I am currently reading the Book of Exodus. I remember teaching this peculiar book to high school students. All showed interest in the exodus narrative, some in the sojourn narrative, and none in the Sinai narrative. I guess contemporary Americans are not much different than ancient Israelites: we greet liberation, grumble in the wilderness, and groan under law.
My students whined about the needless repetition of content regarding the tabernacle. A closer examination of the text reveals that something awesome is happening, as Old Testament scholar Walter Brueggemann points out in his book, An Introduction to the Old Testament: The Canon and Christian Imagination:
In Exodus 25:1-31:18, Moses receives instructions directly from YHWH concerning the arrangement of a “holy place” that will be adequate for the habitation of the Holy One in the midst of Israel. These chapters constitute a series of commands that are matched, not precisely but in great detail in Exodus 35:1-40:38, with the report that Moses obeyed the commands of 25:1-31:18 exactly, and thereby constructed an adequate shrine for YHWH. The verification of Moses’ exacting obedience is the culminating report of 40:34-38, attesting that YHWH’s glory did indeed come to abide in the tabernacle in the midst of Israel. Thus Moses, in addition to being the great Torah interpreter, becomes the great guarantor of YHWH’s presence in Israel.
This textual observation makes me realize, once again, that nothing is incidental or irrelevant in Scripture.
Three decisive motifs are at work in the Book of Exodus: deliverance, covenant, and presence. Regarding this last motif, Bruggemann has helped me to understand why so much detail is rehearsed in the text on the tabernacle:
The Priestly tradition knows that hosting the Holy One is no small, trivial, or casual undertaking. And therefore the practice of symmetry, order, discipline, and beauty is essential to the reality of God’s presence in Israel. This corpus of text on presence requires that interpretation not neglect the demanding reality of YHWH’s holiness, a neglect to which a technological, pragmatic society is immensely open.
Once I read this passage, I started to ask myself the kind of questions that easily upset the fragile ecclesiology of Evangelicals. Do our churches show that “hosting the Holy One is no small, trivial, or casual undertaking”? Where, if at all, do our churches show “the practice of symmetry, order, discipline, and beauty is essential to the reality of God’s presence”? If such practice is absent, why? Have our churches neglected “the demanding reality of YHWH’s holiness” because they conform to “a technological, pragmatic society” rather than challenge it with the superfluities of beauty?
In the opinion of this ecclesial aesthete, the tabernacles of American Evangelicalism – Willow Creek Community Church (South Barrington, Illinois), Lakewood Church (Houston, Texas), and Saddleback Church (Lake Forest, California) – are not holy places for the Holy One. What philosopher Nicholas Wolterstorff says about American cities could apply just as well to most Evangelical churches: they are “dehumanizing wastelands of aesthetic squalor, dominated by the demands of the automobile.” Evangelicals have rarely shown the “exacting obedience” of Moses in their role as host to the divine presence. This aesthetic negligence turns out to be spiritual negligence.
Far too often beauty is sacrificed on the altar of efficiency. Was it efficient for Bishop Fulbert to direct the building of Chartres Cathedral in France? No, but he and others recognized the human need for beauty – a need as profound as the need for truth because both are attributes of God. I contend that it is time for Evangelicals to quit their ad hocery in order to construct liturgy that does not assimilate to popular music and architecture that does not assimilate to shopping malls and athletic stadiums.
click to enlarge
Lest I judge Evangelicals too harshly, Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Reformed, and Lutheran Christians are tempted to hide behind their ornamental architecture and elaborate liturgy, not examining whether their own posture toward the Holy One is “small, trivial, or casual.”
All Christians – high church and low church – should aspire to construct worthy tabernacles, both inside and outside ourselves. For “tabernacle” qualifies as a verb as much as a noun.
Related posts:
February 5th, 2010 | 2:07 pm | #1
Evangelicalism has never thought that much of tabernacles as integral to its own tradition. And the field preaching of the British and later American revivals is one culmination and touchstone of that fact.
Wesley’s Anglican angst against preaching in an unconsecrated space seems to be not so much a rebellion against the pew tax as against the general idea of preaching in non-tabernacles. And the later development of the preaching house was the practical outworking of the liberation that began again on a makeshift scaffold in an open field.
But this action was not an Arminian heresy, since Wesley was brought to the question by the famous ‘boy preacher’ of Calvinism, George Whitfield, who lead the former though he was the younger.
And this sentiment has either infected or liberated Evangelical sentiments ever since. So that this movement is often as at home in a pub or school gymnasium as in a stain glassed shrine. And we have always though this fitting of a movement that looks more to our dynamic origins in the first century than in the developed arrivals of the eleventh. And this sentiment makes good sense to many an evangelical whose spiritual origins are traced to a people that could only ever meet in the temple’s courtyards and therefore shared communion and prayer in the common home.
And all of this flows out of a perennially makeshift tradition that follows the one who tabernacled among us.
February 5th, 2010 | 2:50 pm | #2
Nic: Thank you for leaving a thoughtful comment that brings history into consideration. If “the practice of symmetry, order, discipline, and beauty [was] essential to the reality of God’s presence in Israel,” shouldn’t that practice continue for God’s presence in America? I contend that it is time for Evangelicals to quit their ad hocery in order to construct liturgy that does not assimilate to popular music and architecture that does not assimilate to shopping malls. Evangelicals, by and large, have not shown the “exacting obedience” of Moses as host to the divine presence. Such aesthetic negligence turns out to be spiritual negligence.
February 5th, 2010 | 5:16 pm | #3
Nic Gibson responds: (sorry as a FT reader I can’t resist)
I guess we are at a divergence on the nature of the missional task, or how other the culture should be treated.
but more than that, we have been given a function in the New Covenant, not a form. The modern mall was not so designed as to be an ungodly as possible, but to be as economic and functional as possible. And so it is no wonder to me that a church seeking functionality and feasibility should build a building resembling such functionality. in certain ways.
If a stadium is the mot economical and functional way to include 40,000 people in an experience, then why would not Lakewood church (of which I am no fan) not use a stadium for a different kind of experience for 35,000?
There are reasons besides conformity that modern evangelicals have caved into functional practicality, and it is mainly because it is functionally practical. And i think a certain sense of charity can see this quite easily.
And i think the aesthetic sensibilities are important relatively to this rightly functional sensibility, as most evangelical churches display them in limited spires, ceilings and stained glass.
Now I do have a certain sympathy to the idea of a sanctuary of beauty, the main thing evangelicals might be faulted for lacking. And as a former Roman Catholic and altar boy, I learned more of my early faith from the glowing glass than the lectionary. And I wold agree that there is a certain negligence in theme-ing our children’s wings with pastel fish instead of tapestries of the works of our Lord.
And so I am not against the beautification of the churches as I am not against the beautification of anything. But there is a very real and practical sensibility that makes the new evangelical architecture multi-purpose instead of sanctuarial. And that is for the functional purpose of multi-use. This lowers cost and increases ministry and outreach in the community immeasurably, and though it is not a high artistic expression of aesthetics, it can be seen as a very practical expression of love. And this is a fact often only apprehendable to someone who has gone through the carnage of a building campaign and is responsible for the burden of a budget.
