Recently I was in a meeting on the top floor of one of Nashville’s tallest buildings. The view was marvelous and, honestly, quite a distraction from the day’s agenda. As the landscape rolled toward the suburbs, I became struck by how many steeples I could see poking out like white onion grass through the wintry grey canopy of trees. There were, it seemed, hundreds of them.
As I drove through town that evening, I passed the campus of Vanderbilt University, which stands opposite the beautiful Parthenon in Centennial Park. The West End is filled with beautiful churches and temples, and the busy road creeps along toward the toney Belle Meade area. The steeples on some of the churches are marvelous. One in particular always catches my eye: Vine Street Christian Church. The spire is enormous, towering over the area before ending in a beautifully delicate cross. Not too far away is the Woodmont Christian Church with its impossibly thin uprising that reaches marvelous heights.
As I continued driving, I was struck by the beauty and craftsmanship of so many of these structures. Almost all of them were capped by a cross, even the ones that are attached to congregations that many evangelicals would barely recognize as being theologically faithful to traditional Christianity. Indeed, many of the crosses have likely entered into the realm of visual “white noise” (is that possible?) that goes un-noticed by inured passersby. Who has time to look at a steeple, after all, when there are texts to send while sitting at a red light? Who has time to look up when our eyes are so busy focusing on what is just in front of us?
My favorite steeple is in Port Gibson, Mississippi, at the First Presbyterian Church. It ends not in a cross but in beefy gold-leafed hand that points the way to God. It’s not a cross, but it’s a testimony at least.
Because I serve in higher education, I hear frequently about the controversies related to the removal of crosses from campus chapels at secular universities. “Too Christian,” we hear. “Too divisive.” Even “too hurtful.” We evangelicals in particular are pretty good at pointing out these cultural markers.
As my drive across Nashville reached the more generic outskirts of town, I was struck at how the newer church buildings lacked steeples. “Too expensive,” I’m sure the architects noted as they offered up their pre-fabricated blueprints. “Too much unused space.” “You don’t want to provide a barrier to anyone who might be coming in; you need to embrace a utilitarian mindset for your building.”
And so the steeple is dying out, as is the visual testimony of the cross that typically sits atop it. And a church building looks like a warehouse looks like an office supply building looks like an accountancy firm looks like denuded, secularized campus “spiritual space.”
Amazing how worked up we can become over the secularists’ intentional removal of crosses when we ourselves have forgotten about it. I can’t help but wonder if there isn’t an allegory at work here. Or at least a scripture passage.
February 24th, 2011 | 12:47 pm | #1
It does raise an interesting question: how should Christians think about expensive and structurally superfluous architectural features when building a meeting place with “God’s money”–money which can always be used in a lot of other God-glorifying, people-loving ways. Just as surely as there have been excesses, there surely must be some guidelines.
I suppose that these days building projects are largely responsive to the wonderful fact (at least I think it’s wonderful) that most folks aren’t letting building appearances determine their decisions about church membership.
February 24th, 2011 | 1:24 pm | #2
The cross has always been a symbol of Christian identity in a secularized world. A reminder of the price Christ paid as He was ‘crucified’ in such pain that the word ‘excruciating’ (out of the cross) is but the clearest reminder of the sin in us He died for. May we never lose this reminder.
February 24th, 2011 | 1:32 pm | #3
C. Ehrlich
It does raise an interesting question: how should Christians think about expensive and structurally superfluous architectural features when building a meeting place with “God’s money”–money which can always be used in a lot of other God-glorifying, people-loving ways. Just as surely as there have been excesses, there surely must be some guidelines.
You hit the proverbial nail on the head. If we insist on paying for expensive buildings that sit empty most of the week, at least we should be as utilitarian as possible. The amount of money collected by the church for the purpose of paying for structures while people die without Christ all around the world and in our own neighborhoods is obscene. I for one will not weep for the demise of the steeple.
February 24th, 2011 | 2:53 pm | #4
I’m not a fan of steeples or extravagant church architecture either. But that’s about aesthetics (or more precisely personal taste) rather than theology in my case. Thus I wonder about a strictly utilitarian approach that only considers the bottom line?
Two things in particular come to mind. The first happens to be the text I preached on Sunday last. John 12.1-8. Judas scolds Mary for the extravagance of her act in pouring a (very) costly jar of perfume on the head of Jesus. Whatever else can be said of the text (and I grant there is a lot there) Jesus does in fact praise Mary for her act of adoration and devotion — despite it’s being almost pure “waste” in a fiduciary and utilitarian sense.
The second is to consider how impoverished world architecture (and indeed the culture of the West) would be without the great Cathedrals and what they stood (stand?) for?
