Originally posted by godrulz
Having buildings is one model of meeting. I started a church that met in schools, office buildings, etc. This would not have precluded eventual land or building purchase. This does not have to become a corporate empire sucking the funds out of people.
Yes it is one model. It is not a model we have an example of. We do have examples of small home fellowhips and churches meeting in public places where unbelievers congregate.
Here would be a good place to meet. Meet at your local Jehovah's witness kingdom hall. That way you could witness to and convert them. If they kick you out, oh well. Or meet at a synagogue, buddhist temple, mormon temple or hindu ashram.
Just as the early church would go to the synagogues as a witness to the jews. Makes sense...thats where the unbelievers are!
When asked why he robbed banks a famous bankrobber said "Thats where the money is"
Once you have your own building "sanctuary" you lose out on the opportunity to engage the unbelievers. Hindus usually aren't going to come to your church. If you go to their places they will have to deal with you.
Originally posted by godrulz
Is it wrong for believers to OWN homes or is it more spiritual to rent? Perhaps both are valid? Get a grip.
Please don't attribute words to me. Where did I say any such thing? You grip is the one that seems loose.
Originally posted by godrulz
Ownership leads to mortgage burning which leads to NO payments or rent. Ultimately this is an appreciating asset that results in better stewardship. In our culture, a physical presence in the community can be a lighthouse and place of hope. Leaving buildings for nominal churches gives them credibility in our culture and raises cultic suspicion for the little huddles that are underground. Home cell groups are great, but it is hard to fit a large church in a home. There is a place for large celebration and small cells. Mega-churches can have mega-impact.
Where does it say the church is to have assets? Does store up your treasure in heaven ring a bell to you? You can most easily have a physical presence in the community by going out into the community, not hiding in comfy pews in a sanctuary. Why does a church have to or want to become large? Once you get big how can the pastor and the members really get to know eachother and have true fellowship? Mega churches tend to be places where mega amounts of carnal christians can hide from their responsibility to go out into the world and be salt and light. It is easier to be lost in a large crowd than a small one.
Originally posted by godrulz
It is simplistic and short sighted to say renting is the only valid model. Your wooden literalism would not allow us to live in the 21st century. Apply principles since not every modern contingency is dealt with in Scripture.
The above is reasonable and not a pathological obsession with buildings. Your knowledge of ecclesiology and church history is lacking.
I didn't say renting is the only valid model. You are again attributing words to me that I did not say. Wooden literalism or following God's Holy Word? Let's see, back in the NT early church days..did they have concepts of public and private property? YES. Did they have concepts of renting spaces like at inns? YES Did they have private homes? YES.
What modern contingency relative to this discussion does the bible not deal with?
