Are religious buildings really necessary for Christ's kingdom to increase? If they are not, our methods and traditions may be holding things back.

Me, I wish that Christians owned every building on the planet. They don't and they won't. In my opinion, a building can and should be used for the glory of God. Problem is, we put an inordinate amount of time and money into them as Christians. Not to mention the inordinate identity we ascribe to them by referring to them as "churches."

The church met in days of old in large and small groups but the emphasis is clearly on the smaller ones, imo. One, normal; one, occasional. Regular and irregular. Both needful and desirable. I wish we had enough house churches in our region to have a regular celebration gathering.

Here's from "Secular Use of Church Buildings," JG Davies wrote in 1968:

"We have no temples or alters." This statement, referring to Christians, comes from the pen of the apologist (defender) Minicus Felix, c 200, and all evidence supports its accuracy. Throughout at least the first two centuries there were no church buildings as such, and this was so remarkable that to the pagan population, it was considered grounds for accusing the Christians of 'atheism.' In a world notable for the number of its holy shrines and the rivers of blood that flowed daily from the sacrificial victims, Christians were conspicuous in that they possessed neither the first nor engaged in the second." page 1.

Do you not know that YOU are the temple of the Lord?? Living stones? Pillars in the house of God?

Zane Anderson House Church Network http://homechurch.org