Our Architecture and Our Message
Legacy, like so many other churches today, currently meets in an elementary school. We’ve been praying about our next location for 4 months now. The questions we’re seeking to answer are, “Should we lease or buy?” “Should we build?” “If so, what should our building look like?” As I was praying this week, the following thoughts came to my mind and I thought I would share them with you.
There was a time when what took place within banking and lending institutions was serious business. At least the architecture made you think it was. The buildings mimicked ancient Greek and Roman temples with several steps leading up to a porch with large columns. Opening the doors took two hands due to their sheer size and weight. Armed security guards stood inside, some even had their own desks toward the front of the large, cavernous, cathedral-type room, that included marble floors and dark, hand-carved wood furniture and paneling.
If you move to Centerton where I currently live, and need to find a bank, you now have four choices. Not one of the four resembles the description in the paragraph above. One is even in a strip retail complex shared with two fast food stores and a gas station. I guess it’s convenient. Fill your tank, your stomach and your account all in one stop. But here’s what I’m thinking.
I don’t know about you, but the change in architectural style of banks has affected how I think about what takes place inside them. Those behind the counters are much more efficient and effective in their handling of my transaction than those of the past, but my business there seems significantly less important due to the casual atmosphere created by the building, not to mention the attire of the employees.
Yet, banks aren’t the only casualties of “progress”. In most towns, the only building more grand and where the business was more important than the hub of its economy, was the church. Whether First Baptist, Second Methodist or Third Presbyterian, everyone knew what took place inside, and that those who dawned the doors week after week thought what took place was more important than anything else in their lives. Movie theaters may have been “palaces” but the church was a place where people worshiped an Almighty God.
Sadly, the term “sacred space” no longer refers to a sanctuary where the great I AM or the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is worshiped in reverence and awe. It refers to some new age space that can be created anywhere, including your home, as long as the furniture is “feng shuied” correctly. Today’s contemporary church architecture provides a nice, comfortable, practical environment for those who sporadically attend the weekly gatherings, but the buildings themselves communicate that what takes place inside is no longer the most important event of the week or in the community. Of course, the disappointment doesn’t stop there. The only thing more “hip” than the building itself is the pastor whose wholly jeans, Hawaiian shirt, and sandals reflect his unholy attitude toward the God he serves. (Can you believe I’m only 40?)
Don’t get me wrong. I believe the Father is looking for worshipers who will worship him in spirit and in truth (John 4), not buildings that are monuments to ourselves and become the focal points of idolatry. I understand that each individual believer is a temple of the Holy Spirit (I Corinthians 6) and that the church is a group of people who are becoming a dwelling place of God (Ephesians 2).
At the same time though, I believe the contemporary architecture of today’s churches that is intended to enhance our evangelistic effort, express subtle, unintended messages that are actually counter-productive. Casual and informal are seen as careless and unimportant. Comfortable and relaxed are interpreted as complacent and optional. What’s even more alarming is that the message proclaimed from these new structures is just as comfortable, relaxed, complacent and optional. Moralistic platitudes have replaced the bold, life-changing message of the Gospel. The central theme is no longer Christ and Him crucified, but man and him satisfied.
I read a statement not to long ago that said “Good scenery cannot make a bad play better, but it can enhance a good play dramatically.” Having the right architecture or building will not save a church whose content is shallow and leadership is sloppy. Conversely, if Christ and His Gospel are properly proclaimed, God’s Word properly taught, the sacraments properly administered, and church discipline and membership properly maintained, a church can assemble in a barn. But which came first, sterilized architecture or a sterilized message? No matter how you answer, I believe our architecture may say more than we realize to the watching world around us. I know our message does.
Soli Deo Gloria
Filed under: Theology | 28 Comments
-
Recent Comments
Tad Thompson on Its time to revive the ou… Jacob de Raadt on In Praise of Psalmody Mike on News Tiltphilm on Our Architecture and Our … ifwewill on Falwell Proclaims Limited Aton…
You raise some thought provoking points, Chris. I think our architecture (like our preaching) reflects our values or priorities. The OT Tabernacle (Ex 25 et. al.) along with its furnishings was both very simple and transcendently profound. Every portion of the structure communicated something important about God or man. Even the fact that it was “portable” had Christological significance (John 1:14).