February 5th, 2010 | 6:00 pm | #4
Why should the New Covenant obviate form for function? Are they mutually exclusive? These are questions to explore.
Your defense of Evangelical buildings is beholden to our “technological, pragmatic society,” where beauty is sacrificed on the altar of efficiency. Was it efficient for Bishop Fulbert to direct the building of Chartres Cathedral in France? I don’t think so, but he and others were aware of the human need for beauty – a need as great as our need for truth because both are attributes of God.
What Dutch Reformed philosopher Nicholas Wolterstorff says about American cities could apply just as well to most Evangelical churches: they are “dehumanizing wastelands of aesthetic squalor, dominated by the demands of the automobile.” Case in point: Willow Creek Community Church. The landscape is dominated by the parking lot.
February 6th, 2010 | 7:43 am | #5
“The practice of symmetry, order, discipline, and beauty is essential to the reality of God’s presence.” It is of professional obligation that I have spent years studying the symmetry, order, discipline, and beauty of the “new” temple that the Spirit of God resides. I must say that it is truly perfect in every aforementioned category. In fact, as a surgeon, I function in the O.R. more as a temple carpenter, than a doctor. I Corinthians 6:19-20 asserts, “Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.” In such, He has created His own appropriately designed and appointed structure in which His Spirit may reside.
Thus I feel that the question of décor in the building in which we gather to worship is not the object of this passage, and is not addressed in Exodus 25,35,or 40. Strict extrapolation from the text should produce a commentary about our personal health and fitness of mind, body, and spirit. Thus our lives should demonstrate elements of symmetry, order, discipline, and beauty. This is perhaps why deliberate defacement of anything grates against the soul.
I am put to caution when looking to architecture or physical adornment as indicators of the presence of God. How many cathedrals have been built with the purest of intensions and lavished with gilded accoutrements only to end up host to a Godless mass of ritual? Jesus warned of the reliance on external structures to indicate holiness in Matthew 23:27, “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men’s bones and everything unclean”.
This is not to say our places of worship should be shabby. However the aesthetics of the location is not for our human eyes to determine but for the eyes of God to be pleased. God gave Moses specific directions as to how he wanted his house to look. Such guidance has not been given to us. In fact, we can’t even look to the early church for such direction as none is given. My best feeling on the subject is an old default that I use in many situations, “What is the condition and motivation of my heart?” If I feel these are pure and biblically supported then I go for it. I must admit, usually my own pride gets in the way.
February 6th, 2010 | 12:21 pm | #6
Eric: Like my friend Nic, you raise an important question: Does the New Covenant obviate form (where we worship) for function (how we worship)? You also rightly emphasize that the tabernacle and temple were temporary institutions, all pointing forward to the coming of Jesus who “became flesh and tabernacled for a while among us” (John 1:14).
My blog post mostly targeted Evangelicals who tend to focus so much on the tabernacle (or temple) inside themselves that they neglect the tabernacle outside themselves. I contend that this aesthetic negligence is a form of spiritual negligence. Simply put, the spaces we create to worship reveal whether we are good or bad hosts to the divine presence. Churches that are adapted from shopping malls and athletic stadiums suggest that our view of the Holy One is “small, trivial, or casual.” God deserves more.
With all due respect, your interpretation of the text in Exodus is weighted so much toward the New Covenant that it seems to trivialize the Old Covenant. A “strict extrapolation from the text” does not “produce a commentary about our personal health and fitness of mind, body, and spirit,” but rather a commentary about hosting the divine presence in Israel. If “the practice of symmetry, order, discipline, and beauty [was] essential to the reality of God’s presence in Israel,” shouldn’t that practice–in some way or another–continue for hosting God’s presence in America? I am aware that we do not receive specific instructions about how to build our churches, as Moses did. But that does not mean any setting will do. What is more fitting for the King: Chartes Cathedral or Lakewood Church? My utmost for his highest should apply not only toward our posture but toward our places. It is not “either/or” but “and/both.”
February 7th, 2010 | 9:33 pm | #7
Hey Chris,
Regarding the Tabernacle:
“BUT Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation.” I know you’re probably familiar with this passage, but keep reading :). “Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood he entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from DEAD WORKS to serve the living God?” (Hebrews 9:11-14)
I don’t believe that when Jesus fulfilled the law it abolished it. “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. (Matthew 5:17).
The instructions given for the tabernacle give us a hint into the great, complex character of God who requires holiness and deserves holiness. This tabernacle was built so that God would have a dwelling place among men. That is the principle. So when Christ fulfilled the law, we no longer come into His presence by entering a building. Hebrews 10:22 tells us how to enter His presence, “let us draw near with a TRUE HEART in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water…”
He has sprinkled our hearts with the blood of His sacrifice and washed us with pure water. He has prepared these new temples to be worthy, beautiful and ornate by making us clean from the inside out.
Another consideration I have is the facilities of worship (churches) I have visited in several countries who do not have the luxuries we enjoy. Can I tell them their handling of God must be as sloppy as their place of worship? Ouch. I had the greatest opportunity to praise the Lord with brothers and sisters in Manila, Philippines in a building that floods every time it rains. The floors are old chipped cement, there is no power, gold, silver and miss matched (waterproof) chairs. They praise God and know Him as their Savior more than those who visit the most ornate cathedrals I have toured in Spain where the Name of Jesus was not even mentioned.
In short, Calvary of Albuquerque, a former indoor soccer stadium, currently has 14,000 members and an amazingly fruitful ministry (where I got saved). Mile High Calvary (a personal favorite) currently meets in a strip mall and is full of brothers and sisters seeking to Know Him and become more like Him.
I think a better way to judge “spiritual negligence” is to do so biblically and that is to judge them by their fruit. Not, their buildings, not their clothes, hair, etc. but by their fruit. Maybe the beauty of a facility is in it’s ability to give believers a place to come together to worship Him corporately, encourage, exhort, edify and hold accountable those who come. This is missing from many churches these days, beautiful and ugly.
I totally agree with the fact that the grace side of God is so focused on that we have dropped the reverential awe that is due to Him but I don’t think making pretty buildings is the answer.
“but Solomon built Him a house. However, the Most High does not dwell in temples made with hands, as the prophet says:
‘Heaven is My throne, and earth is My footstool. What house will you build for me? says the Lord’ (Acts 7:47-49).
It’s interesting that they built Him a beautiful temple but in vs. 51 it says “you stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heat and ears.”
Let us not be stiff-necked or have uncircumcised hearts! Paul says in 1 Cor. 15:10b “His grace toward me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all”. Labor on fellow pilgrims, labor on!
February 8th, 2010 | 2:17 am | #8
Hi Carol. How did you come across my blog post on Evangel? Thank you for invoking relevant passages from Scripture because they deepen the conversation.
Let me be clear in case there is any confusion. First, I recognize that the tabernacle and temple foreshadowed the dwelling of God with man in the Person of Jesus Christ: “And the Word became flesh and tabernacled for a while among us” (John 1:14). Second, I recognize that followers of Jesus Christ are not given specific instructions for how to build their places of worship, as Moses did. Third, I recognize that Jesus Christ is the supreme sacrifice that releases us from the sacrificial system of the Israelites. And fourth, I recognize that Christ is not localized in an architectural structure.
