In 1 Chronicles, we can read the account of King David’s organization of the temple, one that he helped design. He instituted singers, handed out specific duties to various Levitical branches and clans, established an order of worship, and more. In so doing, the king introduced a radical shift in Levitical function.
No longer would the Levites pack, unpack, set up, take down, and carry the tabernacle. Gone were the days of routine maintenance of a cloth-and-leather structure. Instead, they would care for a permanent structure, one with porticoes and multiple floors, with massive decorations and enormous sacrifice facilities.
What, I wonder, were the practical implications of this shift?
Did the stationary nature of their center of worship create an elite set of Levites who were blessed enough to live near Jerusalem and serve in the temple?
Did they cease to view the presence of God as the key to worship and instead focus on the physical temple as being the center of the nation’s spiritual life?
Did physical stability bolster the tendency for the later development of empty rituals and casual spiritual habits?
Did a professional class of worshippers arise out of this change, people who straddled the line between calling and professionalism in their worship duties?
I realize that I am asking questions that likely do not have answers. After all, we cannot exactly check the history books. I know I am asking for speculation. In fact, even the specific questions I am asking assume a certain perspective or set of circumstances that might not have existed. So, yeah, I’m chasing pretty much nothing here.
Or am I?
Now that I think about it, there were some later parallels. The early church, as I recall, was somewhat mobile and quite diffuse, but historically we know that they eventually began to centralize things around theological centers and physical buildings. A spiritual elite began to form who were professional leaders, and emphasis was placed on physical locations more than an experience with a living God.
Hmm…
There’s something here, something applicable to modern times, but I just can’t….can’t quite put my finger on it.
I don’t think that we err when we have large buildings and great facilities. We can serve so many people in such unique ways through large, stable churches, yet I wonder about the need we seem to place on a central location and excellent facilities. I think about mission teams that travel the world building churches in the midst of communities, communities full of living rooms and carports where the locals already gather for meals and parties and socializing. I wonder about the various trappings and duties and personal fiefdoms within churches that seem to spring up only in the presence of building-based ministries.
I see my own biases in all this. I can’t afford to give my people here in Ecuador their own church buildings, so we use houses. Perhaps I perceive negative trends in large, permanent meeting sites out of an unconscious desire to justify my own lack.
Even though I’m chasing pretty much nothing in my speculation about the changes in Levitical duties, I still just wonder. That’s all.
I’d love to hear from a megachurch pastor in all this.
Anyone?
Jeremy, I appreciate where you are going with this. However, a couple things need to be borne in mind. First of all there was a period of over 300 years from the end of the Exodus to the building of the temple. That means the Tabernacle hadn’t been mobile for centuries while it resided in Shiloh. So, if anything, the building of the temple was the next logical step in a centuries old tradition that already existed. That is not to lessen David’s organization of Levitical functions, but merely to point out the social shift isn’t as dramatic as might… Read more »
(I’ve tried commenting twice and it never goes through. I smell a megapastor conspiracy….)
“In fact, even the specific questions I am asking assume a certain perspective or set of circumstances that might not have existed. ”
I readily admit (though not happily) that I’m missing data here, and I’m glad that you were able to fill in the blanks for me. I appreciate it. Even so, I don’t mind being prompted by the concept, despite the rather glaring factual oversight.
How many pounds does it take to be a megapastor?
All of them?
Wow
I wrote that thinking “how can I get Dave to write ‘Wow” again?”
Thou hast succeeded, Greg. I still find that the phrase ‘megachurch pastor’ and term ‘megapastor’ produce two rather different pictures in my mind.
Well, being an American, I always assume “levitical” means “filled with levity”…isn’t that the point of the whole thread?
I’m certainly not a megachurch pastor but I do have a quote from Will Campbell that surely applies to us Baptists when it comes to this subject. Bro. Campbell said “Baptists lost something of our soul when we moved from the brush arbors to the white clapboard buildings and then we lost even more when we moved into the red brick buildings.” Now I’m quoting from memory so I may not have it exactly right but I’m sure that’s the gist of it. If you’ve missed Will Campbell in your Southern Baptist Education you need to discover him. note: Will… Read more »
I like your point but don’t think you can get there from any tabernacle/temple template. My humble micropastor pontifications: 1. During the decades that I pastored congregations, I often wondered if I was more of a pastor to the buildings than to the people. 2. We of the called, anointed, and ordained class have brought grief on ourselves by being too involved in the building. How often have you heard of pastors who insist on making decisions on the details of the buildings and grounds? 3. We love committees (er, teams), so a building and grounds committee is best left… Read more »
William. 4 and 6 seem to be at the crux of the issue
“We of the called, anointed, and ordained class have brought grief on ourselves by being too involved in the building. How often have you heard of pastors who insist on making decisions on the details of the buildings and grounds?”
Which seems to me to be rather contrary to scripture, or at least lacking in scriptural support. The first deacons were appointed *specifically* so that the pastoral staff didn’t have to be involved in details of day-to-day church organization, but could focus on prayer and the ministry of the Word.
Whether a tent in the wilderness, a temple on the holy hill, a local synagogue, a local church building no matter what size, or a basement hideout, the difference is not in the type of meeting place but in the hearts of those meeting. The true focus of gathering is the object of faith. Man, being earthy, tends to want to focus on earthy things, be it the other half of the firewood carved into an idol, or golden calf, or a beautiful tapestry, or in elaborate rituals. Those of God seek God. Those involved not of God seek to… Read more »
I think your questions can be answered by simply understanding the tabernacle was God’s idea, the temple was man’s
It goes downhill from there
Are you saying then that we can have no ideas of our own? The fact that God’s Shekinah glory inhabited the Temple so thickly at its dedication that the priests couldn’t minister because of the cloud doesn’t count as His approval or blessing of this “human idea”? We have plenty of human ideas around in our churches – the building is NOT designed according to the floor plan of the tabernacle (unlike synagogues), the invitation hymn, the midweek service, and even the order of services are human innovations. Are they all bad? Should we toss them all out? Or is… Read more »
Frank, the plans of the Temple were given by God to David. Not sure how it can be considered “man’s idea.”
1 Chronicles 17:1-6 clearly illustrates that David desired to build the temple and God clearly denies asking for it: “1 After David was settled in his palace, he said to Nathan the prophet, “Here I am, living in a house of cedar, while the ark of the covenant of the Lord is under a tent.” 2 Nathan replied to David, “Whatever you have in mind, do it, for God is with you.” 3 But that night the word of God came to Nathan, saying: 4 “Go and tell my servant David, ‘This is what the Lord says: You are not… Read more »
1 Chronicles 17:7-15 English Standard Version (ESV) 7 Now, therefore, thus shall you say to my servant David, ‘Thus says the Lord of hosts, I took you from the pasture, from following the sheep, to be prince over my people Israel, 8 and I have been with you wherever you have gone and have cut off all your enemies from before you. And I will make for you a name, like the name of the great ones of the earth. 9 And I will appoint a place for my people Israel and will plant them, that they may dwell in… Read more »
And for the record, this certainly doesn’t look “downhill” to me. But then I may be reading this wrong too.
Rick: thanks for posting that. I considered adding the other verses to make the same point, but I chose to simply respond to what Dave wrote. I do not agree the temple was downhill. But having a king was…
Thanks, folks, for interacting. I think, as I read over the responses here, that my question needs modifying: is there something about having a stable, physical, tangible place of worship that causes human beings to become complacent? I think of the two Baptist churches in my hometown. They grew out of nothing, and in the early years they were aggressive and bold. Then they got a building, then added a gym. Later they expanded the parking lot and added a playground. Then came stability and, later, their zeal died. Missionaries, foreign and domestic, can tell stories of house churches and… Read more »
In part that’s because no one tells stories about the complacent house churches or small groups. Well, no one but Lark News: http://www.larknews.com/archives/767 and http://www.larknews.com/archives/4193
While these are tongue-in-cheek, keep in mind that lethargic, complacent church plants never get the media exposure and talk that the thriving energetic groups do. For obvious reasons, I would think.