I’ve been reflecting lately on the issue of church architecture and the extent to which the space we inhabit as a church informs our understanding of God or the church’s mission in the world or the Christian life or Christian community. Of course, there is a sense in which the New Testament reflects a movement away from sacred space (temple) to sacred person (Christ, and those “saints” gathered in his name), from spiritual building to spiritual body – the body of Christ (see Ephesians 2:14-22; 2 Corinthians 316; 6:19). But does this mean, as one architectural historian has observed of certain forms of Protestantism, that “The temple of stone or wood is no more than an insignificant shell surrounding the living congregation of the faithful which assembles within its walls”?
Insignificant Shell or Sacred Space?
October 29th, 2008 | Ministry, Theology, Worship
11 comments ↓
Oh, now you’ve hit one of my hot buttons! The decline of church architecture is, in my opinion, one of the saddest features of contemporary Christian culture. There is so much to say, but I’ll try to be brief…
Architecture serves several purposes, and only one of them is to provide simple shelter (re: the “insignificant shell” argument). In addition to shelter, a building has a role in shaping the experience of those inside of it–how you move through the space, experience different views, how you are placed in relation to other people also inhabiting that space, etc.–and conversely it is a physical expression that says something about the people who inhabit the building, communicating to the outside world about the occupants. Ecclesiastical architecture is no exception to this.
The most detailed architectural design that survives from the ancient world is actually the description of the temple given to Moses by God. From this, it was clear that God cared about even the most subtle detail of making the space serve it’s purpose and direct glory to Him. He made no small plans, and demanded that only the best artisans be involved.
Now, it is true that there was a movement from Temple to Christ as the center of our worship. Remember, though, that the believers in Jerusalem still met regularly in the temple courts: they did not scorn the temple, but rather refocused their purpose for being there.
But, what I have seen in contemporary church architecture is a scorning of Good Art and Good Function. Perhaps in the interest of appearing humble(?), modest and plain designs (by sub-par architects) that have an absence of any kind of guiding presence proliferate.
God invented art and beauty, and he celebrates it. As with any art form, there are certain considerations that come into play with this in the context of it being for the glory of God (rather than us). We might not spend as much money per square foot as others might, depending on how we view our resources, for example.
The main functions of church architecture can be to: easily foster community gathering; present a welcoming and accessible presence for visitors; reflect the glory of God through aesthetic beauty (in such a way that the viewer reflects on God, rather than the artist); and offer technical performance (sound, lighting, A/C) that undistractingly supports the formal worship activities within.
None of this says that the building itself has to be considered “sacred”. Rather, it should be a building that fosters sacred activities within it. Think about it: if you are having a small group bible study at your house, you make sure the front porch light it on, you clean up a bit, you make sure you have enough seating for everyone, you greet them at the door and show them in… you are hospitable, and you make sure that your house is ready to support the activity of the bible study! Why do we expect less of our church buildings?
Older church buildings have a certain “feel” to them; most people don’t quite understand why they seem so comfortable and can be imputed with a sense of “holiness”. Well, there are design experts out there who understand why they feel so welcoming (and why “big barn” spaces don’t). Please let us return to the time when that level of design is expected of all new church buildings!
I wasn’t brief, sorry.
I am extremely fond of lovely old buildings and especially of older church strutures because they have a sense of space that I think diminshes us and focuses us to God in a good way. But I think the space/structure is really secondary to the purpose of the gathering of the people of God. I have been in a number of churches in different parts of the world and in most of these places the concern wasn’t with the feel, or the sound quality, or the beauty. It was about having a space where corporate praise could be offered to God, prayers would be raised to God and the Word given to people hungry for the bread of life.
I suppose I wouldn’t call a church building insignificant but I would sure pay more attention to what goes on inside than the structure.
I would say that there is much more that just “a sense in which the New Testament reflects a movement away from sacred space.” It’s more like a radical shift.
As one scholar puts it… “When Christianity was born, it was the only religion on the planet that had no sacred objects, no sacred persons, and no sacred spaces.” (James D. G. Dunn)
The Bible says that since Christ is risen, we Christians have become God’s temple through his “life giving spirit” (1 Cor. 15:45). Through his Spirit, he takes up residence in us, making us his house or temple. This is why the NT never refers to the church as a building, but always as a people.
I happen to love architecture and buildings and believe it to be an area of creative gifting and honorable vocational pursuit. However, our culture is fixated on the physical, material and temporal and this negatively warps our thinking. I believe many Christians tend to make church buildings idols allowing them to replace the NT understanding and practice of the church as people and the body of Christ.
I think there is much to be gained by seriously considering divesting ourselves of the noose of church as building, and getting back to a more NT understanding and practice of the church as people.
Interesting discussion. You would think I would agree more with GMAC’s opinion, being in the architecture and design field, but I don’t.
The Bible Study I am involved in just studied Acts 7 – Stephen’s sermon to the Sanhedrin. In anger, the religious council condemned Stephen and stoned him to death. The reason? Blasphemy. He dared to speak against the temple. This is what Stephen said:
“The Most High doesn’t live in temples made by human hands.
