Until recently, I was more or less ambivalent to the architecture and decoration of church buildings. … However, as I grow older, I realise that the surroundings can help me to develop a sense of awe and wonder.
In support of this, he quotes from ThinkChristian, who is in fact at this point quoting The Aesthetic Elevator:
We should build spaces crafted specially for a human-divine encounter with God.
Ah, but how should we design such spaces? Is our traditional church architecture, a pastiche of mediaeval cathedrals, necessarily the best design? Is this in fact a completely subjective matter? In support of this idea, I think Eddie should also have quoted this from the same ThinkChristian post:
The fact also remains that different people will always own different aesthetics, and attempting to satisfy all at the same time is unrealistic.
Eddie and ThinkChristian both omitted this part of the original post from The Aesthetic Elevator:
perhaps we shouldn’t build sacred spaces at all.
I tend to agree. We need functional spaces, buildings to meet in. But it is not for us humans to declare them sacred or presume to make them “crafted specially for a human-divine encounter with God”. If we are to “develop a sense of awe and wonder”, we should do this not through buildings which then become idols, but by beholding and reflecting the glory of God, 2 Corinthians 3:18.
Lets not forget that the Church is the people NOT the building.
A building is where the Church meets and as such “traditional church architecture” is in fact a misnomer
“Perhaps we shouldn’t build sacred spaces at all”, you urge us.
For another view please see http://www.chelmsfordsouth.weebly.com, “a theology of place”.
The argument is roughly this: what if, far from the New Testament teaching that there are no “sacred spaces”, (special places where we are close to God), it teaches that every locality is special to God, and so every locality deserves a place devoted to God? Of course, God has promised to meet “local churches” (=congregations of people) wherever he is rightly worshipped, in a living room, a tin hut, a modern building (my preference, personally) or a historic parish church. But wherever that place is, it becomes a sacred space, and should be treated with great respect accordingly – “surely God is in this place” we say in awe and wonder, “we thought he only came to temples and cathedrals, but here he is in Meadgate. It looks like a converted shop, but surely this is the place where heaven meets earth”. We structure our worship and beautify the building on the assumption that God will graciously choose to be present in that place. And this leads others in Meadgate to realise that God is not far away, certainly on the other side of the Army and Navy roundabout, but interested in them, in their community and their lives.
In other words, maybe we need not less sacred spaces but more? Just a thought, from someone who is in complete agreement with you that “traditional church architecture” is neither here nor there, that what counts is mission in local communities, and that aesthetics will certainly and healthily vary greatly from one place to another and one era to another.
I very carefully avoided the question about whether spaces should be declared sacred or otherwise. All I raised was aesthetics. Personally, I don’t like having a building which is reserved for worship, but how you combine functionality and inspiration is not something I know how to envisage.
Thanks, Eddie. I didn’t mean to be negative about your contribution to this debate. The problem is that aesthetics are subjective, so one person’s beautiful inspiring building is a stumbling block to another – especially to someone like myself who as a child was reluctantly taken to worship in mediaeval churches and finds it hard to get away from the negative connotations in my mind. On the other hand, I suspect that many who prefer such buildings, and appeal to aesthetics to justify this, do so because they have positive connotations from their childhood. I’m not saying that this is true of you, but we all need to examine our personal presuppositions on this kind of issue.
Thanks, Andy (who is in fact my Rural Dean in the Anglican setup and so knows what my home church looks like – indeed it could be a converted shop although in fact it isn’t). Here is a direct link to your Theology of Place discussion (is there a good reason why it is all right justified?), which I had read before but had forgotten when I wrote this post.
I agree with you, although maybe not so much with Inge. Yes, in principle every space is or at least should be a sacred space, and this should not depend on its aesthetics. My issue was more with setting aside particular places as more sacred than others, with suggesting that we can meet God only there, and with making idols of them which might include making their upkeep the focus of our budgets, PCC meetings etc.
Here at Meadgate we seem to have some tension between a desire to be a part of the community around the church, a part of the particular space, and visions of being a larger congregation reaching the whole town. Part of the issue is with the parish system, which I have discussed here before. Maybe the increasing importance of the deanery will help to provide a better balance here. Meanwhile, while not turning my back on wider visions, I have deliberately moved house to be part of the community which lives around my church building.
I’ve picked up this discussion on my blog.