I have been asked by a new congregation to speak at their, "building dedication".

I need your thoughts on all aspects of this. Thanks.

Faris A Sweet

-- Anonymous, June 07, 2000

Answers

Faris....

God's best to you. With your heart....I know the words will come out right.

BTW....it would be easier to get Bill Clinton to tell the truth than it would be to get supporting Scripture from Nelta.

God bless!

-- Anonymous, June 18, 2000

As usual.....

Nelta has no Scripture...standard "neo-orthodox" procedure.

-- Anonymous, June 18, 2000

Nelta.....

First of all.....you gave no Scripture to support your position that "buildings are wrong."

Second, what Scripture you do quote.....

1) Has nothing to do with buildings, specifically the "wrongness" of them....and....

2) You misquote the verse concerning "where two or three are gathered in my name." If you would look closely at that verse (instead of proof-texting), you would see that the context is "church discipline"....i.e., where two or three have agreed to practice church discipline against an individual who fails to repent....He (i.e., Jesus) will be in the midst of that decision.

It has NOTHING to do with the purpose for coming together in worship.

Read it!

-- Anonymous, June 19, 2000

Mark....

Well put.

Thanks....it help me clarify some things in my mind as well.

-- Anonymous, June 19, 2000

Everything.....except spelling that is!!! LOL!

-- Anonymous, June 19, 2000

Connie....

I just love how you butcher a scripture out of its context for your purposes.

You can "think" all you want to that Jesus meant "anything".....but "anything" IN THE CONTEXT concerns church discipline.

As Connie asks...."Herman who?"

-- Anonymous, June 19, 2000

"Your ministry shapes your building, then your building shapes your ministry" -- Rick Warren

Warn them to not let their building limit them, if it isn't already too late.

-- Anonymous, June 07, 2000

Brother Faris:

I recommend that this is a great opportunity to urge all in the congregation to commit and "dedicate" themselves to Christ by recognizing His Lordship. " I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, to PRESENT YOUR BODIES A LIVING SACRIFICE, HOLY, ACCEPTABLE TO GOD, which is your reasonable service. And be not fashioned according to this world: But be ye transformed by the RENEWING OF YOUR MIND, that ye may prove what is the good and acceptable and perfect WILL OF GOD." (Romans 12:1,2).

For if all of the brethren are totally dedicated to Christ and determined to obey Him in all things and submit to all that He has commanded the building as well as everything else in their lives will be "dedicated" to Christ. And if they are not truly dedicated to Christ themselves it is absolutely impossible to dedicate the "building" or anything else in their lives to Christ.

I believe that this would be a helpful and useful lesson that would continue to do it's work long after the ceremony in which you have been invited to be the speaker has been forgoten.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, June 08, 2000

Faris,

Lee hit this one right on the head. Too many times congregations will dedicate their buildings, without dedicating themselves. While the building is focussed on the Kingdom work, it is, after all, just a building. It might give you the opportunity to bring that out, so people think of it more as a building where the church gathers, rather than a new "sanctuary."

I have the same problem at "baby dedications." I do them, with the focus being on the parents, not the baby. The parents are dedicating themselves to raising the child in a Godly manner. Nothing you can do with the baby ... or the building for that matter ... will make any difference. It is the parents, and the members, who must dedicate themselves to the work of the Lord.

Just my 2c worth.

Darrell H Combs

-- Anonymous, June 08, 2000

Darrell:

I thank you for your agreement concerning the dedication of "church buildings". I am happy to see that we agree concerning these things.

I only want to make a brief comment concerning "baby dedications". There is only one scriptural way in which children can be dedicated to the Lord. That way is given to us in Ephesians 6:4 which says, " And ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but nurture them in the chastening and admonishion of the Lord". There is no other way in which anyone can dedicate their children to the Lord but by this "nurturing" and teaching them the gospel of Christ which ultimately has the potential to persuade or lead them to commit or "dedicate" themselves to Christ. Therefore it is impossible to "dedicate" another person to Christ whether it is a child or an adult except by leading them by teaching and persuasion to submit to His Lordship in obedience to the gospel and thereby dedicate themselves to Christ. One may" as well attempt to "baptize" children into Christ without their knowledge and understanding, without repentence and faith, without any commitment whatsoever from the innocent child who has no knowledge of sin, no ability to believe in Christ, repent of their sins or sincerely accept the Lordship of Christ, as to attempt to "dedicate" them in any way to Christ without their being taught and lead to believe in Christ, repent of their sins and confess their own faith in Christ as the Son of God, and their willingly chosing to become obedient to Christ in baptism.

