Consider the Following

My topic today: what builds a church? Wood, rocks, and stain-glass windows? When we hear the word “church,” most of us think of a big shiny building featuring copious amounts of each of these and other expensive materials. Tall and grand, the wide church doors are generally expected to welcome their masses onto red carpets and into long, uncomfortable wooden pews, to be seated before a majestic organ system adorned with stain-glass windows and a cross big enough to have crucified Goliath.
Okay, let’s be realistic. Most United Churches aren’t this spiffy. So why do we still love them? What is it about a church that truly designates it as a sacred space? Going a little further, if we had to completely demolish every church and reconstruct them on a tight budget, what would we resurrect first? A question similar to this one was asked at Kairos 2008 this August, with around 80 people were lucky enough to get the week off work to attend. The results from this crowd were paradigm-shifting. Here are some of the key conclusions:
Almost nobody mentioned the building as being important.
Little or no priority was given to obtaining money.
The size of the mass was not a large concern.
In fact, the preference was on small, intimate, individual masses as opposed to one large mass. The biggest concerns were related to people: importance was placed on inclusiveness, community outreach, and open doors (or lack thereof, if you’re going with no building). Tearing down walls is better than putting them up, but what about rain and snow? While there was a lot of excitement around the idea of having outdoor services, weather issues were staved with the concept of holding services in the homes of church members. Not necessarily Bob’s place, but Sue’s one week and Wendy’s the next. The idea of having worship over a meal was introduced and hardly contested. Even the music department was opened to some new ideas—not every United churchgoer has a pipe organ in their basement. And hey, who said we had to stick with Sunday mornings? It certainly does sound like a radically different church, but could it really support a mass? Let’s consider the pros and cons.
The pros: it’s new, it’s different, it’s thinking outside the box. This revolutionary out-of-doors church is sure to raise some eyebrows, perhaps enough to attract newcomers who are afraid of enclosed shrines and large crowds. After all, squeezing between two old ladies to join a sea of unfamiliar faces in singing “retro” tunes on a Sunday morning may be a bit much for a green-horned youth looking to wet his or her spiritual feet. The secure, toned-down nature of a small group talking about God over drumsticks and Saint-Saëns symphonies (on an iPod, not an orchestra) would likely be more conducive to attracting new and more youthful members. Of course, it’s also much less expensive, and as the United Church is starting to learn: you can’t have your church and heat it, too.
The cons: it’s new, it’s different, it’s outside the box! Quite a few of us have been in the church our entire lives, and have come to truly appreciate the spiritual shelter it offers—as it is. To take that away from our veteran members now sounds awfully mean. It means the church is going to shrink very quickly over the next couple decades, but hardship is part of the cycle of the church, right? Will our perseverance in keeping the church the way it always has been traditionally not pay off in the end? The United Church has done great things as a United body, and to separate that body doesn’t sound very conducive to survival. Generally, one doesn’t separate their limbs in hopes of living longer. Unless one of those limbs has cancer...okay, so it isn’t a perfect analogy, but you get where I’m going. United we stand, divided we are conquered; conquered by sin, conquered by conflict, conquered by “I’ll just sleep in today and go next Sunday with twice the spunk.”
So there you have it. A vision of the future? A pipe dream? A generally bad idea? It’s up to you to decide.
-Cory Bentley
A Note from Cory.
Cory here. Nice to meet ya. This is my first time writing an article for WHY, but if all goes well I plan to throw in my contribution more often. So I just want to specify one thing: I’m not writing opinion pieces, my only intention is to bring up interesting or controversial subjects. You know, just to get you thinking (though I’m sure you do plenty of that already). I’ll be writing in a fashion as non-biased as possible, and in an effort to equally present both sides of any issue. The objective: you (yes you, in front of the computer) get to think it out, make an opinion, and debate it with other WHY readers or fellow church-going theologians. Sound good? I hope so, ‘cause if it doesn’t then you won’t like my articles very much. :P