“Are you talking about the church as the building or the church as the people?”
I was starting to say something about “the church” when I was interrupted by the questioner, asking for clarification.
“People,” I replied, instinctively aware that if I answered: “the building” my comments would have been discounted.
But later I wondered. Why was I offered this either/or choice? Why do there appear to be negative connotations to speaking about the church as the building, as if this is something that we need to leave behind? What do we mean by the church as people anyway?
Are we talking about the regular congregation who turn up most Sundays? Do we include occasionals? The person who comes once a month but takes no part in the life of the church? How do we decide who is “the church” and who isn’t?
Neither church as building nor church as people seemed to quite fit with what I was trying to say. I wondered if I was thinking of the institutional church – the complete organisation from Archbishops and synods to churchwardens and PCCs? But that didn’t seem right either.
On reflection, it seemed to me that behind all these facets of church there is a more mystical church. Connected to both past and future, it is continuously struggling to align itself (people, buildings and institution) with the Kingdom of God.
In this scenario, it is not a case of choosing one aspect and identifying it as “the church”. It is all of these, and probably other facets that I haven’t thought of, held together in some kind of tension.
“Go and repair my church, which you see is falling into ruins,” the crucified Christ said to Francis in the ruined chapel of San Damiano. Francis did not see a dichotomy between rebuilding the physical chapel and a rebuilding of people’s spiritual lives. Perhaps we shouldn’t either…