Mushroom
Puritan Board Doctor
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?
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?
