For Those with Eyes to See, There Is Theological Truth in Church Architecture
…that comes to mind is whether most people see it. I’m a huge fan of reminding people that the German word for education, Bildung, derives from the word for picture, and how medieval monks would instruct people in Biblical truth using the statues and stained glass in churches, but we need to remember that the same churches are home to some of the most spiritually dead people in the world today. So I think it’s fair to ask to what extent church architecture actually helps people understand Christ.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
There’s an education problem, to be sure. I can’t personally accept that just because we’re ignorant of what our architecture means we should stay that way.
If I were going to teach a course on it, I’d start with having students read Exodus and Numbers, then go to the record of Solomon’s temple and the disappointment of Ezra’s.
It’s clear that God attached a great deal of meaning to the design and materials of the Tabernacle and later the Temple. The burden of proof falls us modern saints to justify attaching no meaning to the particulars of our structures.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Aaron Blumer]The way I see it, there was a significance to the structure of the Tabernacle and temple because those buildings were the actual dwelling place of God. His spirit resided within them. In our current time, God’s Spirit resides within believers themselves. Are there any passages that imply that God’s Spirit resides within an architectural church structure? If not, then I don’t think it’s valid to make a one-to-one type comparison between the Temple or Tabernacle and our church buildings.It’s clear that God attached a great deal of meaning to the design and materials of the Tabernacle and later the Temple. The burden of proof falls us modern saints to justify attaching no meaning to the particulars of our structures.
This is a valid argument. The relationship between structure and God’s presence is different in the church age in some profound ways.
I have a counter, though. Is anything we do as Christians supposed to be meaningless or are we supposed to look for ways to consciously express the glory of God in all we do? I think the answer to that is probably not in dispute, so the followup question is: why should architecture be excluded?
One of the things I like a lot about architecture is the way it combines engineering (fit-to-purpose and problem solving) and art. But the art piece in our times tends to be random: do we like how it looks, is it attractive, etc. So we tend to be excessively utilitarian much of the time in how we build church structures: a somewhat dressed up pole barn with heat and carpet is good enough… and certainly no stained glass. And when we think about visual appeal at all, we don’t go any further in the aesthetic than the concepts of orderly, clean, and “attractive.” This is more American than Christian, especially given the rich history of Christian ideas conveyed through architecture.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Aaron Blumer]I have a counter to your counter. What types of bling and bangles in architecture actually bring glory to God? We don’t have any New testament instruction on that matter in regards to architecture, but we do have instruction in regards to clothing. I Peter 3:3-4 says, “Do not let your adornment be external — the braiding of hair and wearing of gold ornaments or fine clothing- but let it be the secret person of the heart in the incorruptible adornment of the quiet and mild spirit, which is of great value in the eyes of God.” If God’s glory is not to be reflected in external ornamentation of our bodies or clothing, then why should it be reflected externally in our architecture?I have a counter, though. Is anything we do as Christians supposed to be meaningless or are we supposed to look for ways to consciously express the glory of God in all we do? I think the answer to that is probably not in dispute, so the followup question is: why should architecture be excluded?
….is that the early church during Roman persecution is said to have met significantly in homes, forests, and other hidden places to avoid detection. I’ve personally visited the catacombs of San Sebastian, where early Christians met and buried their dead. Interesting place. So we might argue that no particular building at all seems to correlate wonderfully with church growth. It’s not preached in Scripture, to be sure, but it is part of church history, no?
That noted, perhaps something we ought to consider is that too many church buildings can only charitably be described as “cheap”, and maybe we ought to consider the message we’re sending with that kind of architecture—if we build cheaply, what are we saying about Him? Not that it all has to be gold plated like Solomon’s Temple or anything (since God sovereignly allowed that to be taken out, I wonder if He was saying “not my plan at all” to that), but basic decent quality that doesn’t need to be totally gutted after a couple of decades might be good…..
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Discussion