Sometimes You Just Need a Building? : Contrary Thoughts on Being Incarnational 1
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Is buying a building or inhabiting a building always contra being missional? Upon first instinct, the answer would be yes. Certainly missional gatherings would hesitate investing in a traditional church building. But are there times when inhabiting a building might itself be incarnational according to missional logic?
One positive thing about the end of modernity is that truth can not be held captive by the rational, the strictly representational, the logocentric. It must be embodied. And so we, who live in these times, naturally resist any attempts to strip truth of its embodiment. For some missional church folk, this speaks the Incarnation. Missional living, we say, must be incarnational.
But if truth is to be embodied, if we are not going to be limited to engaging God only with words, if beauty is to be a category for truth, then we have to embody ourselves in a physical presense in the community. This might mean inhabiting a building. I am sure many, perhaps the majority, of missional communities will gravitate towards meeting in homes. Yet, if taking up embodiment in a community will require that this community see us, watch our way of life, see they way we welcome and engage the hurting, see God in our architecture, our meals, our artwork and worship, there might be times when we take residence a place that is visible to the community. I know this goes against all missional thinking, so I am just asking, at what point does a building become incarnational? At what point does a building which embodies ministry to the poor, the art of the Story and grandeur of God, the sacred space of His presense, whereby we practice reconciliation by the very conmfirgurement of the furniature, become incarnational?
I understand the resistance of missional churches to own buildings. They are cumbersome, require resourses, and often push the church into an "attractional mentality" as opposed to a missional/incarnational one where the church is dispersed into the world of engagement. This is all good. But I argue that there are times and places (not all times and all places) where buildings, sanctuaries, physical architectural embodiments of the Body of Christ, might be the very expression of such an incarnational inhabiting community. In other words part of incarnation might be the very brick and mortar, architecture, and sacred space we gather which exemplifies and points all who would see toward the reality of God.
There might be therefore, a stage in the development of certain missional communities when a building of some sort makes sense. Some of our best examples of missional communities have made investment in such buildings (Solomon’s Porch MN, Jacob’s Well MO). We might need buildings, indeed buildings that resist the appearance that Christ is another thing for distribution at a Walmart. Please not a big box church. We might need a building where artists render the theology of our life together upon its space. We might need a building to feed the poor, to give sanctuary to the victimized. We might need a physical space that wipes the blank stare off modern people's eyes to see a reoriented world under the Lordship of Christ.
To all those who meet in houses, I am sure all of this can be done in a house gathering. It is just as possible that art, meal, archichecture, furniature, everthing can embody the incarnational Christ in a living room. But sometimes it might be ok to say, you just need a building. Not for some large big box grandiosity where the sign of the cross is not visible. Not for some monstrous spending that dwarfs and disfigures the surrounding community with corporate presense. But a church inhabiting the community which visibly embodies the life of Christ in our midst. I think sometimes (not all the times, and it requires discernment) such a building is incarnational.
I think of all of the dying vestiges of a past churchlife in the cities where the life of His Body once lived but somehow died or moved on - where the old buildings are left empty in city neighbourhoods desperately needing a visible witness of the new life made possible in Christ. As long as the missional incarnational DNA remains, I say these buildings might be the very places for a re-incarnation of the gospel.
Our church started in a church building left after the previous church was closed. We filled it with art, camped out on its property, and now seek to engage the community from its launching pad. It provides the base for the Presense in the bland suburbs. In the midst of the urban landscape, and especially the suburbs, there may be times (not all the time) when such old buildings provide the basis for a uniqiue physical presense? What do you think?.
Next time I’ll post on “Beauty and Incarnational: Contrary Thoughts on Being Incarnational 2” and the next time after that - “The Centrality of the Gathering-Eucharist Formation: Contrary Thoughts on Being Incarnational 3.”
