Earlier this month, Dan Kimball (he of the most extraordinary hairstyle) wrote a post on the Out of Ur blog saying that he was wrong about church buildings, that is, wrong to say that people who built them weren't missional and were basically building for their own sakes.
He seemed to make good sense.
However, this week along comes Ken Eastburn with a response - and a fairly impassioned one at that - in which he says Kimball was right before he changed his mind. In Eastburn's view, church buildings are a hindrance to mission, and he knocks down most of Kimball's arguments with equally valid ones. (Eastburn belongs to a community called The Well - their website is called, Leave the Building.)
Certainly church buildings have been synonymous with Church for centuries: they've been refuges, places for opponents to burn down, centres of towns, the sites of local cemetaries, places of worship and far more. And while not having a church building does have its advantages (it's a good deal cheaper to maintain for starters), it also brings its own set of problems. (I belong to a church community that hasn't had its own building for over a decade now, and knows just what a pain it is to have to set up in someone else's hall every Sunday.)
No comments:
Post a Comment