Did Herbert Armstrong Follow New Testament Practices For Church Buildings?

Hey readers, this is "Child Survivor".   I have left a good number of comments here on As Bereans Did over the years.   xHWA is actually a very close friend of mine, though we have never met in person, but I do look forward to doing so in heaven someday.  I have found As Bereans Did to be a very helpful tool in helping people understand the origins and unbiblical nature of Herbert Armstrong's teachings.

My story with the cult goes like this, when I was approaching my 8th birthday, I knew something was up with my parents and my older brother.   Men in suits began coming to the house to discuss religious topics with my parents.  I didn't completely understand what was happening until it was announced shortly before my birthday that we would be switching churches soon, but we couldn't do it just yet until the leaders allowed us to start attending.  (That alone is a topic for another day.)  My parents and my older siblings started talking about this new church we would be going to, but it wasn't just ANY church, it was the TRUE church and all other churches were of the devil, especially the Catholic church, which we had been very faithful to ever since I could remember.  Now, in my earliest of years, I was always fascinated with the Catholic parish we belonged to.  The building was a modern building for back then, but built beautifully.  It had beautiful stained glass windows, lots of beautiful marble, these chandeliers that had crosses all over them, and a life sized crucifix, which I would always feel drawn to during the mass.  As a young child, I didn't pay a lot of attention to what was going on during the mass, but I did always stare at the beauty of the building and mystery that encompassed the architecture and statues.    I would say for that reason alone, I didn't mind going to church that much.  I even made it to my first holy communion at age 7, but sadly it was for naught because we joined the WCG the following December...yup, you heard right...DECEMBER.   That was the first year of no Christmas in our house.

Anyway, why am I bringing up the Catholic church building that I went to up to age 8?  Simple. One of the things that I was told about this new and true church is that it properly taught that the church is not a building, the church is actually the people.  Which is actually correct where scripture is concerned, but I might add, just about all churches do acknowledge the people as the church. Armstrong did not get this as a revelation and unique to his religion.    I was also informed because of that the early Christians met in each others homes, so they had no buildings of their own. That is also correct, we'll touch on that further down.   That is why the church would meet in rented spaces, like the congregation we were going to met in a movie theater to follow the "biblical pattern" of not owning property.   BUZZZZZZZ!   Now I don't think this topic requires a lot of in depth analysis, so I want to focus on 2 questions here.  Did the Worldwide Church of God and the modern splinter groups follow the "biblical pattern" as far as meeting places was concerned? AND were they even consistent in practicing what they preached?   Let's look into it.

WAS THE WCG BEING "BIBLICAL"?

First of all, the Worldwide Church of God made it very clear in their practice that congregations would be ruled by headquarters and would meet in rented facilities.   Now there is nothing wrong with a church meeting in a rented space.   When a new church starts, that's usually the route it has to take, especially today with the price of real estate.  Often new Evangelical or Pentecostal churches begin as home Bible studies, then they move into a rented space like a hall, school, or a section of another church's building.     The church I currently belong to started in 2008 and met in a VFW hall up to 2015.  When the Lutheran congregation in our town folded, our church was able to purchase the Lutheran church building.  And I'm happy to report that there's a lot of stained glass in the sanctuary that our church has kept up.   Purchasing buildings from previously defunct congregations is a common trend for Evangelical churches these days.   Now, when I began at age 8 at the WCG, they rented a movie theater on Saturday mornings.  This was an old style, single-screen theater.  While I found the seats more comfortable than the wooden pews in the Catholic church, that was where my comfort ended.   Later on, the congregation was split to accommodate church members who lived closer to or in Rhode Island, and the Providence congregation was in another movie theater after a few short months meeting at the Providence Civic Center.   The last building we met in was an old Grange Hall that the church was actually able to fix up and lease on a monthly basis.   That one actually felt more like a church in my opinion, even though there were those awful metal chairs.  Now I bring up my history with the WCG to simply ask, is this what the early church practiced?  Let's see what scripture has to say:

First, the earliest meetings of the church were held in various locations.  When the Holy Spirit came at Pentecost in Acts 1 and 2, the disciples were gathered in the "upper room".  From Acts 1:

(ACT. 1: 13-14) 13 When they had entered the city, they went up to the upstairs room where they were staying, that is, Peter, John, James, and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, Simon the Zealot, and Judas the son of James. 14 All these were continually devoting themselves with one mind to prayer, along with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers.

