The note of a church should be, not that of novelty, but of eternity. Like the Liturgy celebrated within, the measure of its greatness will be the measure in which it succeeds in eliminating time and producing the atmosphere of heavenly worship.
- Sir Ninian Comper (1864-1960)
If I could sum up my thoughts on ecclesiastical Architecture as well as Sir Comper I would be busy writing a book now. I think this one sentence should be watermarked in the tracing paper of every single designer tasked with putting form to the sacred. We are currently mired in an age where sacred space is solely an armature for the experience of worship or liturgy. While we continually trumpet the ability of music to help us enter the heavenly realm, we have reduced the building to mere scenery, a bland backdrop upon which to paint the worship experience. The trouble with this is that never in the history of mankind has there existed a bland backdrop of a building. The useful mental construct of neutral architecture is a farce, impossible and unwarranted.
Take as an example the recent glut of ascetic, pristine white rectangular rooms constructed for the housing of fine art. Popular architectural opinion would hold that these rooms constitute a blank slate upon which to view the objet d’art. This is nothing less than patently absurd coming from the same design professionals who claim the same pristine boxes epitomize the triumph of Information Age, IBM clean-room-esque, media-centered architecture in the brave new world of post-modernism. Architecture has never been, and never will be, neutral. Why would we wish it so? While we used to demand artful neutrality from our journalists, we never required it of our artists. The very act of putting form to space necessitates a viewpoint, an objective feeling we wish to create in the inhabitants. We set a psychological scene before the first object is ever encountered in a given space. While a Rothko painting might happily inhabit and dialog with a clean white box, it would set up a tangible dissonance in any room of the Vatican Museum’s Pinacoteca.
The obvious subsequent observation when confronted with the glut of supposedly neutral worship venues is to condemn them all as a thinly-veiled appeal to the theatrical, performance-minded culture of our age. While the churches claim to provide (and may in fact succeed in providing) an experience of heavenly worship apart from the visual, they do so against the clamorous backdrop of an architecture firmly rooted in our present societal avarice and pleasure. Whether it is the converted strip mall or the unmodified theatrical arena, we are deliberately housing God in a timely box. There are situations when this practical necessity is laudable as a stop-gap measure to get the church to the people – fast and efficient. We have, however, elevated this convenient practicality to the realm of the desirable and fashionable, condemning the urge to properly house our worship as worldly, sinful excess. We have abrogated our interest in eliminating time from the House of God and have shackled our worship firmly to the aesthetic spirit of our age. St. Barbara, help us!
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
"Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to that arrogant oligarchy who merely happen to be walking around."
- G.K. Chesterton
- G.K. Chesterton
Who writes this thing?
Blogs of Interest
Blog Archive
-
▼
2007
(47)
-
▼
October
(12)
- Happy All Hallow's Eve!
- The Catholic Brain
- Politically Incorrect Orthodox Cookbooks
- The New Iconoclasts
- Just a quick note to let you know I'll be back to ...
- Heavenly Worship
- Slow Blogging
- First We Kill the Architects
- Friday Daydreaming
- Who Says Catholics are Superstitious?
- Liturgical Warfare
- Beer Cheese Soup
-
▼
October
(12)
26 comments:
Glad you stopped by Lauren! This was kind of a "vent your spleen" post, it came off a little more strident than it should have. I happen to be wrapping up a strip mall church conversion at work and it came time to blow off a little accumulated steam. Thanks for listening!
Bravo! More later, but... you nailed it.
The Tabernacle and Temple have almost a complete verbal spec. section in the Old Testament. Bezalel was tapped by God to be an artisan. The building for God to inhabit was important to the Jew. The Temple was a place of teaching and sacrifice. The Christian needs no sacrificial chamber, we have Christ. A place of teaching is important still, as is a place for fellowship and ministering to others. So a Lecture hall, a gathering place, and a quite place to pray with others; I have not seen a building that does these things. The only thing that comes close in my mind is a Quaker meeting house. Every detail is clean and purposeful. The ethic of work was part of devotion. The works of architecture that we find beautiful many times had a sinister history. In the pursuit of Christ likeness I think we should hold the building to high touchstones of virtue. Economical: (we should spend money in God’s service, not human monument making), Generational; (something built for at least a hundred year life span) Rational (efficient and useful) and then Beautiful (which in my way of thinking comes out of the other things.) This would not be a cheap process but it would be a purposeful one. I love the pretty building, but I have to ask do they serve God. I would suspect a simple nun’s hospice building in Calcutta is closer to the Widow’s coins, than palaces for the middle and upper classes of the western world to sound out the name of God. I wrestle with the idea a lot. This is only how I feel today.
