Riffs: 08:12:09: Architecture for the Glory of God

174 thoughts on “Riffs: 08:12:09: Architecture for the Glory of God”

1. God bless those people.

   I have worshipped in enough schlocky looking “tennis clubs from the 1970’s ” as one friend puts it. What does that say about the God we worship?

   No one has mentioned the other side of the coin. Christians can be downright cheap and stingy, and I have seen this hidden behind the “lets not be wasteful stewards of God’s resources.”

   When Jesus was anointed with the costly perfume( worth one year’s salary) the only person who objected on the grounds of cost was Judas.

   LikeLike

2. I’m very glad that we’ve had the chance to read the thoughts of a couple of CPC leaders. I am struck by the level of sophistication they demonstrate regarding architecture and church history as they strove to build a church that clearly communicates their distinctive theology in the architectural vocabulary of their distinctive history.

   Some of the commenters have shown an equally striking ignorance of these ideas by misapplying terms such as “gothic” and “cathedral”. I don’t mean this as a putdown, but before you condemn historic church architecture (or music, or liturgy) as irrelevent, you might want to spend some time learning something about it. You might find that it contributes something to the depth of your faith and understanding.

   LikeLike

3. I have to cordially disagree about the arches and vaults being used for purely utilitarian reasons. A little research into the Gothic architecture and other ecclesiastical modes of building will reveal that everything was done with intention, even the arches and the vaulted ceilings. For example, the central vault in an Eastern cathedral lifts the icon of Christ the Pantakrator to a tremendous height. The cathedral represents the spherical heavens, with Christ enthroned above and the gathering of saints and angels all around. Walking into such a church, it has been said, is like walking into a Bible.

   LikeLike

4. There are important non-aesthetic reasons to build “architecture for the glory of God.”

   For the church that has the means, it can become an opportunity in sharing ministry. For example, our Anglican congregations rents space from a nondenom church, which had outgrown the sanctuary and property (and who had purchased it from the presbyterians, who were the original builders). The nondenom also rents to a charismatic-ish Latino congregation. A Christian school used the facility during the week. And we share with some Chinese baptists.

   A good church building can become an enormous opportunity to partner with other Christians and cooperate in ministry.

   It also means that you are relinquishing total control for something broader and bigger than yourself or your team.

   LikeLike

5. I’m sorry that I came to the table too late . . . but for crumbs.

   Imonk, I’m totally with you on this one. As someone who often promotes the fact that my favorite form of church takes place in a coffee shop or bar, I have a deep sense of respecting the artistic gifts that God has given to men . . . and women. Having walked through many of the beautiful cathedrals of the world (and some beautiful Mosques) I really believe that there is a place for mere humans to express art in its greatest grandeur, reflecting God’s creativity. I would love to go to that church . . . and meet with a close group at the local coffee shop.

   LikeLike

6. Pingback: Noted: Interview with Soong-Chan Rah + Misc. | internetmonk.com

7. As a CPC member (and member of one of the committees that has spent years working on the new sanctuary project), I was fascinated to come across such a lengthy discussion of our project. There are certainly too many points offered in the comments below to thoughfully respond, but a few thoughts:

   There are comments here both supportive and critical of the building, particularly the resources that have gone into it. As Matt Bradley (one of our pastors) has commented below, the church was very deliberate and intentional as we’ve undertaken the work. We’ve certainly wrestled and debated many of the points raised by those who have been critical of the project. While it is of course obvious that we came to different conclusions, I hope that none here think that those decisions were cavalier or unthinking.

   I know of no one at CPC that would say that having a monumental edifice, or a particular style of architecture, makes our more worship any more acceptable to our Lord than any other building or even no building at all. I have not the slightest doubt that some of the sweetest praise ever to be raised has come from some of the rudest huts made by man. That said, having been showered with blessings as a congregation, what would it say if what we built for worship didn’t reflect our greatest joy? What if our banks, our grocery stores, our offices, (and yes, as some here have said, our multi-car garages) show more love and attention than our place of worship? A half-century ago, my father-in-law hand crafted woodwork for a small, rural, wood-framed Presbyterian church – and did so as an act of worship! Similarly, we have strived, (successfully or not) to create this building as an act of praise. As a large congregation, the results of those efforts are going to look different, but I sincerely hope that the goal and spirit is the same as that shown by Christians around the world who want to give their best efforts and resources to create a space to gather and praise our Lord.

   Our congregation believes our highest calling is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever. From that worship comes the joy, the fuel, the fire, that leads us to minister to this world. Worship that does not lead to ministry is nothing, but I know for my fallen self that attempting to minister without drawing on the joy of worship is impossible. Accordingly, we have given joyfully and sacrificially to create this space for worship – and the Lord has graciously allowed us to complete this effort. (I know that it’s a pale, pitiful thing compared to the real house of God, but I hope he smiles at us in the same way as when we put a child’s art project on our refrigerator!) We have worked to not let our ministries falter as a result of the building program, and it is my prayer (and I think those of most of my fellow members) that we would remain vigilant and mindful of such.

   As an architect, I’d certainly agree with several who point out that this building differs from ‘true gothic’. We wanted to draw from a past tradition, one whose verticality speaks of a high God and of small man, one whose aesthetics focus on an atmosphere of reverence, one whose stone speaks of permanance, and whose acoustics assist in our worship. However, we also wanted to make this reflect who we are – we are from a reformed tradition, a tradition with differences from those who built the great cathedrals of Europe, or even many of the gothic revival buildings on our own continent. We live in a different time, with different technology, with a different culture – but with the same, unchanging God. Accordingly, we looked at 900 years of precedents, from the gothic masterpieces to arts & crafts revivals, and drew from many of those. I think that’s appropriate for who we are.

   For those who feel that this isn’t a worshipful space, I understand – music, art, architecture are such subjective things. My sister goes to a church with a radically different worship style, and neither of us would long be happy in the other’s congregation. However, what both of us realize when we visit the other’s church – the people around us are joyful! That feeling isn’t subjective, I can understand it without reservation. And so I hope that if you come to Covenant, even if you are pained at the expense, or cringe at the sound of the pipe organ, or are stifled by the formality – I hope you see joy in those worshipping around you!

   LikeLike

8. I’m coming to this discussion a bit late. I appreciate the conversation, particularly the tone of the original post. My name is Matt Bradley and I’m a pastor at Covenant Presbyterian Church. I haven’t read all the responses, so there may perhaps be questions I will fail to address in this response. However, I have come across two or three questions I’d like to answer simply.

   First, I’d like to assure everyone that although we were intentional about this architecture, I am not aware of anyone on staff or in leadership that believes this is the only appropriate way to build a church. A church should, we believe, when possible, reflect the theology of the church and its worship. However, even acknowledging this, churches (taking their resources and cultural context into consideration in addition to their doctrine) will build churches that look different from ours. Inasmuch as there are churches that can and are doing this, we rejoice and celebrate their doing so.

   Second, the decision to use this style of architecture was first theological and then aesthetic. The church committee responsible for working with the architects included a member and officer of our church who is himself an architect and has studied (in an academic setting) the history and theology of church architecture. Throughout the process, the primary reason for the design that was chosen was always explained to the congregation theologically. In fact, the Sunday before we began worshiping in this space, I convened my Sunday School class in the balcony and taught a lesson on the theology of worship, part of which time I spent pointing out how the architecture lends itself to that theology and our liturgical expression of it.

   Finally, I’m happy to assure you that we have a robust missions ministry in our church. Missions, both overseas and closer to home, are among the most important ministries of our church. We support dozens of missionaries around the world, both through our denominational organizations (MTW and MNA) as well as through other organizations.The missionaries and organizations we support span 6 continents. We currently support multiple church plants and campus ministries (through our denominational campus ministry, RUF). You can learn more about this on our website (covenantpres.com) by clicking “Service Opportunites” and then “Serving Our Community.” I don’t doubt for a moment that as you review our missions efforts you will find that we have made decisions you might not have made, either with your personal finances or your church finances. But that’s not really the point. We are engaged, to the best of our ability (and willing to consider how we can improve upon our efforts), in the proclamation of the gospel all over the world in various cultural settings. I don’t believe I have ever met a church leader that said, “We are really spending too much on missions. Maybe we need to think about letting some of these guys go.” No matter how much you support them, no matter how often you visit and encourage them, no matter how many ministries and missionaries you support, there is always the desire to do more.

   I’m intentionally spending less and less time reading blogs (in fact, I was informed of this post by a friend), so let me apologize in advance for not being present here to respond to any follow up questions. You have the church website and my name, so if you’d like to email me with specific questions, I’ll do my best to follow up.

   Thanks again to iMonk for hosting such a stimulating conversation and for doing so with such a humble spirit.

   Grace and Peace,

   Matt

   LikeLike

9. Well I suppose I’m a little late gettin in on this discussion, and I’m sure it’s already been said, but I can’t help it:
   No matter what your perspective on the rightness of it, the result is simply beautiful. I was so moved by the beauty of what was displayed in the video. I know not everyone can or should do it, but I am certainly glad that some have. Since it was not my decision to make, I am content to let them live with their own decisions and results, whilst I freely admire from the outside. I hope I can visit and worship there sometime. Not likely though.

   LikeLike

10. I have worshiped (successfully) in a wide variety of facilities, and certainly a plain one is sufficient. In fact, I admire the many smaller black churches in this town who seem content to set up shop in a vacant storefront or a remodeled house; one has to salute their willingness to make do with whatever they have. The Bible church I attend is somewhat middle-of-the-road; the glass is clear and the walls are plain white, but the deep red carpeting and dignified chandeliers add a touch of dignity and elegance to the four-year-old sanctuary.

    But I grew up with stained glass and carved wood, and I think those things, rightly used, have value as well. When I serve as a guest musician at the large Disciples of Christ church downtown, I am struck by the way the architecture of the front of the sanctuary (including symmetrically placed organ pipes) draws my eyes upwards. I love the wood-carved depictions of Christ that are “front and center” in the sanctuaries of the Episcopal cathedral and LCMS “mother church” (also downtown). And I still remember being a guest musician at a grand old Presbyterian church on Transfiguration Sunday in 2006, when a particularly brilliant stained glass window depicting the Transfiguration served as a visual aid for the children’s sermon.

    Certainly, a building can be TOO extravagant, and a beautiful structure can be built for a number of bad reasons. And certainly, the mission of the church should claim a healthy share of the resources of the church. But to me, Mark’s account of the anointing of Jesus at Bethany (cited earlier by Martha) suggests that there is a place in the life of a believer for the act of simply doing something beautiful for Jesus — even if it costs a significant sum and does nothing to feed the poor or evangelize the lost. I would suggest that a building can be an enduring way to do a beautiful thing for Jesus.

    LikeLike

11. It is so interesting reading the various comments on gothic architecture. I feel that I don’t have much to offer. But, my son is a history major, and never forgets a thing he learns, and European and Russian history is his favorite area of learning. Anyway, he told me a few years ago after one of his first trips to Europe, that one of the reasons the churches were built the way they were in the middle ages were so that when people walked in THEY WOULD HAVE TO LOOK UP!!!!! I thought this was incredible! I worshipped last week in an Anglican Church with an incredible pipe organ instead of my usual Baptist church where we constantly bicker over old vs. new styles or worship. The old style and formality, stained glass, beautiful choir robes, vaulted ceilings, just made me bask in the glory of God and forget all the pettiness that goes on with bands, praise teams, etc., and all the people on stage who want attention. And one of your bloggers is right, about how much money it takes to keep all that stuff updated as things change with the wind. Not so in this service. Hymns were 300 years old, theology was 2000 years old, stable and firm.

    LikeLike

12. Pingback: Church Architecture: Not Cheap « Cogito, Credo, Petam

13. A huge stone Gothic church like this is a way for someone to stand on a hill with a light and shout “as it was in the beginning, is now, and shall be forever!” Praying in a grand, centuries old church, one cannot but be affected by the perception of permanence. In the cool stone floor and musty smell, I get a tactile impression of age-old truth, and centuries of worshipers going through much of what I am going through right now. Rather than separating me from the world outside, it connects me to Christians of the past – the communion of saints, of all ages of the church. Those same externals might lead others to only perceive rot and decay – death.

    I wonder how many of those individuals who are building this church in the video, were once critical of those worshiping in old Gothic churches? I would like to hear of their change in thinking. How did this happen? Or is this just a self selecting minority finally aggregated with enough money to make it happen? It just seems so…. RC.

    LikeLike

14. I am an African.
    But I don’t speak for all African Christians any more than another poster on here could claim to speak for all Catholics, or Baptists or whatever.

    I don’t have a problem with Protestants rediscovering that God gave us creativity and using it to worship Him, nor that that might include building a beautiful church. I also appreciate those who some feel an urgency to spread the Gospel, and build the Church. It seems that this tension may be between those who have different vocations, we certainly shouldn’t theologise our vocation to the exclusion of others.

    Tim, you mentioned Piper, how many seminaries has his church built in Kenya or Sri Lanka?

    Again, this is just the opinion of one Africa. We need seminaries. We need Christian universities. We need. Its true the faith is spreading amongst those with very little, just as it did in the United States a hundred years and more ago, but that very history shows us that African Christians need to learn to think, to critique and challenge the forces of globalisation which are going to change things within a generation. I know that some like to point to African Christians as exemplars that challenge the materialism of the West. There is some point to that, but it should never be a reason for failing to prepare for the changes that are going to come to Africa within a generation. Its not only the West that is interested in African resources, and the drive for resources is accompanied by ideologies and religions. Even if many African Christians are right now safe, by dint of their poverty, from materialism, that does not mean that our societies won’t facing immense social change within a generation. The church in the United States can help.

    iMonk, I know that you are sceptical about the need for seminaries, or at least multiple expensive seminaries, but in Africa we have the opposite problem. We desperately need to equip a generation of Christian leaders to face the changes that are coming to the continent. And that is something that the US churches can help with, and not only by us learning from your mistakes.