With these four points in mind, I have registered an observation that American Evangelicals tend to focus exclusively on the tabernacle (or temple) inside themselves, neglecting the tabernacle outside themselves. When I described this aesthetic negligence as a form of spiritual negligence, I predicted that some readers would be provoked, such as yourself: “I think a better way to judge ’spiritual negligence’ is to do so biblically and that is to judge them by their fruit. Not, their buildings, not their clothes, hair, etc. but by their fruit.”
In response, I contend that the spaces we create to worship reveal whether we are good or bad hosts to the divine presence. Put differently, the construction of our churches is a fruit-bearing exercise. Are the Filipino Christians who worship in a flooded building bad hosts? No! Should they be expected to construct Chartres Cathedral? No! This example strikes me as a red herring when my target was American Evangelicals who, unlike Filipino Christians, are in a position of economic advantage. With our resources, why do we convert shopping malls and athletic stadiums into churches rather than create spaces of worship that are fitting for the Holy One? Following Walter Brueggemann, I suggested that we are probably neglecting “the demanding reality of YHWH’s holiness, a neglect to which a technological, pragmatic society is immensely open.” I am constantly aware that my view of God is not holy enough. Am I going to blame the space of worship for this impoverished view of God? Not entirely, but I will assert that the spaces we inhabit can facilitate worship that is holy or profane, formal or casual, large or small.
In my Reformation Study Bible, there is a helpful footnote for Exodus 25:1-31:8: “The inauguration of the covenant had established God’s kingship over Israel. That kingship was now to be appropriately recognized by the building of a residence for God as a symbol of His royal authority over Israel.” I recognize that Christians do not belong to the Mosaic covenant, but that does not negate YHWH’s eternal kingship over the nations. I would like to see Evangelicals build residences for God as a symbol of His royal authority over America. This qualifies as a fruit-bearing exercise. I would like to see Evangelicals practice “symmetry, order, discipline, and beauty” in their spaces of worship because they recognize it is “essential to the reality of God’s presence.” This qualifies as a fruit-bearing exercise.
Bottom line: I am trying to disabuse some Evangelicals of their false dichotomy, which is presented as a choice between hosting God in the temple of our body OR hosting God in the temple of our church. We should host God in BOTH the internal and external temples. God is encountered in persons AND places. I am asking us to pay closer attention to whether our hosting of the divine presence reveals an attitude of holiness or worldliness. I am asking whether the setting of worship, such as an athletic stadium or shopping mall, affects the worship itself, as warmed-over sports fanaticism or consumerist impulses.
February 8th, 2010 | 5:06 pm | #9
I don’t understand how/why building church buildings that look like big-box superstores and then making the interiors positively sterile in their interior decoration became associated with Christianity or even spirituality.
It’s almost as if some Evangelicals think that “ugliness is next to Godliness.”
PTM
February 8th, 2010 | 6:42 pm | #10
Pastor McCain: Finally, I have a sympathetic reader. I laughed out loud when you suggested “it’s almost as if some Evangelicals think that ‘ugliness is next to Godliness.’” Indeed! I wish more Evangelicals shared Simone Weil’s notion that beauty is next Godliness:
“In everything which gives us the pure authentic feeling of beauty there is really the presence of God. There is, as it were, an incarnation of God in the world, and it is indicated by beauty. The beautiful is the experimental proof that the incarnation is possible. Hence all art of the highest order is religious in essence. (That is what people have forgotten today.) A Gregorian melody is as powerful a witness as the death of a martyr.” (from The Simone Weil Reader, edited by George A. Panichas)
February 9th, 2010 | 12:05 am | #11
Hey again!
You know along your thought about American Evangelicals having the means of building more beautiful structures to worship in; doesn’t it seem more American to to “super size” everything for the sake of keeping up with the Jones? It’s weird because it seems to be the norm in our culture to build the bigger and better, the more extravigent the better. When building or starting a church you are faced with two options; build within your means, or go into debt to build. We have an eye for all that glitters so I’m not convinced that the beautiful churches are aiming to please God anyway.
Now because I was born again and raised in my certain affiliation I can only shed light on how it works with us.
We step out to start a Bible study with a long term goal of starting a new fellowship. No income, no building at all, just a heart for the people in an area.
Next, it grows. So we’re faced with getting a building or roaming. Now we can afford a storefront location only….what do we do?
I am fired up about Americas loss of fear and awe of God. That is what has made sin so easy in the church. I think a huge contributing factor is the tolerance of sin and unwillingness to 1. Call sin, sin and 2. An unwillingness (or lazyness) to confront sin in the body and not tollerate unrepentant hearts! Why do we allow sin to fester and live among us? If you recall in the OT every time Gods people were to battle a godless
nation they were to destroy every man, woman and child. This is an illustration for us to see that when we deal with sin we are to distroy the strong, cute and little sins that dwell among us or in us. Is this because we don’t have respectable buildings? I don’t know?
Out of respect for the king we worship should we provide an amazing facility to gather together in? Yes. Maybe someday we can do that. Should we put teachings, and the other various ministries
on hold until we can. I don’t think that would
please Him or bring Him more glory than a pretty
building.
Now Chris, if this is your roundabout way of volunteering a hearty building donation, you can just come out and say it!
Ps. I found you from a link sent by your beautiful mom!
(forgive my typos, I’m typing this up on my tiny phone and really don’t have time to go over it!)
blessings!
February 9th, 2010 | 9:03 am | #12
You most certainly do have a supporter. The iconoclasm in Zurich, Geneva, throughout the Lowlands and elsewhere, resulted in the destruction of much of the art inside and outside churches. This legacy lives on today in the interiors of churches that have absolutely no art on display, aside from the occasional banner. This is the background for why many Evangelical, Baptist and Non-Denominational churches, coming as most do from a Reformed background, do not make use of art in their church interiors. The Evangelical Lutheran Reformation and classic Anglicanism did not eschew art. For example, here is an altar painting in St. Peter and Paul Church in Weimar, Germany, painted by the Lucas Cranach, Jr. and sponsored by the Lutheran prince: John Frederich.
http://cyberbrethren.com/a-painting-that-preaches-christ/
February 9th, 2010 | 10:01 am | #13
I think there’s a good argument to be made for honoring God in expressions of beauty in our worship spaces, but saying
the spaces we create to worship reveal whether we are good or bad hosts to the divine presence
seems quite an over-reach, given what the NT has to say about actual fruit-bearing and Jesus’ own warnings against taking pride in outward appearances. God destroyed his own temple — several times, in fact — when it became the focus of the kind of pride to which this essay seems to tend.
For all the careful qualifications offered, the author is still saying that churches which he doesn’t find aesthetically pleasing are a failure to honor the Lord. That’s an incredibly condescending and dangerously judgmental attitude to take. I would suggest that one could look with more charity on functional spaces, and choose to take them as a reflection not of fruitless lives but of the humility and common-ness of the Savior who left the glory of heaven to tabernacle among us.
February 9th, 2010 | 10:09 am | #14
I would also point out that Jesus and his apostles went to great length to point out that God does not dwell in any one location, and that no one place is any more holy than another.
The building of magnificent spaces to picture God’s holiness and glory naturally tends to diminish the equal realty of his immanence and omnipresence.
