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?

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)

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?

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.

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?

It’s not a passage that supports the idea that God requires or desires an ornate building to be worshiped in though.

Also, it might be worth investigating the Scripture passages referenced in Christopher’s original article above.