Should God Live In His Car?
February 13, 2008 Posted by David N
On more than one occasion in the past year I've heard the sentiment (mostly from pastors) that we should have church on the grass and give all of what would otherwise be the “building fund” money to the poor. People who say things like this generally tell glowing stories about members of their congregation who do “radical” things like sell most of their worldly possessions and move to the mission field. In one such story, a young man sold most of his stuff and was now living in his car.
Now, just so we're clear up front, I think that's pretty awesome. I really admire that kid (the one living in his car because he took Jesus' command to care for the poor seriously), and there are times when I pray for that kind of courage. But when I hear things like, “Let's give away the building money and have church on the grass”, one of my first thoughts is, “So, should God live in his car?”
That may sound a tad bit cynical, but think about it. All things considered, which is easier, selling your church building or selling your own house? It seems to me that it's actually very easy to say, “Oh, we should give all the building money to the poor” because that won't affect you at all. You were already giving that money to the building fund, and when your church is gone, you'll still have all of your worldly possessions, only now you'll feel really good about having taken part in giving millions of dollars (if you're a big church) to the poor.
My bigger problem with this sentiment, however, is its attitude toward God. Whenever it comes to things like dressing nice for church, we're very quick to throw out platitudes about how God is only concerned with our hearts and not our outward appearance. “God doesn't care what I wear to church” they will say. To which I respond, “No, but you should.”
It's almost as if we're saying, “God doesn't need us to build a special place for us to meet Him and fellowship with Him. He doesn't care where we have church.” Perhaps not, but we should.
In 2 Samuel 7:1-2, we read:
Even though God would turn David down (and give the project to his son, Solomon), David's heart is in the right place. He sees that his own palace is greater than the place where God's very presence on Earth was supposed to dwell, and he's upset by this.
The church is meant to be the meeting place of God and His people. What the church looks like, what kind of art decorates it, its size and shape; all these things communicate something to the people in the church. The building itself is a theological statement. What statement are we making if we have none at all?
Related posts:
- "Calvin's Legacy" Conference at WSC (Jan 16-17): Live Blog
- Tax Madness
- Ravi Zacharias Live
- 2009 Ligonier Conference: Live Webcast
- We’re live at The Christian Web Conference
- Your Best Life Then
Posted in Culture, David's Posts, Emerging / Emergent Church, Main Page, Theology
content rss
February 13th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
It's not that I disagree with you. It's just that the vast majority of people would never be radical in giving away their possessions to love the poor. The default for most would be to do the building fund and build bigger and nicer churches, so that people are awed at how beautiful the stones are (Mark 13.1).
We may admire the kid living in his car, and we may even be right to think that that's not for everyone. However, most of us would never think twice to do that thing. We would be too quick to rationalize why we should spend the money on more beautiful churches.
February 13th, 2008 at 11:35 pm
Hey EE, thanks for the comment.
I completely agree. What I said can be taken to the opposite extreme very quickly.
But the way I see it, most evangelicals today, even if they wouldn't sell their church building and have church on the grass, would definately settle for an ugly, functionally-designed building for fear of “wasting” money on things like art. Most people may not be saying “we shouldn't build a church”, but a LOT of people are saying “we shouldn't spend money to make the church we have look beautiful” and I think that's just as bad.
Can we end up wasting money trying to make our churches look TOO beautiful? Probably. But I think that a lot of people just end up creating a false dichotomy, where it has to be either a beautiful piece of artwork or a hot meal for a homeless guy. I just don't think, most of the time, that we have to make such a choice.
February 14th, 2008 at 9:22 am
I'll agree and disagree with you on this one. There is rarely a false dichotomy. A dollar spent on (A) is not a dollar spent on (B). If you buy the tapestry, you have not relieved suffering. (I don't care how, abortion, hunger, disease…)
Now I'll agree. We need builidings. And they need to be decorated. But lets do that with our eye's wide open. A church budget is a fundamentally theological ducument because it illistrates what we value. Budgets and dollars demand choices. They can't be two places at once.
