Church Architecture

Gentlemen, if you still read this thing we call a group blog, I have a few questions for us to discuss. As I have had the benefit of learning from Dr. Bruce Little in Christian Faith and the Arts this semester, he has confronted many of my previously held, through for the most part unconsciously, presuppositions. One thing, however, I agreed with him about was his section on church architecture.

What principles do we have to guide us in building structures for the expressed purpose of worshipping God?  The Old Testament is a helpful place to start.  The building of the Tabernacle specifically provides some useful insights.  From it, we learn that God desires to be worshipped in a particular way.  The directions He gives for the construction of the Tabernacle are very specific and clear.  Now, this is not to say that we have to build a bunch of tabernacles, but it implies that we should, at the very least, should think about what the building is saying (because architecture communicates something to people).

Additionally, the Tabernacle was good and beautiful to look at.  It was more than functional.  It was intrinsically beautiful and good.  Most of the church architecture of the past seems to reflect this general principle, at the building of the tabernacle and at creation.  It also coincides with our belief that God is himself Goodness and Beauty.  Conversely, most of contemporary church architecture fails miserably in this regard.

Another important principle to mention is that the Hebrews did what they could with what they had.  We know that they were fairly comfortable as God had allowed them to take much with them when the Exodus took place.  Also, we realize that they were somewhat nomadic at this time, so they needed a building they could move from place to place.  Later, after entering the Promised Land and taking up permanent residence there, they constructed a permanent place of worship, and the Temple is also constructed in a particular way and was intrinsically good and beautiful.  Also, the people played a major role in building the Tabernacle and the Temple.  They participated by donating beautiful, often handmade, things.  How interesting it would be to have our people join in a building project by making things for the building itself?  Talk about promoting the arts and applying our God-given and mandated creativity.

Finally, and importantly, the Tabernacle and the Temple (and Creation for that matter) were functional.  They played an important role in the religious of the Israelites.  They could go and sacrifice there.  So, to build a building with functionality in mind is to be a poor steward.

So, the question I pose to you is: Should the intrinsic or the functional value of the building be the primary concern?

Announcement

Janel and I are having a baby.  For more information, see my announcement on my blog.

Ecclesiastical Snobbery

 

Gentlemen, here is a great question asked by our dear brother Ben Hames: 

 

       In the context of a group, the presence of snobbery does several things.  Among these, perhaps its chief contribution is creating a terrible environment for those snubbed.  Wherever it takes place, snobbery’s “victims” are left with a sense of being other than, less than, dismissed.  Egregious and painful in any place, the sin is especially heinous when it rears its ugly face in the Church.  The “snubbed” are left with a sense not altogether different than that of the 1st Century Palestinian Leper yelling “unclean” as they passed.  In the Church, there can arise a culture wherein we categorize people unfavorably, look for ways to set ourselves above others, designate people by their mistakes.  Those committing certain sins or having certain failures in their past are made out to be less than (at least in thought and private conversation) when the work of the Church is to be embracing them.          

            Perhaps, it would be instructive for us to consider Paul at this juncture.  Reflecting upon this, I came to the conclusion that, to our great detriment, we have glossed over the reality that Paul (Saul, actually) was a man who sought out, persecuted and killed those who believed in the Christ.  Killed- as in, extinguished a young woman’s opportunity to mother her little boy one more day; a father to provide one more meal for his family.  Deeply considering his past, we begin to feel the weight of his sin- sins that could not be undone in his earthly life.  They could not be undone in the sense that physical life, once stolen, cannot be restored.  At bottom, we must see, in Paul, a man who, in all the bloody details, was a murderer. (perhaps “serial killer driven by a religious agenda” would speak more cogently to our C21 mindset) What then does it say to the Church that God’s design of her canon included Paul’s authorship of roughly half of the New Testament?  That he would be the ambassador of the Gospel to the Gentiles?  That he would become the missionary of his time and, almost certainly, of all times?    

            I think this must call the Church to embrace sinners, to know our God as a lover of sinners lest we ourselves would not know Him- the one who met us sinners with grace and love.  What does this say about who we should welcome?  Who we should embrace?  How we should view others where humanistic principle would dictate unfavorable comparison and prejudice?  God’s design of the canon must necessarily speak to His design for how we should do Christian community.  I mean to argue the following:  the construction and corresponding witness of scripture cry out for us to love and embrace sinners knowing the category every sinner fits in is our own category.  It should be the greatest desire of the Church that redemption play out, not in some esoteric realm, but in the lives of those doing life around us. 

            Yet, too often, an arrogance creeps in that there is no place for- better, that there are no grounds for.  We begin to exude a stuffiness or clique-like air that says everything except, “Welcome.” The Church needs a new vision- a vision of Jesus, the “friend of sinners” sitting to dine with tax collectors, women, the poor, the culturally compromised.  To hear the Christ saying, “He who is without sin cast the first stone.” In regards to those we have snubbed in err; we ought to begin thinking about helping them envision an open chair at our table.  With this picture of the open chair they should hear us saying, “You are welcome; we are all beggars at God’s table.”  Just maybe, with this, we would show that we have begun to understand grace.  Let us live graciously reflecting the glories of our gracious Lord.

 

Do you guys think our congregations are inviting?  Are we structured best to communicate grace?

 

Tuesday YouTube

Ok, you apologists…

1. Is this a valid argument?

2. Is this a good argument?

3. Should we even go there?

Drama

I’m not typically a fan of drama used in a worship service because it’s usually done poorly. And as I was watching this piece for a few minutes I thought, “this is dumb.” But at the end, it is an amazing reminder of how Christ steps into our life and rescuses us from our sin. One thing that struck me with this skit is the physicalness of it. I’d be interested to get everyone’s honest opinion about things like this…

kata Oprah

Little Baby Parker

I just wanted to let you men know that Ross and Katie will be traveling to the hospital tonight for Katie to be induced.  Pray for Katie and baby Leah’s safety and health.

Anyone brave enough to discuss this?

Critics question homemaking program

Posted on Aug 13, 2007 | by Art Toalston

Ummmm…..

Where is everyone?  I know you are all out there somewhere…I’ve talked to everyone within the last two weeks.  Have really discussed everything?  Is there nothing on anyone’s mind?  Just curious.

Tuesday YouTube (One day late)