Arthur Sido recently brought to my attention that in 2014, United States churches spent $3,150,000,000 on church buildings.
$3,150,000,000
And this amount is down 80% since 2002!
I wrote about this in one of my books (I cannot recall which one), and I have written previously on this blog about how churches spend money. See:
But it recently occurred to me that since Christians are the representatives of Jesus Christ on earth, since we are His ambassadors, since we are the “Body of Christ,” this means that when we spend $3,150,000,000 on church buildings in one year, it is Jesus Christ spending this amount of money in one year.
We are spending HIS money.
And it really made me wonder … If Jesus had $3,150,000,000 to spend, do I really think He would spend it on church buildings?
Somehow, I really, really doubt it…
If we truly do feel that the money that has been invested in church buildings has been misappropriated, then it is not Christ who has spent it, but one who is against the aims of Christ. Are these hulking structures that we are building all over the country houses of God, or monuments to the antichrist?
Too strongly worded? Not sure
Yes, my title was intentionally exaggerated to make the point about how Jesus would spend the money IF he had it…
Since God did ask the Israelites to bring their treasures into the storehouse and they gave Moses all their wealth to build their temple…I’d say God does have an actual need/desire for His followers to have a place to worship. To suggest something else, you obviously don’t have a clue as to the contents withing the pages of the Bible. Major fail.
That was ancient Israel, thousands of years ago. That was Judaism. We do not practice Judaism. If we follow Jesus, we do not need priests, temples, sacrifices, a holy-of-holies and so on. Read the rest of the posts on this blog and you will discover that Jeremy most certainly is familiar with the contents of the Bible, more familiar than are most people.
Unfortunately, of the estimated $50 Billion in revenue generated annually from church members, most of that revenue is used to maintain the corporate aspect of those churches. Along with their annual revenue, corporate churches also hold combined real estate assets valued in the billions of dollars. Unfortunately, those billions of dollars in revenue and assets are primarily used for the carnal comforts and conveniences of man – not the scriptural directives of Christ and the Apostles for the church. According to a 2013 study by the Evangelical Credit Union, 82 percent of surveyed church budgets were allocated toward salaries, real estate, mortgages, building and ground maintenance, office and business supplies, insurance, utilities, security, marketing and advertising, multimedia production equipment, technology, internet and cable and many other expenses. Tragically, only the small remaining percentage (18%) of that $50 Billion annual revenue is left to help the millions of truly needy Christian brothers and sisters, or the church’s commanded mission to spread the gospel of Christ in the local community and beyond. A more shocking fact regarding institutional church finances is that fraud in the church costs more each year than what is given to missions. According to the Center for the Study of Global Christianity at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary who published the Status of Global Mission, the numbers were $35 billion in fraud in 2012 and $23 billion given to global foreign missions, with financial crime at churches estimated to hit $60 billion in 2025 if the same trends continue. It should be noted that the staggering number of $35 billion in fraud is not counted as revenue because the money is stolen. These statistics tell a very sad story of highly questionable stewardship within the institutional church. (Taken from my article: “Church Wars: The consequence of being out of God’s will”)
Thanks Sam, I think that it is important that we don’t fall into the trap of equating our modern church buildings with the temple. The more accurate equivalent in our present reality in Christ is that we are the temple (both individually and corporately) because it was less about a place to worship, and more about the dwelling place of God. The temple was not this extravagant building because the priests needed a swanky place to work and hang out, but because they were constructing the house of God.
O.K. Yeshua is the Head. We, the Ekklesia are the Body. But is it ‘how Jesus would spend’ or “how Jesus IS spending” the money? Cos’ He’s alive, and even if we can’t see it, He reigns.
There are (apparently) about 320,000 churches in the US. If we spend $3.6 billion on church buildings that comes out to an average of $11,250 per church. If those numbers hold that is really nothing to be ashamed of.
Also, it sounds like churches, on average, dole out 12% of their budgets to building payments (excluding utilities). As a percentage, that is under half of what individuals often spend on housing expenses.
From my interpretation of the root article, this is for new construction, not for rental or loan payments for existing facilities.
Using the numbers from the article of 3.17 billion for 4000 new churches a year comes out to $787k on average. $787k for a building to house a few hundred people isn’t that bad. The other options are to lease or to meet in people’s homes. Both have their negatives.
It also makes a point of mentioning
“Most of these new congregations are renting facilities from schools, community centers or other churches.”
We don’t really get a number on the new building projects. Just from my own experience, I don’t see a lot of the modest church buildings being constructed around me. You have a lot of new, or growing congregations that are repurposing existing buildings. Strangely, as the old churches in Pittsburgh are turning into music venues and brew houses, many of the new congregations are moving into store fronts.
There is a growing city just north of here that has had tons of new construction happening, it’s disconcerting how easy it is to mistake the construction of a new church for the construction of the new northeastern offices for an international corporation.
Where I live (DFW) we have a lot of new church building projects. We have a massive population explosion right now and there are a lot of new churches popping up because of it. Perhaps they could use lesser materials and try to lower the price of these buildings but you pay now or you pay later in maintenance. Which is worse stewardship?
My point in all of this is that if we shouldn’t focus on a single dollar amount because that pie is going to be sliced thousands of different ways. Places with stagnant population growth will have one set of needs, places with burgeoning populations have different needs. Maybe some of the churches are excessively opulent. The church I go to now is a rented multi-purpose room. The last one I attended was a $24 million complex. My current one serves a hundred people, my last one 10,000 (about 5k members). There are things you can do with a church with 5k members that you can’t with a hundred and each has their place, service and purpose
I am by no means talking about skimping on materials, but I do have a hard time wrapping my head around these “complexes” that look more appropriate for the arena for a division one basketball program, than a church.
I guess that we do need to see more of the picture, but I have things like a budget for a mega church that was floating around the internet a couple months ago showing something like 80% of their offering going toward staff and facilities going through my head. That may be the exception, don’t really know, but like I said I have a hard time wrapping my head around the concept.
That would depend on how we determine what a church church looks like. IMHO, how it looks is largely irrelevant (we’d probably be in agreement on this). What it does is more important. For example, my previous church that cost $24million probably spends a similar amount on their Special Needs ministries that my current church has as a budget (maybe a little less). Is $3.17 billion too much to spend on church property? Maybe. Maybe not. The Lord alone weighs the motives. Does the church have good reasons why they a) have a building, and b) why it costs as much as it does? If they do then it is not our job to wring our hands.
If you follow the links, it appears that $3.6 billion is the number spent annually building new buildings by those groups who are erecting new buildings. The total spent on mortgages, maintenance, utilities, improvements and other building related costs by those groups that have buildings is much higher. In the churches we have been part of, salaries and buildings typically account for 80% to 95% of all money spent.
That sounds about right…here is the budget of the church I’m attending now. It is shocking to see where the money that is extracted through “fear and guilt” ends up.
2013
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT % of BUDGET
Employees and Benefits 516,792 43.32%
Office of the Pastor 3,500 0.29%
Church Programs / Education 3,000 0.25%
Pastoral Care 2,500 0.21%
Music Ministry 9,000 0.75%
Media / Communications 3,500 0.29%
Children’s Ministry 14,100 1.18%
Student Ministry 8,000 0.67%
College/Singles Ministry 0 0.00%
Men’s Ministry 1,000 0.08%
Women’s Ministry 1,000 0.08%
Activities and Events 5,000 0.42%
Facilities 133,685 11.21%
Vehicles 4,500 0.38%
Administration 82,695 6.93%
Missions 19,200 1.61%
Debt Service 385,528 32.32%
TOTAL 1,193,000 100.00%
Average Per Week Required 22,942
Kevin and Dallas,
Great discussion! Thanks.
I lived in DFW for a while. Don’t they call it the mega-church capital of the world? I remember driving down one road (I cannot remember which one) and it seems that for about a mile or two, there was a mega church on ever corner.
Then, of course, there is the famous First Baptist Dallas….
Anyway, yes, I wish I had more details about what these numbers included and did not include…
It certainly does make one think.
At the same time, I wonder. Could such sums of money have been raised in the first place from purely non-institutional churches?
Just some more food for thought. 😉
>Could such sums of money have been raised in the first place from purely non-institutional churches?
Can you explain what you mean by “purely non-institutional churches”?
I’m aware of several congregations that can be described as being affiliates of/part of that non-denomination _church of Christ (non-institutional)_, that have spent US$10,000,000 for the land and building that the congregation meets in.
At least one congregation that can be described as being affiliates of/part of that non-denomination _church of Christ (Mutual Edification)_ owns the land and building that they meet in, which is assessed at US$1,000,000.