Clark,
I would suspect a simple nun's hospice building in Calcutta is closer to the Widow's coins, than palaces for the middle and upper classes of the western world to sound out the name of God."
I think this is a little hyperbolic - There is certainly virtue in asceticism, as seen in most of the monastic traditions of building. To call a grand church a palace for the middle and upper class, however, is not really fair. The parish church serves a region, not a class. It's not a palace for the people, it's a house for God. In the Catholic world, it is usually the (relatively poor) inner city churches that are infinitely more beautiful and reverent than the (relatively wealthy) suburban churches.
I'm also not quibbling with the amount of money spent on a church, even you agree that we should be building churches with longer life spans than 25 years. That is not a cheap proposition. My main beef is formal, with the church as auditorium rather than a window into heaven. You are of course factually correct in pointing out that the sacrifice of Christ is accomplished, but the sacramental commemoration of that sacrifice need not die out. The earliest (even 2nd generation) church fathers write very clearly of the Eucharistic nature of their worship. All worship requires sacrifice, and the bloodless altar is an icon of that sacrifice.
I guess that's gotten me to the root of my malaise - modern Christianity is largely iconoclastic and I think that is a shame. When we stop dedicating the highest beauty to God, we forsake the fount of our artistry. One of the unfortunate developments to arise out of the reformation is the idea that the first 1500 years of Christianity is somehow irrelevant or anathema to modern christianity.
"we should spend money in God’s service, not human monument making"
This is a false choice. There ARE other alternatives. A cathedral is a work of art. The great cathedrals of Europe have been producing converts - simply by speaking through sheer beauty - for hundreds of years. These buildings are an act of worship frozen in stone. When you walk into one of these sacred places, you KNOW it was built for only one purpose. You KNOW why it is there, and you know why YOU are there.
Your comments remind me of the words of Judas when the woman covered Jesus' feet in perfume; "Why this waste? This money could have been spent on the poor...".
I'm not saying you're like Judas, I'm just saying that art (well, good art) carries a spiritual and cultural value that can't be reckoned in dollars and cents.
Tim,
You bring up another good point, I can certainly attest to the power of ecclesiastical architecture to draw me closer to God. Sacred space can be a wonderful evangelical tool IF done correctly and as you said - with clear and unique intent. A church by definition should be otherworldly - it is not of this realm. That we have made churches very much of this realm is a very sad thing for me.
“One of the unfortunate developments to arise out of the reformation is the idea that the first 1500 years of Christianity is somehow irrelevant or anathema to modern Christianity.”
I could very easily be wrong, so please correct me if I am. I always thought that the indulgences sold by the church were being used to fund the building program; and that helped to fuel the reformation. I love a well built building, I love architecture, and yes I love the cathedrals and the quality of sunlight as it bounces of particles of dust in a stone high chamber. However, that’s me. I have not found a New Testament example about Christ asking for the monument and podium. If you want an amphitheater, put the people on a hill and push the boat out in the water. If you want to get you sick buddy into his presence tear the roof up. Also @ death the curtain separating God’s room from the rest of the lamp stands, tables, bowls, and people is torn apart. I don’t know if Christ wants the architecture, I know I want it; but that’s probably not the best reason.
On a ridiculous note: some guys dig monster trucks. If we build the JC’s Demolisher of Old Ford LTDs, and we call that worship it can be argued that it is. We take it to all the Sunday Sunday Sunday events and it becomes a tool for evangelism. The main reason we built the truck is because we dig trucks, not because God asked for it.
You also have to understand I think we spend to much money as a culture on all things not just monster trucks and houses of worship. I like the Jewish model of close to 27% to the church. I can’t get there yet, but we get closer every year.