And then there is something to reflect about. How much does this change in the architecture of worship spaces reflect a failure of nerve in the builders with respect to the power and centrality of the Gospel? Is there more than simple taste and a concern for “stewardship” involved? I am not sure of the answer, but I do suspect a relationship.
February 24th, 2011 | 3:22 pm | #5
The Church is not a building and the cross lost its meaning precisely because it was made into jewelry or ornamentation.
February 24th, 2011 | 3:27 pm | #6
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Tim Ellsworth, Roger Cook. Roger Cook said: New shared item: On the Demise of Steeples: Recently I was in a meeting on the top floor of one of Nashville’s t… http://bit.ly/fMf4nI [...]
February 24th, 2011 | 4:11 pm | #7
Good piece. I wonder what people think about the churches doing gigantic crosses? We had a church in Houston that did one so big you couldn’t miss it for miles. I always enjoyed coming upon it as I drove along a vast toll road in town.
February 24th, 2011 | 5:11 pm | #8
very good gene, loved the drive through. nashville is great for road tripping. ever wonder where the idea of steeples came from? thanks for the peaceful wonderings. lee
February 24th, 2011 | 5:33 pm | #9
Good article and comments that follow. I would add an additional perspective: our church is in a city that values aesthetics, so as we strive to reach our city, we have chosen to be a good steward of our buildings, even if that has a monetary expense tied to it. We are going to update them, we are going to repair them, and we are going to preserve them, even though it would cost less to abandon them and move into square footage available at the neighborhood strip mall. This decision has been made because we believe our Lord values aesthetics as well. One only has to glance at His handiwork to see that beauty does indeed matter, even as it reflects His character and creativity. In my opinion, although the intention may be noble, the attitude pendulum in some newer churches has swung too far the other way. With much pride, criticisms are launched toward those who would preserve older buildings and instruments (can you say pipe organs?) or spend budget dollars on improving their facilities, as if taking care of the things God has provided is somehow analogous to abandoning the Great Commission. For us, it’s not a question of either/or but rather of both/and. God perfectly models for us both an appreciation of beauty AND a passion for the lost. Tragically, when we decide aesthestics, architecture, and artistic beauty no longer matter, we are shedding a part of the image we bear. Ironically, many of the same crowd who poo-poo spending any money on buildings/architecture, are the very same crowd who think nothing of dropping a small fortune on sound equipment and the latest technological gadgets, crammed into their warehouse worship space, for evangelistic purposes, of course…you know, reaching this generation….not to mention the up-charge they will pay for designer coffee or chai tea. If their consciences are clean before Christ, there is no reason to question the choices they make in spending the resources God has entrusted to them. But, their authoritative and often-times sanctimonious remarks against building/renovation projects are misdirected. I greatly appreciate david c’s reminder of Mary’s extravagance. The scolding of her that was rebuked by our Lord was directly related to the FINANCIAL cost involved with her act of worship. I enthusiastically applaud any reminder to check our motives and any effort to hold each other accountable, but in our desire to spend wisely and be a good steward, let’s not forget God’s call to truthfully reflect ALL His character.
February 25th, 2011 | 9:53 am | #10
[...] Gene Fant bemoans the demise of that iconic image of American Protestantism, the steeple. [...]
February 25th, 2011 | 10:36 am | #11
Architecture has purpose and evokes a response as evidence by this thoughtful post and attested by any architect. Church architecture should reflect the transcendent God that we serve, particularly our sanctuaries. Like everything else, they should be a witness to our great God and reflect his Biblical character.
I think current architecture says more about what we (and the architects we choose to design our churches) think of God than our views on the practical use of ministry funds or space.
February 25th, 2011 | 11:24 am | #12
You are a pastor, and trusted to your stewardship is a nice chunk of God’s money. Your spartan Sunday meeting place is comfortable and structurally sound. It has a big and sturdy rough-hewn wooden cross planted prominently in front lawn. The roof-line of your building, however, is entirely banal. You lack a steeple. And a steeple, though a bit pricey, would look really sharp.
You pray about it, but, as with many other decisions you have to make, you’re not getting any special divine guidance about this. So what factors should be running through your head? Under what circumstances would it be appropriate to splurge on that steeple?
February 25th, 2011 | 11:55 am | #13
Deeply appreciate Dr. Fant’s article here, but I wonder how he and others in his denomination feel about one young pastor and writer railing about church buildings that are taking money away from the mission field. And lots of young, eager pastors thinking similar thoughts.
February 25th, 2011 | 11:57 am | #14
Also – those big huge highway crosses – meaningful, but they can be quite ugly if not done properly.
