82 - Worship: Temple or Tent?

Worship: Temple or Tent?
By Kenneth S.Barker

A SHORT time ago I had occasion to take issue with an article which identified cathedrals and cathedral-like buildings with a perversion of Christian worship, arguing that a return to Christian integrity could be achieved by the abandonment of such buildings in favor of less pretentious structures. There was even the familiar mean-spirited suggestion that clergy who favored large buildings did-so because they-enjoyed ego trips.

The article reflected several current trends, suggesting that buildings, a special order of ministry, preaching, liturgy, sometimes worship itself belong to the Constantinian perversion of the church. The true faith will be recovered as the church marches out into a new wilderness or diaspora, renouncing all form and structure in favor of the absolute powerlessness of the Cross.

What troubles me is not the valid reminder that we can fail to worship God aright in cathedrals, but the simplistic assumption that we will automatically worship in truth if we abandon buildings for house churches or wilderness tents. This can be a form of theological naivete as perverse as the error it seeks to correct.

Buildings and liturgies are means by which we facilitate worship. Whether a building is large or small, cruciform or circular, made of stone or canvas is secondary to the way in which it is used by those gathered for worship. And because buildings are secondary, genuine worship can take place wherever two or three are gathered in spirit and in truth.

This is not to say that people will necessarily worship with greater integrity if large buildings and structured liturgies are eliminated. Simple buildings and austere liturgies can no more guarantee true worship than large buildings can prevent inappropriate worship. The long history of Puritanism, if nothing else, should make this evident. A return to simplicity cannot guarantee integrity; indeed, it can easily engender vicious intolerance toward those unprepared to accept its rigid strictures.

The suggestion that cathedral-like buildings are a Constantinian perversion also strains biblical and historical credibility. The Temple in Jerusalem can hardly be termed Constantinian. Yet though reflective

Kenneth S.Barker is minister of St.Paul's United Church,Orillia,Ontario.Agraduate of the University of British Columbia, Knox College (Toronto), and the University of Toronto Graduate School of Theology, he is the author of Dramatic Moments in the Life of Christ (1978). His article on " 'Annie,' Yesterday and Today," appeared in the October 1982 issue of THEOLOGY TODAY.

83 - Worship: Temple or Tent?

Israelites realized God was by no means limited to the Temple (I Kings 8: 27-30), they realized the divine presence was to be found by those who sought God there. Isaiah in all probability experienced his call to ministry within the context of Temple worship (Isa. 6: 1-13).

More important for the Christian conscience is the attitude of Jesus to the Temple. Clearly he was not so obsessed with the powerlessness of the Cross that he rejected the Temple and its worship. His was not the attitude of the spiritually elite Essenes. The healed leper was instructed to show himself to the priest, and offer the gift commanded by Moses. (Matt. 8: 1-4; Mark 1: 40-45; Luke 5: 12-15). The penitent publican prayed in the Temple and went down to his house justified (Luke 18: 9-14). And when Jesus entered the Temple during Holy Week, it was to cleanse and use rather than to destroy its worship (Matt. 21: 12-14; Mark 11: 15-19; Luke 19: 45-48; John 2: 13-16). His affirmation that it was God's house was hardly the act of an iconoclast. One wonders also why early Christians made regular use of Temple worship if large buildings were inconsistent with a theology of the Cross (Acts 3: 1; 21: 26; 22: 17; 24: 11-12, 18; 26: 21).

But what about wilderness tents? There were some within ancient Israel who believed the wilderness experience was characterized by idyllic innocence (Hosea 2: 15). That was hardly historically accurate. Certainly it wasn't universally affirmed. Israel failed God in the wilderness as well as the promised land. And Paul reminded the early Christians that most of those who had been baptized into Moses in the events of the Exodus had been overthrown in the wilderness for their failure to please God (I Cor. 10: 1-5).

But again, with perhaps more relevance to the Christian conscience, we can look at Jesus and his disciples. The setting of the Last Supper must surely be as close to the house church or tent model as one might wish. Yet the simplicity of its locale and the intimacy of its worship did not prevent a most obnoxious ego trip (Luke 22: 24-27).

And we also hear the argument that we should declare a moratorium on buildings in favor of direct gifts to the poor. In responding negatively to this argument, one can easily be accused of insensitivity to those in genuine need. But again the argument oversimplifies the issues. Even greater money would be available to the poor if we closed down all schools, libraries, and sports facilities, but what would that do to the quality of life for people, the poor included?

One again finds a much more mature balance in the teaching of Jesus. When the woman broke the alabaster jar of ointment and poured it over his head, there were those who criticized the wasteful display of devotion. The ointment might have been sold and the money given to the poor (Matt. 26: 6-13; Mark 14: 5-9). In refusing to condemn the woman, Jesus was not being insensitive to the needs of the poor; he was simply refusing to limit himself to a one-issue mentality. The physical and material care of people was of genuine concern to him; but people live not by bread alone.

84 - Worship: Temple or Tent?

In offering this critique, I'm not suggesting that we build large buildings for the sake of large buildings, nor am I discouraging the construction of new buildings much more wisely designed for multi-purpose use and energy-saving efficiency. But I am calling for a much more theologically sophisticated approach to worship on the part of those who are calling for a march into some nostalgic wilderness.