Not since a Brit called out “Judas” when Dylan went electric for his second set in London, have I enjoy the comment so much.
www.gollotte.com
Clark,
You are partially correct about the indulgences bit, though the most blatant abuses were limited to Germany (and especially one Johann Tetzel), hence getting the attention of Mr. Luther. Probably the more lucrative source of income was the selling of bishop and cardinal hats, though these and other abuses were later corrected (too late, unfortunately, to mollify Luther or slow the snowball). This certainly does not taint the rich history of ecclesiastical architecture. The Church, at the hands of its vices, would and should have ceased to exist long ago if it weren't a divinely ordained institution guaranteed to last to the end.
It was a good point that Tim raised, we have a NT example of temporal wealth offered to the glory of Christ that is encouraged rather than repudiated by Christ himself. This would seem to urge balance in all things, as well as the proper disposition of wealth. Thus we have the Cistercians and Poor Clares and numerous other religious orders that go above and beyond the universal call to poverty shared by all clergy. The Church spends money on evangelizing and glorifying God - architecture is one vehicle for that.
Not to a stickler but I can’t find a New Testament call for fancy building.
If Christ is in Heaven and “the least of these” are the same as doing unto God; then the poor are the manifestation of Christ we should be serving. Perfume their feet and you get no complaints from me. What I’m talking about is the richest people in the world (Us) sitting in paneled houses of God whilst the down trodden sit in ruins. Once God and man can converse anywhere; the worship space becomes a gathering, educating and sending place.
I love a fancy building, but I don’t know if churches are the best use of architecture as worship. Those who have the money to build and those who have the design skills might better serve God if they serve his people. I’m always stunned that people buy 60 thousand dollar cars. I mean I understand the proclivity; it’s a point of pride purchase. Why is the symbol of wealth not three 20 thousand dollar cars. That’s still a nice car, but now you can give those other 2 cars to families in need. Same thing with building you can build a nice African school for 50 thousand dollars. Instead of a million dollar church; why not build a 300 thousand dollar worship space and in the lobby have a wall full of pictures of all the churches built in the places where Christianity is growing? Do a good building yes, but always be thinking where the money is better spent. Lots of nice churches were built in eyeshot of starving and oppressed serfs. Now the cathedrals are tourist attractions or fruit markets after Jean Nouvel gets a hold of them, and the serfs have died: tired and young. We need not continue that pattern.
"I mean I understand the proclivity; it’s a point of pride purchase."
I'm afraid you completely missed my point. Building a cathedral can be a beautiful act of humility... the polar opposite of a "point of pride" purchase.
Art like that is a gift to anyone who looks at it it, rich and poor, and it does them both good in different ways. Beauty is not a waste.
"I can’t find a New Testament call for fancy building."
I can't find one for ANY building. Shall we meet outside?
You keep pitting "cathedral building" against "helping the poor", when "both/and" seems to be the reasonable action. Cathedrals help everyone.
You also swim against many centuries of Church tradition in your assertion that it is better to build prayer barns than to "waste" money on beautiful churches. I hear the Pope's digs are pretty nice.
I still diagree with you Clark, but I think we've strayed from the original proposition a bit. Money matters aside, I think that the formal aspects of contemporary church architecture are problematic and in many ways irreverent. That makes me solidly old-fashioned and certainly out of touch with mainstream culture, but I kind of like it that way. I think we could use some cultural anachronism to remind us of what we've lost or left behind to gather dust. As for money, there certainly is a both/and solution. Build quality and give liberally, it's really not that hard.
BTW Tim, Clark isn't a Catholic so we can't ply him with appeals to the Magisterium! :) Maybe someday, I happen to know he has a tie to an old school Jesuit Priest back in the good old days...
Not appealing to the magisterium, per se... just small "t" tradition. The fact is, most Christians for most of history have seen the value of beautiful art in feeding the *soul* and in spreading the gospel.
As Matt can attest I approve of tradition until I need something else and then the model must change in order to react to my need. I want spaces that adapt to use not users that adapt to space. Cathedrals are great but it�s hard to have a light hearted child�s play in them, or stage a concert, have a dance, or play a sport. Cathedrals do their four or five task well and with artistry. However my original comment was meant to be about a simple well built multifunctional space. Again a Shaker meeting house is a great model. Although I think I wrote Quakers before, so my apologies to the Shakers. http://www.pbs.org/kenburns/shakers/ peep this website, my main man Kenny can make himself one bad documentary. These buildings are great and adaptable. Also that divine spark is evident in restrained craftsmanship. I believe in both/and that�s what a meant by a modestly priced church and then dozens of African churches.