February 14th, 2008 at 9:40 am
I fully agree with your comments. I personally think many churches have gone too far in assuring people God doesn't care what you wear, just as long as you are there. Maybe he doesn't, but they should. Dressing nicely for church was always a sign of respect, we are after all going to the Lord's house. And his house should be nice, because he deserves it from us, not because he needs it. Many churches have gotten away from showing honor to the Lord and Giver of all things, and so therefore have the people attending their churches.
February 14th, 2008 at 9:53 am
Two more thoughts
hron 6:18
“But will God really dwell on earth with men? The heavens, even the highest heavens, cannot contain you. How much less this temple I have built!
Rev 21:3
“Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God.
Neither of these verses, when taken in context, directly address this matter of God and contemporary church buildings, but they do speak to a larger reality I think we agree on. That Christ is the head of the church and has given us the Holy Spirit as a guarantee of what is to come. Meaning that buildings are so secondary.
So your title, I think you know this, it's not really accurate.
But your point about pastors (I am one) giving the building fund and not of themselves, that is a cogent point, one that really strikes home for me.
February 14th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
that should read “Chron” as in Chronicles 6:18
February 15th, 2008 at 3:28 am
David, I really appreciate your comments. I understand your point, and I fully agree. There will definately be many, many situations in which the building and its aesthetics will not be as important as other concerns, such as feeding the hungry. I'm merely trying to speak to what I see as a misplaced focus in much of evangelicalism today.
Just to motivate my claim about the false dichotomy a little bit, I had in mind something a professor of mine said about a year ago in a chapel. He had just come back from a missions trip to India and was talking about how it changed his perspectives. Before, all he seemed to care about were things like a $3,000 plasma TV. Now he realizes that $3,000 could feed a whole village in some countries. He was talking about having the right priorities. But then he stopped and said, “You know what though? Here in America, most people are more wealthy than they like to think. And the truth is, if I was diligent with my money, I could buy the TV AND feed the village.”
Obviously, when it comes down to it, money spent on A is not money spent on B. But I think what I was trying to get at was the idea that, especially in America, most people could have both A and B. So our churches could probably feed the poor and look beautiful, if we sacrificed a few personal comforts. But what ends up happening is that people want their personal comforts, and so it's the money that is left that must either go to feeding the poor or decorating the church. At which point we are forced to say, “Well, feeding the hungry is more important than having pretty pictures on the church wall.” I think you see my point. If it must be one or the other, than yes, Jesus would have us care for the poor. It just doesn't seem like it has to be one or the other, most of the time.
Thanks again! Since I was (indirectly) speaking to pastors, I'm reassured to know that a pastor agreed with at least the spirit of my message.
February 15th, 2008 at 9:17 am
I'm going to have to disagree with this notion that we can feed the village and have the TV. What is getting left out of the A and B equation is C. It's not an either or between one village and a TV, cause there is another village.
I don't know what the global poverty numbers are, but my take is that I can have the plasma TV, just as soon as ALL the hungry people are fed, AID's solved and abortion ended.
But here is the rub, I don't do this. It's not just plasma TV's, it's the temperature in my house, my PDA and the 1, 5, 10, 15, or 50K that I spend on my car. (yes some Christians spend 50K or more on a car.) So I throw stones at their 50K, while someone else can indite me for the 8K I spent, cause they spent 1K. (But did they send the other 7K to that village?)
My point is that every single dollar matters, because the need is so great.
The teachings of Jesus are very troubling. “Give everything? What, are you nuts Jesus? This is America.”
Let me be clear, some of this is hyperbole. My church needs new carpet (it's really bad). And I think a God as creative as ours wants us to be creative, and to celebrate that creativity. But lets make sure our eye's are wide open. Every dollar spent says something about us and/or our churches.
February 15th, 2008 at 11:57 am
I see what you're saying now. I suppose what I was trying to say was something more like “Most christians create a false dichotomy between A and B, becuse they're really spending all their money on C (C being the plasma TV or whatever).” My only caution here would be that it isn't reasonable for every Christian to give away every dollar he has for some charitable cause, but I think you agree with that and have basically said as much already.
In any event, you're quite right. Our eyes should be wide open here.