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All of the buildings which Beynen mentioned in his article, were out of date with modern architecture, not just in style but also in their functional design.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.
HI J.J.
ReplyDeleteSome great thoughts here. It's an old age conversation really isn't it? Why are there so many denominations? Why can't they all just combine together and work as one if they are Christians.
I like your point about defining the role of the church as the body of Christ, rather than the church (in this case the cathedral) as an entertainment point. I geuss the issue is that people like Van Beyen aren't seeing the body of Christ move around and is scratching around for some area of relevance that the church may still have to offer....entertainment seems a strange choice. Or Maybe not, when you see churches advertising on the motorway maybe it is about entertainment?
Hey Luke,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comments and reflections! It really is an old age conversation, although I think it's just as relevant as back then. It's more important than ever that we settle our differences once and for all, by working for a common cause. It would take a lot of like minded individuals from different denominations who were in leadership to instigate this, so I'm not holding my breath.
That's a great insight there, I think Van Beynen has a score to settle with the church. Although if he was to look he could find significance, however small. The Salvation Army is a great example, but also the amount of Christians who work for organisations such as Tear Fund and World Vision. Parachute is a great organisation to include in this, as it's festival raises funds for overseas projects, promotes New Zealand talent, it also provides a safe Christian Music Festival, but the wider organisation are raising awareness on world issues while providing opportunities for New Zealand music prodigies.
Yes entertainment does seem a strange choice, although if we acknowledge our hedonistic society and how the church tries to cater for by performing a stage show during the service then that makes some sense. But as you mentioned perhaps it's all about publicity and the best way to raise attention to the church is to be controversial or conformative. Either way we're walking into a trap though, as this could feed our stereotype even further.
Great post! And I totally agree with the gettting together of the Church; being one in Christ as a body etc. Although I am not sure if denominations is so much a threat to this as it is made out, I see the denominations as a good thing, not entirely but more towards...hmm a different discussion I think in regards to the article. Why? because I think a more urgent issue in regards to the article- which I am more concerned for - is the same religions under the same roof? Am I the only one finding this uncomfortable? What I see is the article is calling for all "religions" in the same place? That is more of a hurdle to engage in.
ReplyDeleteHey Raymond, thanks for contributing your thoughts to this topic. I think denominations isn't such a threat, more a catalyst of our divisive spirit and our divergence from God's intentions. A united spirit allows the church to be more effective, the reverse is not true. I am uncertain about different religions coexisting, I'm an idealist and I think Christians can learn a lot from different religions. That being said I don't think Martin Van Beynen was saying that having all religions worshipping at the same time in the same place and likewise all denominations worshiping at the same time in the same place. But rather that they could pool their resources towards having a communal building which could serve all their needs (not wants). The Body of Christ is his people, we can make ends meet in any building, God will still be present. For that reason I would be less concerned about the above scenario. Although that's also because Christian's would never consent to the suggested scenario anyway.
ReplyDelete