After the Holy Spirit descended and miracles were performed, we are told the disciples continued the practice of meeting in the temple, but they also began meeting in each others' homes.  "Day by day continuing with one mind in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they were taking their meals together with gladness and sincerity of heart," (ACT 2:46).   Meetings in the earliest gatherings of the church included the breaking of bread, which is a metaphor the New Testament writers used for the Lord's Supper, that we also call "communion".  But they also had meals together.  Does this sound like a pattern the WCG followed?  You decide.   

Not too long after the initial birth of the church, homes of believers became the meeting places.
(ACT. 12:12) “When he [Peter] realized this, he went to the house of Mary, the mother of John who is called Mark, where there were many people gathered in prayer.”
(ACT 16:40) “When they [Paul and Silas] had come out of the prison, they went to Lydia’s house where they saw and encouraged the brothers, and then they left.”
(ROM. 16:3-5) “Greet Prisca and Aquila, my coworkers in Christ Jesus, who risked their necks for my life, to whom not only I give thanks but also all the churches of the gentiles.  Greet also the church in their house. Greet my beloved Epaenetus, who was the first convert in Asia for Christ.”
(PHI. 1-2) “Paul, a prisoner for Christ Jesus, and Timothy our brother, to Philemon, our beloved and our co-worker, to Apphia our sister, to Archippus our fellow soldier, and to the church at your house”.

I could go on, but I believe I've made my point here.  Please keep in mind, the early Christians were outlaws.   The exemptions the Jews received for worship of the Roman emperor was not extended to the Christians.  The Christians were outlaws for much of the first three centuries. So, meeting in secret in homes and even in the catacombs of Rome was necessary for their continued existence.  This does not mean that churches could not own property for meeting, but it's very clear the New Testament church did not own any.    The strange point about the WCG teaching is that because the church didn't have church buildings that they owned, then any other means they used was deemed "biblical".   It's the old case of what I'm NOT doing instead of what I AM doing here.   Renting a high school auditorium, a Grange hall, a movie theater, or a Masonic temple does not constitute meeting in each others' homes and is no more "biblical" than erecting a church building.

WAS THE WCG CONSISTENT?

I can say with full conviction that the WCG was NOT consistent in this practice.   While most congregations met in rented spaces, the church on a denominational level owned numerous properties.   When I entered the WCG at age 8 in the early 1970's, I learned the the church owned at least 3 colleges...Ambassador College in Pasadena (which my two older siblings attended but never graduated from) , Big Sandy, Texas and Bricketwood, England.   Also, the church, at that time, owned at least some of the sites where the annual Feast of Tabernacles was held.   I remember the second year we attended the Feast at Mount Pocono, PA, we stayed over a few extra days because the last great day was a Thursday, so Dad kept us there until Sunday.  So we attended the local congregation there at Mt. Pocono the following sabbath and they met in the administration building outside the Tabernacle.  This was church owned property.  The congregations near the colleges met at the colleges, so the properties served for educational and church meeting purposes.  The church owned these properties as well.  So it doesn't really take all that much intellect to see that the WCG did a lot of cherry picking not only with the Old Testament law that they claimed was still in effect, but they did so with their own laws such as this as well.   

Another way that today's splinter groups are inconsistent is that some of them will meet on Saturdays in other church buildings.   The closest United Church of God congregation meets on Saturdays in a Congregational church, or at least they did last I checked.  And yet, the WCG teachings that they are trying to keep going, used to call all other churches "synagogues of Satan".   Seriously?  You're going to use a synagogue of Satan as your meeting place of for "God's one true church"???    

WHAT WERE THEIR MOTIVES?

So why exactly was it okay for God's true church to own property on the denominational level, but not on the congregational level?   Here I can only speculate, but I know enough about Armstrongism to make a very educated guess.  But one thing I knew about them is that everything with Herbert was about control.   Everything, and I mean everything in that cult was controlled by Herbert and all his decrees and rulings were passed onto the congregations.   Pastors' salaries, housing, rent for church meetings, offerings, etc were all done directly to and through headquarters..i.e. Herbert's staff.   Local congregations had almost NO say in what happened in their own congregations, everything was governed by Herbert himself.   If congregations were to have their own buildings, that would have been a lot of lost control by Herbert.   Buildings take a lot of work to maintain and pay for.    They take a lot of man power and endless committees and meetings to buy or build the structure and maintain it.   This would have taken a lot of power over the congregations away from Herbert.  You couldn't have that now, could you?
 

************

It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )

Acts 17:11

************