We dedicate our Children to Christ, not by some "ceremony" or "dedication service" which is a doctrine of man and not God. Rather we dedicate them by bringing them up in the "nurture and admonishion of the Lord" and thus ultimately lead them to humble obedience to the gospel of Christ. The illusion that they can by any other means be truly dedicated to Christ is just that, an absolute human illusion that may one day interfere with their ever become obedient to Christ for they may draw the erroneous conclusion that they are "Christians" by virtue of their having been so "dedicated by their parents" in Childhood rather than God's designed method of hearing, believing, and obeying the precious gospel of Christ.

I understand your point in reference to the subject of "dedicating buildings" and I am sure that you do not intend, by "dedicating babies" to the Lord to mislead anyone but I am expressing a serious caution that such a practice is of human origin, not divine, and that it can and will lead to a complete misunderstanding of the truth.

Please accept what I have said in the spirit in which I have said it. I am only contending that we follow God's way and not our own. For God never taught us to have "baby dedication" ceremonies. If He had thought that such was a good practice and worthy of our diligent efforts He would have directed us to do so. But He did no such thing. Instead He has taught us to bring up our Children in the "nurture and admonition of the Lord". This practice of "dedicating babies" is just as unscriptural and wrong as "infant baptism" and for much the same reason.

I pray fervently that we will walk in the paths that God has guided us into through His Holy Word. TO follow anything else is to follow the "doctrines and commandments of men" and thereby to make our worship "vain". " But in vain do they worship me teaching as their doctrines the precepts of men" ( Matt. 15:9).

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, June 13, 2000

Building dedication?? How far have we come (or gone) from the teachings of the apostles that we now dedicate buildings,,,,something that didn't come into being until YEARS after the death of the apostles?

-- Anonymous, June 17, 2000

Nelta

In reading post from Mark, Darrell and Lee did you notice that not one of them said, "don't do it" but rather said in effect, use the opportunity to teach them. I think I can safely say these men feel as I do that the building is just a place for the church to meet. I also feel the building can be an effective tool in the work of the church. I think you are correct when you say the early church did not have buildings. They also most likely did not have the resource we now have and if I remember correctly, they often had to hide when they met. If they had to hide when they met do you not think a building would have been the wrong thing for them to do at that time. After one meeting they would be arrested and perhaps killed. The building would have then been the property of the government.

I do thank you for your response but ask this of you. If you respond telling me that the church should not have buildings, PLEASE back it up with scripture. Do not just write down a scripture but include your understanding of it.

Again, I know the scriptures do not say the building is, "Holy". Nor do I know of a NT mention of a church building. But the argument that the church should, always, not have a building has no biblical basis. If I am wrong please present the scriptures to convince me.

I will go. And I will teach this new group that it is in fact the members of the Lords Church that must be set aside. But I will also tell them, and join with them in thanking God that he provided a place for the church to meet.

-- Anonymous, June 18, 2000

Faris, I will comment on your response to my response to you.

<<

<< Nelta

In reading post from Mark, Darrell and Lee did you notice that not one of them said, "don't do it" but rather said in effect, use the opportunity to teach them.>>

I am not surprised they didn't say, "don't do it* because they believe in Church buildings...no doubt.

<< I think I can safely say these men feel as I do that the building is just a place for the church to meet.>>

If it is just a place to meet then why all the rigmole about dedicating it?

<< I also feel the building can be an effective tool in the work of the church. I think you are correct when you say the early church did not have buildings. They also most likely did not have the resource>>

This is the same argument people use to make about those who would not have a piano in their buildings. They use to say those opposed just couldn't afford to buy one.

<< I do thank you for your response but ask this of you. If you respond telling me that the church should not have buildings, PLEASE back it up with scripture. >>

I think we do harm to God's word when we expect someone to show where something practiced if found telling us NOT to practice it. Don't you think it is more godly to go to the scriptures and find what is RIGHT with a practice? Before one would understand what is wrong with something he would have to first understand what the purpose of God's plan is. The people the apostles walked among and taught had a different purpose for meeting together than does the institutional church today. When the church buildings came into being along with it came the clergy and laity problem.

Because of the building and the institution the purpose of the use of the building has digressed. Why do we come together? For fellowship...the same thing the people did as they gathered in their homes...interaction one with another. We are not to forsake the assembling together*. Digresstion has made that say, "Forsake not the Assembly." Assembling yourselves together simply means coming together at one given, or casual time, like where 2 0r 3 are gathered together in My name...in the midst of them.