Chuck Bengtson
I think the key is the principle of excellence and that the facility serves the churches mission. Cost is a huge factor in the simplicity of modern church design. The simpler the building the cheaper it costs.
FBC Bentonville is one of the most grandiose churches I have seen in some time…but all that grandiose cost about 16 Million Bucks and that was without a land purchase.
I am all for giving the space as much spiritual significance as possible – crosses, scripture, symbols…..I hate the seeker, no evidence of Christianity, design.
I love majestic church architecture, and I think it does point to spiritual reality that we often overlook.
I think it’s important to note, though, that sterilized messages exist even in the grand cathedrals of Europe.
I wonder if the problem is that we haven’t taken the new covenant teaching of believers being the Temple of God, not buildings, seriously enough?
Tad – without a doubt, cost is a factor. Yet, when building committees meet, the question that is addressed before cost is, “What can we do to make sure we don’t look too churchy?” New Life Church in Colorado Springs spent $38 million for their arena-like building that has a little token cross on top.
Darryl – that’s why I said what I did in the last paragraph. If the true marks of the church exist, the people could meet in a barn. But you’ve hit on a very good point. I think we should heed God’s words in Isaiah 66:1-2. This is my paraphrase, “Before you build a temple with brick and mortar, you should focus on the the temple of your heart. Humility, contriteness and trembling at Me and My Word are more important than any sanctuary that won’t hold Me anyway!”
Good follow-up posts.
I was struck by a thought this morning: What role might the Regulative Principle of worship have in architecture? If we are going to assemble ourselves to worship corporatley according to this principle, how might that inform our surroundings (both inside and out)?
I liked Tad’s post regarding a balance between a utilitarian style that incorporates our significant symbols. A more symplistic style is both cost effective and, as Darryl has pointed out, would help to focus attention on the people, the preaching, and on the symbols that speak of (and silently preach) our Lord and Savior.
Chuck
I read somewhere that in the modern western church over 90% of the money raised by churches goes to pay for the mortage, utilities, and maintenance of the building. I would hazard a guess that about that percentage of volunteer work is dedicated towards upkeeping the physical building itself. So, 90% or more of the money and resources of churches go to keep up buildings that are empty or very near empty most days of the week (indeed, some churches do not even meet every week!), are irrelevant to the lives of the members when they are not inside the building (and often when they are), and are invisible to the community outside the four walls of the church.
I wonder if the early church’s method, where they met seven days a week in each other’s homes, was better, and if the future of Christendom in the west would be strengthened if we went back to that?
To paraphrase your statement:
… the change in architectural style of [churches] has affected how I think about what takes place inside them.
I’ll admit that I’m weird, but “old style” church architecture puts me more in mind of “our fathers worshiped on this mountain” and that worship (and Christianity, in general) is something that occurs for 90-120 minutes on Sunday morning.
It also concerns me to see contemporary architecture tied to bad theology. While in the US, practitioners of the latter often employ the former, the two issues are no more linked than a man’s hair length and the condition of his heart.
I like healtheland’s comment and agree with it. I think the building a church is in shouldn’t have anything to do with how you worship. Think about all of the countries where Christians are persecuted for their faith and have to meet in hiding – they seem to have a better grasp on Christianity and what it means (at least from what I’ve read in stories about them) than we do where we have big, fancy churches to meet in. I think it’s sad when I see a church spending millions of dollars on a building. Showing the love of Christ means going out into your communtiy and making a difference… not trying to get people into your big, cool building. I wonder what could have been done with the millions of dollars in the communities mentioned just in these comments! So many more lives could have been impacted by using that money somehow in the community rather than on a building. My husband and I have had numerous conversations about this- what kind of building we should have, should we meet in homes, etc. (we are in the process of planting a church) and we always come back to the fact that the place doesn’t matter – it’s whether or not we’re making a difference to the people around us.
Sorry to go on and on here. I understand what you’re trying to say in your article and it does make you wonder if the casualness we’ve created is what’s hurting us but then as healtheland said, “I wonder if the early church’s method, where they met seven days a week in each other’s homes, was better, and if the future of Christendom in the west would be strengthened if we went back to that?”