I could just as easily make a biblical argument that church spaces which encourage people to think “God dwells in this extraordinary place, and not in my office or home” are dishonoring the Lord and speaking falsely about him.
How about saying, “Let’s not forget the importance of demonstrating beauty and glory in our worship spaces, along with function and simplicity” instead of alleging that functionality and simplicity are inferior and dishonoring to God?
February 9th, 2010 | 11:13 am | #15
I think this argument could go back and forth forever because there are typically two types of believers. Those who sway to the side of the law and works and those who sway to grace. Both sides argue tirelessly attempting to make their point.
I agree that offering our best to God is biblical and we should not hold back an ounce of what we have. What that looks like (especially on a finciantial level) looks different for us all. I think that is where grace and humility come in for those observing what we offer (like our buildings).
Is it a shame that the arts are not as valued as they once were? Yes. However it is not sinful or unbiblical.
Can you really think God is saying “ugh, shag carpet and orange cushons, they totally dishonor me with that horrible style! And what happened to the great paintings? Will I find no one faithful?”.
Can we really know what’s astethical to God? Didn’t he require the tabernacle to be adorned with that which the people could adorne it with? He called for the best of their best, nothing less. That is how our buildings should look today (both structures and physicl).
February 9th, 2010 | 1:58 pm | #16
Pastor McCain: Thank you for sharing the beautiful painting by Lucas Cranach, Jr., one of my favorite Protestant painters. I was interested to learn about “why why many Evangelical, Baptist and Non-Denominational churches . . . do not make use of art in their church interiors.”
Mrs. Ortiz (or Carol, as I know you): You ask a good question, “Can we really know what’s aesthetic to God?” Strictly speaking, the answer is “No.” Unlike Moses, Christians are not given specific instructions for how to build our churches. So, I am not prescribing one design (Gothic cathedral) over another (Orthodox basilica). That said, I think we can agree there is a spectrum of design that ranges from attractive to ugly and holy to profane. What makes a person or place holy? Exodus 31:13 provides the short answer: “I am the Lord, who makes you holy” (NIV) or “I, the Lord, sanctify you” (ESV). Can Willow Creek Community Church, for example, be a holy place? Yes, because the Lord is sanctifying people within it. Could a more attractive building facilitate greater holiness? Yes. My purpose in writing the blog was to encourage Evangelicals to pay as much attention to form as function for the reason eloquently articulated by Simone Weil: “In everything which gives us the pure authentic feeling of beauty there is really the presence of God. There is, as it were, an incarnation of God in the world, and it is indicated by beauty. The beautiful is the experimental proof that the incarnation is possible.”
Mr. Schultz: My intention was to write a needful provocation. God have mercy on me if I have been prideful. I will not back down from my claim that “the spaces we create to worship reveal whether we are good or bad hosts to the divine presence.” If my church is a converted shopping mall or athletic stadium, what does the place communicate about the people who inhabit it? The Father seeks a worshiper that comes “in spirit and truth” (John 4:23), not in consumerism and sports fanaticism. Our churches should be consecrated spaces, spaces that are set apart from the ones we populate during the week. Simply put, places affect people and vice versa.
I recognize, as you wrote, that “Jesus and his apostles went to great length to point out that God does not dwell in any one location,” but I disagree “that no one place is any more holy than another.” Can God dwell in a bar? Yes. But I am not going to start holding church services there because it is not fitting for the royal authority of God. I also disagree that “the building of magnificent spaces to picture God’s holiness and glory naturally tends to diminish the equal reality of his immanence and omnipresence.” For example, I regard the chapel at Magdalene College, Oxford University as a “magnificent space,” albeit small in size compared to Chartres Cathedral. In that setting I experience the transcendence AND immanence of God.
As much as possible, we should try to avoid a false dichotomy between form and function. Because Evangelicals are not at risk for focusing too much on form, I think my provocation was needful. Form matters.
February 9th, 2010 | 3:49 pm | #17
Mr. Benson,
Thanks for your response. I will continue to disagree that our worship spaces demonstrate whether we are good hosts to the divine presence, because there’s no support for such teaching in the NT, quite a lot that contradicts it, and many passages which tell us how we are actually to reflect God’s presence in our lives.
Yes, some places can be more holy than others — but that’s because of the presence of Christians, not because of their design. We are the temple where God dwells by his Spirit. We are the space that’s consecrated to God. And we have this treasure in jars of clay to show that the all-surpassing greatness is of God, not us (the important thing is not the vessels).
Of course form and function are connected. While one may have a sense of both transcendence and immanence in a beautiful space, my point is that when leaving those spaces, we naturally feel that God is somehow more real and present there than he is in our offices or homes or neighborhoods — which he is not.
We do indeed worship God in Spirit and in truth — but neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. Any church design which suggests that worship is centralized in a building and not in the gathering of worshipers denies exactly what Jesus is saying in John 4.
February 9th, 2010 | 4:04 pm | #18
So, our churches should look like dumpy looking office spaces? There is a whiff of Gnosticism in your remarks, Mr. Schultz.
When did not using the best of art to aid worship and adoration of God become a mark of higher spirituality or Biblical piety?
I recommend to you Phil Lee’s masterful book Against the Protestant Gnostics
February 9th, 2010 | 4:49 pm | #19
Rev. McCain,
Please read my comments with a more charitable eye. Where did I argue against art or beauty?
You seem intent on taking things in the worst light and throwing around accusations (“whiff of gnosticism”?). That’s deeply unfair and works against peace and understanding.
February 9th, 2010 | 5:08 pm | #20
Indeed. But what is best is not merely subjective. Do you love someone if you give them a dead snake when they want bread? Not as well as if you give them stale bread. And one does not love as well if you give stale bread as you would with fresh bread. Does this mean all bad cooks are evil and sinful and shouldn’t even give stale bread? Of course not, but it does raise the question for modern Americans of why they aren’t giving their best to the Lord.
Analogously, we ought to give our best to the Lord when it comes to architecture, and just as with food, aesthetics is not merely subjective; it is both subjective and objective). Objectively, evangelicals should be doing better with architecture. The problem is is that most evangelicals, including myself, know next to nothing about architecture or the history of architecture so we believe our over-riding concern with “pragmatic functionality” is neutral rather than exactly worldly: divorcing truth, goodness and beauty from each other is a well-documented inheritance from Enlightenment heresies.
No, but he may be saying, “I have created beauty for a reason, and my people are denying its rightful place, dishonoring my works, and making a world fit for ugly, efficient machines; this grieves me.”
February 9th, 2010 | 6:03 pm | #21
I take it back, Chris if you gave a hearty donation so we could build a beautiful structure, I’d send it to the persecuted church, orphans or widows. It is a slap in the face to the church (which is not just Americn but global) for us to use our funds to make beautiful buildings on artwork. Artwork is for museums, the body of Christ is for churches.
The only time the beauty of the temple was brought up was by Peter. Recall Jesus responce was “Yes Peter that is how you host the Holy one you know”. Oh oops, He actually changed the subject to what matters and said not on stone would be left standing. See Mark 13
Let’s also consider the rich young ruler. Jesus told him to sell everything and give it to the poor, not to sell it all and make Him an acceptable dwelling place.
I think we are in the end times do we really have the time to invest in artwork and buildings that are going to burn? People are dying without the Saving grace of our lowly Savior! Let’s get out of our beautiful facility and get to work!
