The Church Building

On 30^th 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, 2^nd Ed, p1169.

³ New Bible Dictionary, 2^nd Ed, p82.

⁴ But the work continued until AD 64.

⁵ New Bible Dictionary, 2^nd 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.