Our purpose of coming together (Heb. 10:25, ...exhorting one another. In other words, we meet together to encourage ONE ANOTHER, taking advantage we are still living in the day of grace. Prodding, provoking, stirring, sharpening and stimulating one another, is all part of it (vs 24) This is spiritually healthy and helps keep us honest, and on our toes. This goes against having the Church building where all the *stuff* is carried on, where one man does the encouragement for the group, when scripture says encourgeing ONE ANOTHER.

So you see, Faris, when the Church building was added much more came with it. Without the unscriptural building there would be no clergy/laity but all would be priest, saints, ministers as God's plan directs. That is the reason I am against dedicating something that has driven the sheep into two groups, and caused practices to be added that God did not add.....may it never be.

-- Faris A Sweet (fsweet8@yahoo.com), June 18, 2000.

-- Anonymous, June 18, 2000

Danny, I know you are not dense, but did you not understand anything I wrote? Now, I gave what gathering together was all about. Why don't you simply give scripture for what you believe? As usual you want someone to give scripture for something NOT in scripture. Poor reasoning...even for the likes of you.

-- Anonymous, June 18, 2000

Matthew 26:55: KJV/ASV:

55: In that same hour said Jesus to the multitudes, Arte ye come out as against a thief with swords and staves for to take me? I SAT DAILY WITH YOU TEACHING IN THE TEMPLE, and ye laid no hold on me.

Similarly, Luke 22:46.

[44: And all that believed...}

46: And they, continuing daily with one accord IN THE TEMPLE, and breaking bread from house to house [at home], did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,...

Acts 3:1:

1: Now Peter and John went up together into the temple at the hour of prayer, being the ninth hour.

There is a lot of precedent in the New Testament for meeting in a building ~ the temple. The Greek word for the English word 'church' is either translated 'body of Christ' (all of the believers) or 'assembly', not precluding a building for meeting, if I am not mistaken.

Respectfully submitted,

-- Anonymous, June 19, 2000

The following is something about which I asked my son back in March concerning this topic:

> >> >You asked: > >> > > >> >>Can you do your old Mom a favor? I know you are busy, so only if you > >> >have > >> >>time.

> >> >>What is the meaning of 'basileia' (and how is it spelled)? Does the > >> >word > >> >>'basilica' come from that Greek word? Does this ever mean a >church > >> >>building? I figured since you teach both Latin and Greek that >you > >>would > >> >>be the one to ask. > >> > > >> >The Greek root *basil* means "royal". From it are formed a whole bunch > >>of > >> >words related to "royalness". Here are a few examples: > >> > > >> >*basil-eus* (masculine noun) = king > >> >*basil-eia* (feminine noun, accented over first i) = queen > >> >*basil-eia* (feminine noun, accented over second i) = kingdom > >> >*basil-eion* (neuter noun) = palace > >> >*basil-ik-* (adjective, various genders)= royal > >> > > >> >There was a special kind of public building known in the Greek world as > a > >> >*basilike stoa*, which is a hall divided into aisles by columns. These > >>stoas > >> >were known as "royal" because most were built in the Hellenistic period > >> >(323-31 B.C.) by the various royal families who succeeded Alexander the > >> >Great in various parts of Greece, Asia Minor, and Egypt (the Antigonids, > >>the > >> >Ptolmies, the Seleucids, the Eummenids...). These stoas became common > >> >enough so that they could just be referred to as a *basilike*, dropping > >>the > >> >word *stoa*. > >> > > >> >A similar sort of building was built in the Roman world, especially at > >>Rome > >> >-- it was an oblong building typically with a broad nave flanked by > >> >colonnaded aisles or porticoes and ending in a semicircular apse. The > >> >Romans took the Greek word *basilike* and turned it into its > >>corresponding > >> >latinate form, *basilica*. So *basilica* is the Latin word for any > >>public > >> >building with a design as I just described and it comes from the Greek > >>word > >> >*basilike*. These buildings were usually used as law-courts or places of > >> >public assembly in Rome. > >> > > >> >When the Christian church at Rome began building church buildings, they > >> >copied this building style and kept the name. Eventually when the Roman > >> >Catholic church became an organizational entity, they reserved this name > >>for > >> >any Catholic church having certain liturgical privileges. > >> > > >> >Cheers, > >> > > >> >Paul > >> >

This doesn't really address what the early church (the Body of Christ) did; they met in the temple, and they preached wherever they were. There seems to be a distinction between where the believers met (the temple) and where the preachers or evangelists met (wherever they could find someone to listen).