I’d like to encourage any of you supporting this idea to pick a Gospel and find one verse that supports it, really, let me know.
February 9th, 2010 | 6:52 pm | #22
Albert,
show me where it grieves God when we don’t do things beautifully?
Where did Jesus go to spend time with the Holly One?
There is not one example of God requiring us to worship Him in a beautiful building. I challenge anyone to find a verse that supports it.
See 1 Samuel 16:7
February 9th, 2010 | 7:48 pm | #23
Carol,
To see your challenge ably met, I humbly suggest you read Schaeffer’s Art and the Bible.
http://www.amazon.com/Art-Bible-Essays-LAbri-Pamphlets/dp/0877844437
February 9th, 2010 | 8:12 pm | #24
Ms Ortiz, have you sold everything you own and given it to the poor?
February 9th, 2010 | 8:21 pm | #25
Millinerd,
While I’m sure this book is a great read, I’d humbly respond that the challenge was given to get all who accept to dig into God’s Word. It is so rich and always points us to Him and delivers us from following our own self imposed regulations. The Word is what I live my life on- it’s the only thing I trust to deliver me from the bonds of sin and death.
I think one of the mistakes of the American church today is that we pick up to many books and trust that the author has correctly interpreted the Word of God. In our assumption of this we blindly follow their doctrine when it is sometimes not biblical.
If anyone can show me in God’s Word where God is more concerned with, and wants us to me more concerned with outward appearance, and the beauty of our churches, I will humbly receive that Word.
Chris, are you saying that you see churches that are in storefronts and stadiums that have the financial means to be elsewhere but chose the cheaper because they are just plain ol’ cheep?
February 9th, 2010 | 8:37 pm | #26
Rev Paul T. McCain,
No sir, I have not. I am also not claiming to have already followed the 10 commandments, and am not asking Jesus what I must do now to inherit the Kingdom of God as the rich young ruler was.
The principle of this passage is Jesus, knowing the heart of this man, asked for the very thing that was most important to the man, his wealth. His wealth was what stood in the way of the rich young ruler following Jesus with all of his heart.
Sadly, as I’m sure you are familiar with the text, he is not willing to “But he was sad at this word, and went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.”
And Jesus response to that was,
“Then Jesus looked around and said to His disciples, “How hard it is for those who have riches to enter the kingdom of God!”
Again, can anyone find a text that supports God’s desire to be hosted acceptably by a beautiful building? What do you find in a study of beauty in God’s Word? What does God find beautiful? What is acceptable to Him? Throw some verses out there guys.
February 9th, 2010 | 8:44 pm | #27
Ms Ortiz where does Scripture lead us to think that God is not pleased with the very finest we can offer him with our worship: in song, art, buildings, etc.?
February 9th, 2010 | 10:05 pm | #28
Lets consider storefront churches as “stale bread”. If they are the very best offered up to God they are very acceptable and pleasing to God because He knows that that offering is that churches very best. If Chris is trying to make a point that “ugly” churches exist because they are not offering their very best to God and that is not an acceptable way to host the Holy One, then that would support God’s message throughout the Bible. Not about the requirements of buildings, but the requirements of acceptable and beautiful offerings. I’m not exactly sure if that’s his point though. If his point is that in America we all have enough money to build our churches with let’s say more “curb appeal” and therefore every storefront or old sports stadium church is a result of a church who must not be offering their very best to God, that is only an assumption. We can not rightly observe a building and assume that they are not offering their very best. In fact, most of these non-denominational churches happily post their budget so you can rightly decide wether it is their financial best or not. What I am saying is I cant think of one storefront church or stadium church that is physical where they are because they refuse to spend their money on a better location. Every church in this type of location, that I am aware of, is there because it is the very best they can offer to God and therefore spiritual negligence has nothing to do with it. Does that make any sense?
February 9th, 2010 | 11:08 pm | #29
“And he [Solomon] garnished the house with precious stones for beauty.” (2 Chronicles 3:6)
Also, it might be worth investigating the Scripture passages referenced in Christopher’s original article above.
February 10th, 2010 | 12:34 pm | #30
Yes! What a great text in 2 Chronicles that tells us of how Solomon used his very best in adorning the temple. Remember he had been given amazing riches by the Lord. What an amazing example to us to use what God has given us to bring Him glory. If Solomons best was river rock, it would have been beautiful to the Lord.
It’s not a passage that supports the idea that God requires or desires an ornate building to be worshiped in though.
February 10th, 2010 | 1:42 pm | #31
Carol, I’m not sure what Chris would say in response to your requests for clarification, but I know what I’d say.
I’d say you’re right to talk about this issue in terms of offering what is our best to the Lord and that “what is best” depends upon our particular circumstances. At that level, I agree that ugly stone or log buildings are not necessarily sinful because that could be all a group of people have.
But, in practice, this is hardly ever the case for American evangelicals. So the real reason, in concrete reality, for the ugliness of evangelical churches is not because we don’t have resources. It is (among other reasons) because our notion of what “best” means does not value and include beauty, but values a kind of pragmatic efficiency according to quantifiable metrics, e.g. “how many Christians can we get to attend our services.”
I, and many others, believe the valuing of pragmatic efficiency over beauty is precisely worldly; that is, it is borrowed from the world’s conception of reality and not from the Bible. This has a historical trajectory that you can read about. If you do, I think you’ll be disturbed by the misunderstanding, devaluing and neglect of beauty and aesthetics in evangelical churches and the consequences of it. But no one can force you to learn about it, just as no one can force a cook to add more water to the bread dough so it tastes better and no one can force a dentist to use a local anesthetic (“why not save the money to give to third world orphans?”).
It is, however, more loving to give people and the Lord what is best, and what is best includes what is beautiful because God made humans for beauty and delight and not just for “practical” purposes, as if we were machines that just need fuel and ugly shelter so that we can “produce.” But this is hard to do in a culture that thinks of humans as meat machines…. Machines don’t need beauty and delight. God created us with souls, so we do.
The question is: do Christians value the arts and beauty as much as engineering and the sciences, thus testifying to the dual nature of biblical man as soul-body unities? Or are we ascetic and dismissive when it comes to the arts and lavish and attentive when it comes to “practical” technology and engineering, just as the world is, which is expected considering its materialistic view of humans?
Let us lovingly examine the lives of our churches and see whether we care more about the best technologies or the best architecture. What do we find?
February 10th, 2010 | 4:57 pm | #32
Well said. I see your point totally.
So here’s my question. Are the lives of our churches lovingly being examined or just their buildings?
Where is the assumption comming from that because it’s a church in America they must have money to build in the manner you appreciate?
I just don’t agree. I think you can find more Scripture teaching us to store up treasures in heaven, not to get caught up in this world and those who are blessed with great resources to be very careful or practical in how they use them.
I attend a storefront church and met my Savior at a Stadium church. My sister got saved at a Billy Graham crusade at Lobo stadium in Albuquerque. My brother-in-law has the only Bible teaching fellowship in his area and they meet in a recreation center because without tithes, there is no money. Beauty might be pretty to look at and great to appreciate but it is not eternal. Souls are eternal. Focusing on what’s practical so we can fit as many people in to hear about their maker is our goal.