    LikeLike

15. Triple Amen! and one more Amen to boot. Very well said, brother.

    LikeLike

16. Simply put a cathedral of any size built by anyone should not be topic if disscusion. Moreover the upkeep and maintaince is not a great concern either. The only factor that needs to be evaluated is the acceptance by God. We are not in a position to cast final verdict on wether he accepts it. Just a thought.

    LikeLike

17. It’s not a mindset. It’s the truth.

    However, despite knowing the end of all things here, we continue to build. We build lives. We build buildings. Because we know that the end of all things here is not the end.

    The chain of ideas that I listed above does not necessarily lead to fatalism, despair and nihilism. It can lead us to God. But it’s still a real question that we need to answer.

    LikeLike

18. But that, then, gets to the point. Some would say, as God did, that we are dust, and to dust we will return. So why bother doing anything? Why, even, live? It’s a real question.

    That’s why I’m so rabidly against the entire “It’s All Gonna Burn” mindset. Because I’ve seen it lead (through the chain of ideas you cited above) to fatalism, despair, and what can only be described as “Christian Nihilism”.

    (Personal analogy: For the past couple years, I have had an opportunity to get back into a hobby I enjoyed during my teenage years — plastic model building. What makes me so hesitant is a secular variant on “It’s All Gonna Burn” — none of my “glue bombs” from those years have survived and I don’t want to have another generation of my creativity and energy and time wind up in the dumpster. I have been paralyzed by this for some time, and have to push myself hard to take any step to act on my desire. How can the IAGB mindset not lead to similar attitude, except with much more important facets of life?)

    LikeLike

19. It’s a beautiful church with a lot to admire.

    But I was repeatedly taken aback by the church’s comment that this was a witness. What would be a witness would be to offer to pay the medical bills of area people who are facing foreclosure on their homes due to crushing medical expenses. By all counts, 60% of foreclosures fall into this category, and they affect “normal” people, not ones who bought homes they could not afford.

    “When I was at my most desperate, ready to lose my house, unable to face my kids just because I got cancer and the medical bills mounted, the people at that church helped me in the name of Jesus. It made me want to know why they would help someone who didn’t go to their church. I am a Christian now because of their kindness and mercy to me.” Can’t you hear someone saying that? What kind of eternal value does something like that carry?

    It would not only be the people immediately impacted by this largesse by the entire community. That is a witness, not a building. That speaks to God-centeredness, not a building. That says that we as a Church are more interested in God’s heart for others, which is what truly blesses Him, than saying, “Look at the pretty stone cathedral we built in God’s name that sits amid a community of hurting people who will probably never grace the doorway of this magnificent edifice.”

    Honestly, what is worship? Isn’t it to set our desires down, to put away what immediately benefits us or makes our lives more comfortable so that we may bring that comfort to someone else. Isn’t that also what dying to self means? Or have Evangelicals completely forgotten what it means to die to self?

    I see massive churches that cost millions at this time in Church history and I think, No, we don’t understand at all what it means to die to self. And that pretty much explains why the Church of Jesus in America borders on being completely ineffective for the Kingdom of God.

    LikeLike

20. All this discussion has gotten me wondering. Does a church designed like a grand cathedral make us feel more inspired than a church designed like an office building would? I know I felt a certain sense of reverence walking into St. Patrick’s in NYC. Do you think there is some fundamental human need to build churches this way?

    LikeLike

21. Pingback: Constantine and the Church 4 – Church Buildings

22. OK Martha – that’s fightin’ talk!

    How about the Savill Garden gridshell (http://www.timber-building.com/news/fullstory.php/aid/17/Going_for_gridshell_gold.html)?

    BTW I do happen to like the Gherkin – it certainly has verticality!

    LikeLike

23. “I’m not a professional historian…”
    Nor am I. But I follow history (is that a valid phrase) way more than most folks.

    A agree with your first paragraph.

    But most people of the time did not live in cities. And they were the ones that provided the labor to keep the cities alive. In terms of food production 1/2 of the year and other labor the rest of the time. And these folks were mostly considered to not be literate.

    Was the literacy rate above .01%. Likely.

    Was it above 10%? Less likely.

    Above 50%? I doubt it.

    Just look at the rituals of the “church” that have come down through time. Plus the architecture of the church buildings. It’s all set up as memory aids to learn and remember the Gospel message. No reading required.

    LikeLike

24. Ross,
    As I mentioned in my reply to your earlier comment, I don’t think you have a very clear idea how historians work. The things you are saying in your first paragraph are simply not true.

    LikeLike

25. But that’s just not true. Historians don’t look primarily for some “History of My Life in London by Duke Nabob” to understand an era; they look at court records, wills, church documents (births and deaths), merchants’ records and written accounts, etc., etc. There is a wealth of information about workers and typical citizens of the middle ages–particularly those who lived in the cities, where the cathedrals were built–that doesn’t rely on the point of view of “the elite.”

    Further, the degree of literacy among the laity in the middle ages varied widely by time and place, and is much disputed; you are wildly out at sea to make a blanket claim such as “the workers and typical citizens could not read or write.” And again, it’s just nonsense to suggest that we don’t have useful historical information about the lives of people who didn’t write their own histories.

    LikeLike

26. Michael,

    As you would expect I think this is outstanding from the standpoint of the building design and all that goes with it – gothic design, stained glass, the big rose windows, finely crafted woodwork, the pipe organ (a real organ BTW!), the legacy and on and on I could go. Yes, I too wonder about the price but that could be said of any such work in the past as well – price was high in those times as well to do this kind of superior work but if you’re going to do it, do it right and this church did. The price issue is one that I think of too when I talk with a church about an organ project and I can say, without reservation, that that one thing alone can accout for 10-20% of a total building project budget. Talking with a church in the tri-cities area (ne TN) about a new organ and its price will exceed $800,000.00 but, they’re committed to outstanding music and arts and are willing to raise the money and have it built and installed and will be an outstanding music addition to the area.

    All that said….. could the money have been better spent on missions, new church plants, feeding the hungry, providing other services for needy people including those amongst their own congregation? Of course it could have been better spent but it seems to me that if they are so blessed to be able to build this incredible structure I tend to think that there has a return to the community at large past just the beautiful building – if that’s not the case then this money was spent for the wrong reason but if they’re doing that too then….. why not?? No other churches, for the most part, have the guts to make a commitment such as this – most are a metal building that looks crappy and the major part of the money is spent on multi-media (sound, lights etc) in most of those situations and many times the worship, in all forms, is just as bad. No, I would love a church like that here and I would attend in a minute – especially if they are rock solid in their commitment to the Gospel and to preaching Christ and Christ centered….. bring it on I’m ready!

    LikeLike

27. (Watched the video as requested) I guess I am one of those “utilitarian” Christians who could not be involved with such expensive “cathedrals” in good conscience. If meeting in homes or humble surroundings was good enough for the very early Christians or those living in developing countries today, then it is good enough for me. According to the New Testament, the days of the opulent, ornate Temple as a earthly representation of God’s glory are over. I expect that humble Peter would be horribly dismayed rather than honored to see the grand basilica built in Vatican City in memoriam to him.

    As others have pointed out, how many Bibles could be printed, how many foreign (or even domestic) missionaries could be supported, and how many poor and needy could be cared for with that $20 million, a literally unfathomable sum of money throughout most of the world? What is even worse is that so many congregations take on heavy debt in order to pursue such ambitious architectural ventures, making themselves “slaves” to their lenders in the process and placing a burden on future congregants who had no real say in the matter.

    As one pastor testified in an essay on problems with American Evangelicalism, maintaining the facilities soon becomes the primary concern of those in congregational leadership rather than the spreading the Gospel or equipping the existing saints, even after all the debt is paid off. For example, I cannot tell you how much time and money my old SBC congregation has devoted to maintaining their large, iconic (for the town) facility. Meetings between the pastor and the deacons are dominated by financial issues related to the maintenance or proposed use of the buildings.

    Now, some would make the argument that a large building is a must for a congregation of thousands, but I would say that it is part of the problem right there. Once a congregation grows to such a size that the pastor can no longer know everyone by name, then it should split. Once the pastor has to have multiple assistant pastors in order to manage “his flock,” he is now an unofficial, local bishop, not a pastor, even if all of the sub-congregations still meet in the same facilities.

    I have attended two wildly popular “mega-churches” here in Dallas. Although the esteemed pastors associated with them were excellent preachers, I found the experience disconcerting. Should a person really have to ride a shuttle bus to get from their parked car to the main facility? It was reminiscent of going to Walt Disney World. What’s next, different areas of the parking lot named after the Twelve Tribes of Israel?

    Anyway, I know I have drifted way off-topic by discussing mega-churches, but it seems that today’s (vs. yesteryear’s) “cathedrals” are a direct result of the mega-church mentality, so one cannot address the one without addressing the other. When discussing this issue with a friend, they replied, “How would a congregation attract visitors if the facilities were not visually appealing?” If we are counting on our pretty buildings to draw in visitors, a concept that was even alluded to in the linked video, rather than the loving godliness of those who gather at those buildings, then the modern church is in trouble indeed.

    LikeLike

28. I attend a church that has a magnificant Gothic style sanctuary that would cost millions of dollars to build today. Everytime I enter the sanctuary, I am struck with the awe and majesty of God. From the silence experienced during the planned silent times, to the roaring final notes of the huge pipe organ dismissal, it is the easiest place I know of to be worshipping God. This building was constructed for that one purpose.

    Most church buildings today are built for other purposes – to provide for fellowship, child care, entertainment, efficiency, etc. They are often more of a barrier than a bridge to worship. When the sights and sounds all point toward God, worship is likely. If the building was made for observing a show then that is what will likely happen.

    The most obvious criticism toward these types of buildings is the cost of construction and maintenance. Although I am certainly conscious that we have a stewardship responsibility, especially to meeting the needs of the poor, that does not mean that God wants us to always take the cheapest route. If God provides for an expensive structure, He still has the capability of providing for the poor. He will not run out of money. There are times when God has called His people to be lavish, especially in terms of worship (i.e. the woman who poured out a bottle of perfume on Jesus’ feet worth a year’s wages).

    LikeLike

29. In Palm Bay, FL, our mission owns four acres of unimproved land. We wanted to put up a simple four walls and roof trying for about 4,000 sq ft. To our horror, by the time we do the required improvements to the land, the ecological survey, the tree survey, the foundation, the building plans (which must include future proposed structures) the required parking lot, the sidewalk, and put up the simple building, we are already talking around $500,000. So, we cannot afford a building, and, no, there are no empty churches for sale.

    The days when one could put up a trailer on land and meet there until one could afford to build a building are gone in many parts of coastal Florida. We cannot afford that type of price. Now multiply that up in expensive areas, like Nashville, and the reality is that building a church for a congregation of even 300 people gets to the couple of million dollar range easily. So, one might as well build the church well for the same money as it would cost to put up a grim utilitarian building.

    Meanwhile, if one works with a lower middle class retirement community or a poor community, like I do, the dream of a building is just a far off vision. This is not the fault of anyone in particular, all the regulations are reasonable and meant to protect people in public buildings. Nevertheless, those who have posted about cheaper buildings may not have looked at land and building prices (per sq ft) in places such as Nashville and coastal Florida.

    LikeLike

30. I suspect that Nashville, like many big cities, has poor inner city ministries. The sad part is that because of the splits in the Church the feast and the asceticism are separated from each other and often point fingers at each other. But, I guarantee you that there are ascetics in Nashville, working quietly away in the dark places of the city.

    LikeLike

31. I think Jesus would want us to be beautiful people first before we go to such great lengths and expense to build beautiful buildings. I do not mean beautiful people as in magazine cover material, I mean people who are beautiful because they reflect the truth and beauty and goodness of Christ. The indwelt Body is His temple now.

    When we become that kind of people, I believe God might then bless us with the talent and skill to once again create church buildings that have truth and beauty and goodness. And once again they will not look like anything that has been done before or since. Church architects should NOT be replicating the past, but join God in making new creations.

    LikeLike

32. The difference is DG (Piper) built battleships while CPC built a cruise ship. A battleship church is designed to be a lean mean ministry machine, purposeful and functional and strategic in supporting and equipping the church to carry out its mission. A cruise ship church is designed to be a destination, a heaven on earth which offers an escape from reality in all sorts of activities and diversions.

    A church that replicates an 18th century design solution is offering an escape from reality, when it should be encouraging an engagement in it.

    LikeLike

33. I love cathedrals. One of my favs is Ely Cathedral, in Ely, England. Built, beginning in the 12th C, the beauty and awesomeness of this place is stunning. All those prayers given in that place have instilled, well, something, to the edifice.

    I once read a book about Gothic Architecture that pointed to Revelation and the description of the Heavenly Jesrusalem, the City on the Hill as the inspiration for Cathedrals…the stained glass mimicked the jewels, the 12 Apostles were carved into the doorways at four points (north, south, east, west), the soaring spires pointed to the resurrection and ascension, and so on. WHilst the actual building was fraught with politics and other more base things, the finished building was awe-inspiring,, indeed.

    Still is.

    I had the great good pleasure of singing in Ely Cathedral a joyful noise from Handl’s _Messiah_. The acoustics were unbelievable.

    We need these Cathedrals. We need tangible outlets for artists and artisans. We need these symbols to point us to something larger than ourselves. We need these edifices to stand the centuries as not-so-silent witnesses of faith, community, forgiveness, succour. I am blessed that those to whom much has been given have done much with their gifts.

    One of the Early Church Fathers, I cannot remember who, said something to the effect “The poor are here on earth so that rich may bless them and effect their salvation; for the poor then bless the rich with their prayers and benedictions”.