‘Heaven is my throne,
and the earth is my footstool,
Could you ever build me a temple as good as that?
asks the Lord.
Could you build a dwelling place for me?
Didn’t I make everything in heaven and earth’
You subborn people! You are heathen at heart and deaf to the truth. Must you forever resist the Holy Spirit?”
Like Randy said, the move from the temple to the person of Jesus was radical, and the religious leaders of the day refused to go along with it. Yes, the apostles gathered in the temple post-ascension but part of that was logistics – it was the only venue in Jerusalem large enough to handle the crowds that wanted to hear the teaching and pray together.
I think emphasis on beauty and majesty of space moves the focus off of the person of Jesus. He is the only one who can save, forgive, heal. He is worth all the attention, all the praise and all the glory.
I’ve been thinking about the indwelling of the spirit recently in our individual lives but also within the body of Christ corporately and the gift that it is to the whole and the parts. God’s gifts are multilayered. This is an interesting discussion; thanks.
I think there may be two simultaneous but non-integrated conversations going on here, though perhaps I’m wrong. The two questions being addressed are:
1 – Should churches have/desire buildings?
2 – If we have buildings, what should they aspire to be?
The first question seems to be addressed by Randy, Jean, and others. I don’t think I disagree with your assertions… I think that the New Testament emphasis is certainly on worship amongst believers as those who now have the spirit indwelt among them. We do not need to go to a temple to worship; the Spirit is constantly present within us when we gather, well, wherever! I don’t think that it should be a *primary* aspiration of a church to measure it’s healthfulness or effectiveness by its facilities, but rather by whether or not it is able to perform its own particular role as a part of God’s kingdom in the particular time and place it has been planted. Two of the most effective churches I’ve been part of never had spaces to call their own.
On the other hand, many churches will have buildings that can serve the greater goal of their mission. Necessary? No. Common? Yes.
This is where my issue come in to play: IF you are going to have a building, THEN it should be treated as yet another way to honor God by making it as beautiful and functional as possible. I am of the view that God is seeking to redeem all of Creation (new heavens and new earth) not just our individual souls. Reflecting God’s beauty through good art, good music, good architectural design can be part of that ongoing redemptive work. Beauty is not gratuitous; after all, God created beauty and called it good.
Now, mind you, I don’t think its in any way sinful to build something that is poorly designed… we are called to be good stewards of our resources and sometimes that means building a simple shack.
But good design also does not have to be glitzy and expensive, just well planned and executed. Good design can help buildings (or websites, or kitchens) be more hospitable, more able to serve a specific purpose–ultimately, more effective. So when a church is going to meet in a building, and the community has a say in how that building will be put together, I hope that we can look at its design as yet another way to honor God with our best. A secondary goal to be sure, but I hope it can be a goal none the less.
I have worshiped in churches in India-at rented hotels and a working man’s home on the roof top. That simple roof top setting was amazing. In Pakistan the great old British era stone cathedrals give a great feel for history. Most of our mission’s pastors had services in the living rooms of rented houses.
Much of buildings has to do with wealth. I don’t see much need to leave monuments of buildings but they are certainly wonderful to worship in.
Churches as living congregations can and do thrive in every place imaginable. The Spirit of God lives in our hearts and as we fellowship with others, we can worship our Father in all of them.
My view of church space has been influenced lately by my last two years of living in Europe. Some of my thoughts while here….
1. There are a lot of empty dead shells of churches here. I have seen so many of them they are becoming to be boring to us. This reinforced the idea that the people make the church, not the building.
2. The old cathedrals here are amazing. I was just at St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome in October. It is amazing and quite beautiful. But, the first thought while I was there was “Wow, they must have gathered a lot of money from a lot of people to have made this and to fill it with all this art.” I have been in very small rural churches in Guatemala that probably sent money in the 16th – 20th century to support Rome’s taste for art and grandeur. That money should have stayed local.
3. We currently attend a church that is a simple office space building that is shared with a couple other congregations. The first time we went there we were convinced we had the wrong address. The building is quite cold and uninviting. It is not an easy place to send a possible visitor to. They would be intimidated and may not enter. So, I do think we do need some sort of space that is distinctive and inviting. Something that sets us apart from the typical “world’s building”. It doesn’t have to be a crystal cathedral, but something inviting.
Without having read any of the comments above, I would have to say that the architectural historian that called the physical church an insignificant shell perhaps should rethink his motivation for being that type of historian. It’s ridiculous to believe that our Father isn’t concerned about the art that went into the building of a church; the skilled craftmanship needed to perform such a delicate and superb operation; the long hours of detailed attention; that God is not concerned with that great ingenuity is thoughtless and absurd.
Garrett, I think you’ve missed the point of this topic and comment thread. It isn’t about what the historian said. It’s about whether or not a place or a space specifically designed to be a “church” building is any more sacred than any other place or space. The historian was simply stating his observation that many Protestants don’t view the physical church building as being that significant to their spiritual life… especially when compared to other religious traditions. I agree on one level, but I think we evangelicals have still adopted a view that somehow God is more present, or that there is something more spiritual about the church building and the sanctuary, than other places. I would submit that this view is simply not true based upon scripture.
You must log in to post a comment.