to be scripturally grounded and people friendly. Formalities have seeped in, that even the supposedly informal home fellowships have turned highly ceremonial, leaving very little space for mutual exhortation.
Lastly, this opinion piece is not loosely directed at Church buildings or big events, it is an attempt to constructively persuade the good people in the community of faith to go back to the basics, to implement scriptural principles, exercise wisdom and look at what works. Evidently, there are many good things happening in many congregations- but let’s gather enough courage to say, “There’s much more to be done”. Now is the time for all kinds of Church leadership to seek clarity of purpose. Is this the dream Church? No, it is the Church we never had.
(The writer is a social communicator based at Shillong. The sole intent of this write-up is not to debase the role of the Church and its apparatus but to persuade its faithful to rediscover the intention of its Originator)