Posted by David Fitch | 8:20 PM
COMMENTS:
HEY...THAT'S MY ALLEY YOU'VE GONE DOWN!!!! :)
"We might need buildings, indeed buildings that resist the appearance that Christ is another thing for distribution at a Walmart. Please not a big box church. We might need a building where artists render the theology of our life together upon its space." You mean "appearance matters" in a CHRISTIAN theology! :)
http://jasonhesiak.blogspot.com/2006/05/anti-incarnation-in-world-of.html
Jason
12:08 AM
I tend to resist the idea of having a church building, if that church building is used in all the typical ways church buildings are used. Often, buildings take up a huge part of the budget, are only utilized once or twice a week, and create a sort of counter-productive sacramentalism. However, if the cost were low and we had use of it, Missio Dei would benefit from a building. The ideal is a mix of communal, lived-in space with public space connected to it, for increased opportunity for hospitality, gathering, service, etc. If one's justification for a building is primarily that it serves as a place for gathered worship, then I can't see how that is enough.
12:34 AM
Jason ... yes ... space & aesthetics matter. Mark ... good additional clarifiers ... This is the kind of discernment I was trying to argue for.
Blessings
8:02 AM
For what it's worth, I grew up going to church mostly by myself while in jr. high school and high school. My parents had basically given up going to church at that point. I was glad there was a building to go to.
9:13 AM
A couple of years ago I wrote a paper titled "Toward a Theology of Public Space." But as I think about it, it needs revision.. one of the elements I neglected was beauty. I must have been reacting...
9:14 AM
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
9:53 AM
I think your post shares in the long tradition in Western Christian thought that envisions a synthesis of matter and spirit. A sort of miniaturized version of the whole cosmos.
And talk about sacramentalism. Could church buildings be sacramental?
9:55 AM
DF,
FYI - I'm an architect (hence the "you went down my alley!)...was being a bit goofy/sarcastic...although thanks for respecting my question by answering it. Also, by the way...I've noticed your many references in your book to art (in, to me, "the right" way), at least as far as I've gotten into it. I like...
Jason
10:11 AM
Hey b,
Haven't spoken with you in a while...I'm an architect, and I'm of the opinion that a building can't really get AWAY from sacramentality if it wants to. One professor of mine "defined" architecture as "built ritual". In a similar context, another professor of mine said, "You can't separate a building from it's inhabitants" (not, like, the rules of the universe dictate that you can't sell your house and move to antoher one...but, his point was...once you - and all your "rituals" - DO leave your house, its a different house). D.F. may have a better answer for you...
Jason
10:20 AM
Another one is that Winston Churchill said, "We shape our buildings and in turn our buildings shape us." Personally, I think the former days of PTL will demonstrate that many of these structures we build exemplify egos in honor of ourselves. With mark above, I too have some personal misgivings about church buildings.
6:26 PM
Marshall McLuhan said the same thing about tools. "We shape our tools, and our tools in turn shape us." And that our tools are extensions of ourselves...
10:46 PM
I go back to Van Steenwyck's comment above which I think says it all about buildings and incarnationality (is that a word?). He said
"The ideal is a mix of communal, lived-in space with public space connected to it, for increased opportunity for hospitality, gathering, service, etc. If one's justification for a building is primarily that it serves as a place for gathered worship, then I can't see how that is enough."
I think that is a brilliant summary of how buildings can help manifest presense, and shape us ... into a kind of people capable of presense into the world. My continued concern with missional churches is the dispersal of ecclessiology to the point we have no shaping corporate practice sufficient to be a distinct presense in the world.
Blessings .. DF
10:42 AM
David, loving the blog. I just commented on these thoughts in my own post.
11:44 AM
You say: My continued concern with missional churches is the dispersal of ecclessiology to the point we have no shaping corporate practice sufficient to be a distinct presense in the world.
I agree with that concern. Communities need to embody ethos--a common culture. Unless you have shared space and shared practices, you're basically a group of folks centered around ideas. One can do that without buying into conventional sacaramentality and liturgy, but you still need shared space and practices. For Missio Dei, this means we are defined by our particular neighborhood and shared neo-monastic practices that have been shaped by anabaptist theology and praxis.
2:40 PM
But shared space could be space in homes. A public presence is something different than that, I think. I have a feeling that a sacramental perspective is the root.. that in the visible and physical the invisible and transcendent can be found. I wonder if the theological dialectic is actually immanence and transcendence.. that Jesus was the transcendent-among-us. Perhaps this takes us to a place different than typical incarnational thinking, which could stop short of a missional outcome. But in the Missio Dei the immanence and transcendence of God are one. In God's people, God is enfleshed and present in the world.