By “non-institutional,” I mean churches that do not have a building, a lead pastor (other than Christ), a paid staff, etc. I raise my question because I would guess that the largest percentage of that figure of money came from megachurches. I just wonder if the church at large would have even raised that much without them.
Personally, I’m all for small simple/house/organic churches. I really believe that’s where the best and truest discipleship takes place. I just don’t want to discount the different roles that other churches (even megachurches) might be playing in God’s kingdom.
>By “non-institutional,” I mean churches that do not have a building, a lead pastor (other than Christ), a paid staff, etc.
The non-denomination that is given the moniker _church of Christ (Mutual Edification)_ has no paid preachers, or other staff. When finances are available, they have a building. Their buildings are very basic. Sanctuary, entrance hall, bathrooms, and maybe a room off the baptistry end of the sanctuary. No kitchens, classrooms, pastor’s office, gymnasiums, libraries, or the like.
Given the cost of land in urban areas, it is not unreasonable for a congregation purchasing and building their own sanctuary, to have a budget of a million dollars, or more. ^5
I don’t remember if _church of Christ (Upper Room)_ ^2 was a division within _church of Christ (Mutual Edification), or _church of Christ (Non-Institutional)_. This group appears to meet the criteria defined by Chuck, but congregational finances, rather than doctrine, might be the driving force behind that appearance.
One of the major issues with not having a building, or renting a storefront, is inadvertantly violating one or more building codes, or local ordinances. Even if you keep the house-church down to twenty people, legal problems can ensue. This gets into one of the biggest, yet, from what I have seen, least addressed issues in the House-Church movement: “How to teach the Bible, when there is an ever expanding crowd of students?” ^3
I think it was Frank Viola’s research that implied that house-churches not only have more converts than non-house-churches, as a percentage of attenders, but also in absolute numbers. Rephrased, combining all house-churches into one group, and all non-house-churches into one group, the group with the most converts, numerically, is the house-church.
Picking up on Jeremy’s question:
>On the other hand, I don’t know how many “non-institutional” “churches” there are (how does one go about trying to count them), or what they spend their “tithe” money on (do they even tithe?).
If you are willing to equate _church of Christ (Mutual Edification)_ as meeting Chuck’s definition of “non-institutional”, then some data is available. Most of it done by students and staff at Florida College. One of the organizations affiliated with _Disciples of Christ_ periodically tries ^1 to gather data about them. One thing to note is that nobody makes any claims about the completeness, or accuracy of the data that is collected. Anecdotal data suggests that the offering plate is used for the building, including maintaince and insurance, church supplies,honouriums for evangelists, and benevolance amongst their own. Individual members tend to support individuals, and organizations whose theology is in line with their own.
Most Amish, and some of the more conservative Mennonite groups don’t have buildings, paid preachers, or the other things that most people equate with “a church”. What happens to tithes depends upon the specific congregation, but, in general, it is a personal thing, not a corporate thing.
Frank Viola’s organization tries to obtain/track that data across the entire religious spectrum. His organization does pick up a percentage of house-churches, which is an area that most researchers omit, due to the sheer difficulty in obtaining any information.^4
^1: “Tries” is the operative word. Between the adamant autonomy of some congregations, and outright hostility by some towards those who don’t have the exact same theological orientation, obtaining a list of congregations that probably share these theological practices is the start of the problems. Getting a response from those on your list can be even more exasperating.
^2: There really is a sub-group, to which that moniker is applied! The big difference between them, and the other sub-groups, is that they believe that one must meet in a room on the first, or higher floor of the building. Or maybe it is on the first floor, of a two story building. [The material I’ve read about them is, even by normal church of Christ standards, extremely sparse.] Furthermore, that room must be accessible by a staircase, which one walks up. [ Ground floor is at ground level. First floor is the floor above the ground floor. Second floor is two floors above the ground floor. etc.]
^3: The traditional Foreign Mission model doesn’t appear to work here, because it starts with the expectation that one will have one convert after ten to fifteen years, of weekly Bible study with a group of ten to twenty people per week. A House-Church that starts out with two people, can have fifteen or more people in attendence after eighteen months. The size at which it needs to multiply into two or more groups, to avoid legal issues. However, most of those attendees had never read the Bible before attending the House-Church, and are still learning what the Bible says, and means. They aren’t ready to start their own group, but are “pressured” into doing so.
^4: I think it is Frank Viola who said that whilst the data implies that house-churches are growing, we simply don’t know if that is because we are getting better at locating them, or if there are more of them, or if it is due to some other factor, or if it is due to a combination of factors. Social norms have changed so radically in the last twenty years, that it simply might be that people are more willing to claim a home-church as their primary place of worship today, than they used to.
^5: Most of that money is for the land. I think it is in Portland, that one architect is experimenting with recycling 40 foot containers, as church buildings. The cost is much lower than a “normal” building. US$20K for the shell, and about quadruple that for utility hookups, and meeting building code requirements. Furniture, fixtures, and fittings are about the same as a regular building.
The Orthodox Russian Church maintained several rolling chapels so that parishoners along the Trans-Siberian rail track, and branch lines, could periodically attend a legal (Canon law, not state law) service. Between 1880, and roughly 1950, there were between two and three dozen rolling chapels, wandering the railroad tracks of the United States and Canada.
Fascinating information, Jonathon. Thanks for sharing!
Good question. I sort of doubt it, but then, why would they need to?
On the other hand, I don’t know how many “non-institutional” “churches” there are (how does one go about trying to count them), or what they spend their “tithe” money on (do they even tithe?).
It would be an interesting study to take, say, 1000 “institutional” church members and see what their “tithe” money gets spent on, and then compare this with the giving of 1000 “non-institutional” church members. It would be nice to see (1) how much was given, and (2) where this money went.
That would be an interesting study indeed!
If you added up all the money Christians spent on houses would you say Jesus wouldn’t have spent that on houses? There is no context to how that money breaks down so it is kind of meaningless unless your position is churches shouldn’t spend any money on meeting places.
Sandra,
But nobody buys a house in Jesus’ name.
Church build their buildings “for Jesus” all the time. I have written a LOT about church buildings on this blog, so won’t try to repeat any of it here. My bottom line is that I am not opposed to church buildings under certain conditions.
Provoking. Thing is, if it is for new churchbuildings that will actually be filled perhaps we should rejoice that more churches are coming up and more people will meet and praise the Lord. Here in Sweden the largest amount is spent on maintaining churches that are mostly empty. Hardly anyone builds anything new. 🙁
Suri,
Yes, that is sad too. When the money is going to maintain the buildings, but they sit empty, even on Sunday.
Isn’t there a growing number of people in Sweden who follow Jesus but don’t attend a church building on Sunday?
Well, partly growing but nothing big. It’s a very secular country. I heard yesterday of some by-gone home-church revivals. Still, if we put our trust in God….
One thing is: if the building is already there, why meet in someones sofa instead? I love the atmosphere of old churches were people have worshiped for many hundred years. They are a heavenly treasure. If we all came together there on Sundays AND had home-churches in the week I think we would be better of… we would get both the large and the small perspective, both the grand and the intimate. Problem is the hierarchy and narrowmindedness of those organisations that own the buildings.
On a happier note, there are revivals, they are just not very wellspread.
And then we look at our kingdoms and call it “Gods blessing” or even “revival” (if we managed to full the place up). Most often it is probably just shoddy stewardship.
I suspect that the wall street journal article is an elaboration of
http://tobingrant.religionnews.com/2014/12/08/church-construction-20-year-low-boom-bust-three-graphs/ .
Something I’ve thought would make for a good long-term outreach project, is for a church to acquire enough land to last for several decades, to be used to bury all who request a Christian burial. Said service to be provide at low/no cost to the family. A simple wrapping of the body in linen, or in a plain pine box. The grave marker would be a simple concrete block, with the individual’s name and the appropriate dates on it.
You can put 800 bodies in one acre of land. Current US Census Bureau data is 807.3 deaths per 100,000. Call that one acre of land for every 100,000 people in the catchment area, per year. For metropolitan Portland, that means 150 acres will last 50 years, at the current death rate.
Excellent research! Thanks for that!
I must confess I have never heard this burial site idea before. Is this because most burials are so expensive?
Cremations cost around US$3,000, if done by the crematory.
Cremations cost around US$5,000, if arranged by a funeral home.
Funerals cost around US$10,000, depending upon the part of the country one lives in.
Those figures are at the low end of the scale. It is not uncommon for them to be double, or even triple that.
