Most of my life I have gone to church in very simple places of worship. No art. No stained glass windows. No tapestries. No elaborate architecture. My fundamentalist pastors taught me that such things were unnecessary, unbiblical, wasteful, or worse – Catholic! But something always gave me pause. Even THEY seemed to be ok with some décor in the house of God. Nice pews (why not just sit on the floor?), steeples and brass communion dishes (are steeples really practical?) as well as modern amenities like carpet, indoor plumbing, and air-conditioning (why not do without and give the money to the poor?).
Years have past and I’m still an evangelical – but an evangelical that believes the church was around before 1517! Robert Webber, who is often criticized by colleagues for acting like the Reformation never happed often responds by saying that too many evangelicals act like the first 1500 years never happened. Today, my world is a littler bigger – and a lot older. I have a better understanding of some of the “whys” of my own tradition. (Which is the very reason I chose to study church history in grad school.) So why are many evangelical church buildings so naked? There are several reasons. I will give you the first in this blog.
First, many evangelicals view the Old Testament as the “editor’s preface” and the New Testament as the “real Bible.” (Scofield’s notes by contrast were often seen as more inspired!) They give “lip service” to the Biblical teaching that all of God’s word is inspired and “useful,” but they seldom preach all of it, and even less seldom do they attempt to apply all of it to life. (When 2 Timothy 3:16-17 was written to the church, the reference was to the OT.) This erroneous view of Scripture enables them to relegate the elaborate detail given to the places of worship (Tabernacle, Temple, Second Temple) as passé. These passages are even considered a boring nuisance. I am not arguing, of course, that we need to construct places of worship in 21st century Iowa using the specifications God gave to Moses for Israel in the 15th century B.C. What I am saying is that there are “principles” in the OT that should not be so easily dismissed. (Note I Corinthians 10 and the way Paul interprets OT narrative.) The places of worship in the OT were constructed for beauty and glory, and they were used for service to God. (They were not “plain” but neither were they museums.) They also took into consideration the surrounding cultures. (Tabernacles and Temples similar to those used in Israel were in use throughout the Ancient Near East as places of worship for pagan deities.)
The “principle” is that our places of worship should reflect the “beauty” and “glory” of the Lord and that they should also be functional for service to God in our own culture. Metz Cathedral would look out of place on the corner of Evans and Roosevelt! But in 16th century France it was beautiful, functional and in keeping with the surrounding culture. And a painted wood structure in rural Kenya, adorned with a cross, hand-sewn tapestries, and a few furnishings that might be considered luxury items for a rural peasant, can also capture these three elements. (Have you noticed how even in the most impoverished places in the globe, some care is bestowed on the place of worship?) Our churches should be beautiful for God’s glory, functional for service to him and our world, and reflections of the cultural context in which we have been providentially placed for Him. The care we show for our places of worship says something to the world about our devotion to God, as well as our love and commitment to serve our communities. Part two next.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
In Defense of Naked Churches
True, the church did not start in 1517. However, one of the most legitimate complaints of the reformers was that money was being wasted by the Catholic heirarchy on lavish church beautification projects; one of the uses to which the iniquitous indulgences was being put.
Secondly, we must be careful in our use of the OT example. We are given no mandate to rebuild the temple, which was the place in which God's spirit was literally resident. There is no physical temple today. Our hearts are the new temple and we should be profoundly concerned about their beautification. The church building is not the "house of God," the auditorium is not a "sanctuary". Therefore, we cannot equate the responsibility of the Israelites to provide for the house of God, with a responsibility of modern Christians to adorn a modern church building. Indeed, it is easy for a church building to be an idol. This is why the reformers were right to be iconaclastic and to strip the churches of their altars.
The appearance of the church is only important insofar as it is provides a conducive and decorous atmosphere for the worship of God.
Might I submit that the Metz cathedral, and other similar structures, while they are beautiful as museums today, communicated something very different to the citizens of 16th century France. They were a daily reminder, at a time when most people lived in smoky, mud hovels, of the power and wealth of a largely corrupt church and a church heirarchy completely out of touch of the people. A contextualized church of that day would have met in conditions that we would associate more with Kenya today. Throughout history we see that the church grows when it meets in homes (1st, 2nd centuries Rome or China today)and stops growing when it meets in ornate cathedrals (eg. Dark Ages).
Finally, though not every penny that is spent on church infrastructure should be subjected to the "could-this-money-be-better-spent-on-the-poor-or-evangelism?" critique, surely this critique should be considered on occasion.
I would rather meet in a naked building with passionate believers, than worship in Europe's cold and empty monuments to hubris.
Again, I submit that there is a problem in the use of the OT temple and the instructions for its construction and maintenance and attaching to them New Testament significance. I am no Marcianite, but clearly one important discontinuity between the old and the new is that the temple (and tabernacle) were literal, geographical residences of the glory of God. Post incarnation, there is no such place (unless you make the heart argument, which I will leave aside for the moment.) There is no holy place, or holy of holies, anywhere. The veil has been torn. All of the instructions about the temple have to be considered to be null and void, since there is no temple.
There is not a single instruction in the NT about church architecture, decor, etc. I agree that arguments from silence are difficult to sustain. However, if it were of any importance to God, would there not be at least one mention, one instruction on the matter in the NT?
Also, ornate church buildings actually contribute to bad theology. Why did peasants of the medieval period give sacrifically to build a cathedral, or why do modern day dupes contribute to the Crystal Cathedrals of TV charlatans? Because they are persuaded that these places somehow contain something of God's spirit, or that they are places from which prayers are heard, or that God will be pleased enough by their giving to reward them, or some other such idolatrous notion.
One of the most monstrous heresies of the Catholic church pre-reformation was convincing the average lay-person that the magnificant cathedrals and the people who administered them were holy, and represented special access to God.
Beautiful buildings are for attracting tourists, beautiful communities are for attracting disciples.
I do not wish to jump into the discord concerning the OT and the NT and it's application to the church building. I simply wonder why there is such fear of using the gifts of Art in our places of worship.
If I could I would choose to worship in Yosemite or the Alps, in a place of God's creation that sings of His Majesty because it reminds me of the beauty, wonder, grace and love of my God. God did not have to create the rising sun with such a glow. The flowering fields did not have to be so vibrant. I believe He did that as an expression of His love for me.
I don't believe bringing beauty to the church leads believers astray. Our hearts and our pride, as did those who lived 500 year ago, do that. Our desire to bring our gifts, whether they be music, art, dance to worship the Lord seems very much in line with gorifying God.
Before Christianity was legal, Believers gathered in well designed, remodeled private residences that were very specific in there purpose. In one example of an early Christian community house in the distant outpost of Dura-Europos, the was a main hall that would accomodate no more than seventy people, with a platform at one end where the leader likely sat or stood (in other house churches the leader had an ornate chair); there was another room with a baptismal font for initiating new converts; and a an upstairs room for celebrating the Eucharist.
Without Christianity legal at this point, it was generally the poorer classes that were attracted to its Promise. The believers gave their time painting murals and reconstructing the house to accommodate the congregation. The interior was hardly austere.
Jumping ahead to c. 320 is Old St. Peter's: unlike the pagan temples of the age, Old St. Peters appeared comparably plain -- on the outside. The interior had frescoes, mosiacs. It was open, with a many windows letting in light.
People gave of their time, perhaps inspired by dedication, to make the gathering places beautiful. They used their personal talents and gifts, especially in the early Church, to make their spaces personal and attractive.
If we are to take our cues from our ancestors, it is imperative to have our "space" well thought out and designed, giving of what has been given to us. Just to be clear: by design I am not suggesting that we hire the most expensive interior decorator and architect to help us orchestrate our church buildings, but rather use what we already have in terms of gifts and resources, not things borrowed or stolen.
Artwork and decor is personal, and in the context of the Church community it is specific to the time and talents of its members. Much to the chagrin of art snobs everywhere, art can be a crayon scribble on construction paper or a relief carved out of marble.
bw:
In response to your comments: what would you suggest the role be for an artist in the body?
your comment: "Beautiful buildings are for attracting tourists, beautiful communities are for attracting disciples" leaves no room for people gifted with artisic talent and passion to use such gifts in the context of community (unless of course its creating ornate VBS backdrops or clever popsicle stick crafts for children). such a utilitarian approach stomps on the feet of those of us who have been uniquely gifted, and sends the message that art is not a gift from God.
Post a Comment