A sermon “zinger” used to encourage church plants instead of resuscitating old churches goes like this: “It is easier to have a baby than to raise the dead!” Jesus, however, did only the latter. Evangelism is a bit more complicated than the sound bite conveys, simply because people are. Whether or not they are consciously aware of it, many non-Christians are seeking a deeper, ecclesial reality in their life, not a gospel that caters to their present one. If non-Christians go to church, or back to church, a significant percentage of them want it to look, architecturally, like a traditional church. If you doubt this assertion, look into Lifeway’s recent survey that shows it to be true.
This is why Christopher Benson’s Hosting the Holy One post on beauty in our churches is not merely a concern for hipster Christian aesthetes, but for anyone who cares about evangelism. Preserving old churches – especially our endangered pre-modern ones – should therefore be considered alongside the prospect of building new ones. (Though it is fair to hope that such restorations will not replicate the disorientation and iconoclastic purging to which some well-meaning congregations have unfortunately resorted.) Even when building anew, however, churches should consider constructing in traditional styles. A vanguard of traditional architecture, centered at Notre Dame, is growing, and as the New Liturgical Movement points out, it is not necessarily more expensive to build that way. For more, see the Institute for Sacred Architecture or Philip Bess’ excellent book Till We Have Built Jerusalem. Evangelicalism boasts a great variety of architectural styles in its history, and they can be recovered.
But, some might ask, Isn’t the pragmatic modern style of architecture more conducive to pragmatic evangelicalism? Not by a longshot. In An Architecture of Immanence, Mark Torgerson demonstrated the alliance of Protestant liberalism (to which evangelicalism is traditionally opposed) and architectural modernism. His diligently researched book concludes that flat, immanent modern architecture is uniquely suited to mid-century liberal Protestant denial of the supernatural, both of which (he seems to subtly imply) have been outmoded. Before evangelicals build in the modern, pragmatic style, therefore, they might want to consider whether or not the architecture they worship in will be counteracting the sermons preached therein for decades to come. It is impossible for architecture to be neutral.
Still, I’m not too hopeful about the possibilities for an evangelical recovery of traditional architecture. Having spurned the superior resources of Christendom, evangelicals have great difficulty detaching themselves from our dominant culture, and architecture is no exception. In addition, our economic downturn will do much to regenerate that ancient argument (John 12:5) against extravagance in worship, as if the poor were not ministered to by beauty as well. God, needless to say, does not require exquisite buildings, and “wherever two or three or gathered” still, of course, holds true. But as the “easier to have a baby than raise the dead!” dictum catches on, we best brace ourselves for Chick-fil-A church plants (available on Sundays!), or some really ugly babies.
[crossposted at North American Churches]
February 19th, 2010 | 1:35 pm | #1
And how long will it take before the first comment appears saying we should not spend money on beautiful churches, but give the money to the poor and for the work of missions?
Perhaps those who are quick to jump to that kind of a conclusion should ponder John 12:1-8
February 19th, 2010 | 2:13 pm | #2
Rev. McCain, first, the article says it may not be more expensive to build beautiful, and not just utilitarian, churches, so hopefully it would have taken a while before someone who had merely skimmed the article posted that sentiment.
Second, my mission has had that experience. While there was no question that we would build “a church that looks like a church,” we have found that we can obtain relatively inexpensive, attractive, prefabricated church buildings to which all sorts of attractive, traditional finishes can be applied. It helps that the members of the Diocese of the Mid-Atlantic States prefer Wren-inspired, neoclassical churches to Cram-inspired, neo-gothic churches. There’s even an outfit that manufacturers prefabricated steeples!
Third, citing John 12 as part of an argument that we should expend large sums on beautiful church buildings assumes, I think, that our churches house Christ, and not just His wayfaring people. I agree with that understanding of the sacramental worship that takes place at church, but, of course, not all readers of Evangel do.
February 19th, 2010 | 2:24 pm | #3
My thought here is that if you’re going to build, build well and build with some kind of cultural savvy — but the fact of the matter is that the Christian faith did fine for almost 350 years as a start up with no buildings per se. I think if we thought harder about what it is Jesus calls us to and for, we would see our buildings not as objects for their own sake but tools for the sake of a mission. And while a hammer is a tool, so is a paint brush, and so is an art gallery.
February 19th, 2010 | 2:33 pm | #4
“our churches house Christ, and not just His wayfaring people” . . . if all they contain is His wayfaring people, they are in a serious world of hurt. Where the Word of Christ is preached and taught, there is Christ. You know, the whole “where two or three are gathered….” thing.
