Non-Building-Centred Church

 

KCBC has gone back online for church services. This is not in response to any government dictum. Indeed, they have officially allowed corporate worship, of all religions, to continue. But, due to increasing infections, it seems the responsible reaction to cancel physical services, to defeat the virus, as well as protecting our own attenders.

 

However, the response of some Christians is negative. In our discussions, some would clearly prefer to keep the building open for regular worship, because they see it as necessary for our mission, to preach the gospel. No doubt, as one RE teacher said to me, our buildings are our most visible religious symbol in society; but some of this attachment is due to a long held sentiment regarding familiar premises.

Part of this derives from the religious spirit which affects/infects all Christian groups, whereby a building become a sacred object. This is a betrayal of the NT spirit (see my previous post). One cause (perhaps) is the confusion (in English) behind the word ‘church’. The etymological derivation of this is from the German, rather than the (Biblical) Greek: here kirche means literally ‘the god’s house’. So we can see clearly how people may regard it as a sacred place/space.

The Greek, ekklesia, makes its meaning clearer in other languages (Portuguese – Igreja; French – Eglise; Turkish – kilice). Originating as the word for the Greek city state’s town meeting, it means literally ‘called out’, and hence called out for a ‘gathering’ or ‘assembly’, for deliberation and decision-making. At an immediate level, this puts a premium on our meetings. We are enjoined in Scripture, therefore, not to neglect “meeting together” (He. 10.25), because exactly this “meeting” is a means of “encouraging” each other.

This is a challenge to western individualistic notions of faith. Here we are told to make a personal decision to follow Jesus, but often the corporate aspect is missed out: following Jesus means following together with his people, having him as King involves committing to his kingdom, and therefore the community of his kingdom.

In London, however, and other cities, there are many disconnected Christians: they have a genuine relationship with Christ, but belong to no visible body of believers. If all of these were gathered together, the church would have a sizeable body of members, and perhaps greater effectiveness in society and mission. The question might be, however, whether the problem is theirs, that they fail to attend church, or ours, that we fail to attract, interest, or care for, all the sheep in ways they can receive? In other words, is it because we exclude those we should include?

We must careful, however, in adopting, or imposing a radical, non-building-centred ecclesiology on our churches. It is often the well-educated, westernised, affluent who can cope with this. The poorer, more marginalised, frequently immigrant, church members, seem to need the security of traditional church buildings; coming often from traditional cultures, and traditional churches, the building is also a source of stability and safety for otherwise excluded people.