As a child, I knew several churches. One was simply a rectangular mission building made of corrugated metal - it was just heaving with children on Sunday afternoons. This was presided over by a small woman who wore a special hat with a short 'train' down the back. She was definitely in charge. (A remarkable woman who I shall probably write about some time.)
Another was alongside our Junior School a 'regular' stone building with a steeple and stained glass windows: we only attended with the school on special occasions. There was a vicar who wore the usual long robes.
A third church, which we, as a family, attended regularly, was a simple hall above a shop. There was no-one specifically in charge. It was presided over by a group of untrained laymen. (More about them later!)
In our town there many other church buildings, with different names and styles of worship.
'We' of course, believed that 'our' church was the only true church in the town!
Jesus said, 'I will build My Church' So, why all the differences? And does it matter what kind of building we use?
I believe that wherever even a handful of people meet together as Christ's followers, there is 'church', and the way in which each 'church' developes ought to be under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and love should be the mission and goal of each group, so that the love of Christ will flow into the surrounding community. And if the church needs to articulate a creed, let it be that 'God is Love, and Jesus is Lord!'
Every church will grow in its own culture and community in the way that God moves it. The 'denominational name' is irrelevant for a church like that.
What is your experience of 'church' I wonder?
.
.jpg)
