It’s Time to Rebuild the Church

Although Martin Van Beynen has a reputation of infamy due to sticking his nose often in very sensitive areas, I have to admit that he does have some valid points in his article “Save Space Just One Church Should Cover it”. That being said many of them would be near impossible to implement. Propositions such as the churches should “pool their money to build one building to serve all...their parishioners” are unrealistic at best.  Each congregation get attached to their church, as it’s their spiritual home, it has a special significance in their soul. It is often hard for congregations to determine what makes church, however, we need to remember that the church is “the body of Christ”, and we, the people make up the church and the building is merely for comfort and convenience. 

One area where the church is constantly in catch up mode is communication. Communication isn’t limited to verbal dialogue but to any aspect of church which conveys a message. What the congregation wears to church services conveys a message, what ethnicity is most dominate in a congregation conveys a message, who is in leadership conveys a message, but one that we so often forget is the building itself which also conveys a message. The design of a church gives an impression of its function and relevance to the wider community, likewise how regularly the complex is used and for what function also communicates an idea about that church congregation itself.

All of the buildings which Beynen mentioned in his article, were out of date with modern architecture, not just in style but also in their functional design. For this reason I hope that Beynen’s “nightmare scenario” never happens and churches adopt a more stylistic and systematic approach in their future designs. In this regard I think that the Christchurch Cathedrals congregation are on the right track in their brief “to design a building that would be sustainable, environmentally friendly, safe, durable, beautiful, innovative and versatile”. However, their temporary complex the “Cardboard Cathdredal” will cost $4 000 000 and therefore isn’t cost effective and is a waste of the congregations money and a waste of the potential resources that could be devoted to community earthquake victims. A point made in the comments section by “Bill” mentioned that “if Christians mean what they preach they should build modestly or share premises and use their insurance payouts to benefit the need”.

I think that Bill makes a great point; these churches should build modestly and ensure that the community will also benefit from the complex. This also is highlighted in the plans of the Cardboard Cathedral which wish to “carry on the Cathedral’s tradition of open hospitality and would [want it to] be a focus for a number of community ventures” and purposes, such as concerts, exhibitions, memorial services. However, does this miss the point of the church? Shouldn’t the church be actively living out Christ’s ministry, rather than providing an entertainment venue for the city? Now is the time to define the church as Christ’s body, by meeting the needs of the community and not meeting behind closed doors discussing the future of the church building. Why does the general populace see the church as beyond its expiry date? It’s because of the Christianity of judgementalism and exclusivism, that we are seen as flogging a dead horse. Let’s show them that the church is alive and kicking, let’s show them that the church is relevant to this day and has a desire to help rather than hinder, to encourage rather than judge. Therefore let’s cast aside our differences and denominations and practice what we preach.

Oscar Wilde once said, that “When liberty comes with hands dabbled in blood it is hard to shake hands with her”. The events of July 22^nd in Norway demonstrated how one person’s liberty can impinge on so many others exercising their most fundamental liberty, the right to live. Anders Behring Breivk (32) was responsible for the car bomb in downtown Oslo which killed 8 and the massacre of 69 victims on the nearby island of Utøya.

After such an event, the first question on everyone’s lips is always why? Breivk’s motivation was revealed in a 1500 page manifesto which he published hours before the events of the 22^nd, where he elaborated of a “Muslim invasion” and a “cultural Marxism” which he believed was threatening Norway and the rest of Europe. It has also established through this text that the basis for his beliefs were a form of Christian fundamentalism. When I first head of this at this I cringed and thought how could someone have missed the point of Christ’s ministry so extremely? How could they align themselves in a belief which is supposed to supersede racial, cultural and political boundaries not widen them?


However Henry Thomas Buckle’s statement that “Society prepares the crime, the criminal commits it” puts an interesting spin on the Norway killings. Although it was Breivk who committed these atrocious crimes, it was society’s discontent of Muslims which motivated him to commit them in the first place. Now don’t get me wrong, it was his choice to enact out this bloody solution, but this discontent has been fostered by the negative publicity of Muslims.


The West has adopted an ‘us and them’ approach to Muslims, the challenge for this world and particularly the church is to rethink racial issues and remember that we are not in a religious war. We need to keep in mind what Ephesians 6:12 says, “For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rules, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms”. I bring this up as some have begun to speculate that the events of Norway were a part of God’s judgement on the country. I think that these people are missing the point that we aren’t in a battle between religions or between cultures, but in a battle against the demonic realm.


If we want to share the good news then public opinion is not going to assist us, if that was the case then Christ had no reason to come 2000 years ago. His insights transcended any life style or frame of mind which humanity had ever come up with. Human understanding can so easily be influenced from ungodly sources. Breivk is a great example of this; he was so devoted to his beliefs that he was willing to put them into practice in the most direct and way possible. There is evidence to show that these operations took years to plan. But it seems such a shame that someone can be so devoted to such a destructive cause and so determined to inflict damage on fellow human beings. What we need to remember is that if one person can achieve so much for a negative cause, then imagine what we can achieve in the name of the 'good news'?

Rose March in Central Oslo