Permit this heresy: There is no mention of a church owning a building in the New Testement. I’m not saying it’s unbiblical to own a church building, I just think its worth it is worth thinking about.
What would church look like with no building? How would programs change? How would staffing change? How would worship services change? How would staff meetings change?
How would church finances change? How much more mission could you do without building maintanence? Without a mortgage? Without property insurance? How much less stuff would you buy, in general if you had to store it at your house?
How would your community change? If it changed the zoning of church property to commerical or residential? If that space became a public park? If that building became used as a community center?
I’m not saying that churches shouldn’t have buildings. I’m just saying that for some congregations the benefit of having property is not outweighed by the negative impact on the congregations mission and finances.
{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }
Surely, if it’s not mentioned in the bible, then it is unbiblical?
that’s not really an inference I want to run with too far. But I think it’s worth imagining church without property. Certain, Jesus didn’t point to Peter and say “on this rock I will build my church” and mean, no… really, on this rock we’ll build a church!
But where will the Pastor’s office be? And how will people know where to find us?
^sarcasm^
this is the kind of heresy that I dig about adam mclane!
Thanks for your thought provoking post.
Here are my thoughts.