I once heard R.C. Sproul give a lecture(s) on church architecture through the ages. His main point was that the way we construct our church buildings reflects the basic attitude we have toward God and His Word, the Bible. While I don’t remember the details, I do remember a couple of the examples he gave. He spoke of the grand cathedrals, and how their architecture helped to elevate one’s perception of God Himself. He spoke of the Puritans high pulpits, and how this architecture helped elevate one’s perception of the authority of God’s Word to us. I agree whole-heartedly that today we are too casual, too informal, too comfortable and too relaxed … because it truly has elevated an unwanted perception about the church itself and one’s relationship with God. You are right in perceiving that these things are communicating that God, His word, and the church can be treated in a careless and unimportant fashion. With the emphasis on what is comfortable and gives one a relaxed feeling we are communicating that one’s preferences are much more important than God’s, and indeed we have become complacent about Him and everything that doesn’t fit our own wants, desires, and “needs” is now only optional. You arae so right when you write, “The central theme is no longer Christ and Him crucified, but man and him satisfied.”
I thought Regulative and Reformed believers have traditionally always shied away from symbols and crosses displayed in the church–and it’s not just a knee-jerk reaction to Catholicism. Personally, I am not a fan of crosses, doves, flames, banners, or other things like that in the church because in the past I have been somewhat of a mystical believer, and have committed no less than idolatry on many occaisions by taking emotional delight in the sight of the cross. I would be too afraid to display these things in a church, especially during Sunday worship. Doesn’t Hebrews teach us that the entirety of Old Testament ritual was a shadow of heavenly realities that we now see in Christ? Doesn’t Hebrews strongly warn Christians to never return to the shadows but to savor the reality of Christ? This is why I think Churches that try to expose Christ from the preaching of the Word AND display symbols pointing to him in a way that may (even in the smallest way) be a diversion to the reality of Christ, are sending mixed messages. God is invisible, but very audible.
Let me quote myself.
“I believe the Father is looking for worshipers who will worship him in spirit and in truth (John 4), not buildings that are monuments to ourselves and become the focal points of idolatry. I understand that each individual believer is a temple of the Holy Spirit (I Corinthians 6) and that the church is a group of people who are becoming a dwelling place of God (Ephesians 2). . . Having the right architecture or building will not save a church whose content is shallow and leadership is sloppy. Conversely, if Christ and His Gospel are properly proclaimed, God’s Word properly taught, the sacraments properly administered, and church discipline and membership properly maintained, a church can assemble in a barn.”
I agree that the church is a body and not a building. I agree that buildings can become monuments to ourselves. I agree that too much money is spent on buildings, particularly those that are only used an hour or so a week. But I also know that the buildings we do erect have a significant impact on our attitudes, our message and our actions.
We find ourselves in a position where we have to be out of the school we currently meet in by March of ‘08. We could lease. We could buy. We could build. My point is that I think more should go into our decision-making process as far as where and what we meet in as a group.
Again, Isaiah 66: 1-2 has really hit home with me. I will actually be preaching that text next week as we contemplate our next move and as we enter in to a time of teaching on the Doctrines of Grace. Humility, contriteness and trembling at the Word of God!
Great comments! Keep them coming! You are helping us in our time of decision.
CT
Blake,
I commend your personal insight regarding these matters Blake. I personally don’t consider the cross a shadow…it’s a demonstrable reality both historically and personally (Romans 6:6; Gal 2:20). Ironically, the bread and wine are symbolic (of realities) in their own way…as is baptism. Each must know their own conscience and understand their own boundaries when it comes to worship.
On the other side, I think that physical marriage is a symbol or a metaphor of the church’s relationship to Christ as His Bride (Eph 5). In other words, I don’t dismiss the existence of “shadows” all together.
And yes, on the negative side, the Regulative Principle by definition shies away from certain kinds of symbols…like pictures of Jesus and statues of Mary. If there is a cross, Jesus isn’t on it. But as Tom has correctly pointed out, the Puritan’s were not without their symbols. Personally, I think of the pulpit (Neh 8:4) and the communion table (1 Cor 10:21). The empty cross symbolizes what Jesus really did and not Jesus Himself…but this is a matter of some debate (and conscience).
Chuck
Healtheland and momlovesbeingathome…
I suppose the passage you’re referring to is primarily Acts 2:46-47 (and maybe 5:42)? You might want to read that again before making it a timeless methodology for the church, however. Daily Temple observance is quite prominent in both passages.