    LikeLike

34. Austin, I am very happy that the little Catholic Church building where I attend Mass stays open during daylight hours. I pop in there at times to sit, pray, meditate. I noticed a few others do, as well, from time to time. I think years ago it stayed open 24 hours a day but theft became a problem, sadly. I don’t think most of the churches around here are open for anyone to just come in and pray, unfortunately. I can pray right in my office, if I want, as I am the only one here much of the time, but the !@#&*! phone rings and I have to answer it. Only way is to get away from it.

    LikeLike

35. The topic is very near to me since I am in the profession of designing and building churches. We always stress the building should be a tool for ministry, a tool to reach out and serve the community. Knowing how much something like this cost does make me uneasy. Four churches could build nice, community ministry oriented buildings for the cost of this. However, if this is how this church best felt they could reach into their community I can understand why they did it. It is beautiful, I hope is serves the community for Christ.

    LikeLike

36. The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism by Louis Bouyer.

    LikeLike

37. It’s interesting to me that when someone goes to the very heart of the matter, that’s when they might get moderated?

    It is all “gonna burn”.
    It does help to get to the main point, to acknowledge the end of things.
    That is part of what eschatology is about. Knowing about the end of things helps illustrate current things.

    Some would say “It’s all gonna burn” so we are going to worship in a field on the outskirts of town. Why build a monument that will just be consumed by the sands of time?

    But that, then, gets to the point. Some would say, as God did, that we are dust, and to dust we will return. So why bother doing anything? Why, even, live? It’s a real question.

    So we choose life. We choose to “build” a life. Even if it’s going to disintegrate. Some folks choose to build a building, knowing full well that it will someday end up a pile of rubble. If they build it to the glory of God for purposes of the gospel then they build well. If they build it as a monument to themselves, or a false doctrine, or to their wealth, then they build poorly.

    LikeLike

38. You said everything I would have liked to say, but much better. And you even shared the gospel. Right on brother.

    LikeLike

39. Matthew 24:14-22 as in “The Obamanation of Desolation sitting on his throne”? As in the End Time Prophecy that ate 10-15 years of my life? Back then Christians KNEW The Time Was Short and The End Was Nigh — “We might not have a 1978! Or even a 1977!”

    If you and those others “who are Able to read the signs of the times” back then acted like the “hardcore preterists” you disdain, their works and achievements would have been ongoing and inspiring others for some thirty years instead of having never been done because The End Is Nigh So Why Bother It’s All Gonna Burn. When the world ends tomorrow, you’re not going to dare great things that last. Like this PCA church.

    LikeLike

40. Not many woods where the setting is just right where I am, two miles north of Disneyland in the middle of OC suburban sprawl. Go out late at night and you can hear the sound of car alarms howling in the distance.

    And even when you drive beyond the built-up areas, it’s still not woods — just scrub-covered hills with burn scars from the big fire three years ago. Or inland deserts (the Mohave around Barstow or Hesperia) where late at night you can hear the echoes of exploding meth labs instead of car alarms.

    LikeLike

41. And what will the retention rate be in this First Church of Disneyland once the kids age to the point where they want to get as far away as possible from “widdle kiddie stuff”? When up until then anything to do with church or God or Christ has been put under that label?

    (My writing partner has one of these DIsneyland Megachurches nearby and it’s drawing off all the families with kids from the other congregations, leaving only the elderly. Not pretty. How can a typical country church complete with a Disneyland Megachurch? Like a RL teenage boy competes with Sparkly Edward Cullen…)

    LikeLike

42. How about “Because humans need beauty”? How about because man does not live by bread alone? How about the old “Bread and roses” slogan?

    For a lot of people, the only colour and beauty they found in their lives was in their place of worship. The schools, homes and places of employment were dull, grey, functional, miserable places. There were no museums, art galleries, theatres, orchestras. But churches had beautiful sights, beautiful spaces, beautiful sounds.

    A lot of them were built by the poor because this was a way of expressing themselves, of expressing their pride, their dignity, their human impulses for art and creativity.

    Sure, this money could go a lot of places. “The poor you have with you always.” And there are always the better-placed so willing to criticise the poor and tell them off and tell them how to improve themselves, live frugally, save, be temperate – and then look down their noses at the pleasures of the poor which tend to be loud, vulgar, cheap and flashy. I am not saying you are one of the modern day Lady Bountifuls who like to do improving things for the deserving poor; I’m just saying that as one of the not-so-deserving at-times-working-poor, I am fed up to the back teeth of being a “case” not a person 🙂

    Want to criticise wasteful building? Then think of Dubai, and the insane projects going on there – attempts to create luxury tourist attractions that can have no possible way of making the money back when the oil revenues run out, all catering to tempting the rich to come and spend money.

    What about the crazy competitions between various cities to build the “world’s tallest building”? Can you, off the top of your head, name which is the current title-holder? Yet fortunes of money go on these follies.

    I hope that the poor go and get the benefit of this building. I think it much more likely they will be able to get something out of it, rather than out of the world’s tallest building or the Dubai islands in the shape of the continents.

    LikeLike

43. sorry… service, liturgy, etc. (but you have to admit that in some places it’s a program)

    Peace & Love

    LikeLike

44. That’s exactly the attitude that kills me, Mrk. What is so great about “It doesn’t look like a church”? Would the architect tell other clients “And the great thing about this is that it doesn’t look like a bank/library/office block/warehouse”?

    I think someone might say “Well, seeing as how we are indeed a bank and not a toystore, it might be nice if we looked like a bank and not a toystore or a furniture warehouse or a drive-through restaurant.”

    You don’t need to build a huge expensive building, but what is this mania for avoiding all resemblance to function?

    LikeLike

45. Can you give me some examples of good 21st century architecture, Matthew? And I don’t mean the Gherkin 😉

    I suppose I’m burned because of , for example, the Wood Quay development in Dublin. The Sam Stephenson-designed Phase 1 offices for Dublin Corporation in 1976 were, if you will pardon the expression (and if I’m not risking moderation for offensive language!), bloody awful.

    People called them “the Bunkers” because of their appearance. To me, they looked exactly like eggboxes stacked up one on another. Protests were mounted, but the attitude was “Stop being so ignorant and backwards-looking and stop getting in the way of progress.” The architect (who has since gone to his reward) was very vocal about modernism and looking backwards to the past and blamed the Corpo for the fact that the buildings looked so ugly – apparently, they ran out of money before the landscaping or further building or whatever could be done to hide these, which (seemingly) were meant to be underground. Here’s a Wikipedia link to see the full glory(!) of what was put up:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wood_Quay

    The irony is that he subsequently went to England and became a Lutyens groupie. He discovered neo-Classicism and worked quite happily in that idiom – o tempora, o mores!

    So yes, I would like to see good modern architecture if you can recommend any.

    LikeLike

46. “when I go to church it looks like you’re entering an industrial office building and once inside the sound is cranked up as loud as possible with flashing powerpoints and total media overload.”

    Well the church I spent about 15 years at was bought from the court house steps. It was a hotel. 6 stories plus a small convention center meeting facility under 1 roof. Works well as a church. The large cross on the tower makes it obvious what it is. And re-using the building save a huge amount of money.

    LikeLike

47. This comment is somewhat overlapping with another I made so apologies for those who feel I’m repeating.

    History was/is written by those who can read and write. We really don’t know how the poorest Christians or even the majority of people in an area felt. They couldn’t read or write at the time. We are told how they felt by those in power. And their writings have been somewhat self serving way too often to take every thing they say as face value. Look at the world today and see how many rulers claim to the adoration and support of their populations when we know better due to better communications that just did not exist in the middle ages. We should not apply our democratic world view on the past where the concepts we live by today just did not exist.

    Be that as it may be, churches throughout history were mostly built to achieve 2 goals. To glorify God and to last. The former tends to give them their beauty. The engineering and materials available determine much of their form. In the wilderness it was a tent. Later when King Solomon was rich it was a grand stone structure. (Although more than a few historians think he spent so much he impoverished the kingdom.) In the time just after Christ it was many times a cave or sewer. In the middle ages it was large stone with vaulted structures.

    The problem I have with buildings like this is they tend to spend money recreating a “golden age” of church buildings when in reality the arches and beams were just the best way to build at the time but no more. Now that they are not maybe we shouldn’t be building them this way. Especially if it requires huge sums of money over what could be done with modern building methods.

    In general this is an issue that troubles me. A church should be dignified but not gaudy. Sometimes good reasonable people disagree on where that line is.

    The basic question I have is was the heart of the congregation to glorify God or themselves. And many people have a hard time answering that truthfully.

    LikeLike

48. “…for some it will keep them focused on the building distracting them from whatever is happening in the program.”

    No offense, but, um, program?

    LikeLike

49. The problem is most of the history of the time was written by the elite. The workers and typical citizens could not read or write so we really don’t know how their life was.

    It’s mostly delusional to impose our western democratic common man thought process on the typical person of the middle ages. The local bishops had more power over the lives of the typical person than the President of the United States has over a private in the army.

    LikeLike

50. Roman buildings were built assuming they were NOT weather tight. Ours are. So when modern building develop leaks they tend to fall apart rather quickly. And all buildings leak. Especially if maintenance is not done continuously.

    And as the other post alluded, we use rebar and steel inside most buildings like this. Eventually the steel will rust. And it will have thermal expansion rates different from the stone. Stacked stone was much more resilient in this respect.

    LikeLike

51. MDS,

    I’m not a professional historian, but my understanding is that in fact there wasn’t shedding of blood or really much negative at all to be said about the process of cathedral-building in Europe. They seem to have basically been multi-generational WPA projects, providing steady and long-term employment for a large area. Even the myth that they were build for the aggrandizement of the Church by the pennies of the poor doesn’t seem to be the case: my understanding is that wealthy donors covered most of the costs.

    LikeLike

52. The second reason I find this question fascinating is because Reformed Christians are often so busy talking ABOUT their interest in and engagement of the arts it’s hard to know if they are engaging anything other than their own engagement.

    Sounds like a variant of “Art Fag Syndrome” (actual name), where a wannabe Artist spends so much time copping the attitude of the So-Sensitive/So-Edgy/So-Creative/So-Misunderstood Artiste and telling everyone about his Great Artistic Creativity that he never has the time or energy to create any art. Or do anything except marinate in his copping the attitude.

    I’ve run into a couple of these (you get the attitude in wannabe writers, too), and they get very very touchy when you challenge them to put some artwork where their mouth is.

    I do think there’s something to the argument that in an architectural culture in which form is so often subservient to function attempting to make a building that is beautiful does have at least some subversive quality to it.

    Well, I’ve heard the Church described as a counterculture on several blogs…

    LikeLike

53. Agreed Ragamuffin. Several years ago I went to the “grand opening” of a new church with my now ex-boyfriend and his father. I know that building cost every bit of $20 mil, and it was UGLY – and some of the things they put in there were just silly – like a two story tube slide in the “children’s area.” I saw that and though, “you know someone’s little butterball is gonna get stuck in that thing, and then the parents will want to sue.” But, the thing that bothered me most – was how is a two story slide glorifying to God?

    LikeLike

54. I’ll say this: I’ve been part of various contemporary churches that built much more utilitarian structures that came very close to the $20 million figure for this beautiful Gothic-style church. Some even exceeded that. If you are a church that needs to seat around 1000 people on a Sunday morning and have enough children’s facilities to handle the typical number of children such a congregation would have, you’re looking at $10-12 million even being frugal after land and everything. And that’s in the South where real estate prices are generally less than out in California or the New England area. If you need to build bigger than that, whether it’s creating a second campus in another area of town or having bigger facilities, you’ll be heading for $20 million before you know it.

    So as someone said, ugly and/or boring is not necessarily more economical than beautiful and inspiring. You just have to work with people who know what they are doing.

    LikeLike

55. I think one reason why us human beings build such edifices is we’re trying, in our most limited way, to speak to the golry of god (of course that is an impossible task).

    I think another reason is that human beings, regardless of when and where they have lived, have always built massive edifices to their gods.

    LikeLike

56. ive long been of the mind that massive structures such as this were the antithesis of wot jesus was about but im always pulled back by the sheer wonder at wot the glory of his throne must be like.

    LikeLike

57. I’m late to this conversation. Pardon me if my comments plow ground others have already furrowed.

    I’m reminded of Mark Driscoll’s remarks on idolatry at the recent Acts 29 convention. Roughly paraphrased (if Driscoll can be paraphrased) the problem with buildings is not the buildings, it is our hearts. For some wealth is an idol. For others, poverty is their idol. Some people will be so proud of their grand gothic building that they will make it into an idol. Others will worship in a tattered moldy storefront and become so proud of their humility that they will make their lack of grandeur into an idol.

    The CPC has made an offering to the LORD. All of our offerings, even the most glorious, are like the scribblings of a child to God. Yet, as our loving Heavenly Father, he delights in our blobs of color spewed out on the page, especially as we offer them in love. We can’t help but make offerings, and YHWH delights in them because He made us to make them. See Rober Farrar Capon’s “An Offering of Uncles” to get a grasp on this. One of Capon’s better books on sacramental living. The beauty of this building is it’s own reason, for it preaches the Glory of God.

    Now to make the offering complete, I hope they fill it with outcasts, po folk, criminals, homeless, broken, filthy, wretched people, all worshiping the one true God, and celebrating the magnificent grace made manifest in his Son.

    LikeLike

58. I guess the reason this building stirs such discussion is that it’s so different from most being built today, at least Protestant churches. Perhaps the fact that it doesn’t look like a WalMart, doesn’t have theater seating and that the sanctuary doesn’t double as a gym actually makes it broadly counter-cultural.

    But then I’ve never been to Nashville and you may be right–I have no idea how it compares to other church construction in the area. If they’re in actuality just trying to one-up the Methodists down the street, that’s another story.

    LikeLike

59. After watching this video, and then skimming through the 113 comments, I find myself compelled to comment (possibly against my better judgment). As an Architect specializing in church facilities for the past 8 years, this is an issue I deal with every day. On the one hand, I really appreciate what CPC has accomplished. I know all too well the intense struggle to get a even a metal box built for your church, let alone a Gothic Revival cathedral. On the other hand, I really do not think that an 18th-century design solution is at all appropriate in the 21st century. Watching the service in CPC’s new church reminded me of Gene Edwards’ description of angels attending a grand performance of Handel’s Messiah and asking each other “what is that awful noise?” and “why is it so dim in here?”

