# Church Building - Sacred in Any Way?



## Mushroom (Feb 14, 2011)

Sproul, in his series Dust to Glory, talked about the 'sacrilization' of times and space by the Lord. An example of sacrilized time would be the annual celebration of the Passover, and that of space would be the temple. The tabernacle and its furnishing were to be handled as sacred.

As we were discussing this in Sunday School, the question arose of how our building differed from the tabernacle. There were answers about how all were welcome now, and that there were no longer blood sacrifices made, but when I answered that it was not to be sacrilized (which seemed the most obvious answer to me), there was some antagonism to that statement. I asked for clarification, i.e. are we to consider the building sacred, and the RE who was leading the class stated that it was sacred in some ways, which brought a general nod of agreement from most of the class. I was flabbergasted, so I let it go.

But the question then arises, sacred things are to be treated differently than common, so how am I to treat this edifice differently than say, my own home, or the Doctor's office building, or any other structure? The law is replete with instructions on how we should respect the property of others and be good stewards over our own, so it seems a good and necessary consequence to treat buildings with the respect due its owners. Could it be said that God is the owner of a Church building (which would surprise the bank that holds the mortgage), and so it should be treated differently due to that fact? And if so, how would that look? Should I take my shoes off when I enter, as was required of Moses at the burning bush?

Or is my first thought biblical, that we are not Romans, and that a building is a building, to be treated with respect, but never idolized by 'sacrilizing' it? And is there any decent Reformed commentary addressing this issue?


----------



## N. Eshelman (Feb 14, 2011)

It's just a building. God's Spirit resides in the people of the Church; not the property of the Church.


----------



## py3ak (Feb 14, 2011)

The building is used for a sacred activity (worship), but the worship isn't tied to the place. You could worship just as truly, though not as conveniently, at the local dump; but that wouldn't make the area behind the 14 bedbug-riddled mattresses sacred.


----------



## Jack K (Feb 14, 2011)

Your phrase "treated with respect" is better than calling the building "sacred." God's people are his sacred space in the world today, not any building. But since the building is used for the worship of God, a measure of extra respect and feelings of deep appreciation for it are understandable. These may be appropriate, provided we keep a clear difference between worshipping God and idolizing either the building or the experiences we have inside it.

You were right. We don't take off our shoes to enter the building, as if God were more present there than he is within us. The OT Temple was home to a particular manifestation of God's presence. That's what made it sacred. Today's church building has no such special presence of God until his Spirit-filled people arrive and bring it.


----------



## Mushroom (Feb 14, 2011)

py3ak said:


> The building is used for a sacred activity (worship), but the worship isn't tied to the place. You could worship just as truly, though not as conveniently, at the local dump; but that wouldn't make the area behind the 14 bedbug-riddled mattresses sacred.


So this answers the question?:
WCF 21:6 
Neither prayer, nor any other part of religious worship, is now, under the gospel, either tied unto, or made more acceptable by any place in which it is performed, or towards which it is directed: but God is to be worshiped everywhere, in spirit and truth; as, in private families daily, and in secret, each one by himself; so, more solemnly in the public assemblies, which are not carelessly or willfully to be neglected, or forsaken, when God, by his Word or providence, calleth thereunto.


----------



## py3ak (Feb 14, 2011)

I would certainly think so, Brad. John 4 seems pretty clear to me. I suppose it's not unnatural that the place consistently used for a sacred activity comes to seem sacred, but if for some bizarre combination of circumstances you met in a different place every single week that wouldn't affect the truth or spirituality of your worship at all.


----------



## AThornquist (Feb 14, 2011)

The answers have been helpful so far. Some probing questions might help too: is a building exclusively used for worship more pleasing to God than a building that is rented each Sunday morning? If you say 'yes,' can you defend that from Scripture? Would congregations that meet in houses be making someone's home "sacred space"? And so on. I'm with brother Ruben, John 4 is enlightening on this point.


----------



## Skyler (Feb 14, 2011)

The Lord's Supper was first held in a rented building.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Feb 14, 2011)

A building that is _dedicated_ to the public worship of God, even by a memorable occasion, has not become "sacred space" by that dedication.

When WE commit a certain place to religious use, it does not become "sacred." That's because WE can't make _anything_ sacred. Israel, for example, could only sacralize what God directed them to sacralize. In other words, they recognized those persons, places, and things as sacred which God had declared his propriety in.

We should treat our worship-houses with respect. I hope you treat your School houses with respect. I must insist that you treat your Courthouses with respect. But these places are not "sacred," no, not even the church-building.

Some Christians may use the sacred idea erroneously, others may use it in a "generic" way (whereby they only mean a religious use, the way they might use "political" to describe a governmental use). I don't recommend our using the idea at all for our worship and Christian-communal spaces.

Let us reserve the language for the things that God has charged as sacred in his word.


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 14, 2011)

I have heard several pastors I know criticize several local churches who built a multi-use building instead of a church building and used it for worship on Sunday and then sports the rest of the week. My thoughts were that it was a good idea to be frugal, but they took it as an evidence of a low view towards the church.


----------



## Romans922 (Feb 14, 2011)

Perhaps we should reconsider calling the 'meeting room' the 'sanctuary'....

Maybe we should just call it like the puritans, 'the meeting room/house'


----------



## Skyler (Feb 14, 2011)

Romans922 said:


> Perhaps we should reconsider calling the 'meeting room' the 'sanctuary'....
> 
> Maybe we should just call it like the puritans, 'the meeting room/house'



Or, if it's really run down, you could call it 'the shack'.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Feb 14, 2011)

The Westminster Assembly's Directory for Public Worship in the Appendix states:As no place is capable of any holiness, under pretence of whatsoever dedication or consecration; so neither is it subject to such pollution by any superstition formerly used, and now laid aside, as may render it unlawful or inconvenient for Christians to meet together therein for the publick worship of God. And therefore we hold it requisite, that the places of publick assembling for worship among us should be continued and employed to that use.​George Gillespie addresses the subject of building dedications and supposed sacredness of them in his English Popish Ceremonies. 
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/5776344/EPCpt3-1-165-169.pdf
At the link is a PDF of the section on this subject, from my forthcoming new edition (second bite at the apple so to speak). Looking at 2013 pub date for the 400th anniversary of Gillespie's birth, D.V. Main work is about done (tracing all the references, adding material etc.); just refining, proofing remain, and waiting on an important preface which is to explain what in the work remains relevant and how for our days.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Feb 14, 2011)

Joshua said:


> If I'm not mistaken, Sproul has advocated sentiments such as there being "holy space"! : eek:



You are not mistaken. And yes, EEK! I have visited St. Andrews and am convinced that Sproul's worship was more Lutheran than Reformed. Just my humble opinion. 

---------- Post added at 05:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:15 PM ----------




Pergamum said:


> they took it as an evidence of a low view towards the church.



That would be determined by what actually took place during the time the building was being used for _worship_ not when it wasn't.

---------- Post added at 05:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:20 PM ----------




Romans922 said:


> Perhaps we should reconsider calling the 'meeting room' the 'sanctuary'....
> 
> Maybe we should just call it like the puritans, 'the meeting room/house'



Indeed. I conscientiously refer to our building as the "Church _house_" and not the Church. When I welcome the congregation on Sunday mornings, I say "Welcome to this _gathering_ of the Smith Street Baptist Church." So no matter where we meet, the church is gathered, and it is there regardless of the building we're in.

This one thing I love about many of the old Separatist meeting houses in England. They look like houses and taverns rather than ornate, Gothic cathedrals.


----------



## Mushroom (Feb 14, 2011)

Many helpful thoughts and references. Thanks, brothers.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Feb 14, 2011)

See Sproul's comments here:

SermonAudio.com - Media Player

23:32 minutes in he asks Pastors present if persons entering the sanctuary have a sense that they are entering "a whole new mileu...a sense of the presence of the Holy"

I don't think from this one can conclude he advocates the building has become holy ground.

I am not familiar with him having written differently, and would like some quotations if some could be located.

AMR


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Feb 14, 2011)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> I am not familiar with him having written differently, and would like some quotations if some could be located.



He clearly promotes the concept of "Holy space" in the last chapter of _The Holiness of God_. Sproul writes,



> In our contemporary experience, we experience holy space in church sanctuaries. The biblical word _church_ refers to people, not buildings. Yet when people gather for worship, they need a physical place of meeting. Becuase the church building is the place deigned for worship, we have come to abbriviate the term _church building_ as simply _church_. In this sense, churches are designed and built to serve as a kind of sacred space reserved for a place of encounter with the holy. ...
> 
> It can be argued that such threshold thinking obscures the biblical truth that God is omnipresent and that all creation is sacred as the theatre of God's operations. But the Bible is much more positive about the idea of space. The consecration of sacred space does not end with the close of the Old Testament. it is rooted and grounded in the act of creation itself, and something profoundly important to the human spirit is lost when it is neglected.



He goes on to talk about sites of significance in church and biblical history. He says these places are holy because "they were touched by his presence." However, for all this, his arguments make no spicific reference to NT teaching and are more based on an appeal to the "human experience."


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Feb 14, 2011)

CM,

Could you provide the specific chapter for this? When reviewing Chapter 9 of Sproul's book, c.1985, the last chapter, _God In The Hands Of Angry Sinners_, I do not find this material.

AMR


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Feb 14, 2011)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> CM,
> 
> Could you provide the specific chapter for this? When reviewing Chapter 9 of Sproul's book, c.1985, the last chapter, God In The Hands Of Angry Sinners, I do not find this material.
> 
> AMR



In my copy of _The Holiness of God_, its in chapter eleven titled, _"Holy Space & Holy Time."_


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Feb 15, 2011)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> In my copy of The Holiness of God, its in chapter eleven titled, "Holy Space & Holy Time."


Thanks. Must be the second edition version.

AMR


----------