Jesus loved and defended the Temple…the single meeting place for the people of God. Outside of Jerusalem, our Jewish friends utilized the synagogue. The NT church is somewhat patterned after this (Acts 20:7-8; 1 Cor 5:4; Heb 10:24; James 2:2 where the words “gathered together” and “assembly” is the Greek word “synagogue”). I’m not arguing against the so-called “house church” or meeting seven days per week…I just think there’s room for latitude. Some of this depends on how you take the fourth commandment.
Chuck
The New Testament writers didn’t seem to care so much about building designs. I think it is dangerous and borderline legalistic to say, “The only thing more ‘hip’ than the building itself is the pastor whose wholly jeans, Hawaiian shirt, and sandals reflect his unholy attitude toward the God he serves.” When attire is addressed in the New Testament, believers are being warned against drawing too much attention to themselves by dressing too nice. They are also reminded to not neglect those whose fasion may not be up to par.
I understand that there is a lot of Pelagian, feel good teaching going on in the strip mall churches. The problem is the heart, not the building. Here in the southeast there are numerous beautiful church buildings that sit empty on Sunday mornings and have a very low regard for the word of God.
All in all, I think the emphasis on church architecture is a discussion for the prosperous. The churches I visited in Romania with dirt floors that doubled as living spaces during the week weren’t overly concerned with what their building may have said about the Father. They let their lives do that work.
Thanks!
My trips to Romania have been convicting to say the least. They have played a big part in how I answer the questions I’ve been asking. They may have even led to my asking the questions I am in the first place.
I agree that the topic of attire could cross the line, but my comment on attire must be taken in the context of the pragmatism I’m refering to as a whole.
I think the discussion on architecture is one for us. We cannot divorce ourselves from our culture. At the same time, our prosperity as a culture cannot be minimized and we must remember it’s impact on us individually and corporately.
The problem is a heart issue. Believe it or not that was my point.
Again, I am loving this discussion.
CT
What a great discussion on church architecture. I agree with the comment that the debate over architecture is largely one limited to the church in affluent society. The church in the third world or in areas of persecution (or former persecution such as Romania) has a whole different set of priorities.
As to the question of the church gathering in homes every day vs. in a church building one day a week, I think the image of the two-winged church is helpful. Bill Beckham wrote about the two-winged church in his book The Second Reformation (mainly an apologetic for the cell church movement). The “two wings” are the large group gathering for worship and the small group gathering for fellowship, teaching, prayer and breaking of bread. While not recommending Beckham’s book as a whole, he has a point in suggesting that a healthy church has both the large group and small group aspects held in balance, like the two wings of an airplane. Chuck correctly pointed out that the early church continued for many years with the large group gathering in the Temple as well as meeting house to house on a daily basis. What that looks like in our current context I’m not sure, but I’m pretty sure both are needed for a church to be healthy, particularly as it grows above 100 people of so. Up to that point, everyone can still have a sense of community when they gather as a whole. It becomes more difficult to retain that sense with numerical growth beyond the 100 mark.
I want to suggest something here without trying to one-up anybody: the most effective and convincing victories of the church were, in the first century, and are, in the 21st century, in places where there is no church building to speak of.
I admire the point the CT is making in this post — the idea that God is God, and deserves to be seen as three-times-holy and transcendent in glory and power. I agree with that. But I think that is reflected not in how we sculpt the sancuary: it is in how we are sculpted by the potter Himself, and how we live in this world which is dying.
Church architecture is one of those things that, in my opinion, gets substituted for our “call to be saints together” and “enriched in him in all speech and all knowledge”, as Paul said in 1 Cor 1. Except it’s not “I am of Apollos” but “I am of the big, impressive building”. Our place is to behave like saints 24/7 and not build a temple in which we do something which we can’t or won’t do in the rest of the world.
There is something interesting about the old “first Baptist” fashion of making the church like a bank. I am curious whether or not I am the first person to ever think about two things:
[1] Where banks built that way to draw people in or keep people out?
[2] How much does that style of building a place have in common with medieval cathedral building — and the theology which goes along with it?
Tad told me about this, btw, so if I have caused a stir, you can blame him.
OK — now I have read all the other comments, and I have an addendum:
I think you should consider not having a permanent church home because it will become a monument to something. What if your church was more involved in being active ministers to the poor than funding and then keeping up and then remodeling some facility?