Why not meet outside. Why not have small home churches. And then the churches get bigger so you have to meet in a public space. So you use the Roman basilicas that are all around. Two side isles and a taller center are nice, like some of the basilicas, run a perpendicular and you get a nice gothic cross cathedral plan. So the cathedral is an evolution of the Roman markets. This is just progression, we can progress some more. When you have uncertain city states, marauding thieves and warlords; the central safe house of God is important. It becomes a city center or education, and moral authority. I don�t think the post modern mind set want the temple. We want the temple. God wants the people, it�s all Christ ever wanted. Make the people the goal, not the shelter.
"that divine spark is evident in restrained craftsmanship."
And it is evident in a cathedral in *exuberant* craftsmanship.
"Why not meet outside."
Ummm... because it would never work?
"I don�t think the post modern mind set want the temple."
The post-modern mindset doesn't want lots of things that it NEEDS none the less. I think they are starving for the "temple" - for significant form. They are poor blind and naked, and don't know it.
"We want the temple. God wants the people, it�s all Christ ever wanted. Make the people the goal, not the shelter."
Again, a false choice. It is much more than a question of shelter. You really don't see any value in art? A cathedral - or even a beautiful little chapel - is a gospel in stone. It isn't just a matter of a roof to keep off the rain.
Leave minimalism to the post-modern materialists, always looking for the cheapest, quickest and easiest.
I would bet my next week's paycheck that if the Church in the U.S. started building beautiful churches again, we would also see much MORE missions and evangelization, not less. This is what I mean by a false choice.
People either will or won't make sacrifices for the cause of Christ, and everything else flows from that.
I'm amazed that we've managed to hit double digits in a comment box, I like it!
I think we're talking past each other on certain issues. It would seem that Clark doesn't think that iconography (and a well designed church is one big icon with many parts) is an evangelical tool. I think Tim and I agree that iconography and symbolism are wonderful evangelical tools and have been for thousands of years. We don't feel that a traditional church design is done in spite of the needs of the people, it fulfills the needs of the people.
I like a good multi-purpose space, but it invariably doesn't do worship as well as a purpose-built space (and here I'm talking more of a psychological aspect - entering the heavenly realm). If you need a space to play a sport or let kids run around can't you just use the local YMCA or community center? That's what these buildings are for.
Clark, you touched on the progression of church architecture from point A to point B and remarked that we should continue to progress even more. You've invoked what we call the Hermeneutic of Continuity in the Catholic Church. You progress, building upon the past with each new generation. What we have experienced in church architecture (and in architecture and the arts as a whole) is an example of the Hermeneutic of Rupture - the sudden overturning of years of tradition in favor of a new ideology. I'm convinced that this was an unhealthy cultural shift that is part and parcel of the increasing crassness and general crappiness of contemporary culture. I just happen to feel that there is a tangible link between the loss of the temple (even if it is symbolic rather than required) and the increasing commercialization of Christianity. We are losing the iconographic representation of our truths in favor of cultural norms.
In short, I don't like iconoclasts and I think in the absence of a strong Christian iconography people will go elsewhere for their iconography, hence the rise of branding and advertising in Christianity - it's just post-modern iconography.
In centuries past the C.B. (Church Building) was a theoretical as well as physical center of the community. It was typically the tallest and most detailed structure. The Catholic Church was the closest thing to a world government that existed. The CB was an educational center, many times the only library of any kind, and center of spectacle (although this was typically the town square in front of the C.B. Now in the current, we have a disjointed, unengaged, and self absorbed humanity. We no longer have a public space. The C.B. will sit in a sea of parking that is set back 30 feet form the road. Its detached nature forces it to be a decorated shed. It will always sit as object in a field. Cathedrals for the most part are engaged with the city on a pedestrian level; and most prevalently the hub that all movement radiates from. In the U.S. that historical physical context will not engage the pagan. The object in parking lot speaks to exclusivity, and says this Christian Country Club is for card carrying members only. The person who is invited sees the big light filled interior resplendent in minute intricate detail. They sit in awe as ritual is performed around them (part of which includes an offering). They walk outside and get back into a car and drive away. Many will come to God through this method, and that is a great thing.