Respectfully,

-- Anonymous, June 19, 2000

<< Nelta

In reading post from Mark, Darrell and Lee did you notice that not one of them said, "don't do it" but rather said in effect, use the opportunity to teach them.>>

I am not surprised they didn't say, "don't do it* because they believe in Church buildings...no doubt.

Mark's response: Nelta, let me correct you, for you have assumed my position.

I quoted Rick Warren in saying "A ministry shapes a building, then a building shapes a ministry". Is that not a statement warning of the dangers of a church owning a building? How do you get that I support ownership of buildings from that. The fact is, I do not blanketly support ownership of buildings by churches. Buildings limit potential growth, tie up resources, and I have seen them led to compromises of scripture so as not to offend the "big givers" whom a church may depend on to make the mortgage.

But I don't blanketly condemn church ownership either. Sadly, in some minds, a building lends "legitmacy" to an organization. But that legitmacy can be used to further the kingdom -- though we shouldn't compromise principles to get the real estate. There are further advantages to a building -- currently, I think it is no exaggeration to say that Crosspointe Church of Cary NC (the one I am a part of) is hindered in further growth because they lack a building. It is always a scramble to find affordable space to rent for an evening in order to have classes, weekend seminars, etc. We can't rent space for a food pantry etc because of either zoning or owners concerns. All sorts of hinderances to the mission because of U.S. zoning rules, NIMBY, etc.

So, "I believe" that we too quickly assume that we need to own buildings, especially those churches that allow the majority of the floorspace of the building to go unused about 160-164 hours per week. But a building can be used in such a way as to be a service to the community. Northeast Church (Garland Texas) inherited a building when Walnut Village Church of Christ asked to merge with them. Northeast had no plans to own a building, but when they got a building in the merger, they recognized the value of the property in its location. The neighborhood included two hospitals and a convalsence home all in walking distance. Northeast has refurbished the building and offers all but a few rooms to its neighbors as a community center. They are looking to acquire additional land nearby to add to the youth sports fields it has already put in. Would you condemn such outreach, Nelta?

-- Anonymous, June 19, 2000

As for Faris' original question:

The 'Dedication' of a building, or a baby, for that matter, is really a call to the participants (congregants or parents) to dedicate THEMSELVES to serving God in the capacity He designates.

With Paul, we should become all things to all men [people], that we might win some.

And Nelta, that verse about 'where two or three are gathered together in My Name, there am I in the midst of them' seems to me to apply to ANY situation, because it specifically states "Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about ANYTHING that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father Who is in heaven." For where two or three have gathered together in My Name, there am I in their midst." ANYTIME, ANYPLACE [No limitations].

Ours is a large church but we have 'small groups' which gather for fellowship, worship, and prayer. Just as we should use every device for the Godly purpose of getting out the Gospel, including the Internet, books, etc., we should DEDICATE OURSELVES to His service in any way which brings glory to His Name. And this might include the dedication service of a church building, if everything is kept in perspective.

I admire what Benjamin says his group does: meets in a 'YMCA', and other already-available places, but I'm sure that Benjamin would not say that is the ONLY way to do it. (Actually, I'm not POSITIVE that that is what Benjamin would say). We use a large public high school for one of our weekly services.

We need to get over the things which divide us and get on with presenting the Gospel to a lost world. THEY ARE DYING!!

Also, I need to correct an earlier post of mine in this thread. The word 'basilike' is not used in the N.T., to my knowledge, ~ the word is 'ekklesia' for an assembly of believers. Also 'synagogue'. The variations in each I am not postive of. (My mother would tell me not to end a sentence in a preposition).

I asked my son that question because I wanted to know the difference between 'basileia' and 'ekklesia', and whether a church building is mentioned in the N.T. He, in a different post, mentioned the 'synagogue' and the 'temple'. I can't remember the other distinctions he mentioned.

'Basilike' is just the building, as is 'temple'; the other words seem to mean both the Body of believers and the assembly of them.

Respectfully,

-- Anonymous, June 19, 2000

Danny:

You have god called Herman Eutics?

-- Anonymous, June 19, 2000

I misspelled that:

'HermEn Eutics'.

-- Anonymous, June 19, 2000