The idea occured to me, when reading about yet another congregation fighting city hall, because they were required to purchase acerage that bore no relationship to either the congregation’s current church size, or even the average size congregation. (It doesn’t matter if mean, mode, or median is used, the required acreage was far more appropriate to 20,000 in attendance on Sunday morning.)
The “excess” acerage is used for a churchyard, and offering a free burial would be something that some, perhaps most community members would appreciate.
There would be lots of opposition to the idea, all of which revolves around the idea that a business method or practice that generated money decades ago, should still be able to generate money the same way, even if the entire industry has suffered what the Black Knight called “only a scratch”.
The other obstacle is that department of health, in the name of maximizing damage to the local ecology, frequently mandates embalming, and other things that prevent the normal decay, and return of the body to eartth.
If the churchyard is big enough, and the congregation is ecumenical enough, there could be a space set aside for Jews, Muslims, and other religious groups, that don’t want their dead to be intermixed with non-members of their belief system. Clergy of those groups could perform the funeral.
Landscaping according to the local climate, would minimize upkeep costs, preserve the local habitat, and maintain an acceptable appearance, especially in areas where local water is non-existent.
What prevents it from having a negative impact on the church budget, is the property tax exemption that 501c3 organizations have.
By performing the funeral gratis, the IRS won’t treat it as commercial venture on the part of the church.
By the same token, by allowing donations, it can probably generate enough revenue to pay its own way.
The tricky part is in giving reciepts that satisfy IRS requirements, if the donor wants to use their gift as a tax deducation.
Churches often provide an essential community service. I don’t just mean their social programs. In smaller communities with few other public facilities, churches are a vital resource in that they provide a meeting (dare I say congregating) place for the locals. Sure, the buildings cost money to build and maintain, but what price do you put on serving a local community?
Rather than looking at the money, when our Father is richer than we can imagine anyway, we should be looking at what we’re doing with the facilities God has given us. Are churches using their resources in a way that fulfills the great commission?
Right. There are lots of factors to consider.
I am not opposed to buildings necessarily, but I do think we have more buildings than we need…
Granted a church can fall into materialism when it begins to value things more than people. If a new building program is for the pride of its membership rather than the effectiveness of its ministry, then the church is in danger of a bad building program. In all things, the church must desire that Christ be lifted up and that the lost are reached and that the saved be discipled to the glory of God. But You can be sure that if God wants your church to expand, He will bring leadership, unity, and resources. If those are not present, it is reasonable to take a step back and reconsider the direction. There is nothing in the Bible against a church expanding physically. The question is in the timing, motive, and purpose for the building. God is more glorified in the church being obedient to Him and growing spiritually than He is in the church expanding physically. Remember, that which is not of faith is sin; therefore, only be involved if you have searched for God’s will and believe you know what He is asking you to do Rom. 14:23
Can we say just because of the money spent means it to be wrong? Not necessarily., the materials assembled for the tabernacle are described in detail in Exodus 35-38 and summarized in Exodus 38:21-30. The total quantity of gold collected was approximately one ton; of silver, 3-3/4 tons; and of bronze, 2-1/2 tons. At today’s prices gold is approximately $500 per troy ounce, or $6000 per pound, or $12,000,000 per ton. Silver currently is priced around $12 per troy ounce, or $144 per pound, which is $288,000 per ton. Hence, the gold and silver used in the Tabernacle of Moses would be worth over $13 million today. Exodus 12:35 states that the Jews were given gold, silver, and ornaments by the Egyptians at the time of the departure from Egypt. The golden lampstand in the tabernacle weighed a talent and would today be worth a half million dollars for its gold alone. A replica of this menorah is now being crafted at the Temple Institute in Jerusalem.
2 Chron. 7:3 -When all the children of Israel saw how the fire came down, and the glory of the Lord on the temple, they bowed their faces to the ground on the pavement, and worshiped and praised the Lord, saying: “For He is good, For His mercy endures forever.”
Excellent points. The amount of money doesn’t necessarily make it wrong. Good analogy there also with the temple.
That is a sad fact no doubt, I’m sure that amount could have been a lot smaller. But Jeremy may I just say one thing about your blogs. I have only been a subscriber for a couple months but I have noticed that most of what you write has a negative spin on it. Such as the passage didn’t say this or doesn’t support this etc. I had no idea I signed up for a guy that just has his hate on for Calvinism. That being said you may assume some things of me and that ok. I still appreciate what you are doing and how you handle the Word of Truth for the most part, I would just rather hear you write about what the Word does say.