It is nice to have a “megachurch” or even a “church” in the sense of having a place the body calls its own. I think it is more God-honoring to have a church which puts what Christ said was most important first — and becoming tied to some building or some strategic plan for getting to 1000 on Sundays with a Gym and a salad bar or whatever takes our eyes off of Jesus.
That said, I just helped Tad get the money to remodel our church, so I’m actually a hypocrite. Just so you know who’s saying what to whom.
Chuck:
I am aware that the early believers also worshipped in synagogues, as a matter of fact the synagogue founded by James, brother of the Messiah, is a well known place I believe. But regarding the temple itself and the Messiah’s defense thereof … did not the temple become our bodies when the veil was torn?
In any event, you are correct in many respects. God did give us gifts to use to glorify Him, and those certainly include being gifted in architecture, engineering, construction, etc. to build great buildings to worship in, and artistic talents in painting, sculpting, metalworking, embroidery, etc. to adorn these houses of worship. I merely wanted to interject a different line of thinking into the conversation. Thank you.
Thanks for joining in Frank. Good thoughts.
You are correct. The more I eat Isaiah 66:1-2, to use the words from Ezekiel 3 that our Worship Pastor boldly proclaimed yesterday, the more I realize it is “unworthy of God’s majesty to view his presence as confined to a visible and frail building” (Calvin), even one that I deem respective of his holiness. The temple or the sanctuary and what goes on within them, “if unaccompanied by purity of heart (ie humility, contriteness, and trembling at God’s Word), are absolute trifles; for since it is evident from his dwelling-place being in heaven that the nature of God is spiritual, if the worship does not correspond to that nature, it is undoubtedly wicked and corrupted.” (Calvin)
The dilemma remains though. A dilemma you admit facing yourself. I wouldn’t call you a hypocrite. You are just honest enough to admit that there is the ideal and then there is reality. Oh how I wish the two were one and the same. Somehow this dove-tails with the whole Christianity and Culture discussion. At least I think it does.
CT
Healtheland,
You asked a good question in your initial comment.
I apologize for sounding a bit defensive in my response to your post. I think we are attempting to balance more than two or three issues here as the New Testament people of God.
You have appropriately brought to light one of those issues…the home…the family…daily fellowship. We are “the household of God” and should reflect that regarding the intimacy of our fellowship and daily discourse.
There was a time in the not-too-distant-past when the church-house was the focal point of culture and community in any neighborhood, town or city. This has been lost. Some of this we can chalk up to political socialism where the government and not the church is responsible for caring for the poor, etc. Some of it has to do with a postmodern, postchristian culture. Some of it has to do with the fact that we attend churches that are outside of our immediate neighborhoods for doctrinal reasons, etc.
We’re praying that whether we meet in homes or church buildings or cathedrals or in barns…that the gospel is preached, that physical needs are met, that sinners are converted, and that God’s people are sanctified…to the praise of His glorious grace.
Best regards,
Chuck
Kudos Chuck! The best comment yet! Oh but if I were as articulate as you!
CT
Healtheland asked: “But regarding the temple itself and the Messiah’s defense thereof … did not the temple become our bodies when the veil was torn?”
I think a strong case can be made for that. This speaks powerfully to the priesthood of the believer. It must also be remembered that Jesus understood his body to be the temple (John 2:19-21). I guess I would also suggest that there is a temple of sorts in heaven (Rev 3:12; 7:15; esp. 21:22).
In any case, the biblical teaching that the bodies of believers are temples of God is a staggering truth. Wherever we are; whatever we do, we represent both the mercy and judgment of God…”and who is sufficient for these things.”
Spiritual architecture is remarkable, is it not? Maybe the question goes something like this: to what degree will the spiritual architecture of the bible inform the physical architecture of our homes and places of worship? Does it need too?
Chuck
What a great topic of conversation. (And yes, I can believe you’re only 40!!)
Like all of life, I believe that even church buildings should be designed in such a way that points people’s thinking to God, His holiness, the cross, etc…
That being said, I wouldn’t want to sink millions of dollars on it. Honestly, thought thought just saddens me.
Very cool design! Useful information. Go on!
ooo6%% ,
soma online, buy drug tramadol, lorazepam buy, cheap generic valium, cheap fioricet, hoodia and phentermine, buy norco online, cheap ultram, buy ultracet, xenical online,