On 30th March 2013, BBC
reported, “…the doors of St John's
Episcopal Church are open to hundreds of Muslim worshippers, arriving for daily
prayers. The familiar sounds of Christian hymns have been replaced with Islamic
prayer in the chapel this Friday lunchtime and the church priest with the imam
from the neighbouring mosque.” 1 What’s your response to this? Some
would welcome such a move, others may not have a view, and some traditional
christians may express shock, disbelief, anger, and disappointment.
I once believed that ‘church’ referred
to the building in which christian worship services are held. Little did I know
then that the church is the community of the believers of the Lord Jesus
Christ.
To understand this, let’s explore the
Old Testament temple, which I believe is the precursor to the modern day church
worship (I will not touch upon the “tent of meeting.”). Outside of
sociopolitical compulsions, David considered the temple construction as a
dwelling place for God, the Ark of the Covenant and the Tent of Meeting and its
sacred furnishings (2 Samuel 7: 2, 5, 13; 1 Kings 8: 3-4), but Solomon built it.
The holiness was ascribed to the temple when the Ark of the Covenant, Tent of
Meeting and its sacred furnishings (institutional representations) were in the
Most Holy Place, and when the glory of the Lord filled the temple (1 Kings 8:
10-12; 2 Chronicles 5, 7: 1-3). There was a tangible manifestation of God in
the temple. Hence, the temple, without its institutional representations and
the tangible manifestation of God, would not have acquired the intense holiness.
As days passed, the temple was used as
state treasury, “emptied to pay tribute
or filled and decorated with booty according to the power of the land.”
2 Let us also bear in mind that the Ark of the Covenant was “presumably lost during the destruction of
Jerusalem by the Babylonians in 587 BC. There was no ark in the second temple
(Josephus, BJ 5. 219).” 3 Finally this temple was destroyed by
the invading Babylonians.
A vision of a new temple was given to
Ezekiel, but was not built according to the vision (Ezekiel 40-43). The second
temple was built, but its foundations were apparently inferior to the first
temple (Ezra 3: 12; Haggai 2: 3). Antiochus IV Epiphanes set up a pagan altar
or statue, which the triumphant Maccabees cleansed (1 Maccabees 4: 36-59). The
institutional representations in the Holy Place were limited to the
seven-branched candelabrum, the table of showbread, and the incense altar. This
temple lacked the glory of the Lord that was present in the first temple. The main
structure of Herod’s temple (third temple) was completed in 9 BC.4 This
temple was destroyed in AD 70 by Romans. The candelabrum, the table of
showbread, and other objects were carried to Rome. This temple too lacked the
glory of the Lord. Thus the second and the third temples without the tangible
manifestations of God lacked the intense holiness that was present in the first
temple (cf. after centuries of covenant disloyalty, the Lord withdrew HIS
presence - Ezekiel 8: 6, 10:18).
The Lord Jesus had two opposing views of
the temple, on one hand he respected it and on the other hand he relegated the
temple to a subordinate position. HE called the temple the “house of God” and
considered it holy (Matthew 12:4, 23: 17, 21; John 2:16-17). On the other hand,
Christ taught that HE was greater than the temple (Matthew 12: 6), and deemed
the temple as an umbrella for Israel’s spiritual emptiness (Mark 11: 12-26).5
Christ also proclaimed the temple’s destruction (Mark 13: 1-2), thus indicating
the unworthiness of the obstinate Judaism of the divine presence of God
incarnate – the Lord Jesus Christ. Thus the new temple was established in the
congregation of believers of Christ (Matthew 18: 20; John 14: 23).
The Greek word “ekklesia” represents the
New Testament church. Etymologically “ekklesia” means “to call out.” This
supports the biblical doctrine of the church as a people called out, and
separated from the world by God. “Specific Christian Assembly” is the New
Testament meaning of the word “ekklesia.” The New Testament uses “ekklesia” in
the sense of the ‘local church’ and ‘universal church.’ It is certainly not
used for a Church building, or a particular denomination.
Christ, standing in the temple precincts
called out people to HIMSELF (John 7: 37-38). HE emphatically stated HIMSELF as
the temple (John 2: 21). Further, the body of the believers is also stated as the
temple of the living God (1 Corinthians 6: 19; cf. Romans 12: 1-2). Therefore,
the temple made of flesh and blood replaced the temple made of stones. We do
not go into the temple to worship God, but we carry the temple to worship God
in the community of the saints. This is the church.
So how do I respond to the sharing of
the church building with the muslims? Do I vote for people or the building?
Since 2003, I did not consider the church
as a building. I lived this belief and experienced the public wrath of the traditional
christians. I was awarded a 6-month suspension from public worship, for providing
oversight to an evangelistic hard rock concert that was held in the “church
building.” The traditional christians considered this radical evangelistic
event (where the gospel was proclaimed) as sacrilege, and even went to the
extent of cleansing the church precincts of evil spirits.6 They
disregarded people for the sake of the building!
Having been raised in the mainstream
church that considers the building holy, it was initially difficult for me to
comprehend such a radical deed of sharing the worship place with another faith
community. But the building has lesser spiritual significance than people, so
why not?
When 2 or 3 gather at my home to worship
God, my home is a church building. I do have muslim friends, and would welcome
any of them to stay at my home. But I would not prevent them from worshipping at
my home, if such a need arises. If my muslim friend can worship at my home, then
what prevents me from allowing muslims to worship from the church building?
Many christian worship services are
being held in larger halls of hotels. In a hotel, there is a good possibility
for a simultaneous occurrence of a christian worship, muslim worship, and even
a sinful deed of a man satisfying his lust with a sex worker. Would the latter two
destroy the sanctity of a christian worship? I don’t think so.
Many muslim countries have allowed the
existence of churches. If such is their benevolence, why should a church close
its doors to muslims? Shouldn’t the christian community also be benevolent?
These are however my secondary reasonings.
My primary reasoning is as follows:
(1) The universe is God’s dwelling place
(cf. Isaiah 66:1; Acts 7: 49).
(2) The existential reality showcases God’s
freedom to people to worship any entity of their choice irrespective of HIS
pleasure, and that from within HIS dwelling place.
(3) If God says ‘yes’ to conflicting
worship from within HIS dwelling place, why should man say ‘no,’ especially
when the sacredness of worship has been taken out of building and brought into
the realm of human body?
If the choice is between the building and
people, my vote any day would be for the people. Do you agree or disagree?
Please state your views, in case of disagreement.
May God bless us all. Amen.
References:
1
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-21953899
2 New Bible Dictionary, 2nd
Ed, p1169.
3 New Bible Dictionary, 2nd
Ed, p82.
4 But the work continued until AD 64.
5 New Bible Dictionary, 2nd
Ed, p1171.
6 This christian outreach event was
deemed evil, because the hard rock (performed by christians) and its elements
were considered evil.
Useful
reads:
1.
http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionaries/bakers-evangelical-dictionary/temple.html
2.
Pagan Christianity, Frank Viola & George Barna.