Respectfully Submitted
Adam Krahn
Adam,
Thanks for subscribing and for speaking up!
Please know that I do not hate Calvinism. I have never said this, nor do I feel it. I was a Calvinist myself for many years, and have many Calvinist friends. I love all Calvinists.
I know my current series on Calvinism is not popular with many. But at the same time, many others are quite thankful for it, in that it is liberating them from the bondage of a theological system that has held sway over them for so long. That is why I am writing it.
I do try to balance my posts between what Calvinist say a text means and then with what I (and others) think the text means. To present a different opinion on a text, one must also include the opinion of the text that one is trying to disprove. Even Jesus and Paul did this in their teachings. (you have heard that it was said… but I say to you…. etc).
If the “negative” part of a post seems too negative for you, feel free to skip it and just go down to the positive section of each post where I try to present what I believe the text is teaching.
Jesus Saves!
Um, this is looking a bit more like Jesus spends.
Ha ha ha!
From Wikipedia: China House Church
Christianity in China
“Official data of 2010 reported 23 million Christians. A survey published in 2010 reported 33 million Christians, of which 30 million are Protestants and 3 million Catholics. In 2011 the Pew Research Center estimated 67 million Christians.”
“They are also known as the “Underground” Church or the “Unofficial” Church. They are called “house churches” because, as they are not officially registered organizations, they cannot independently own property, and hence they meet in private houses.”
Imagine that…30 to 60 million people meeting in houses! By all accounts the church is growing rapidly in China. I heard the other day that Christians actually out number communists now…if that is true praise God!
We spend billions on elaborate churches in the U.S.A., and what do we have to show for it? Are we raising people of faith who are loving those around them? Or are we building Country club Christian communities?
Did you read the SHORT story of the “Gospel Blimp” yet Jeremy? I think it applies here.
I support a couple missionaries through Gospel for Asia. This organization applies the principles of thrift. From their website:
“The average cost to build a church in South Asia is $10,000 – $40,000.”
I’m sure there are costs required for code, and higher land costs here than Asia…but they build them as basic churches without the flashy attributes taken for granted stateside.
http://www.gfa.org/ministries/churches/
Thanks for the resources! That is amazing! It is shocking, really.
Great post! When you see the sheer numbers of what a religious system receives and what/how it disperses, it really drives home the point of its impending irrelevance. It is according to the order of this age and is crumbling. When you realize that millions of people have left the institution over the past decade (Barna research) you wonder how long it can continue to carry on.
On the other side, 15 years ago when we left a 12 thousand member church that took in millions a month, we had no idea where Father was taking us. Long story short, we relate with numerous communities of believers across the U.S. that walk together, even in finances. We’ve seen mortgage foreclosures stopped, hospital bills paid, lights turned on, food put in the table, a house built for a family with 7 adopted children and many more such things. There is no obligation for giving. It is just the compunction of the Holy Spirit and believers who have been liberated from religious institutions and taught about giving in a truly scriptural, New Covenant, Kingdom way. It’s an awesome thing to behold and experience.
Keep doing what your doing, bro. Appreciate the blog. Keep your peace!
Thanks, Bry. I am glad to meet another person who is trying to follow Jesus in a natural, daily way. Thanks for connecting!
Thank you for that article. You really have shown me God is alive and well.
I believe your post was to criticize, which all people would like to do, but it actually is more of a praise because you continue to show His love, mercy, and grace.
Your blog also helps in showing that our economy is flourishing. So many families are without homes and lives. The Church is stepping up to make all things possible.
Clay,
I am a critical person. It is one of my failures. I try to speak the truth in love, but sometimes it just comes out as criticism.
Where congregations are too large to meet in homes a meeting place must (of course) be provided. But it doesn’t need to be designed by Frank Loyd Wright. As I stated on another posting, God’s glory is to be manifested in His people, not thier buildings.
Right. There is a time and place for buildings. I am just not sure they need to be used only the way they are, or be as expensive as they are.
First, building church is very important due to the fact those who come to Christ need a place to worship. But, it’s been proven that sharing the gospel through evangelism is something that has been neglected by a vast majority of churches. Since Christ’s mission was to bring humanity back to God through Him. I guess if He were to spend that kind of money, a huge part of it would have been spent on spreading the gospel all around the world.
He did give Solomon the blue print for the temple.