    While I agree – passionately – with those who commented about the lack of beauty in contemporary church architecture, I also agree – compassionately – with those who commented about the greater needs in our culture going unmet while the Church is busy raising money for projects like this. I will be the first to admit that the last thing this world needs right now is another church building – ugly or beauty. Yet what this world needs first and foremost is fear of God and worship of Him. Whether or not what CRC has built will inspire this in its congregants, I leave for those who attend there to surmise. Architecture does have the ability to transform us, but only God has the authority.

    All I know is that I have had some of the most intense moments of God-worship in some of the most unlikely places and situations. God constantly surprises me by showing up in some of the most mundane profane environments. And, when I look over at my brothers and sisters in the most persecuted nations of the world, where church buildings are burned down by the authorities, I see God moving and working amongst them in such spine-tingling ways it makes me jealous. They have so little materially, yet sooo much spiritually. While we have sooo much materially and by comparison so little spiritually.

    Regarding those who made comments about the Biblical concept of the temple, I would like to add the perhaps too obvious distinction between OT and NT temples. In the OT, it was a building unlike anything ever done before or since, worthy of proclaiming the glory of God. In the NT, it is now the body of Christ. Jesus said He is greater than the temple, and He said He would destroy it [physical] and raise it [spiritual] up again in 3 days. And what did He do? He rose from the dead, appeared to His disciples with wounds still intact, and ascended to the throne of God where John saw Him as the lamb Who was slain. Therefore, I believe a church building that symbolizes the cross misses this point. If anything, a church building should symbolize the crucified body of Christ in all of its scandalous beauty. In doing so, it will admit the fallen nature of this world where there is no such thing as a perfect church building, especially one which presumes to offer “a little taste of heaven.”

    LikeLike

60. Agreed, Father. However, in America, and in a city like Nashville, should the church strive for a balanced witness in this regard? And how do we do that?

    LikeLike

61. I am coming late to this subject, but I would argue that the Church needs to reflect both feast and asceticism. The Cathedrals reflect the feast, but the monasteries reflect the asceticism. A Church that reflects only one side or the other is unbalanced. Think about St. John the Baptist and Our Lord Jesus Christ. They were cousins and yet had totally different lifestyles. One was accused of being filled with demons; the other was accused of being a winebibber. And, yet, neither ever criticized the lifestyle of the other.

    In the Church, some are called to be “John the Baptist” ascetics and others are called to live in the world and be accused of being winebibbers. Yes, in the Church we have monks and we have cathedrals. Both are part of what we are.

    LikeLike

62. How does one factor in the fact that Nashville is a Bible-belt, entertainment center, home to southern gentry, filled to overflowing with “moneyed” churches, many of whom have spectacular buildings (of various styles). In a wealthy city like this, how should Christians of means think about their church buildings and the expenses involved? Is one more “cathedral” merely adding to the embarrassment of riches there? Would congregations do better to be “counter-cultural” in such a setting in order to witness more clearly to Christ?

    LikeLike

63. “Not So Excited About…The typical Presbyterian ‘stage’ affect with the PLACEMENT of the choir and organ. ”

    That struck me, too; however, the communion table and cross are still front-and center.

    It seems like a very reverent place. I recently walked into an old Presbyterian sanctuary had felt the same sense of reverence.

    But aesthetics aren’t everything. The sanctuary reminds me a lot of Coral Ridge, where Rev. Kennedy spent so much time preaching cultural war sermons. If the pastor doesn’t have the beautiful feet of one who brings the gospel, then a beautiful space is pointless.

    LikeLike

64. Churchill said: “First we shape our buildings…then they shape us.”

    LikeLike

65. Our diocese has a fund for retired priests, yes; I think many priests have their own retirement funds as well.

    I have no idea how priests are paid.

    LikeLike

66. Thanks Imonk, sorry for getting off topic:)

    LikeLike

67. I understand, but I think we evangelicals need to own up that we aren’t producing any St. Francises. Piper’s church has multiple campuses in the city.

    The CPC project is approximately $20 million. As I said, I can go to 20 churches in Kentucky- a poorr state- that have spent upwards of half that much. More on schools. How much money is on the campus of a Southern Seminary?

    CPC is a young church (1990) with 2000 members. I assume the debate was in depth and I assume they are deeply involved in ministry. You can visit their web site and learn a lot.

    The point of the post is whether there is room in any church’s calling for the gifts involved in building this kind of structure and then sustaining a ministry that uses it.

    peace

    ms

    LikeLike

68. I wasn’t driving so much at the buildings. But it seems like the ideas here are the building being built for the sake of the building itself and what the it is and represents. A pipe organ, the 84-ft ceilings, heating and cooling, maintenance costs you mentioned, etc., are phenomenal expenses.

    I don’t understand the reference to DG’s merchandise, but as far as multiple campuses go, I haven’t seen them. they’d be interesting to see in light of Piper’s much-touted ‘wartime austerity”. especially with what I said seems to be the thrust of the video – “people will come to Jesus cause our building is so great.” I mean they expect incredible things to be accomplished for the kingdom *simply by virtue of the building itself*

    The point about the pastors in poorer countries wasn’t about style or architectural preference, but about the vast amounts of money poured into a structure that could have hypothetically been used in other ways and met more pressing needs. But like I said, I don’t reject higher-church inclinations out of hand; I actually have strong leanings in those directions. but as has been established, the economics of Jesus and of NT christianity seem to focus more on caring for those in the household of God and advancing the kingdom of Jesus than building extravagant houses of worship.

    i guess what I really need is a new law telling me the right ratios of giving money away vs. keeping it for myself.

    I’m not trying to be antagonistic. I’m trying to figure it out.

    LikeLike

69. No, that’s fine, Michael. What I do want to do is hit over the head with a big stick the person who invented the term “worship centre”. It sounds too much to me like “shopping centre”. Why not simply say “church”? This is not to say I want to hit *you* over the head with a big stick for using the term, just that it grates on my ear 🙂

    Now, if we’re talking about one of those giant campuses with coffee shops and who knows what all, then okay, “worship centre” may fit. Part of the whole “spiritual experience.” I also hate the term “faith tradition” when it’s flung around instead of “congregation”, “parish” or, God forbid, “denomination”, but this is just my Grumpy Old Person-ness shining through.

    I’m not totally opposed to all progress, I promise. It just sounds that way 😉

    LikeLike

70. Hi MICHAEL,

    I noticed the two candles burning on either side of the ‘stage’.
    Is this a symbolic return to the idea of a temple light in a synogogue, or perhaps a sanctuary light indicating ‘The Presence’ ? Or is it just a decoration to enhance a feeling of quiet reflection?

    LikeLike

71. Piper built a new building, and several off site campuses. DG sells t-shirts and posters.

    You do know there are millions of Anglicans in Africa? And they like cathedrals.

    LikeLike

72. Pretty close to being moderated.

    LikeLike

73. Congregation formed in 1990, with over 2000 members.

    LikeLike

74. Better “the trap of beauty = goodness” than the Cult of Ugliness and Cult of Utilitarianism you see everywhere today.

    LikeLike

75. Eventually, because God is disassociated from the world and is totally invested in the Word, NOTHING matters but God.

    The Wahabi and Taliban would agree —
    Al’lah’u Akbar Al’lah’u Akbar Al’lah’u Akbar…

    LikeLike

76. “What are they doing so that their creation is understood by everyone?”

    Fascinating question for two reasons. The first is that in this age it seems artists want to AVOID explaining the meaning their work has. As some artists and art fans I know have put it, the artist should be under no obligation of any kind to have to explain the purpose and significance of his or her art. It’s one thing to say there is no need for this and another to say that the artist has no incentive to meet the recipient, if you will, two thirds of the way by providing clues in the work … but I digress.

    The second reason I find this question fascinating is because Reformed Christians are often so busy talking ABOUT their interest in and engagement of the arts it’s hard to know if they are engaging anything other than their own engagement. The circularity isn’t hard to spot and too often the art that is being produced by Christians with this approach is, as you seem to say, self-conscious. Some folks are so busy trying to make and explain their art they don’t actually make it, while others are so determined to not have to explain their work they don’t realize that if they don’t meet the recipient half-way the recipient has better things to do with his or her time.

    All that said, another church that isn’t just a big box gets no complaints from me. I do think there’s something to the argument that in an architectural culture in which form is so often subservient to function attempting to make a building that is beautiful does have at least some subverse quality to it.

    LikeLike

77. Why don’t you just open up your Bible and go “It’s All Gonna Burn”?

    LikeLike

78. A church that is caught up in trying to appeal to the culture or to be uber-modern and hip will spend infinitely more money just on regular upgrades to sound equipment than one which pays for maintenance of a big beautiful building.

    And in a few years the Uber-Modern and Hip (TM) will look old-fashioned.
    “TOTALLY SO DAY-BEFORE-YESTERDAY!!!!”

    Think about what the word “Post-Modern” literally means.
    It’s what comes after Cutting Edge Modern (TM) becomes Old Hat.

    LikeLike

79. It used the material and skills of the profane powers of this world, the desacralized and commodified spaces we move about in at all times, and put them in the service of reasserting the concrete realization of a sacred space and the ultimate mystery of our encounter with divine

    The problem I have with this is that it’s almost self-consciously faked in many ways – everything i’ve read about it suggests that it isn’t really built around the ethos of attention to every detail which was a hallmark of older cathedrals – it’s far less subversive than it would first appear. Commoditized materials and technique have been used to create something with all the edges smoothed out.

    LikeLike

80. In favor:

    1) Read through the description of the Israelite’s construction of the tabernacle and the temple. The people gave the best of what they had for their worship space, whether resources or craftsmanship. Sure, the CPC church members could have instead devoted dollars to printing Bibles in absence of this project, but WOULD they have done so? I’m guessing there would simply be more jet-skis in their garages than there are now. I think any church has to continually ask themselves whether they are offering their highest cultural expression to God–whether it be music, architecture or scholarship.

    2) CPC seems to have a healthy sense of leaving a legacy for the following generations. Even though the Hagia Sophia’s no longer a church (and was a mosque for centuries), it still has the strength to inspire and proclaim the gospel to pilgrims hundreds and hundreds of years later. We still benefit from the generation that built it even though there’s no longer a congregation. Same for many European cathedrals.

    3) Nice to see a quality pipe organ. (See above remarks above re cultural expressions.)

    Neither Here Nor There:

    1) Church has that stripped-down look you find in former Scottish cathedrals. Very Presbyterian.

    Not So Excited About:

    1) The typical Presbyterian “stage” affect with the PLACEMENT of the choir and organ. Worship doesn’t = show.

    2) Although the project has brought the congregation together, get ready for the post-dedication let down and attendance decline. This is where the rubber hits the road.

    3) Be careful of falling into the trap that beauty = goodness. This is an obsession of American youth culture and with much of the current Catholic hierarchy via the influence of theologians such as Urs von Balthasar.

    LikeLike

81. I met a traveller from an antique land,
    Who said — “two vast and trunkless legs of stone
    Stand in the desert … near them, on the sand,
    Half sunk a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
    And wrinkled lips, and sneer of cold command,
    Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
    Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
    The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed;
    And on the pedestal these words appear:
    My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings,
    Look on my Works ye Mighty, and despair!
    Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
    Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare
    The lone and level sands stretch far away.” —

    LikeLike

82. I just returned from my first trip to England and I was in awe of the cathedrals – I loved the beauty of their architecture and even filled with visitors I felt I was in a holy place and could commune with my Father. Flash forward to my real world in the USA…when I go to church it looks like you’re entering an industrial office building and once inside the sound is cranked up as loud as possible with flashing powerpoints and total media overload. The debt on the building is so large they can’t even keep up with general maintenance and repairs, much less begin their next phase (the gym).

    I say Go PCA!

    LikeLike

83. I would really like to see this video shown to a group of pastors from Kenya or Sri Lanka. Do you think the guilt that I’m pretty sure I’d feel is appropriate?

    Of course banging around in my head is the very Piperian idea that the world doesn’t think Jesus looks good because your church (or bank account) is huge. They think Jesus looks good in immense hardship where he is still treasured.

    I also think that since we’re small, we need to feel that way, and great spaces like this church contribute to that. There is something awe-inspiring about a massive stone structure, symphony orchestra and choir that, like someone in the video says, seems to image a bit of heaven. But I think heaven too will have small buildings and bluegrass.

    As for the video *merely*, it seems like a dominant idea was “they’ll know we are christians by our building”. This seems wrongheaded to me.

    LikeLike

84. In all of the High Liturgical Sacramental confessions, Episcopal, Lutheran, Orthodox, Roman Catholic, the church building intentionally is a confession of the Gospel due to the central focus of the altar where Christ’s Body and Blood are present and extending out from that point.

    LikeLike

85. I love the building. I also live with an uncomfortable tension about it all. And I would worry about anyone who doesn’t.

    LikeLike

86. I don’t have time to express my own thoughts right now, but this is one area where I’d really like to see Fr. Ernesto weigh in. It is my understanding that, in the Orthodox Church, the building itself is a presentation of the Gospel.

    LikeLike

87. The architecture is beautiful and uplifting. The people seem to be sincere in their desire to honor the Lord through it, and the building seems to be a frame for their faith and ministry, not an end in itself.
    That said, I have sat in many beautiful cathedrals and ancient parish churches in England that have become nothing more than museums, music halls and graveyards (literally!) Their builders are now interred beneath the flagstones and in the crypts.
    America has too many churches that are architectual gems with empty pews. I wonder what this one will look like a few generations down the road. I do pray that the Church will continue to live out the Gospel even as they worship in the building.

    LikeLike

88. Joel, could you please restate more simply? I think you have an important point, but I don’t understand a thing you wrote.

    LikeLike

89. That’s my mis-speaking. Sorry sorry sorry. They never called it a Cathedral.

    I sent the long response on priests to Austin’s email. Off topic.

    LikeLike

90. Of course,leaving aside niggles about finances, if anyone seriously wants to object to this project, there is always the irony of a PRESBYTERIAN church group building a CATHEDRAL 🙂

    Presbyterianism: denial of bishops or their role or authority in the church.

    Cathedral: seat of the cathedra, or throne of the bishop.

    LikeLike

91. I just returned from a week in the Canadian province of Quebec and I am sad to say that the outside of the island of Montreal the English language expression of protestant Christianity has basically been reduced to mute stone of empty churches. Last Sunday my wife and I worshiped at the only English language church in the city of Trois-Rivières. 12 worshipers gathered at a spectacularly beautiful 300 year old Anglican church without the benefit of any ordained clergy (on Saturday the church is use by about 20 seventh days Adventist that worships in French). In this city of over 100,000 there are only 4 protestant congrigations (the other two are French Baptist churches). Wikipedia says the population is 2.7% percent protestant but this seems wildly inflated. The only time the average French Canadian encounters the protestant faith is if they are either a history (there is a wonderful show on the Huguenot’s in Quebec City right now) or Architecture buff. The good news is that Art can continue to speak long after its authors are dead. If you look at the stain glass windows in the library on Saint John’s Street in Quebec City (the former Anglican church of Saint Matthew’s) you will see the gospel presented. Other forms of Christen art also endure and continue to speak in what is undoubtabley the most secular culture in North America (I had a wonderful conversation at a dinner party with two professors of literature about pilgrims progress and how Bunyan’s theology differed from Roman Catholicism) but it’s the churches that stand out and are most likely to endure (wittiness the ruined Churches of Armenia). I don’t want to play down the role that great christen art can play in ministering to the church in the here and now but as we as we enter what is increasingly looking like a post Christian millennium (at least in Europe and north America) we should reexamine the one aspect of our witness that has never faded the persistent appeal of the story of Christ birth death and resurrection expressed in ink on paper, oil on canvas and yes bricks and mortar.

    God Bless
    Steve in Toronto

    LikeLike

92. Now, I have my own mixed views about this. Above, “Buckley” made a nice pithy swipe at the issue that concerns me.

    Some of this concern is expressed here. In *some* of the recent enthusiasm for articulating a theology of the arts, especially among the Reformed, I think there’s a problematic self-consciousness about it all. I was rather disappointed with the remarks of those interviewed for the CPC video. Too much of their emphasis seemed to be on “what they had done.” This was subtle, and I think reflects or opens up the possibility of an over-romanticized blurring of aesthetic pleasure of Kultur with spiritual pleasure, or even a collapse of the latter into the former. If this is the case, then the CPC building is little more than a “pastime for the privileged,” a grand diversion, an “opiate of the middle classes.” I would be very interested to know if CPC allows more than unrestricted visual access to the church’s exterior. What are they doing so that their creation is understood by everyone?

    On the other hand, maybe it can be more than a parody.

    I am all for efforts to push back against the profanation of all spaces, both natural and built. I think we ought to challenge the economies of the world from both the top and the bottom. The economy of global capital is technical: all actions are subjected to a problem-solution schema, and therefore judged by their efficiency, effectiveness and cost. Engineers and accountants have the final say on the aesthetic space we inhabit. So CPC’s building is subversive from the top: it deploys the capital system against itself to show the bland, soul-killing monoculture it has created. It used the material and skills of the profane powers of this world, the desacralized and commodified spaces we move about in at all times, and put them in the service of reasserting the concrete realization of a sacred space and the ultimate mystery of our encounter with divine, yes, even in an American suburb. Such an act terrorizes for it challenges our unconscious belief systems about the propriety of eradicating all external sacred spaces, reducing and compressing them to an internal, private sphere. Building a sacred space for actual use, therefore, challenges the sense of control which the internalization of the divine-human meeting place was supposed to accomplish.

    Saw this passage from Baudrillard today that I leave for your consideration:

    The aura of our world is no longer sacred. We no longer have the sacred horizon of appearances, but that of the absolute commodity. Its essense is promotional. (…) A scriptwriter of genius (capital itself?) has dragged the world into a phantasmagoria of which we are all the fascinated victims.”

    –“The Irony of Technology” in A Perfect Crime

    LikeLike

93. Speaking of Gothic, here’s the Gothic sanctuary of a small parish near where I live in the Arctic, Fort Good Hope, Northwest Territories. Except for the statuary, it was built, painted, carved, etc… by a handful of resident priests and lay brothers. I really like it although I’ve never had the chance to visit, as it is fly-in only. You can really tell it was a labor of love. It probably cost next to nothing as the brothers operated the lumber mill up the river.

    http://static.panoramio.com/photos/original/18180000.jpg

    LikeLike

94. Mark 14:3-9 (New International Version)

    “3 While he was in Bethany, reclining at the table in the home of a man known as Simon the Leper, a woman came with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, made of pure nard. She broke the jar and poured the perfume on his head.

    4 Some of those present were saying indignantly to one another, “Why this waste of perfume? 5 It could have been sold for more than a year’s wages and the money given to the poor.” And they rebuked her harshly.

    6 “Leave her alone,” said Jesus. “Why are you bothering her? She has done a beautiful thing to me. 7 The poor you will always have with you, and you can help them any time you want. But you will not always have me. 8 She did what she could. She poured perfume on my body beforehand to prepare for my burial. 9 I tell you the truth, wherever the gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her.”

    🙂

    LikeLike

95. Strictly speaking, a Cathedral is the central church of the diocese and the one which contains the bishop’s seat (the cathedra) so you wouldn’t have more than one in a diocese (of course, it does depend on size).

    If it’s a toss-up between the godawful modern church architecture (the style of ‘this could equally be a warehouse or the site of a crashed UFO’) which is unfortunately prevalent, or going back to the past, then I’m for the past. There is no reason for churches to be ugly, and I’m kicking my own denomination on this – there are some dreadful modern Catholic churches, and some dreadful post-Vatican II remodellings of the interior of traditional churches.

    There is no need to spend huge amounts of money, either; an architectural firm that is sensitive to the tradition can achieve something that actually looks idenifiably like a church rather than an outlet retail store within the constraints of the budget. Big ugly modern can cost as much or even more than small traditional. Which is not to say that every church building should be a mini-replica of Amiens Cathedral, or that all modern architecture is bad; just why throw out bath, baby and plumbing with the dirty bathwater?

    “There is a vital objection to the advice merely to grin and bear it. The objection is that if you merely bear it, you do not grin. Greek heroes do not grin: but gargoyles do – because they are Christian. And when a Christian is pleased, he is (in the most exact sense) frightfully pleased; his pleasure is frightful. Christ prophesised the whole of Gothic architecture in that hour when nervous and respectable people (such people as now object to barrel organs) objected to the shouting of the gutter-snipes of Jerusalem. He said, “if these were silent, the very stones would cry out.” Under the impulse of His spirit arose like a clamorous chorus the facades of the mediaeval cathedrals, thronged with shouting faces and open mouths. The prophecy has fulfilled itself: the very stones cry out.”

    (from Chapter VII, “The Eternal Revolution”, “Orthodoxy” by G.K. Chesterton)

    LikeLike

96. It is indeed a beautiful building, which brings back memories of visiting the National Cathedral. I can see why these people would want such a beautiful building.

    Did someone donate the money to build it? Is it paid for? Or is it mortgaged? Who will pay it off, as well as the maintenance/upkeep costs? Will it be the people who decided to build it, or future generations?

    We know a board member of a church that built a large additional building two or three years ago, at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars. Most of the money is borrowed. The average age of the board that made the decision to borrow the money – mid to upper sixties. The money will be repaid over a thirty year period. Most of the board members will be dead before half of the money is repaid. They thought it would bring additional people to the church. Actually, they have lost people since the decision was made to add this building.

    How you spend your money is your business as far as I’m concerned. However, committing to a long-term loan and then expecting your children and grandchildren, or me and my children to pay it off is quite another. Yes, I understand very clearly why groups like these want me to attend their church. They want me to help them pay for their property. I, along with most of the culture, respond with a hearty “No thanks!”

    The people in the video seem to think that their building will bring people to it. Yes, it will bring sightseers. But – Isn’t the point to bring people to Jesus and not to a building? Or is the point perhaps to go to people, with Jesus? Did I miss the part about going out? The part about sending?

    I’ve seen some beautiful homes that I would love to live in. But I can’t afford them, and in reality I know they take lots of time and money to maintain. I’m over that phase, and over the phase of wanting a cathedral to meet in. Our little group literally meets in the streets in the center city. I suppose this will not connect with fans of great church architecture: our meeting place is beautiful. Jesus is there with us and the people He loves who have yet to find Him, those who would never enter a building with a sign that says “church”.

    LikeLike

97. I appreciate how you acknowledge that there is a tension here when this is discussed.
    There is the tension between the “Wretched Urgency” that you have written so eloquently about and plain good stewardship of the resources that the Lord has entrusted to us.

    I, like so many on this forum, love the idea of doing something like that, but is this the time for it? It may have been alright back in the Middle Ages, but is this the time for it? (I am not saying outright that it was ok back then either)

    But we certainly do find ourselves in different times today than they did 1,000 years ago.

    I agree with monk on this one, and I appreciate how you have laid out both sides of the argument.

    LikeLike

98. For those condemnatory of CPC’s actions, especially their expenditures, do recall their form of government. Their decisions are made by a plurality of elders. Having been “inside” such an elder board, and wrestled over every item in the budget, every opportunity to cut costs in light of other mission priorities, and on and on, it wouldn’t surprise me that every objection you’ve raised and more were raised over many Saturday Session meetings, special called meetings, congregational meetings, and much prayer and study filled their deliberations and arguments. Does this mean they made the right choice? No. As K says, “A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals.” We can get caught up in the excitement of an idea, a vision, a big project, and lose the perspective of the Kingdom. Happens all the time and in all kinds of ways.

    So, I think it would be interesting to hear from the elders. What were their discussions like? Were there holdout dissenters? For those who may have changed their minds (in either direction), what led to that? Rather than sneering or making uninformed judgments of motives, costs, and what of the Kingdom has been sacrificed–as some of you see it, for their fetish–why not ask them about the process, the debate, the theology, the mission, etc.? iMonk, you could do that interview.

    LikeLike

99. Which book is that? Sounds like one I’d be interested in reading.

    LikeLike

100. thanks Luke,

     As a baptist I had no idea how that worked?

     I’ve another question I’ve always wondered, totally off topic.

     But are priest paid differently based on the size of their parish? And are they taken care of in old age?

     As a baptist it’s sort of a “root hog or die poor” type thing

     LikeLike

101. Paraphrasing:

     “I think *some* churches should build cathedrals if they can.”

     I’m trying not to proselytize here, but I think the RCC seems to have an interesting organizational structure to do exactly this. All parishes of a diocese contribute a small portion of their funds (I think it’s around 5% or 6%) towards the diocese, and the diocese maintains a single Cathedral.

     So, my ~80-parish diocese funds a single Cathedral. The other ~120-parish diocese in my state funds a single Cathedral. And the other ~130-parish diocese in this region funds a single Cathedral. So, three Cathedrals and 330 smaller churches in my region. Geographically, these three Cathedrals serve Catholics over 121k square miles.

     I never looked up these numbers before I read this post, but now that I do it seems like a sensible ratio. I think the Cathedrals offer their cities and regions a (rightly) uncommon glimpse of sacramental and sensual worship that is unique to these Christian artifacts.

     LikeLike

102. The video brought tears of joy to my eyes.

     In Medieval times, a town would decide to construct a mammoth Gothic cathedral and this was a project in which every single Christian in the town an neighboring villages could participate, either by contributing whatever money they could afford, by doing construction work, by providing meals for the workers. When the project was completed, every single person could look at the glorious cathedral and feel that they contributed to it, that God was glorified through their contributions, great or small. Even the poorest Christian could point to it as evidence that they, too, belonged to the Kingdom of God.

     LikeLike

103. Church architecture is a huge and sensitive personal button… Growing up in the Baptist church (among other forays into non-denoms and fundamentalist Bible churches), I never quite understood why the buildings (not to mention the music, art, etc., etc.) were altogether ugly. And if they weren’t ugly per se, they were tacky or gawdy or non-descript post-modern monuments to capitalism. No one could ever really give me a good reason as to why, and it always seemed to me that Jesus deserved better than that.

     Church buildings are not just practical necessity, but really do reflect the theology of the people who worship inside, and I daresay that so much of evangelicalism entirely misses the point here. Our buildings are a testimony to our God, to what we value, and to Whom and how we worship. True, God is not a building, nor is the church, but our buildings are the primary physical representation and testimony to the world of the Church universal. Should it not be a radiant, glorious bride?

     I think Covenant Pres is hitting the nail right on the head with their building – we build and maintain magnificent structures because we love Christ, love the Church, and desire to make Him known. This is NOT a waste of resources: the worship of saints will be aided for generations to come! A church that is caught up in trying to appeal to the culture or to be uber-modern and hip will spend infinitely more money just on regular upgrades to sound equipment than one which pays for maintenance of a big beautiful building. We don’t have much surviving from the early church, but we do have church buildings from centuries ago. Shouldn’t we aspire like them and like Covenant Pres to leave something of relative permanence to the church yet to come?

     LikeLike

104. How beautiful and how thoroughly unimaginative.

     LikeLike

105. As a Catholic, I am often reminded that God visits the humble places of the Earth: a stable with a dirt floor in Nazareth long ago, or a ‘cathedral for the poor’ with a tin roof and a dirt floor far away in South America.
     A friend of mine gave most of his money to build such a church in South America.
     When he returned to work as a young deacon in a Protestant Church, he was asked to pray so that they could raise enough money to change the color of the sanctuary carpet from blue to red.

     He got up to pray.
     He couldn’t say anything.
     He stood before the congregation and wept.

     LikeLike

106. Yes, but if you are going to spend that many bucks on a building I’d rather see an example of the best of 21st century architecture than a derivative of 18th – but perhaps I’m just jaundiced by being surrounded by endless examples of Victorian gothic that look just like this.

     LikeLike

107. Apparently some of you aren’t reluctant at all to see far into the motives and sins of a church like CPC. I’d counsel a couple of things:

     1) Don’t let your missionalism turn into a cover for fanaticism. Zealotry never looks like Jesus. Remember the radicals who tried to turn the Lutheran reformation into anarchy. If we say that we have the plan for every church’s contribution to the Kingdom, we go well beyond what any of us know.

     2) I wrestle with this a lot. Here in Southeastern Ky, building a $20 million structure would be obscene, but we’ll have churches within an hour of me build a $10 million I’m sure, and people will come out of the hollers and hills to fill it. Some will be offended. Some will be attracted. I can’t say how a church’s decision affects their place in the mission. Like Dan E, I can see some things clearly, but every seminary, every utility bill, every nickle spent on itunes is no different. We do have Kingdom economics here don’t we? Then sell your computers and give to the poor.

     3) I think there is some hubris and some whiteness, but I think there is some undeniable beauty and God-centeredness. Wouldn’t it be great if everything were easy to sort through and no balance was necessary?

     🙂

     LikeLike

108. Additional comment: I would never want to see any form of architecture or religious art to become the mark of a true or successful church, such as what stadium seating, dazzling lighting systems, projection systems, sound systems, and the kickin’ worship band have become. These are burdens which most churches simply can’t bear. There are older churches which can no longer afford the upkeep on their pipe organs and are being forced to dismantle or sell them; but that was the mark of a successful church back in the day.

     LikeLike

109. I think you could have stopped with “Most churches, as I see the cross cultural church planting task, should consider whether they even need a building, at least for a very long time.” The immigrant and ethnic ministries with which I work here in So. Cal. will be unable to afford “their own” bldg. for decades, if ever. Even the Anglo suburban new church plants are caught up in the need to build, and cannot afford to.

     So, now that CPC has this sanctuary, will it become a place for worship or an object of worship and the only place where “ministry” happens. In our current North Am. context, I am increasingly convinced that younger people will run from the opportunity to expend their energies and their wherewithal to maintain a building of this size. The city of Los Angeles, and every other city in the country I am sure, is chock full of buildings just this large and just this grand, and they are empty and falling down.

     LikeLike

110. I’m identical to you, Michael. I’m of a low-church persuasion, but I am extremely aware of the importance (and necessity!) of these types of expressions of the church in architecture.

     As created and embodied beings, we should be aware of the existential ways we are affected into worship. Grand cathedrals instill a sense of awe and transcendence that is important for Christian worship.

     LikeLike

111. I wonder how much it cost to build Solomon’s Temple, and couldn’t that money have been better used for other things…..?

     LikeLike

112. Sacredness doesn’t have to be grandios or expensive. It could be down-right plain.

     I don’t know. Yes, the puritans worshipped in barns and preached from water troughs; and, yes, Jesus was there. Jesus is present in a strip mall store-front church. If there is a criteria for Jesus’ presence, I think it is only, “where two or more are gathered in My name…”. How we gather in “His Name” might be an interesting discussion. There are a lot of motivations which look like gathering in His name which are something completely different.

     If religious art becomes a necessity to draw the presence of God, it has ceased to be Christian. If Pietism and asceticism banishes religious art, architecture, and symbols because the material world is evil and temporal, and all that matters is the internal, bodiless soul, it, too has ceased to be Christian.

     I think religious art and architecture is a question of anthropology. I think there is something about being created in the image of the Creator which compells us to create sacred objects. For DaVinci, it was sculpture, painting, and invention. For Bach, it was music; for the Shakers, it was furniture. To call such activities idolatrous is like taking a knife and cutting a vital organ out of the human body. To make things for mere consumption is equally defacing to the human creature.

     LikeLike

113. Henry Adams’s reflections on the Norman-Gothic abbey at Mont Saint-Michel have changed my view of what church architecture is capable of communicating:

     The whole Mount still kept the grand style; it expressed the unity
     of Church and State, God and Man, Peace and War, Life and Death,
     Good and Bad; it solved the whole problem of the universe. The
     priest and the soldier were both at home here, in 1215 as in 1115 or
     in 1058; the politician was not outside of it; the sinner was
     welcome; the poet was made happy in his own spirit, with a sympathy,
     almost an affection, that suggests a habit of verse in the Abbot as
     well as in the architect. God reconciles all. The world is an
     evident, obvious, sacred harmony. Even the discord of war is a
     detail on which the Abbey refuses to insist. Not till two centuries
     afterwards did the Mount take on the modern expression of war as a
     discord in God’s providence. Then, in the early years of the
     fifteenth century, Abbot Pierre le Roy plastered the gate of the
     chatelet, as you now see it, over the sunny thirteenth-century
     entrance called Belle Chaise, which had treated mere military
     construction with a sort of quiet contempt. You will know what a
     chatelet is when you meet another; it frowns in a spirit quite alien
     to the twelfth century; it jars on the religion of the place; it
     forebodes wars of religion; dissolution of society; loss of unity;
     the end of a world. Nothing is sadder than the catastrophe of Gothic
     art, religion, and hope.

     One looks back on it all as a picture; a symbol of unity; an
     assertion of God and Man in a bolder, stronger, closer union than
     ever was expressed by other art; and when the idea is absorbed,
     accepted, and perhaps partially understood, one may move on.

     LikeLike

114. Sigh. That’s one of the most extraordinary new Christian clubhouses I’ve seen in a while.

     As a pastor currently of an old (1950’s) church building (I pastor people, but I’m stuck with maintaining their old building, too) I am encumbered with the responsibility of making continually increasing expenditures and spending much time just overseeing up-keep of the house—replacing heating & air, installing more energy efficient windows, painting, cleaning, waxing, mowing, etc.[note: Even while writing this at the church I am interrupted by a plumbing contractor!] I think I heard Rick Warren say one time, “If you build the Crystal Cathedral somebody has to buy the Windex.”

     And constantly we here deal with the facility driving ministry instead of facilitating ministry. The design of ‘50’s SBC architecture worked okay in 1950 but doesn’t allow for much change to adapt to 21st century needs and ministry.

     I have been in great cathedrals and other great structures all over the world, and though impressive, frankly I just don’t get it. It’s a building.. I watched the entire video and it was depressing. Would it not be better, more effective, more influential, more Christ, to invest that kind of money, energy, dedication, and commitment more directly into people?

     I acknowledge that in our current culture we need to have some kind of central meeting place for church but how much is gained for Christ by spending $50-100 million on a structure? Okay, it’s art. Fair enough. But that’s some mighty expensive art for pigeons to roost on. How many artists in that congregation, I wonder. Would the community be better served on Christ’s behalf if the church facilitated and developed 600 (or whatever the membership) artists communicating Christ beautifully throughout the city rather than uniting to contract the construction of one edifice on one hill?

     I could not help but wonder if some of these church members were in large part substituting their affection for Christ with a structure. Let’s see…wasn’t there also a religious structure in the first century that Jesus was accused of not adequately revering? “They said…prove Your authority to do all this….”(driving out the temple commercial vendors) and He(Christ) said, “Destroy this temple and I will raise it again in three days…” Now there’s a building program!

     LikeLike

115. The Church should sponsor great performances. Everything doesn’t have to be participation. Sometimes we should just come and listen.

     I’d agree with that. That’s why many Anglicans don’t bring their bibles to chuch: you go to listen to the word in their tradition. I just put a very high value on congregational singing. Whether it’s blaring amplifiers or a symphonic orchestra and choir, if the musicians always drown out the congregation, I see it as a problem. From what I understand, one of the reasons for the high ceilings in a cathedral is to create a better acoustical atmosphere for singing, both from the choir and the congregation. On the other hand, there’s defnititely a place for great performances, even in a normal Sunday service. I just think there needs to be a balance.

     LikeLike

116. I’ll jump in with my two cents.

     I can’t explain it, but churches of all types, with the exceptions of store fronts etc, ispire me.

     Be they small country rural chapels, or large downtown churhces.

     I would echo Gary Foster above and say when I am looking for a place to pray I pop into the downtown ECUSA church on the way home. I guess I’m just shallow or something according to some folks on this post, but the glass, the wood, the smell, the needlepoint, the kneelers even all really move me in some sense.

     I don’t mind large ornate churches at all, but what I do mind is that most churches stay shut up during the week. I was shocked when I found out the ECUSA church where I pray has the door open every day all day. It’s a shame too many churches just sit there empty.

     If I ever do pastor full time, I hope to be able to keep the doors open for prayer.

     One more thought. Sometimes looks can be deceiving.

     I went to a very quaint looking stone ECUSA church in a neighboring town and got inside to realize they had tottaly moderned the place up with carpet, drywall, etc. Ick.

     Then I went to visit a local continuing Anglican group that was using a chapel in the basement of a local UMC church. I got inside and they had taken a block concrete room and transformed it into a really special place.

     LikeLike

117. Well put… “sometimes” not every time.

     LikeLike

118. Couple of things to note.

     1. According to a Russian chronicle when the ruler, a pagan, was considering converting to another religion he sent out emissaries to the Jews, the Muslims, the Catholics, and finally the Orthodox. The emissaries to Constantinople visited the Hagia Sophia and reported back

     “we knew not whether we were in heaven or on earth. For on earth there is no such splendor or such beauty, and we are at a loss to describe it. We only know that God dwells there among men.”

     The Hagia Sophia still stands though now a museum not a church (or a mosque which it was for many centuries) and stripped of much of the ornamentation it would have had. Istanbul is also filled with spectacular mosques.

     2. My cousins play in an English cathedral orchestra. The arrangement is more or less a barter. The cathedral gets the amateur (but good) orchestra to play at a certain number of services in return the orchestra can use the cathedral for a certain number of paying concerts.

     LikeLike

119. The early church life was characterized with simplicity…

     Thank you dear Constantine for ruining that for the future generations of christians.

     LikeLike

120. …on the other hand i can feel the same presence of God in the woods when the setting is just right….

     LikeLike

121. Ragamuffin (and Michael)
     I too have changed my tune (as it were). I stood briefly inside the Anglican Cathedral in Lincoln (UK) a year ago – they were about to close – with one of the finest missional church planters I know – and thought of how wonderful it would be to gather all the believers in Lincolnshire together to worship God in this place of beauty – built to honour God. The parish gathering together to celebrate our Risen Lord.

     LikeLike

122. That’s rather amazing! We don’t build them like that anymore. As someone working in the Indiana Limestone industry and familiar with many large stone-clad building projects, it is nice to see a church select building materials which look more permanent than a warehouse or a Walmart. I once worked as draftsman on a similar church project, the Cathedral of the Rockies, in Boise, Idaho, and greatly enjoyed it.

     I agree with your opinion on the matter. Not all, but some should build such churches! I would also urge that if a church is going to build at all, they should carefully consider how and what they are going to build, both so far as the Kingdom concerns you mentioned, and what their choice of architecture says about the Church and the God that the Church claims to believe in.

     Thanks for posting on this!

     LikeLike

123. …i think we need all the help we can get to cut through the “noise” and truly experience God…i know personally that when i enter a richly ornate Cathedral i immediately experience a difference in my perceptions of God and i must say it “feels” right…i feel secure..im more in a solemn respectful mood…it’s a definate sense of Awe as if God were actually present THROUGH the beautiful architecture……sounds and smells become an enhancing part of this experience..even lighting makes a significant contribution to this orchestra of the senses that proclaim Gods presence.

     LikeLike

124. Sometimes an awesome building can be the problem for the very thing we want them to cause… Worship to God!

     You see, for some it will keep them focused on the building distracting them from whatever is happening in the program. For the people who can really appreciate the architecture, in our days will probably will cause to praise the architect and not to give them a sense of awe before God (in the middle age that was the purpose of this type of building) but then that makes you wonder if the sense of spirituality in the service comes from an intimate communion with the Spirit of the Lord or is just a delusion produced by the environment (the sound, the lights, the music and the building). For the members of the denomination it will be a great deal of temptation not to show pride (in a sinful way) of their infrastructure. And it this hard economic times, I don’t want to know what a burden the maintenance bills are gonna be for that denomination.

     To much cons and so little pros… why the trouble?

     Don’t get me wrong, I like fine arts (including architecture). When I visited Vatican city I was amazed of what can MEN create (build). MEN not God. Some of those men were not devoted christians that were even thinking in giving glory to God with their work, but certainly to leave a name to history (besides being well paid).

     If this is building is the result of obedience to God’s will and eternal purpose, then… praise the Lord!
     But pardon me if I’m skeptical… only time will tell. I think most of the buildings in Europe are silent witnesses of void religiosity that seems to be starting to happen in America.

     It certainly will attract a lot of christian tourists! and maybe some will consider abandoning their little (megachurch) ’cause a sudden feeling that God wants them to transfer their membership to this church.

     I don’t know if I can do this but may I suggest Frank Viola’s and George Barna Pagan Christianity? (the book explains pretty much the hi and lows of church buildings).

     And I don’t want to forget to mention that the money can be used for… (place whatever you want). Yes I know Judas said something like that, but Jesus rebuke him for a jar of alabaster that was used once to recognize him and worship him; not for a multimillion dollar building that demanded a huge chunk of money to be built and an unreasonable amount of money that will be wasted…errrr, sorry I mean used for maintenance.

     Peace & Love.

     LikeLike

125. I think you have some valid points about this Michael. I would ask the question, cannot such buildings with such architecture serve a sacramental purpose in helping lift our minds and spirits towards more lofty and noble realms? I think they can. I also hearken to Lyle Schallers thinking on these things and consider church buildings “signs” that tell the public something about who inhabits these things. “Butler buildings” (metal buildings similar to barns) may speak to Michaels ideas as frugal stewardship in right thinking prioritization of resources. To the public at large it might be saying to them that this church puts a lower value on the effort of doing church than the Catholic church down the street with the marble and granite cathedral.
     Another consideration. When your down on your luck and you need to find a place to pray, (as has happened to me when I was a Pastor with a church blg of my “own”, I picked an old Presby. Ch with magnificent architecture and not the Baptistized in the Fire Pentecostal Holiness Church in the old storefront.

     LikeLike

126. I think John 12:1-8 has something to say to this discussion. Sometimes extravagant displays of worship (building this beautiful structure) are appropriate for the context of the community.

     pax domini,
     mike

     LikeLike

127. Louis Bouyer’s critique of Protestantism stands: Eventually, because God is disassociated from the world and is totally invested in the Word, NOTHING matters but God.

     The more I listen to evangelicals, the more this critique knocks me over.

     Lord, I almost felt Catholic there for a moment. Where’s 911?

     LikeLike

128. Though I am a firm believer that whatever we build for God should be high quality, beautiful, and dripping with craftsmanship, I take the other side on this for the reasons I’ll outline here.

     The age of the stone temple is past. God does not dwell in temples built by human hands. We have His treasure in vessels made of flesh. What is suitable for one dispensation is not for another. The age of Solomon’s temple passed when Christ was born in a manger into a world of piss and blood.

     I am not an expert on large-scale buildings, though I did build homes at one point. I would not be surprised if this church cost $25-40 million to build, though. Knowing the actual figure would be helpful—and perhaps frightening.

     Francis Chan was recently confronted with this issue of spending millions on a bigger church and his church decided it was better to invest money into people not buildings. I believe that is God’s true heart.

     How many Bibles for Christians who do not have them in Asia and Africa can be purchased for the cost of this massive church building?

     How many new converts to Christ who live in poverty in the Third World could be taught a trade and given a shot at a better life with the money it cost to build this church?

     How many poor people in Nashville who were losing their simple homes to foreclosure through no fault of their own could have benefited from these Presbyterians offering to pay for their homes with the money it cost to build this massive church?

     How many people in Nashville unable to pay for medical care or who are facing bankruptcy due to hospitalizations or chronic illness could have had their bills paid off by the cost of what it took to build this multimillion dollar church?

     What kind of witness do those acts I just mentioned have within them that trump the “witness” of just another massive church building? The fact that the pastoral staff deems their church building a witness is sad, especially when so many other, more life-changing witnessing opportunities exist, especially those fundable by the staggering amount of cash this church cost. I can tell you that lost people are not driving by this church and having on-the-spot conversion experiences because of the architecture.

     Cities across the United States are filled with empty churches that look just like this one. And they are empty because the white people who built them fled the neighborhood once the surrounding demographic changed. I searched in vain in that video for a non-white face and found none. Having been to Nashville in the past, I can tell you that real “minorities” live there, though you would not know it from this video. (This seems to be a problem with every PCA church I have visited.) The issue of “those people” haunts wealthy Presbyterians, especially those who are worried that the beautiful thing they have built will somehow no longer be beautiful when the poor Hispanics and blacks want to come for a visit.

     The pastor talks about looking to the past for inspiration for the church design. Why? If this were a truly creative vision, why not build something beautiful that reflects contemporary architecture? By building gothic, the church only solidifies the impression of lost people that the Church of Jesus Christ holds nothing that speaks to the issues of today. (And honestly, if the pastor were that interested in building like the early Church, they could have constructed an entire subdivision of simple homes and met in them.)

     This church also needs a rethink of what constitutes beauty. A group of poor Mexican Christians who truly live by “give us this day our daily bread” will surely hold a church meeting seen as beautiful by God Himself, even if their church building only costs $500. (In truth, I would rather worship with them, if given the opportunity.) Given the cost of this PCA church, I would also think that it may have the reverse result, proving itself ugly because the people who built it invested in concrete and rebar instead of using all that cash to bring beauty to the uglier side of life in Nashville in Jesus’ name.

     There is also a large amount of hubris in the comment in the video about this costly church being here hundreds of years from now. Not only because of the issues of neighborhood demographic change, but also from the simple fact that the times are growing to resemble those of Matt 24:14-22. Unless the people who built this church are hardcore preterists, are they that unable to read the signs of times? Instead of being rooted in one locality, the Church of Jesus Christ needs to grow more nimble and less dependent on structures and systems that may turn around and bite them. Or keep them from fulfilling the mission of Christ even as the darkness gathers. There is an insular thinking in building such a massive, costly church now that calls into question the vision of its leadership for dealing with the realities of the age we live in.

     I could write more, but I’ve already said enough. In short, a lovely building that is all wrong for the times we live in.

     LikeLike

129. Count me as clearly in the minority here, much more in line with your former views than with this one. Caveat: the dear Christians at Covenant Presbyterian answer to God, and not to me, and I’m not about to judge them on this call. That said, at the risk of sounding like some cretin, this strikes me as excessive, financially-irresponsible (quite possibly; be interesting to know what kind of $ went into this), and the type of thing that fosters all sorts of wrong concepts about what a “church” is supposed to be. Just to a comment or two from readers, the idea that it’s “hard to pray” in modern churches–because of architecture???–strikes me as, well, ridiculous. And to use Matthew 26 to justify this extravagance…well, that doesn’t wash with me, not at all. I’m much, much more impressed with churches that plant other churches (and sure, maybe Covenant does), spend their money on significant ministry, missions, etc. Again, Covenant probably does a good deal of that–though again, it’d be interesting to know how much they’ve invested in building, as opposed to ministry).

     Even note in the video the mixed messages that are sent about the true nature of the church. They SAY, toward the end as I remember, that “the church is the people”–hey, we’re all supposed to SAY that, aren’t we?–but on more than one occasion, the word “church” is used to referred to the structure (I’m pretty sure I remember that; if I’m wrong, I’ll stand corrected). It’s a building…a great big, expensive, beautiful Gothic building…but that’s all; it’s NOT a church, and I fear that continuing to build these things perpetuates that myth. That not to mention the fact that if Michael’s predictions about evangelicalism are right–not that I fully agree with them–we’re going to find, increasingly, that the landscape is dotted with massive, expensive church buildings (some, probably not even fully paid for) and either congregations of 75 “filling” them, or sitting like so many old Wal-Marts vacant and useless.

     Finally, I have a problem in general with building massive auditoriums that encourage the all-too-entrenched concept that the congregation is the “audience”, that everything “important” takes place on the “stage” (and you KNOW that’s what most folks call it, don’t you?), that the congregation is generally (not completely, but generally) passive, etc. Building Gothic cathedrals reinforces this pagan concept that most of us have uncritically imported into our Christianity. Church is the time to dress up in “Sunday finest”, listen to the perfectly-tuned choir (or, in the contemporary version, dress grungy and listen to 120-decibel rock-for-Jesus show), listen to a message, and go home–with the other people “in church” only incidental to our experience of God. Could a kid run down the aisle of this place without being shushed and told “we don’t run in church” (wonder what Paul woulda said about that one?)? I’m just sayin’…and, at this point, ramblin’…sorry.

     Look, I appreciate beauty like everyone else; I’m sure that it’s a gorgeous building. I’m not arguing that every church building ought to be built the most cheaply it can be. But there is no greater beauty than that of Christ, and on this earth, nothing more beautiful than a life being transformed by the power of the Holy Spirit. I just have this nagging feeling that a lot of folks are going to find themselves being asked by Jesus, in Heaven, “so, what did you do for me?”

     And the answer will be, “look at the nice big building we built!”

     LikeLike

130. I believe there’s an IMonk essay on “MAO Inhibitors”, the MAO in question being “Mystery, Awe, and Otherness” of old liturgical churches and today’s Evangelical lack of same. You don’t get that kind of MAO in what looks like a refitted Home Depot or Wal-Mart.

     LikeLike

131. Beautiful and inspiring, which is exactly what is needed to draw us into worship and a life of faithfulness. I have no issue with some churches like this being built as they give us do help convey the message and unique beauty of the gospel. It also seems fromt he video as though the motivation of the congregation was on the mark in that it was not self-serving but gospel and Christ-serving.

     The problem I have, and one that seems prevalent in our area, is the scores of congregations fleeing to the suburbs and spending millions on a warehouse-type structure that blends almost seamlessly with the business park next door or the rec center down the street. Ugh.

     Part of the calling of Christ is to be distinctive, and this should be reflected in our church architecture in those instances when the choice is made to build a substantial structure.

     LikeLike

132. I can’t really complain about a church building a modern cathedral. so to speak. It’s kind of like asking yourself what kind of car you should drive. Is it a sin to drive a luxury vehicle? No, as long as the vehicle doesn’t become an idol in and of itself. If you can afford the vehicle and still support the church and do the will of God, the vehicle is just a tool, regardless of what it costs.

     That said, I also believe that money should be spent carefully. Would I build a big, gothic-style church? Perhaps, as the church itself serves a mission of glorifying God. But at the same time, don’t build more than you need, don’t let the building become what the church is about, and don’t spend $3 where $2 gets the same impact. (Aesthetics do have an impact, so the classic styling may be worth it.)

     LikeLike

133. Depends on the mix used and whether the contractor cut corners or not. Concrete is basically a castable synthetic limestone; once it sets, it literally becomes stone itself.

     The main problem would be cracking, either from thermal expansion and contraction or from earthquake or foundation settling. Water entering the concrete and flaking off the surface or rusting the rebar might also be a long-term problem. But if all that’s guarded against, no reason the concrete could last as long as natural stone.

     LikeLike

134. The Church should sponsor great performances. Everything doesn’t have to be participation. Sometimes we should just come and listen.

     And who said this was “consumer church?” Yeah, I see that possibility for some people, but is the risk any less with, as someone said, “theater church” or “box store church?”

     LikeLike

135. I was wondering if might be the case. I went to an All Saints Day service at a local Episcopal Church a couple years ago. They had hired a chamber orchestra to do one of Mozart’s masses for the service. It was really neat, but I wouldn’t want it as a regular feature. As a special occasion thing, it was very appropriate. My main concern is that the music (whatever form it may be in) doesn’t take worship from the people.

     LikeLike

136. Expanding encourages consumer christians–it’s easier to hide and do nothing.

     And a church that looks like a tilt-up warehouse or Wal-Mart doesn’t help. Too easy to become a spiritual Wal-Mart, selling just another product. Or a Disneyland, keeping the attendees constantly amused.

     Really hard to do either in a St Peters, Notre Dame, or Hagia Sophia.

     LikeLike

137. Evangelicals, and most Protestants in general, have abandoned beauty as a theological reality and need. I think it came in part from the iconoclasm and anti-sacramentalism of the Reformation. This, to me, is a part of the regaining of that theology of beauty among Protestants, and I think it’s marvelous. God created the universe and turned around and said it was very good. In part, was that not because of the beauty of it? Does not the beauty of creation reflect the beauty of God? Is not God himself beautiful? Surely He is the origin and definition of beauty, and that which is beautiful should direct us to God in an instinctual way and perhaps in a conscious, intentional way as well.

     This sort of space calls the worshipper to God in a way that a multi-purpose room or auditorium simply cannot. You’re right in that not every church should build a cathedral like this because not every congregation has the resources to do so, and God may be calling them towards something different, and that, too, is good. But what a gift that this church can do so – that they can create a space that can reflect this part of who God is and draw the heart to Him that way.

     LikeLike

138. A book I enjoyed was Philip Ball’s “A Universe of Stone,” which describes the building of Chartres.
     While I don’t think it’s the case here, I wonder to what extent such buildings are misguided attempts to recapture a sense of Euro-centric Christendom.

     LikeLike

139. I always appreciate your Irenic and generous spirit . I’ve found over the years that God easily accomplishes his purposes through and in spite of people and circumstances I thought would have completely negated this possibility. Remarkable though it is, he doesn’t seem to need or depend whatsoever on your or my opinions, wisdom, and thoughtful foresight. Thank God!

     My earlier comment on the metal box church sounds denigrating. I don’t intend it to be as mean as it sounds. I do wish to communicate through what I wrote that God is nearly always greater than we imagine, and it does our spirit well to listen to how others have expressed their faith.

     LikeLike

140. great post and comments. I have worked professionally in architecture, stained glass and construction for 25 years, initially for firms and now on my own. I live in a poor neighborhood the locals call the ghetto, and have struggled to fulfill my calling to be part of kingdom building here. I love art, architecture, design, beauty and all the rest, a lot. But having been part of, and continuing to be part of church project, I usually end up heartbroken & conflicted. I need & like the work and appreciate the intent of the clients, but the huge expenditure of money, often equated as evidence of Gods’ favor , is the domain of wealthy communities. I didn’t see one black, Hispanic or Asian person in the video, and doubt many are there. Everyone was dressed well, probably have nice cars and houses, and I bet that within a 10 minute drive, just like my part of the country, there is abject poverty & a enormous need for the incarnational gospel. One church I’m doing is contemplating a +/- $100,000 addition mostly because its inconvenient & embarrassing for some people to walk towards the front of the sanctuary during service. Buildings often become cruel masters, and even more so in poor communities where many small churches compete and can barely maintain the utilities. That said, I love the building and can see the other viewpoints.

     LikeLike

141. A good book on why Gothic, or churchly architecture, looks good is “Ugly as Sin” by Michael Rose. It is from a Roman Catholic perspective. The author attempts to explain why it is so hard to pray in the modern churches of the 60s on forward and why the old architecture, like Gothic, seems so conducive to prayer and worship. He comes up with three “natural laws” of church architecture based off of Notre Dame Cathedral. Verticality, Permanence, Iconography. I found it a good read.

     LikeLike

142. Perhaps as long as ancient Roman buildings made with concrete – like the Colosseum!

     LikeLike

143. Amen! The allure of cathedrals and the sensual glory they convey is one of the things that drew me to the Catholic Church. I think sigmund makes the point really well – we are sensual beings. There’s no denying that what we experience with our physical senses can change us spiritually.

     I think it’s important to seek that inward change, and let it reciprocate outwardly in our lives. Like a ‘virtuous cycle’ the spirals us, internally and externally, towards God and His Gospel.

     LikeLike

144. I don’t know this for certain, but I’d be willing to bet that the orchestra was there especially for the inaugural worship service.

     I don’t have a problem with a large choir, especially in a large congregation providing music for a large space.

     LikeLike

145. I-monk,
     I don’t know. I’ve been all over the board on this. I left a church a few years ago (for other reasons) but it was around the time they were committing to build a new 1500 seat sanctuary. The architect showed the designs, and several times he emphasized how great it was that it didn’t “look like a church” That kind of bothered me. They use the word campus to describe the property. It’s sad to see old churches in some neighborhoods converted to businesses.
     I understand the beauty aspect of the building, and they are great to look at, but at what cost? The church is the people not the building. Wouldn’t it be better to plant another church than to expand your own? I lean more to planting now than expanding. Expanding encourages consumer christians–it’s easier to hide and do nothing.
     My 2 cents

     LikeLike

146. Michael, I think you have captured the tension that many of us feel. Living in the inner city and pastoring a small church in our home (20-35 people), the kind of time, cost and commitment these cathedrals require can seem lavish and indulgent. When I’ve fed good, honest, hard working people out of my cupboards because they just can’t seem to get by, it is difficult to see these investments. However, when I was a teen visiting Europe for the first time I was impacted by the beauty of these cathedrals which helped root my faith in history, humble me in respect to the greatness of God and introduce me to a sacramental view of worship.

     So, like yourself, I’m torn at times. As Scripture makes clear, what is right is not always what is most cost-effective, but that can also become a quick excuse. Something to wrestle with.

     Peace,
     Jamie

     LikeLike

147. Beware of “It’s All Gonna Burn”, Willoh.

     Not only does that lead to a Gnosticism where “Spiritual Good, Physical Baaaaaaaaaad”, but it breeds smugness and indifference.

     LikeLike

148. Candle wax from the votive candles?

     LikeLike

149. John does Matthew one better; he specifies which of the Twelve first raised that question:
     Judas.

     LikeLike

150. My wife and I traveled through Great Britain a couple of years ago. I was profoundly influenced, affected, and changed, by the great, massive cathedrals they are blessed with. Many of them took 300 and more years to build. In spite of starts and stops, changing builders, architects, and Kings, they possess a unity of vision and beauty that is truly mind boggling. The scriptures and meaty theology can be read in every nuance of their architecture. The life, passion, and faith of endless numbers of craftsman are visible for all to see. I found them to sing of God’s magnificence and beauty in the same way mountains, oceans, and untamed nature do. I was awed and humbled in their presence.

     I have a hard time seeing this as a bad thing. Undoubtedly, there were huge egos, manipulative posturing, and much shedding of blood involved in their conception and building. In spite of all the ugly drama of man, God is glorified.

     I was less impressed by some of the old churches we saw in Eastern Europe more recently. They were far more spangled and gaudy. I found them to be Elvis-i-fied, Las Vegas style versions of what we had seen in England. So I can’t argue that all old and costly church architecture is of equal value. Nonetheless, I wonder what someone from another planet would surmise about our God if they were to find nothing but our metal shoe-box church structures when they came to earth?

     LikeLike

151. LIke some of the other folks who have commented, I’m kind of a sucker for Gothic archetecture in churches. I just finished re-reading Robert Webber’s Worship is a Verb today. One of thing last things he talks about is using space, time, art, etc as part of our worship. I think this sort of thing is a great use of space and art in worship. That said, I look at such a huge choir and a full orchestra and find myself wondering if there is a danger of becoming a different “flavor” of the megachurch rock concert kinda thing. Only instead of a rock concert, it’s a symphonic concert. One of Webber’s earliest points is that we need to return worship to the people. Can that be done with such a huge production? That’s not a rhetorical question, by the way. I’m very interested in how a large church would ride that balance. CPC seems to have a great attitude and philosophy of worship, so I’m very curious about how they’d do that.

     LikeLike

152. I’ve done a 180 on this in recent years myself. I think that we are made to respond to beauty. Having a totally utilitarian ethic seems to deny this aspect of being human. So while not all can afford such facilities and it may not be the best goal for some situations, I think we should strive to make our worship spaces as beautiful as we possibly can. I also think creating a space that looks like what it actually is makes a lot of sense as well. There’s nothing holy or better about being unable to distinguish a house of worship from a high school auditorium or hotel ballroom.

     When I walk into an older, traditional style church, there is something that is felt in my attitude…I’ve stepped out of the regular world for a short time and entered into a sacred space; a place set apart for a holy and specific purpose. I think that’s something we should use to enhance the experience of worship, not fight against and deny.

     LikeLike

153. Bravo for outlining a reasonable middle ground.

     LikeLike

154. Since this building is made from concrete and rebar instead of stone, how long can it actually be expected to last?

     LikeLike

155. ..i think you’ve made an interesting observation……Architecture affects perception and thus mood…architecture can project “atmosphere” and enhance or deminish ones experience…a combination of cathedral like architecture AND SMELL can together greatly influence ambiance and mood…..we are sensual beings by nature and our surroundings do influence our experience.

     LikeLike

156. The Spirit leads some to build cathedrals, some, like me, to preach in a converted bar room. What will remain are the saved souls, the buildings will burn like chaff. Would that every city would build something like that to the glory of God. that might stimulate the economy. They certainly employed a lot of people for quite a while.

     LikeLike

157. I must confess I too, had to smile at the construction scenes with huge pre-fabbed hunks of stone being lifted into place within moments by a modern machine, and thinking of the gothic cathedrals I here in Europe and what I know about how they were built.

     But I think we need to guard against the patronizing attitude that calls this pastiche: Only in America could you get away with this, but only in America would they even think of doing this, in Europe we have largely lost our appreciation for this kind of architecture and what it says about God.

     After all, the point of this building is not to make it simply look old, but to use the language of the old gothic cathedrals to make the same statement about the same God, pointing to the same heaven.

     LikeLike

158. #Debi and Northeasterner … what they said.

     LikeLike

159. As a former RC I had the experience of spending all my childhood and into adulthood in the same parish building. I was very involved there and therefore had an emotional attachment to the building. It felt like home to me. My relatives also had an emotional attachment to this building as my ancestors had immigrated from the French-Canadian part of Canada to the US. So, generations of the same family pour their resources both financial and human into the parish life of the community. Then, it happened…….the powers that be sell off the property merging parishes because they can not sustain the upkeep of all the parish buildings due to lawsuit settlements, declining revenues, etc., etc. The people cry. The people protest (those rebellious RCs). The leadership attempts to voice compassion for their pain but the final answer is always “submit or get out.”

     I would recommend that Christians not become attached to any building. The pain of separation , when it happens, is simply not worth it.

     LikeLike

160. Eric Jacobsen’s book Sidewalks in the Kingdom is worth reading on this topic (and others).

     He draws heavily from Jane Jacob’s Death and Life of Great American Cities, which should be required reading for anyone living and ministering in an urban setting.

     While working on his doctorate Jacobsen taught a class at Fuller Theological on the Theology of the Built Environment–that stitched a lot of these themes together-how our cities, neighborhoods and buildings are not merely passive backdrops to our lives but play integral roles in how we interact, gather, and connect (or don’t) and therefore their design and development should be matters of kingdom concern as they can either facilitate or hinder kingdom connections – he’s pastoring in Washington state now I believe.

     LikeLike

161. It’s great that the congregation is so happy with their new church building. I love the stained glass. I don’t like the way the steeple looks on it, though. It doesn’t seem to match the rest of it.

     The Catholic Church building where I go to Mass is a small, white building that looks like a lot of Baptist churches in Maine. It’s the Congregational church in town that is the huge, brick structure with outstanding stained glass, dark beautiful wood inside. I love them both. If I had to have a choice, though, between a beautiful exterior or beautiful interior, I would say let’s go with the interior and have beautiful paintings, statues, textiles, lighting. And on the outside, have an impressive steeple! There is an interesting smell in the Catholic church I attend. Whenever I walk in there, the smell alone helps me to relax. And it’s not an incense. I don’t know what it is. It’s a “gentle” smell that I can’t define.

     LikeLike

162. Pingback: Sensus Divinitatis News

163. I think this is a worthwhile project. As for maintenance costs, they will always be lower on a new building, despite the architectural style. Not every church should be this large, but we can recover a sense of traditional church architecture in smaller churches as well.

     At the other extreme, I think the profusion of storefront churches has had a bad effect on the theology practiced inside. In our community, we have many who act like church entrepreneurs; self-ordained pastors who frequently lead their flocks into serious error and are accountable to no one (on Earth, anyway).

     You can’t tell a book by its cover, but if you want to see if greed and luxury is a problem, look at the parsonage, not the church!

     LikeLike

164. Michael, as you may know, I’m an artist, and I have to look at this with an artist’s perspective. God, the Creator, gives all of us the desire to create something truly beautiful to honor God and His gifts to us. As you said, not everyone is able to do something like this, and God gives us each different facets of the creative gift. Some create healing, some create full bellies, and some create worship spaces that point us to God. All are valid expressions of the gift.

     As to the money being spent on “better things”, I believe Jesus had something to say about that:

     “While Jesus was in Bethany in the home of a man known as Simon the Leper, a woman came to him with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, which she poured on his head as he was reclining at the table. When the disciples saw this, they were indignant. “Why this waste?” they asked. “This perfume could have been sold at a high price and the money given to the poor.” Aware of this, Jesus said to them, “Why are you bothering this woman? She has done a beautiful thing to me. The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me. When she poured this perfume on my body, she did it to prepare me for burial. I tell you the truth, wherever this gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her.” ~Matthew 26:6-13

     LikeLike

165. There is an old issue of Credenda on the subject:

     http://www.credenda.org/issues/11-3.php

     LikeLike

166. As a Brit, surrounded by old buildings, I’m afraid this looks something of a pastiche to me. Only in America could you get away with this kind of thing!

     LikeLike

167. My 20 year career in architecture has been exclusively residential housing. But, I’d like to be part of the design team on something like this. Architecture and building are part of life. We complain about many of the isms in our culture, materialism, consumerism, etc, but we also complain about things being cheap and disposable. This church doesn’t look disposable. If it lasts for a hundred years, or more, would it be worth it?

     More important, I think, is if this building is done with heart, pride and a joy for God, instead of merely to have a big building.

     LikeLike

168. Blame Constantine the Great. I posted on something similar yesterday here

     LikeLike

169. Well, it’s off to confession for me – I am so jealous of that church, even my hair is turning green. I admit I have always been deeply affected by good architecture, so see such a beautiful structure – well designed, meticulously crafted and dedicated to the Lord – is a complete inspiration to me.

     I worship in a ’60s-style Catholic church whose architecture is bland and uninspiring, to say the least. I’m committed to the people and priests in my parish, and wouldn’t leave them, but I do love attending the random mass at the older church across town, because it is such a beautiful and uplifting worship space.

     Maybe this is just a Catholic thing, but I notice that when the architecture of a church is cathedral-like, people are quieter and more reflective in the pews before mass. When the architecture is more modern, people seem to chat more and appear less reverent. I would be curious to see if this is true with the congregation at this church.

     The dedication of the cross on top of the steeple? Brought a tear to my eye.

     And the woman who said, “Aren’t we the most fortunate people?” Amen!

     LikeLike

170. Hi Michael,

     Great to read a post that’s on such a different subject yet so closely related to central issues (mission, sacraments, etc.).

     I guess my view kind of echoes yours: this kind of project throws up some big questions and isn’t for everyone, but then again, every lasting, serious artistic or creative endeavour requires a major investment in time, effort and finance that could arguably be poured into something more obviously “worthwhile” (be it social action, missions, etc.). (One slightly tangential but not unrelated thought: what about the millions spent by TV ministries? Does that “investment” bring more or less glory to God than building a neo-Gothic cathedral?)

     We’re part of a small, struggling church in France whose struggles have been made much worse by the fact that it bought a building a few years back that required major renovation and ongoing maintenance. I honestly think that not being burdened with this could have made a big difference to the church’s effectiveness in recent years. Ironically, an investment that was seen as equipping the church to be more effective has, in my opinion, contributed to its decline.

     On the other hand, even though I’ve always belonged to contemporary churches that meet in contemporary buildings, I’m a sucker for traditional church architecture. I cannot fail to be filled with awe every time I go into a magnificent building like Notre Dame cathedral in Paris; it undeniably awakens in me a sense of divine wonder and mystery. I remind myself that, whatever the faults often associated with that kind of church, in order for a building like that to exist, and to have stood for the best part of a thousand years, somebody had to have been seriously committed to building the biggest, best, most incredible structure they could as a pointer to the glory and mystery of God, the ultimate architect and creator.

     LikeLike

171. There was a very interesting architectural documentary on the BBC about 2 years ago which examined the building style of various different christian movements. What the architect discovered, in how the thoeology of the variuous groups was reflected in its architecture. I only wish I had some web-video of it. The analysis was very interesting, and it changed by previously skeptical view of high-church architecture.

     LikeLike

172. I have mild architecture envy also – though for some reason the music used made me think of the William Golding book “The Spire”.

     LikeLike

173. Also here’s another article about church architecture.

     http://www.lifeway.com/lwc/article_main_page/0,1703,A%253D167438%2526M%253D200906,00.html

     LikeLike

174. First what a beautiful church. Is it wrong to have church architecture envy?

     Second here’s an interesting article that talks about church architecture.

     Click to access 5article1.pdf

     The author was on Issue etc June 15. If anyone is interested

     LikeLike