4:58 PM
Hey D.F.,
I had a question for you down at "Is “M.A. in Missional Church Studies” an Oxymoron? Can Seminary Education be Missional?" (comment number 18). I don't think you've seen it, 'cause you generally answer or respond everyone on this blog. So I guess I just wanted to point it out. IF you purposely didn't bother with it yet (for whatever reason)...then DON'T worry about it! I've thought about it more since I posted the comment...but I'm still curious to hear a thought or two...
Thanks,
Jason
12:36 AM
And FYI to all...my interest/curiosity is peaked at this question of public space as well. I wonder if a public presence is possible anymore after the oikos (house/family) and forum ("public space") have been con-fused (into our current "society" or "market"), but not fused into one fragmented entity that looks like a Temple, Cathedral or adjoining Plaza or Court. I even get to wondering if, regardless of the Great Commission, public space is the point...or necessary (D.F. starts by saying its not). In a concern for a "public presence" (which I share), are we trying to force something (We've probably all seen variations of the bumper stickers or magnets that say very nonchalantly, "Relax, God's in charge", and have like a dude standing there being swallowed by a big huge fish...or, uuhh, a "society")? Maybe (?) these are just questions to myself...as I guess its really might be a question of attachment to a particular idea of public space and God's working in and through it...
Jason
12:52 AM
df,
i left another comment down there basically just saying thanks and that your comment was helpful...
jason
6:30 PM
You cannot possibly believe that in light of the present reality facing us. Let's build it bigger and bigger and bigger and let's spend whatever it take to do so.
You need to look at the world and you will soon realize (as you have) that in most if not all cases, build it and watch the mission stall.
In Africa as soon as they build a building Mission almost always stops. Be careful because people love excuses.
In America buildings and "Come and See" events are barriers and people have left it and it is not working (I have read your stuff) and it doesn't work.
It's time to face the reality of the supremacy of the Great Commission. Only then will see America won and redeemed for Christ. Everyone is asked by Jesus to obey the commands of the Great Commission.
If not...the mission stalls or dies for lack of commitment to the right thing.
7:23 PM
Jason - build buildings but you cannot build the church that is the job of Jesus. Our job is to make disciples who make disciples. www.theplanter.blogspot.com will challenge you.
I hope anyway,
7:26 PM
All of our little individual church buildings (not to mention the Mall of America size Big Box places) are very resource intensive. If we're committed to stewarding our personal and corporate resources diffently, then wouldn't it make sense to urge missional congregations that feel the need to have a building to share space with other congregations who meet in the same place and space?
11:35 AM
Yehh Michelle!
I love your thots....
Let's put the millions of dollars into the mission and let's just release the Church in coffee shots, bank buildings and park pavillions! We don't need building that we keep building larger and larger to hold the crowds we attract.
12:26 PM
This is all great theory... good thoughts. But my reality is that we are planting a new church that is trying to be missional in our community, and my living room isn't big enough anymore to hold all the people that want to come and be a part of what we're doing. We don't have enough room to gather, to have meals together, or to do any kind of missional activities.
Maybe getting a larger space (i.e. a building) is selling out our missional principles, or maybe not. All I know is we need some elbow room because God keeps sending us more people who are catching the vision.
Peace,
-Mike
10:21 PM
They way I've come to see it over the last 3 months, is who better to own a building than a group of people who never wanted to own one. If you had a community that was so concerned about being good stewards, not being wasteful and wanting to keep the presence in their homes, just imagine how when they actually did get a building that space would transform into something amazing and all because they didn't ever want it in the first place.
6:15 AM
To Bob ... I'm a little confused about the extremity of your first comment ... Do you mean to imply it is either-or .. either missional (w/o building) or building? Once you build or inhabit any building you are no longer missional, capable of discipling? capable of the Great Commission? I think I agree with Nathan .. the sense of missional calling gives us if anything a new intense drive to discern when/if or why use or inhabit a building. This either/or stuff to me misses the mark.
Instead, as I meet missional folk around the contintent, I am seeing that missional presense often means inhabiting a building in non traditioanl powerful Incarnational ways that makes possible the shaping and forming of a missional people, the feeding fot he poor, and the worship of a Soverign and Just God ...
Again.. I am NOT ARGUING THAT BUILDOINGS ARE ALWAYS(or even the majority of times)NECESSARY. They can get in the way and destroy mission. BUT SOMETIMES THEY THEMSELVES BECOME THE WAY TO INHABIT A COMMUNITY INCARNATIONALLY.