Notice I’m not even mentioning the Eucharist, since that would tend to cause apoplexy among the Zwinglian/Calvinist contingent. But now that you mentioned it….yes, that too!
: )
February 19th, 2010 | 2:47 pm | #5
[Buzzer noise here]: Red herring alert! Red herring alert!
“we would see our buildings not as objects for their own sake”
And where in this post was this said or even suggested? Or in any of these discussions? I may have missed it, but I don’t think anyone is suggesting that church buildings are objects ‘for their own sake.’
February 19th, 2010 | 5:00 pm | #6
I seem to recall a quest at this forum for the one sentence definition of evangelicalism. But thanks to Benson’s comment above, we need look no further for a one sentence definition of evangelical architecture: “Come on inside, grab a tub of buttery popcorn, and watch the movie called ‘God.’”
February 19th, 2010 | 5:18 pm | #7
Ouch.
February 19th, 2010 | 5:33 pm | #8
Ouch is right. But we can hope this definition, which is currently appropriate, will soon be thwarted by a renewal of architectural reverence. The sentence might then be replaced with something more fitting to Christian faith, and we wouldn’t even have to abandon the dietary metaphor. “Take and eat; this is my body” would work quite well.
February 19th, 2010 | 5:39 pm | #9
Amen.
February 19th, 2010 | 6:33 pm | #10
I’m sure the original post’s links would give us some starters, but we can ask ourselves, too: Are there principles of evangelical church architecture, principles or ideas unique to evangelical churches beyond principles applicable to all Christian churches? Here’s a beginning, brought to my attention by my high school history teacher: In Catholic churches, the Altar is front-and-center. Calvin put the pulpit front-and-center.
February 19th, 2010 | 6:47 pm | #11
Lutherans put both front and center.
February 19th, 2010 | 9:32 pm | #12
To agree with the Lutherans, making both Word and Sacrament central is, I think, a good move. There’s a good book that deals with the architectural (and theological) perils of undue focus on the sermon:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d.html/ref=redir_mdp_mobile/179-3506619-5338602?a=0195179722
February 19th, 2010 | 9:48 pm | #13
Mr. Milliner, you might find it interesting to see what developed in Lutheranism early after the Reformation, the construction of altars with the pulpit built into them, with the baptismal font in front. It is a very visible confession of the centrality of Word and Sacrament in Lutheran theology. Here is an example:
http://cyberbrethren.com/2010/01/11/font-altar-pulpit-a-uniquely-lutheran-chancel/
February 19th, 2010 | 10:57 pm | #14
Wow. McChurch that is not.
February 20th, 2010 | 1:14 am | #15
RS asks–
Yes. The evangelical principle of architecture and the place of art in general is this: there is no principle. That is, there is no positive aesthetic principle grounded in theological reflection. The only actual principles are negative; they state what aesthetic considerations, designs, products, and practices must not do (here one can see that the genealogy of evangelicals is dominated by the Reformed heritage). The reasons evangelicals do not exert themselves in theological reflection on aesthetic matters are left as an exercise for the reader. :-)
All aesthetic matters are subordinated to technique: the method(s) which maximize efficiency and effectiveness of evangelicals’ desired practical aims. Historical theologically derived aesthetic principles have been displaced by an ad hoc set of technological principles (see Mr. Turk’s comment above regarding tools for a common expression of this substitute of technique for an aesthetic principle).
Suppose an evangelical congregation wishes to build a “sanctuary.” How would those responsible for the material resources of the congregation justify their proposed and final designs? After economic considerations are dealt with, the justification for an evangelical “sanctuary” design is controlled preeminently by technical needs and aims. Aesthetically meaningful or sophisticated interior/exterior design, symbols and ornamentation is minimized for the sake of, for example, motorized lifting platforms, the routing of shielded audio and network cabling, motorized projection screens, high wattage stage lighting fixtures and controls, integrated mediation systems, unobtrusive but comprehensive monitoring and surveillance of the property and building (video, motion detection, security sensors, remote alarm communication with law enforcement), etc. The practical aims that this technical system serve are–via the production of a specific kind of visual and auditory experience–the delivery of information to and the drawing out of desired social and emotive responses from the attendees. “Traditional” architectural/aesthetic forms, symbols and structures are at best inefficient for (and at worst hostile to) eliciting the desired evangelical responses from a contemporary audience. Stylistic judgments are constrained by the residuum of the construction budget and, if they grope beyond utilitarian criteria, are inevitably kitschen.