February 25th, 2011 | 11:59 am | #15
C. Ehrlich,
A question about the scenario you’ve painted? In most cases pastors by themselves have much less of the kind of control over finances and building projects than you seem to believe (or at least portray here). Fact is, that if I were to conceive of a major structural addition to our church building there would have to be a consultative process that involved both a higher denominational authority, a decision by our church’s governing board, and (probably) a vote by the congregation (who would then have to be tapped for the extra money to build said project). I would say that a similar process would have to take place in most of the churches in which most of the readers of this blog worship.
The independent church with the autocratic pastor who has sole control over the spending of tens of thousands of dollars is so rare as to be vanishingly small.
Thus the factors “running through my head” have almost nothing to do with what I think would “look really sharp”.
February 25th, 2011 | 12:14 pm | #16
David C, it doesn’t really matter whether we imagine the money entrusted to one individual thinking alone or to a group of individuals thinking together. The basic question is of course the same: What factors should they be considering? Under what circumstances would it be appropriate to splurge on that steeple?
February 25th, 2011 | 12:39 pm | #17
Of course it matters. The element of vanity and personal preference is significantly diminished when there is a group of folks making the decision rather than an individual.
But, setting that aside, for me the factors would include the following:
1) Are we really talking specifically about literally adding a steeple to an existing structure? If so that seems like a move of pure ornamentation, and I would argue against it.
2) If we are not talking about a literal steeple but about adding to our physical structure in some other way: what is our sense of call and mission (ie. who and what is God calling us to be and do) in the community and how would this particular project help advance that?
3) is this the best stewardship of our resources (given #2)?
4) does this project glorify God? Does it edify people? What if we don’t do this. What wil be gained if we do.
and so on.
A very complex and difficult set of questions in other words — which will reveal to us a lot about ourselves and how we understand God and his calling.
February 25th, 2011 | 1:00 pm | #18
BTW in one of those strange sorts of coincidences, my sermon this Sunday (“Eat Not the ‘Bread of Anxious Toil’ “) opens with a brief retelling of a story about a man obsessed with with adding a monumental spire to the church of which he is Dean (William Golding’s “The Spire”).
February 25th, 2011 | 1:34 pm | #19
“Lift High The Cross” is one of my favorite hymns in the Trinity Hymnal. I appreciate the visual testimony of Christ’s atoning sacrifice and resurrection our steeple makes to the surrounding community. (And on a jocular note, it does make giving directions easy as we can say, “when you get to…, look for the steeple.”)
I agree with Mike’s post of what Church Architecture says about what and how we think of God and our attitude toward His worship.
I would also suggest that any congregation whose sanctuary is “sitting empty for most of the week”, should examine its ministry!!
February 25th, 2011 | 2:58 pm | #20
I’m going to be more specific – what would Dr. Fant and other SBCers concerned with the death of steeples say to someone like David Platt or even Matt Chandler who doesn’t seem to mind doing away with that sort of thing if the money is going to missions?
March 3rd, 2011 | 12:28 am | #21
MRS,
I was checking back to see if anyone responded to your Chandler/Platt question and it appears no one has. As I alluded to earlier, churches who don’t “seem to mind doing away with that sort of thing” (ie. steeples and the like) are still spending money — and lots of it– on things other than missions. I am not as familiar with the facilities at Chandler’s church, but those at The Church at Brook Hills are first-rate. They may have been built before Platt arrived, but they are being maintained and improved during his tenure. No doubt with a wise balance and a clear priority on the Gospel. But, make no mistake, non-missional spending is taking place and it is spending that I’m sure is being done with the belief that it will help them accomplish their goals. Again, I believe if such expenses are motivated with a desire to care for what God has given you and to update technology as is necessary to fulfill your mission, I would not criticize that. How many among us would fail to replace the roof on our own homes or repair/replace our furniture when it is showing holes? Perhaps even more appropriate to the comments at hand, how many of of us are still carrying around a cell phone in a shoulder bag or using a flip phone with no texting or media capability? Indeed, life without Twitter would be an unthinkable disconnect to some. (I personally don’t use Twitter, but I know plenty who do and they use it effectively.) I suspect, if confronted with this question, both Chandler and Platt would encourage churches to care for what they have, enter into new projects prayerfully and prudently, and spend the absolute most that you can on missions. I think they would also add that when you spend money on things which can be seen or heard, purchase quality. I don’t know either man personally, so perhaps when a structural/space/technology need rises, they would say to ignore it, sell it and move the church, or if absolutely necessary, buy cheap. But I doubt it.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact