I have been struggling with the idea of a church having a building because buildings often result in the Church looking inward to maintain the building at least as much as they look outward to help usher in the KoG.

This is part of the "Church as a verb" sort of thinking, where Church is something you do (verb)and not some place you go (noun). If Church were a verb then there would not be a building but if Church is a noun than a building is essential.

Jesus was on the move a lot and so was the early church. They did not build buildings to my knowledge but met in each others homes and businesses for worship and fellowship. This is part of my own hesitation with a Church building, we may be missing some of the message of Jesus in building a structure. And then I heard something on the radio...

Buildings make a statement - "We are going to make a commitment to this community." The building is symbolic of the nature of the mission of the building. So perhaps a building is not too bad at all? But then I got to thinking, "couldn't actions make the same statement?"

Couldn't being a verb church say the same things as a building would suggest (commitment to the community, care for community, provide and serve community, etc.)?

So for a second I was back on board with a church building, then I wondered...

I still am on the fence.