Note that the Lifeway survey was of the “unchurched.” Insofar as an evangelical congregation is oriented toward an attractional model of the church, the logic of technique will adjust to the flux of preferences for specific stylistic appearances. But this apparent change to a “traditional” style of architecture would not be for theological-aesthetic reasons, but because the present technical structure is no longer effective for one of the desired aims. The tool-aesthetic is still the rationale. Personally, I think an evangelical congregation would be more likely to change its core attractional principle rather than respond to what is sure to be a passing fancy of the young “unchurched” people for the novelty of the old and ornate. Once the resources have been poured into the sophisticated and progressive technology of the contemporary evangelical “campus,” it must be applied. Failing to use these effective tools, much more removing them, would violate the logic of technique and be regarded as regressive. Implementing the techniques has created new needs and habits in the church’s social life and identity, and if the church’s relation to outsiders must change, the justification for doing so can easily be found because of the pleasant and good things that technique has produced for them.
February 20th, 2010 | 7:19 am | #16
But I hasten to add, that within Lutheranism, as in all of Christendom, there has been an unfortunate slide toward banality, utilitarianism and sterility in church decorations. The witness of history however is firmly opposed to such.
February 20th, 2010 | 8:44 am | #17
I am baffled at the attempt to synchronize our visual of church, as manifested down through the historical church age of buildings, in context with what might have been the conceptual vision of church in the 1st thru 3rd centuries of Christianity. If history and archeological evidences suggest, it seems in part that the Jewish synagogues were a reflection of the temple in Jerusalem as modeled by the order within. Obviously during some point the Christians were persecuted by the Romans and probably the church went under ground like in China for example, thus we have the home church effect. How much of this architecture from the synagogue was incorporated into the home church is unknown, at least I am unaware of evidences.
This brings me back to the point, where along the line of Church history did the idea come from to design some of the most beautiful ornate churches known. I understand the quest during the milieu of the first millennium to explode the grander of heaven on earth with the magnificence of church architecture, the scope, size, and the vaulted ceilings.
Where did this originate? It seems a strong leap from early Christianities view of simple house worship to the grandeur of cathedrals in Europe and yet there is a sense of awe. I suppose given man’s innate ability to conceive visionary things of God that the traditional church bore out the best of both places, heaven and earth, Revelation 21:1.
February 20th, 2010 | 10:20 am | #18
Bryant, your comment reflects common misunderstandings among Evangelicals. The early Christians were few in number and persecuted. They did not have the means or opportunity to construct beautiful stand-alone buildings for their worship; however, when they could, they beautified their worship spaces with art that was the finest of which they were capable. For instance, the house church in Dura-Europas is a wonderful example of a Christian worship space, filled with paintings and as much visual symbolism as they could manage. It was constructed at some point in the 200s. The “simple house church” is not quite as simple as some would think or hope it was. The point therefore for this discussion is that being that unlike today, when much of American Christianity is content with banal vapid worship spaces, Christians through the ages have made every attempt to offer their finest to the glory of God.
February 20th, 2010 | 4:07 pm | #19
Depends on the timing when Christianity became widespread through out the then known world. As Far as can be ascertained by scripture primarily Paul’s epistles, let us not forget Peter & James, and external sources, it is fair to say it all started outwards from Jerusalem as some point in time. Albeit with the Diaspora synagogues were fairly common through the Levant and in full use. Paul more than likely went to the Jewish synagogues first to preach the gospel to the brethren and gentiles. This surly was the structural setting for church, especially with the Hellenistic Jews and gentile converts. What transformed after this period of time is open for debate, but suffices to say at some point upon the Roman persecution of Christians by Nero and the ensuing battle that Ultimitly led to the Jews being evicted from Jerusalem in 132 AD I believe, all that we know is let in the rubble pile I suppose. Hence I feel that the hidden Church probably prospered for some time until the persecutions subsided and more importantly Monotheism became a dominant form of religion. Obviously not all the synagogues were affected by Rome, some aspects survived in relative peace perhaps in places such as Alexandria Egypt or Damascus Syria and points east, just a guess but probable. It really did not get into full ornate swing until Rome became Christianized by Constantine and thereafter things transformed into some of the most beautiful structures in the world. For purposes of the OP, it seems the unbelievers are drawn to the splendor and awe and perhaps the inspiring presence of God in a building. Being a believer I often wonder in our own environs for example churches in boxes where is God in the kingly sense that is the sanctity of the church that becomes a missing ingredient for the worshipper. I am not suggesting we need the building for Christ to be present, but we seem to lose tradition as we redefine what a church building should be, as in the case of your link to a cyber place of worship experience, scary Rev. McCain
February 20th, 2010 | 4:13 pm | #20
Bryant, I may have been unclear, for it appears you missed the point of my comment. I apologize for not being more clear.