My family goes to church about twice a week. I alone go to the YMCA 6 times a week. I get coffee at a pay for lifestyle establishment 2 times a week on average. My wife takes our son to the park about twice a week. I know the marketing of church is typically off putting; however the things that makes the YMCA (which use to be directly to the church), and Starbucks successful as the new “public spaces” is something that Christian communities could learn from. In my mind it’s just like education. Some folks are going to go to Yale because dad and granddad are Yale alumni. But what about that first generation in get a higher education. They have kids and two jobs. They do the University of Phoenix thing. Now on a percentage of increase in quality of lifestyle who benefits more. Our man from Yale was doing fine, and he will continue to do fine because an education was his birthright. Our man who night schooled it now has the ability to provide a birthright for his children. University of Phoenix buildings are economical, clean, and safe. The building is not the focus the knowledge is. Yale has some beautiful buildings, but with the stone and ivy there is a perception that all are not welcome. When it comes to church building keep all the Yale edifices, but let’s be building for those in the Phoenix. I love a beautiful icon, but most people associate an icon with a system of control. I want the Christian image to be more ethereal as a moral goal: the life of Christ; because it is always appealing.
Not a symbol, not a graphic, not a façade, but a life lived.
Symbols are like sponges to me, they can pick up lots of things that have little to do with their true nature.
Even the word Christian too many brings forth a certain negative image.
But Christ’s life has never been shown a faulty. The Symbol for many gets in the way.
"but most people associate an icon with a system of control"
Really? You're not projecting a little?
I believe that most iconography is used as a symbol for an organization that is very much interested in its own self-perpetuation. In the modern world these Building as Icon tend to be corporate logos. There is a great book called The Edifice Complex, which shares these thoughts. The group may have power, but the symbol has mythic powers. This is what uniforms costumes are all about the outward shaping of a person as an image, which let’s face it typically used to show dominance over others: Police, EMT, security guard, Doctor coat, soldier, Klansmen, Witch Doctor, King (earthly of course), ridiculous dictator in a Marx Brothers film. The outer appearance is also used to show who is controlled: prison whites, janitors’ overalls, etc. These clothes are functional at certain levels, but one of their main purposes it to locate the wearer in the chain of command. I tend to think of Christ ministry as being outside of the image. The Temple was an image, The Mercy Seat was an image; I believe Christ stood in opposition of the image. Follow the idea, the lifestyle, don’t follow the image.
I guess this is the heart of my argument. When Christ stood in direct opposition to the status quo of ritual and strived for a direct relationship with the believer; why do we work so hard to make a ritual and image in order to worship him? In my mind the whole “Least of these thing”, is saying you want to look at me, you want to worship me, then serve the poor and neglected. Image making is a clean inside activity that for the most part is the invention of the individual. Serving the people is hard and messy. I would rather do design work than deal with others. But God mandates that I serve others, if I design something pretty that’s nice too.
I think that way too much of how you're viewing Christian iconography is informed by materialist culture. When I look at the roundels at the base of a dome depicting the four evangelists, I'm not reminded of my place in the pecking order of Big Brother Church. I'm reminded of the gospels as pillars of the Word of God. When I enter the sanctuary and dip my fingers in the holy water font I'm not reminded of just who it is that's controlling me - I'm reminded of my own baptism into the Kingdom of God and the fellowship of believers. I don't bow towards the tabernacle out of fear or control, I bow in reverence for the continual presence of Christ in his Church. The priest doesn't wear red vestments on Good Friday or the feast of a martyr to associate power with a color, it is to signify the spilled blood of Christ or the sacrifice of the martyr. When the Thurifer incenses the altar I don't see power and control, I see the prayers of the saints rising towards heaven, just as Revelation depicts so beautifully. Christian iconography is not about control, never has been. It's always been about enriching the life of the Church in beauty.
It is our warping of iconography for commerce that has poisoned the well. I think we should take back our heritage. As a fan of Ken Burns, just imagine New York stripped of all of its iconographic history - it isn't needed and its superficial. You of course would admit that would be ludicrous - why must we strip the Church of its heritage?
Please bear with me these are thought processes I’m still working my way through so I may not pronounce the nuances properly. It’s Interesting that you brought up Ric’s documentary. The YMCA has a DVD player attached to ever cardio machine, so I have been watching the documentary again. Many of the thoughts circling in my head and touching past beliefs have been spurred by these films. The splendor of the edifice always has a cost, many time paid with the degradations of human life. When others see the city courthouse with it white walls and pediments; I see Tammany Hall and the use of immigrant Irish to build wealth for Tammany members by promising to help the working poor (this works well for the 2 major political parties today as well.) Others see the beautiful brownstones built by the old rich families on their tree lined streets; I see the blood in the streets spilled during the draft riot. Poor men lashing out at a system that meant if you had 300 dollars your child didn’t have to serve. Others see the Woolworth building the shining cathedral of commerce. I see five and dime stores all over the country that create the system which leads away from locally owned business straight to Bentonville Arkansas and the head quarters of Wal-mart. Not to mention the 9th floor of the triangle shirt waist company where the owners wanting to keep out union leaders in order to keep the prices low for stores like Woolworths. The fire killed over 150 young overworked women many who leapt from the 9th story on fire to the street below.
It is easy to enjoy the beauty of the monuments we make once time and death have silenced the serfs forever. I want no part in those buildings; I want a shelter that is noble and untainted. A shed for all to come under that carries none of the sins of our collective past. I know this odd for a designer to say.
Clark,
You have done a marvelous job of associating societal vices with societal monuments and I agree with you on that point to a certain degree. However, what is the big problem with the types of Christian iconography I described in the first paragraph? These don't correspond to systems of repression or control. Where's the beef?
"The Temple was an image, The Mercy Seat was an image; I believe Christ stood in opposition of the image. Follow the idea, the lifestyle, don’t follow the image."
The Temple and the Mercy Seat were far more than just images! They were *the* dwelling place of the Most High God among His people. Christ most emphatically did NOT stand in opposition to the Temple or the Mercy Seat... He was their fulfillment.
You talk as if the Israelites had priests and sacrifices because they were ignorant pagans and knew no better. Not so. Temple worship, the priesthood, the sacrifices, were all God's idea, so you denigrate them at your peril. God doesn't have bad ideas.
God created matter. He made the world beautiful as well as useful. He gave his people meaningful rituals. The Son came to us in human flesh, eating and drinking. He made wine, healed with mud and worshiped in the Temple with every other faithful Jew.
Seems from here that you may be trying to be more spiritual than Jesus.
Tim you are proving my point.
The Temple was (past tense) a necessity.
Once a year, one man could go inside to commune with God. Christ made it so we could all be our own priest. Some people are professional ministers, but I�m not sure if that is even called for. There are no Levites, for we are they. We are all saints in His church, he didn�t ask for the ritual. Page after page in the law lays out how the priest should dress from jewel incrusted vest to the bells on the skirt. It is all dictated from lamp stands, to that thing from the Indian Jones movie that is now in some warehouse in Virginia. Short of crawling in the crevice of a mountain to shield your body this is how man was given the chance to hear God�s will. The Jews did not have a personal relationship with their creator, they had law and ritual. Christ supersedes the ritual. When asked which commandment was the greatest he gave two that weren�t on the list. The system of religion is what he came to do away with; and in its place put prayer and ministry, so that we could care for his people. That is what the spirit is for; to help those who are seeking God. We are asked to drop our possessions, leave our businesses, take up our crosses, and follow him. In all the New Testament; I don�t see the verses that ask for the ritual or the sacred spaces. I see a life lived serving, praying, and teaching people. Christ prayed in a garden before taken to death, taught in houses and at wells just as much as in the temple. My point in all this line of argument is to say that Christ never asked for any of the things man has created with systems of religion. Man created new rituals, new edifices, new systems, in order to put God back behind the veil. I don�t believe from my understanding of scripture that is what God wants. I�m not trying to be spiritual; I�m trying to abide by what is asked for. Once a church gets to a certain size it may, may need a building. So let�s serve the purpose of shelter with a simple built to last and built to expand structure. I�ve been in many small wood 12 bench churches full of hearts crying out to God in praise. And I�ve also been ushered through St. Patrick�s cathedral in New York with 30 other students who just saw a nice room and not God. I see God in the life of believers not in the houses they build.
I don't really see a resolution to any of this in the near future but I'll offer a slightly different track - what is the place of beauty in Christianity? Why is it important to offer our best artistry in music (as in a praise band that strives for excellence) as opposed to architecture? Why can't beauty reside in the built environment? The rich symbolism I'm describing is not a system to obscure God, it is an expression of God in art. If God desires our praise why can't I praise him in my architecture?
Utilitarianism is for sheds and storage buildings, not any building for the public use of man. To deny the expression of Christianity in architecture is to deny the impulse of man to create and offer his creations to the glory of God. Your view of Christian art is tainted by a misunderstanding of the history of the Church - there is no system and God isn't behind a veil. I can still talk to him as freely as ever. It's just strange to me that you can approve of some artistic offerings to God and vehemently oppose others. Either that or you think that conscious minimalism is the only acceptable offering when it comes to the built environment.
If I might change the subject slightly - you mentioned that God doesn't want the ritual. What, then, is baptism? Is it a ritual? Is it necessary? Every time you baptise someone in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit you are engaged in the most ancient and primary sacrament of the Church. What is the praise and worship period at the beginning of a service? By all objective criteria this would be part of the new rite of the Christian Church. That being said, I have nothing against a good period of praise and worship, but it still exists within a ritual of praise, prayer, and teaching. The communal gathering of Christians necessitates some form to guide the worship - it's just the old forms that you dislike.
Read the early Church Fathers and you'll find that ritual has been a part of the Church from the very beginning. The ritual is not evil - it is the visual, aural, and physical expression of our faith.
The following argument is quite semantic so I apologize ahead of time. I think there are necessary Christian acts, which I differentiate from ritual. Baptism is important, as an act. A ritual in my mind has specific tools and done by a specific person. If I have a church service at home with 12 other families and someone wants to get baptized and we all caravan down to the lake and wad out in the water and have a baptism that is all that is needed. Everything else that is attached to it is superfluous aesthetics. A church meeting can take any form you want it to. I understand that an ordered service with we do X, then we do Y, and we follow that up with Z; is helpful from a logistical standpoint. However, we don’t have to do X, Y, or Z and it can still be a church meeting. When the form your church meeting takes dictates the way your building functions that’s great, but what if you want to change the flow. In some ways you can’t because you are locked into a specific building type. You have now structure how the church meeting will almost always run. It’s not the age of the form of meeting that I totally have a problem with, it’s that the building now makes the decisions for the group.
I have respect for the early church fathers, their insight is important. However I’m not going to take it as gospel, because it’s history of thought; and not the word of God. Histories are written by the victors, and can be fallible. The Word of God is not. I can read Mathew Henry and agree with him. Many things he writes are insightful and I am educated by his scholarship. At the same time he could be mistaken, especially when his idea are not fully founded within scripture. To use a secular example, let’s look at Howard Zinn. Howard’s book A People History of The United States is an amazing book of history; very detailed and educational. But along with being a great historian the guy is also a nutter. So I read the history and examine the facts; but when he goes of on his tangents that are his thoughts and not the history recorded I have to read with an examining eye. Point to fact if it is not expressed in the text of The Bible, it can arguable be filtered out of needs of the church.
If you dig certain things in your building, and you can afford them, put them in. But the church’s money is Gods money, and I think that there are better uses for God’s money.
You have an excellent group of musician, the equip them well it cost what 40 thousand bucks. That’s a lot of dough. Of course most musicians pay for their own axe and strings so that could probably bring the cost down. So for 40 large you got something nice that can be used to praise God. You can hardly build a cheap church for less than 500 thousand. A nice piece of sculpture goes for what 30 thousand. At least that thing you can maybe sell if needed to. The statue is nice looking and people like it. But what if we put a big scale in the front of the room and showed on one side the statue and on the other 30K worth of AIDS cocktails in Africa. If you put it to a vote I hope my church picks the drugs. You can only spend money once. Both / And is a nice concept; but even if I had to choice of a 15K statue AND the 15K from the pharmacy, I think I might just sell the statue. I think westerns and American Christians in particular need to start looking at the true cost of things. This in my mind should include what the money could be doing.
Let's take money completely out of the equation for a moment and maybe we can reach the bottom of our disagreement. If someone gives you a sum of money with the only stipulation being that you spend it on a single building for your church, what do you build? My contention is that it is better to build something that glorifies God in and of itself rather than something indistinguishable from any number of other performance venues. We've spent the same amount of money, but I think that the difference in approach is then made pretty clear. I would say it's doubtful that either of us will convince the other differently.
Post a Comment