Blessings ...
8:56 AM
Well - I guess it is harder than I thought to help people realize the damage a building can do to destroy Missional Christianity. What we have in America is not Missional Christianity but Churchianity. Did I just say that?
Once you get your building then you have to pay for it, expenses that go along with it,the ministries that are held in it and the staff it takes to run it. After 23 years of ministry I built large building and took large offerings and had large numbers of people gather and the more we got the more needed. I know what it is like to build a $3.3 mil facility and pay $2.8 mill off in three years. I am not inexperienced in this matter. I have also served in Denominational positions and saw it again.
Hold off on owning a building and use your resources to train leaders and feed the poor and release your members to serve in the world. Make being the Church more important than "Going to church". When you have the Being the Church built into our DNA refuse to let anyone take that away from you.
Don't expect me to believe that a living room is too small when the world is full of living rooms. Train leaders and expand the mission. Don't expect me to believe that there are no facilities to rent for your gatherings (I don't mean going to church) I mean having a place for the Church to gather. We are still the Church and whn we make disciples who make disciples themselves we have hit the bullseye of success.
If you want success in the eyes of man get bigger budgets, buildings, and more butts in pews. You will then be in bondage to Churchianity! Why would any leader in America want to do what everyone has done and be in bondage to Sunday services that must grow bigger buildings, budgets and butts to keep her going.
I don't "go to church" and "I am part of the Church" we meet in homes and as many homes as it takes every week and we meet in gatherings several times a month for communion and all the other stuff. Our people give and the money fuels the missional purposes of the Great Commission.
We won't build large Church families -we will build Christ followers who can keep the main thing the main thing and make disciples who also make disciples. Our Church family will be whatever we are in many many families. Maybe we will comprise of ten churches of 100 each and maybe 100 of 100 each. Whatever God wants is fine with us. We will not be bound to fund a place to call our own -that's not important -the mission is.
Church planter friends it's true, more buildings, budgets and more butts in pews fuel Churchianity and slows or stops missional Christianity.
Buildings are just tools so why not use someone else's tool for a whole lot less?
7:15 PM
David - We can use buildings or whatever tools for our missional work.
We must not let the tools keep us from or facilitate the same thing we already have in America which has become a self-consuming "come to church and come and see" event held every week.
When I speak of fulfilling the Great Commission I mean let's view the Great Commission with supremacy and have every Christ following actually believe it and engage the purposes of God personally.
I call the "Come & See -Go to Church" instead of making disciples who make disciples themselves "Churchianity".
Missional Christianity engages the Great Commission and all Christ followers live as they "ARE" the Church living incarnationally in the world.
If all Christ followers accepted the Great Commission with supremacy and actually followed it and made disciples who made disciples -America would resemble the early Church in this decade.
12:58 PM
How does all this compare with Jesus' practice?
His most famous sermons were outdoors - away from the rich symbolism of the temple & the synagogue. His regular engagement with the Father was in nature where He would often "slip away". His baptism was in a river by a renegade. His great temptation & entrance into public ministry in the wilderness. His ascension & predicted return on a hilltop amidst olive trees. His Spirit came in some guy's "upper room" & later in Cornelius' home.
We're well aware of the sacred spaces & symbols of Jesus' day; but the bulk of His incarnational ministry happens away from these. He breaks the symbol of Sabbath. He mocks the ritualistic observance of the ultra-religious. He calls fishermen & secularists to be His disciples. He is born in a stable, raised by a carpenter, & lives a sojourner's life & ministry.
How is it that we seemm to draw so diligently from Judaism & Christendom in our theology of space & symbol & yet overlook so thoroughly our own Christ's example?
7:06 PM
It's so wonderful to come across this post. My church in Hollywood, California is wrestling with just this issue. The one thing I've noticed in this thread is that there is an underlying assumption that all missional communities are new and would be considering buying or building. Nothing has been said of church's with a long history that are in the process of becoming missional communities. For my church, the question in not whether to buy or build, but whether to sell or redevelop? I am very much a believer that our presence in a community (especially urban communities) is deeply incarnational - that is, architecture is social construction of the highest order. Anyway, great to know others out there thinking these thoughts.
10:24 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home