So I think, knowing just that little bit, you can lovingly examine our churches heart and decide.
February 10th, 2010 | 6:23 pm | #33
Carol, thanks for your patience in reading my responses.
First, I want to make clear that I am not trying to specifically condemn any particular church or their church facilities as unspiritual or ugly here. I might if I actually knew a group or place well, but I don’t, and I try not to pass judgment on particular cases of which I’m mostly ignorant. What I am trying to do is articulate a more biblical understanding of beauty.
I think the lives of our churches can and should be lovingly examined in part by examining our buildings, because what we build reflects on the builder as surely as what God has created reflects on him. This is simply an example of looking at a man’s works for evidence of his faith or his heart, which Scripture teaches us to do. So I don’t believe the implicit dichotomy you suggest between examining our churches and examining their buildings is real. We do one by the other.
My assumption is that citizens of the U. S., including Christians, are among the wealthiest in the world. I think this is true. I don’t recall assuming that “because it’s a church in America they must have money to build in the manner you appreciate.” I am sure there are exceptions which preclude the use of the word “must.” But, generally, this is the case.
The more problematic assumption you make is that beautiful and good architecture has to be more expensive than bad or ugly architecture. Does this assumption come from a background in architecture, or from somewhere else?
Frankly, I see many, many churches spend incredible amounts of money on technologies in worship facilities. So, it rings a little hollow to hear that Christians can’t afford to have beautiful architecture. The issue, as I have said, is not resources, but priorities. And priorities reflect what we believe the “best” consists of. Do our spending priorities and principles reflect the biblical truth that humans were made for beauty as well as the “practical” stuff?
Why do you think that attending to beauty is not storing up treasures in heaven? If it is more loving to God and neighbor to attend to aesthetics as well as logistics (not pitting one against the other), which I argue, than to deny the place of beauty, then are we not storing up treasures in heaven by our works of love?
Why do you think attending to beauty is necessarily “of this world”? Of course, attending to beauty in pride or vanity is wasteful and un-loving and sinful. But so is feeding the poor with an evil heart or greeting guests or exercising hospitality with bad intentions. The possibility of abuse does not mean we should reject those practices, but that we ought to–we are obligated–to do them well. Right?
You say that those blessed with great resources should be careful or practical in how they use them. For you, does that include attending to beauty? Do you think that Solomon used his great wealth carefully and practically?
Yes, in a narrow sense, beauty is not eternal (though you would be hard-pressed to find a theologian who denied the beauty of God). But our bodies are not eternal in the same sense; should we not attend to our bodies then? Is it impractical to attend to our neighbors’ bodies, since they will all pass away? Rather, shouldn’t we care for and attend to their bodies as a way to bless and love their souls?
You say that “Focusing on what’s practical so we can fit as many people in to hear about their maker is our goal.” I believe that is unbiblical. We are called to make disciples of all peoples, not just to get them to declare “Jesus is Lord” and then check off the boxes. Scripture shows us that making and sanctifying disciples is a life-long process that involves the redemption of all areas of our lives. Short-term thinking represented by the unbiblical philosophy–unheard of in the universal Church before 20th century America–of getting decisions for Jesus apart from holistic, life-long discipleship is one of the biggest sources of weakness in the evangelical church. That “bottom-line” philosophy came from secular business practice and results in spiritually immature Christians because the philosophy says “Mission Accomplished” after a conversion and does not give guidance as to what is best for discipleship over a whole lifetime.
I am glad people get saved at Stadium churches. But where do they get discipled? They should be discipled in local congregations, and discipleship involves not just the transmission of theological data, but the sanctification and renewal of the whole person.
The question is: if we were created for love, as Scripture testifies to, and beauty is one of the essential ways of love, as Scripture testifies to (read Exodus, Leviticus, Proverbs, Song of Songs, Revelation, etc.), why do we believe a “practicality” which comes from the secular business world which views humans as meat machines which use up fuel and “produce” is an adequate view of what the Church should be about?
Beauty is not always “practical.” But then Love is not always “practical” either. Do we live for love and in love, or do we live for and in practical efficiency?
February 10th, 2010 | 7:31 pm | #34
The aesthetic element in worship, for example in linens, vestments, or candles, becomes no end in itself but a means of expressing our devotion to the Lord of the church, who is present and active there. On the other hand, poor art is not simply a matter of bad taste but a sign of poor religion… Shoddy sacrifice and shoddy art have no place in Christian worship. — Earnest Koenker, *Worship in Word and Sacrament* p. 79
February 10th, 2010 | 8:00 pm | #35
hummmmm, that has to be where we cant agree. I am not interested in religion. Yes. If you are searching for a better religious experience then I guess beauty enhances that, I can see that.If that is how you express your devotion to God then the more candles and art the better! However it doesn’t make God feel more at home according to His Word. Remember how proud of the tower the people were? What a great and beautiful accomplishment! God was not impressed! He saw their wicked hearts and we all know what happened from there.I can biblically say that God is not interested in candles and art, but in the heats of men. If beautiful churches can reach an audience for the Kingdom of God, praise GOD! If ugly churches can reach a different crowd for the same Kingdom, praise God! The last comment I’d like express is lets not forget why when God came in the flesh and dwelt among men, He was missed (and murdered) even though He was right in front of their faces. His appearance was nothing to behold. I am taking the road with my Savior. His temple was outfitted for work, His fathers work. Unfortunately that work can get messy so excuse our old carpet and “shoddy” appearance but we’re “fishers of men” in obedience to His Word and i guess we could stop to make ourselves presentable to men, but, “the realities of heaven” are on our minds (Colossians 3:2)! Blessings to all in our mission to “make disciples” (Mark 16:15)!
February 11th, 2010 | 4:29 am | #36
Dear commentators: I never expected that my first two blogs with Evangel would generate so much talk. I guess we needed to talk. Regrettably, I’ve observed that there’s a lot of talking to each other but not enough talking with other. Perhaps this is unavoidable given the medium of communication.
After taking an inventory of the comments, two camps emerge. The “either-or” crowd presents a false dilemma between two options. For instance, they suggest God only likes bananas or apples – as if they are mutually exclusive – when another alternative is possible: God likes both. At the risk of oversimplification, the “either-or” camp (Nic Gibson, E.P.A., Carol Ortiz, Jeff Schultz) makes these claims:
1. God only cares about the inward man – not the outward man (clerical garments).
2. God only cares about dwelling in people – not places (churches).
3. God only cares about our spiritual condition – not our physical (aesthetic) condition.
The “and-both” camp (Christopher Benson, Rev. Paul T. McCain, Albert, Millinerd) makes these claims:
1. God cares about the inward and outward man.
2. God cares about dwelling in people and places.
3. God cares about our spiritual and physical (aesthetic) condition.
No one has done a finer job of trying to “articulate a more biblical understanding of beauty” in this conversation than Albert. His comments (#20, 31, 33) are worth reading and rereading. I am grateful for his time, patience, and insight.
No one has done a finer job of succinctly describing my impression of the “either-or” crowd than Rev. McCain, who wrote: “It’s almost as if some Evangelicals think that ‘ugliness is next to Godliness’” (#9).