We know from archeological discovery that quite early in the history of the Church, Christians were decorating their places of worship as best as they could, from the most humble of surroundings, like the catecombs, to the “house churches” which were, in point of face, residences converted to Christian churches we see Christians doing the very best they could, under their circumstances, to beautiful their worship spaces, with paintings of Biblical stories, of Christ, with a whole host of Christian symbols. It is quite a contrast to the sterility of most American Protestant churches that suffer from the remnants of the iconoclasm of the Zwinglian/Calvinist movement in the 16th century. How early do we find this kind of artwork in use? Very early, dating in some cases into the first century, but for a certainty, in the 200s. It is not the case that Christians pursued the use of art in their places of worship until Constantine legalized Christianity.
But the greater history of the Church, in both West and East, reveals that the use of visual arts to beautify worship spaces dates to the earliest centuries of the church. And this has quite a lot to say to how we decide to construct our worship spaces. This is all very much based on the Incarnation, in which God became flesh, Jesus being the icon of the Father. And thus, for that reason, the use of visual images to depict him and the great works of God through the Bible has always been a part of the Great Tradition.
Simply put, until the destructive tendencies of the Reformed theological movement, the church in both West and East never eschewed the use of visual arts. This is a legacy that has been perpetuated since and we see its sad legacy in sterile, white spaces for worship that resemble lecture halls more than places where the Almighty God of the University is worshiped and adored. Ugly babies have been around for quite some time in Protestantism, and more’s the pity.
February 20th, 2010 | 8:47 pm | #21
Yes looking back a few posts we perhaps have crossed paths. I agree with your quick history lesson that has shown a decline in the magnificence glorious architectural buildings of the roughly 10th – 13th 14th centuries and perhaps beyond, Can’t recall all of it now, but the reformations rejection of various iconological characteristics of that thought of how the church should look, did suffer in that perspective. But I believe we both agree that God is not in the house per say, but rather is in the heart of the believer you has been sealed by the Holy Spirit. Now I appreciate the artistic if not holistic character of the church that reflects all the heavenly glory. It keeps the sanctity of the sanctuary as the abode of the word, the Eucharist and fellowship of the body of Christ in focus below the cross of Christ. I can’t say all Baptist churches’ follow this path, but I like to think we do in heart. Any I understand the OP, you and I do occasionally read Biblical Archaeology magazine. There have been some recent discoveries that would lend credence to early churches character that you are describing, not all though, that we may never know. What is important then as it should be now, is applying the word to our hearts, have great Lord’s Day, enjoy the conversation.
February 21st, 2010 | 5:49 pm | #22
The high school history teacher I referred to above was a member of First Orthodox Presbyterian Church. Originally, the church had a plain cross (not a crucifix, no corpus) at the front, until someone complained that even that was too much iconography for a Puritan church, and they took it down. This didn’t work, though, as the wood paneling around the cross had faded, leaving the dark, unfaded wood from behind the cross after it was removed. A couple of my catholic friends who have also visited that church call it “the naked church,” and perhaps such “ugly” or “naked” churches are the logical artistic expression of Calvin’s theology.
I got that sense from one of the first chapters of J.I. Packer’s _Knowing God_. Yet another evangelical Anglican, John Stott, celebrates traditional, cruciform churches at the beginning of one of his books, _The Cross of Christ_, I believe it is. I wonder if those evangelicals who make a considered choice to display the cross – around their necks, in bulletins, on their steeples – could be persuaded to build the cross into their architecture.
I would ask those who set up contemporary, naked evangelical churches a very practical question: Where am I supposed to rest my eyes during worship? During the sermon, I look at the preacher. That’s OK with me. Oftentimes, the words to the songs are projected on the front walls. (My baby sister calls a local Baptist church “the church with words on the walls.”) When I need to, I read the words. But the words to evangelical music are very often so repetitive, I don’t need to look at the projections. Should I look at the worship team? This would seem contrary to what I’m always hearing about worship not being about the worship team, but about God.
Which gives us a much broader question to ask: How can we design, build, and decorate our churches so worshipers focus their hearts and minds on God?
February 21st, 2010 | 6:35 pm | #23
Well, in keeping with the original post, we should start with the visual aspects of our churches. If I can’t hear the sermon, that’s distracting. So is being cold. So is being worried about my safety. These design elements Mr. Hunter mentions are important, but, I think, so are questions like, “Where will worshippers look, literally, during worship? What will they see?”
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact