Friday, October 27, 2006

Why Evangelicals Have Naked Churches (part 3)

Thus far I have given two reasons why evangelicals have naked churches. First, evangelicals have a tendency to ignore the Old Testament, or at the very least reduce its significance for the life of the church. Second, evangelicals have over reacted to Roman Catholicism. Any thing that smacks of Rome must be “purified” from the church. (See my blog entries below, as well as a few excellent comments from others.)

The third reason evangelicals have naked churches is what I will call an erroneous understanding of the first-century church setting which often results in what has been called New Testament primitivism. The term “primitive” or “primitivism,” when used in church history typically refers to any effort to restore the simplicity of worship described in the first century or New Testament church. More extreme views result in arguments that oppose worship structures all together and call for a return to what is often called a “house-church model.”

So the argument goes something like this: “The early church didn’t own church buildings. They met in simple homes and worshipped in plain style. Later (after the NT era), when the church became rich and corrupt, they built ornate places of worship.” Of course, a more consistent argument might be, “The early church didn’t own church buildings – so neither should we!” (Some have in fact made this argument!)

A better understanding of the historical and cultural setting of the first century church will help explain why we don’t have Christian church buildings in the very early church. When the church came into being, they did not build places of worship for one simple reason: They continued to worship in the beauty of the Temple in all its magnificent glory. (For example, even after the establishment of the church, Peter continues to go to the Temple to pray [see Acts 3:1] and Paul often preached in the Temple.) There was no need to tell them to build buildings – they already had them! When the church was established it was not a separate group outside of the Jewish community, but a special group within the Jewish community. (This is why Saul – later to become Paul – was commissioned to excommunicate Christians from the synagogues.)

It is true that the early church met in homes, but these “home gatherings” were intended to augment their regular pattern of worship on the Sabbath. Home gatherings were usually held the next day (on Sunday) in the evening, since for most people Sunday was a regular work day. (Remember, their Savior was a Jew, their early leaders were Jews, and their scriptures were Jewish.) As more and more Gentiles came into the church, and Jewish persecution increased in an effort to purge Christians from their ranks, the church eventually became a separate entity.

After the church became a separate community (c. 70 AD), they continued their meetings on Sunday, typically in the homes of wealthy church members. (These would be the only homes large enough to have large “upper rooms” where 75-150 could gather at one time.) Because of persecution by both Jews and Romans, constructing their own public places of worship proved to be very difficult. Excavations have unearthed some places of Christian worship in the 200s that are decorated with mosaics and early Christian symbols, though some places may have been constructed earlier. After Constantine came to the throne and persecution subsided in the early 300s, places of worship became numerous and were often very elaborate.

In brief, we cannot use the argument that we should not have beautiful church buildings because the early church did not have beautiful church buildings. If we are going to use this argument, we should do away with buildings altogether – and while we are at it start requiring women to wear head coverings, initiate the “kiss of peace,” return communion to an actual meal, and require foot washing when people enter for worship. The early church did worship in beautiful buildings – the Temple, the synagogues, the homes of the wealthy, and after persecution, their own decorated places of worship.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Amen! Why do we need to get so upset and angry over beautiful worship spaces? Did God not bless us with the talents and materials to provide for a beautiful place to worship? I've also been in Catholic churches that are no different materially than here at Calvary. Why do we look at the Catholic Church as if every church building is like St. Peter's Basilica? What a strong misconception.
Granted that the church has been corrupt but that is not to assume that it has been corrupt for the entire 2000 year history. Why is the Catholic church is so appalling? The Evangelical church has a lot to learn from the Catholic church and vice versa is just as much true. Neither one is even close to perfect.
We are called to" love our neighbor" but we can't even put our differences(whether great or small) aside and love a fellow Christian. That's sad and a real disgrace to the Body of Christ. Obviously to some(hopefully only a few), any noticeable identity to the Catholic Church, whether it be in liturgy or church decor is almost sacreligious. That scares me as a Christian and hopefully it does to you as well.

Anonymous said...

Bottom line! This two word sentence has a negative meaning in some cases but there is a great deal of difference between Catholic and the Evangelical Church,and that is doctrine. Doctrine can and does change everything. It changes your destination, what you debate over and yes the structure of the building. Let us love supremely all for all the right reasons and may it change the structure of our debates and draw those that need transformation. Bottom line.