In conclusion, I keep returning to the questions that originated my blog post. Rather than reflecting on churches in the abstract, I will personalize the questions so we can reflect on them in the concrete:
This much seems certain to me after the exchange: the “either-or” crowd, although well-intentioned, seems unaware of how much they have conformed to “a technological, pragmatic society.” Consequently, they give short shrift, first and foremost, to the beauty of God, then the creation of human beings for beauty (e.g., the delight of a sunset), and finally the making of beauty for God (e.g., the construction of Chartres Cathedral), known as the “cultural mandate” (Gen 1:27-29) — “humanity’s creational call to cultivate the possibilities latent within creation through ongoing cultural work. This task of human making is precisely how we image God in the world (as ’sub-creators’ in Tolkien’s words)” (qtd. from James K. A. Smith).
POST SCRIPT:
The book recommendations from Rev. McCain (Philip Lee, Against the Protestant Gnostics) and Matthew Milliner (Francis Schaeffer, Art and the Bible) sound promising. I would add these titles to the list:
* Madeleine L’Engle, Walking on Water: Reflections on Faith and Art
* William Dyrness, Visual Faith: Art, Theology, and Worship in Dialogue
* Daniel Treier, Mark Husbands, and Roger Lundin (editors), The Beauty of God: Theology and the Arts
* Gesa Elsbeth Thiessen, Theological Aesthetics: A Reader
* Philip Graham Ryken, Art for God’s Sake: A Call to Recover the Arts
* Nicholas Wolterstorff, Art in Action: Toward a Christian Aesthetic
* Steve Turner, Imagine: A Vision for Christians in the Arts
* Rowan Williams, Grace and Necessity: Reflections on Art and Love
* Jerey Begbie (editor), Beholding the Glory: Incarnation through the Arts
* Andy Crouch, Culture Making: Recovering our Creative Calling
* Makoto Fujimura, Refractions: A Journey of Faith, Art, and Culture
February 12th, 2010 | 3:25 pm | #37
It seems this discussion has ended, but after much thought, I must post my thoughts…
Firstly, Is it honest to purport that American evangelicals are focused so much on the tabernacle inside themselves? If it were true – and not just flattery – it would be a downright compliment. If we look honestly into American evangelicalism however, I doubt that the real controversy is lavishing on our inward temples. I contend the opposite. I am convinced we are focused so little on our inward tabernacle that everything outwardly is decaying – from our nation to our families. In light of this gross decay, if not complete disappearance, of outward fruit from the tree of collective evangelicalism – should we concern ourselves so much with the outward trappings and adornments of our churches? I think we have far greater problems on our hands than the aesthetic negligence of our churches. Therefore, I believe your lament over the neglect of the outward is misguided. We should be lamenting over the loss of the inward, because it is from the inward that all things on the outward are beautified. (Prov 4:23).
Secondly, There is a point to be made with regard to beauty: 1) it reflects the nature of God 2) it inspires the hearts of men unto worship. It is true in nature, in art, literature, technology…etc. Beauty magnifies our great and holy God. Along these lines, we do seem to have lost the “All to the Glory of God” single-mindedness. This loss is not only felt in the absence of beauty in the church, but also the home, the physical body, the family – frankly anything for which the believer is responsible. So, I can agree with and even lament with you over the loss of beauty and glory as are an overflowing of hearts completely devoted to and in love with God. However I take issue with your assertion that “…aesthetic negligence is a form of spiritual negligence. Simply put, the spaces we create to worship reveal whether we are good or bad hosts to the divine presence.” First of all this is a logical fallacy. A beautiful “outside” does not necessarily imply a beautiful “inside” (Matt 23:27), neither does a beautiful inside imply a beautiful outside (Isaiah 53:2). If we cannot rightly discern the “inside” or “outside” of a place, person, or thing based on the “outward” or “inside” of that same place, person, or thing, then it is our subjective judgement alone that prevails. In light of this, I propose that your statement is an unnecessary and careless accusation in which the end is division and undue judgement. Scripture directly teaches that mankind is ill-equipped and unworthy to cast such discriminatory judgements on our brothers and sisters. (James 4:12; Romans 2:1-4; Romans 14:1-13; Matt 7:1-6…etc.) When we judge the heart based on appearances we run the risk of being found hypocrites or worse – placing ourselves on the throne of the Father in judgement, which even Messiah would not do.
Thirdly, I propose that it is magnificent and praiseworthy when God glorifies Himself when the beauty of his saints fills the ugliness of a storefront or stadium. When they fill with His praises the ugly and empty spaces left behind by the culture. And when they fill with the light and hope of Messiah the same neglected spaces where Planned Parenthood, tattoo parlors, or liquor stores cast their shadows of darkness. Should we not praise him for even ugly church buildings, because they are after all, filled with the unmatched beauty of His Divine Presence?Alternatively, I believe it grieves the Spirit of God when a costly, beautiful church is full of the walking dead.
In conclusion I praise God that He uses all things ugly and beautiful to the Glory of His Name. As to our purpose in matters of discernment and opinion, I think we would be safer to focus ourselves on following Messiah and let God judge the outward and inward appearances of the things of man.(John 21:20-22) I also believe we should be careful not to insult with our imperfect judgements a work of His grace and holiness. And, MOST importantly, if we are to contend or exhort, then let the end be the furthering of the gospel – which alone is worthy of all our labors and efforts. (1 Cor 9:22)
February 12th, 2010 | 4:26 pm | #38
Ms. Krasovec: For your sake, I’ll continue the conversation even though it appears to have ended. Spiritual negligence takes many forms. One form is the neglect of truth. Another form is the neglect of beauty. Evangelicals often pay attention to the truth but seldom pay attention to beauty. For example, evangelical churches make much ado about their statements of faith and preaching; they are concerned about “getting it right.” But how many of these churches make much ado about their architecture, liturgy (worship music), and clerical garments? Are they concerned about “getting it beautiful”?
Why should we elevate the truth above beauty when both inhere within the character of God? God made us for truth and for beauty, so our charge is to be truth-tellers and beauty-makers. When we neglect beauty, we are disobeying part of the “cultural mandate” (Gen 1:27-29) — “humanity’s creational call to cultivate the possibilities latent within creation through ongoing cultural work. This task of human making is precisely how we image God in the world (as ’sub-creators’ in Tolkien’s words)” (qtd. from James K. A. Smith).
Jesus says we can evaluate the quality of a person’s discipleship by an outward sign: fruit (Matthew 7:16). He continues to elaborate: “Every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit” (v. 17). In my estimation, architecture, liturgy, and clerical garments qualify as fruit from the people of God. Therefore, it is appropriate for us to evaluate whether that is good or bad fruit. If the building is ugly (fruit), what does it say about its builders (tree)? If the liturgy sounds like a baptized version of popular music (fruit), what does it say about the musicians (tree)? If the clerical clothing is pedestrian (fruit), what does it say about its wearers (tree)?
These questions remain relevant for each person to ask himself or herself:
Does my church show that “hosting the Holy One is no small, trivial, or casual undertaking”? Where, if at all, does my church show “the practice of symmetry, order, discipline, and beauty is essential to the reality of God’s presence”? If such practice is absent, why? Has my church neglected “the demanding reality of YHWH’s holiness” because it conforms to “a technological, pragmatic society” rather than challenges it with the superfluities of beauty?
February 12th, 2010 | 7:56 pm | #39
Mr. Benson,
I am happy to consider the points you have raised, would you do me the kindness of considering the points I have raised in my previous posting? I repeat them.
Now as I stated in my previous posting, I agree that spiritual negligence takes many forms. Believers have failed in stewardship in many areas, such as with our bodies, our environment, our relationships, our intellects, and yes even with our architecture. My proposal however is that we proceed, not to reform the “disobedience” of outward decay, but that we first and foremost reform the disobedience of inward decay, and in doing so all the rest will be amended. Outward beautification is preceded by obedient hearts that overflow with abundant spiritual fruit.
You state, “Evangelicals often pay attention to the truth but seldom pay attention to beauty.” I propose that we don’t pay attention enough to the truth, and that is why we see outward decay in more consequential areas than architecture. You also state, “For example, evangelical churches make much ado about their statements of faith and preaching; they are concerned about “getting it right””. But how many of these churches make much ado about their architecture, liturgy (worship music), and clerical garments? Are they concerned about “getting it beautiful”? I propose that churches are obeying the Lord when they concern themselves with their statements of faith and “getting it right”. As we see the early church’s establishment in the NT we hear the clear call to teach sound Doctrine, to hold fast to sound Doctrine, to be established in Doctrine. As far as the outward beauty of their gathering places, scripture is silent – and so should we be. It is appropriate that sound doctrine is placed first, and that the beauty of their architecture, liturgy, and clerical garments is possibly not addressed at all.
I also want to address the opinion that “… architecture, liturgy, and clerical garments qualify as fruit from the people of God.” Thankfully we don’t need to wonder what the fruits of a believer should look like. God, through His word has defined what “fruit” means in Matthew 17. It is defined in Galatian 5:22-23 and it does not include the fruit of beauty or beautifying our surroundings. As well Galatians 5:16-21 defines the acts of our sinful nature and does not include lack of beauty or aesthetic negligence. To assert that we are disobeying God’s “cultural mandate” as set forth in Gen 1:27-29 by gathering in “ugly” church building is an overreach and twisting of that scripture. Literally, it is a command to have children, to work the earth, to rule over God’s good creation as stewards. We need to be cautious that we do read or teach God’s word and affix our own interpretations and agendas.
Lastly, I would like to know where in Scripture outward beauty is elevated as truth is elevated?
February 13th, 2010 | 2:00 am | #40
Ms. Krasovec:
I did respond to the points of your original comment but let me try to be more explicit. Regarding your first point, we’re not going to advance this discussion by trying to prove whether evangelicals focus more on the inner or outer tabernacle. I stand by my conclusion in the blog post: “All Christians – high church and low church – should aspire to construct worthy tabernacles, both inside and outside ourselves. For ‘tabernacle’ qualifies as a verb as much as a noun.” Notice the “and/both” claim. Regarding your second point, I’ve already disputed your conviction that we should not evaluate the outward. Jesus equips us to evaluate the quality of a person’s discipleship by his or her fruit – outward signs of the inward. I maintain that buildings are the fruit of builders, music the fruit of musicians, etc. If churches are converted from football stadiums and shopping malls, are we consecrating a space for “the demanding reality of YHWH’s holiness” or the athletic and consumerist sensibilities of parishioners? If clergy preach sermons and administer sacraments in clothing that suits a BBQ, are they honoring the royal authority of YHWH? These questions should be raised, but you’re quick to answer that these outward signs are irrelevant. Regarding your third point, I’m not persuaded that the New Covenant entirely obviates the Levitical need for distinguishing between the holy and profane (Leviticus 10:10). Is there something profane about hosting the divine presence in a bar? I would say “Probably” whereas you would emphatically say “No!” There’s a double standard at work here because you readily judge worshipers in a beautiful church as “full of the walking dead.”
Now I’ll turn to your second comment. You wrote: “My proposal however is that we proceed, not to reform the ‘disobedience’ of outward decay, but that we first and foremost reform the disobedience of inward decay, and in doing so all the rest will be amended. Outward beautification is preceded by obedient hearts that overflow with abundant spiritual fruit.”
Don’t you see how the outward decay – ugly buildings, casual music, and pedestrian clothes – are signs of inward decay? You draw a sharp division between the outward and inwards, whereas I view them as seamlessly integrated.
Your reasoning follows the pattern of the “either/or” crowd, insisting that we should only be concerned with the truthfulness of our statements of faith and preaching, as if the aforementioned are mutually exclusive with the beauty of our architecture, liturgy, and clerical garments. I noticed that you haven’t addressed my point about biblical anthropology: we were made for truth and for beauty. Your anthropology seems reductionistic, as if we are disembodied creatures who only care about propositions and not bodies and places.
Your reasoning also qualifies as an argument from silence. Because the New Covenant does not provide specific instructions for church architecture, liturgy, and clerical garments, you assume that we should not address ugly buildings, casual music, and pedestrian clothes.
Of course I am familiar with the fruit of the Spirit in the Book of Galatians, but that list does not exhaust the fruit of a Christian unless our imaginations are narrow. If we are to remain with the nine fruit of the Spirit, as you wish, I contend that ugly buildings, casual music, and pedestrian clothes do not exhibit “faithfulness.” I anticipate that you will disagree with me because you think the New Covenant is indifferent to beauty, but such an interpretation does not reckon with (1) the beauty of God, (2) the creation of human beings for beauty, and (3) the cultural mandate to create beauty. I do not share your constricted interpretation of the cultural mandate, signaled by your adverb “literally.” I support the capacious interpretation of the cultural mandate, as explained by Jerry Solomon in his essay “Christianity and Culture” (http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/culture.html). I will quote from a relevant section:
————–
I’ve already recommended reading that helped me develop a biblical sense of beauty and its role in the Christian witness. From my list, let me highlight the following:
* Clyde Kilby, “The Aesthetic Poverty of Evangelicalism” in The Christian Imagination, edited by Leland Ryken
William Dyrness, Visual Faith: Art, Theology, and Worship in Dialogue
* Daniel Treier, Mark Husbands, and Roger Lundin (editors), The Beauty of God: Theology and the Arts
* Philip Graham Ryken, Art for God’s Sake: A Call to Recover the Arts
February 13th, 2010 | 6:24 pm | #41
Mr. Benson,
It is likely that you and I share a similar desire to see the glory of God fully manifest in the individual and the culture – internally and externally. However, we open our eyes and see that it is not so. In light of this, I am still left with some incredulity regarding your position. Perhaps if you could answer this question, I could understand what you are saying. What should I think the next time I drive by a storefront church? What do you think when you drive by a storefront church?
February 19th, 2010 | 12:49 pm | #42
[...] 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 [...]
February 22nd, 2010 | 9:44 pm | #43
[...] Posted by Matthew Lee Anderson @ 9:44 pm | Categories: Theology (Church) | 0 Comments` Christopher Benson and Matthew Milliner have been doing the Lord’s work over at Evangel in agitating for the [...]
February 23rd, 2010 | 10:01 am | #44
[...] Christopher Benson and Matthew Milliner have been doing the Lord’s work over at Evangel in agitating for the recovery of a non-pragmatic understanding of church architecture. [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact