I picked up a book, many years ago, now, titled, "Christ and Architecture: Building Presbyterian/Reformed Churches" that is really quite good.
It was published in 1965, so somewhat dated, now, but there are scores of pictures of what would still pass for modern churches, designed specifically for Reformed worship. Many really focus on word, sacrament and prayer with very simple designs featuring a pulpit (often raised, sometimes offset), usually a simple table, a font, sometimes prominent, and seating. I see it's still available on Amazon. Long out of print, so somewhat pricey, but it's a big book and quite thick.
I'd love to have the wherewithal to have even one of these designs realized for a modern US Reformed church. It seems like a good resource to think about this topic, at least.
Even Walter Benjamin, secularist member of the Frankfurt School of semi-Marxists, was aware of the duty of the architect, whose work was public. In his The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction (and elsewhere), he argued that many art forms are private (in the sense that one can choose not to go to a gallery or a movie), but architecture is always public, which places enormous responsibility on the architect. When we were in Paris several years ago, I was appalled at I. M. Pei’s monstrosity in front of the Louvre. While I appreciate much of Pei’s work, his crystal tent in front of the Louvre was/is an eyesore, that obscures the beauty of the original building (thanks also to Mitterrand, who commissioned it). Thanks once again for your thoughtful comments.
Thanks for the explanation. I guess part of it has to do with what a person has grown up with and is used to, and there is a certain amount of comfort in the familiar. I totally agree about the whole stage thing though. It turns the church into a place for spectator sport. I recently moved and only went to the local PCA church one time: A stage, a hipster pastor, the oversized tattooed young women swooning with their microphones.... I couldn't handle it. Presently attending a non Reformed church which is traditional and reverent. Not the best solution, but better than staying home a livestreaming my old church. 🙄
The term "sanctuary" strikes me in an entirely different way - as a place of sanctuary from the world outside the doors. A safe and special place where we are fed and can fellowship with like minded people.
One question... since the early church met in houses (or catacombs) rather than an official building, who ever decided what style building or placing of the pulpit, was of such importance? I can hear the Word preached just as well from a pulpit to the side as a central one. Is it strictly a symbolic act? If so, who decided what was "proper and acceptable" in the first place? This is a serious question, not some sort of jab, on my part. Thanks.
Leviticus 16:33 - He shall make atonement for the holy sanctuary, and he shall make atonement for the tent of meeting and for the altar, and he shall make atonement for the priests and for all the people of the assembly. -- in the OT, "sanctuary" is associated almost exclusively the temple or tabernacle sacrifices. Those are fulfilled in Christ. It's not a bad thing to call the worship hall, I simply question whether is the best thing to call it. We do not have holy places anymore. Same for pulpit placement -- central is often best, some other position is not wrong.
There are numerous things in the Old Testament from which we can, and should, still take our cues. Beauty and holiness are related. The description in the book of Exodus of GOD'S specifications for, and the immense beauty of, the tabernacle goes on for multiple chapters. (God specifically gave his spirit to two artisans to enable and supervise the work). Solomon's temple, and the second temple were also exceptionally beautiful, suitable for worship of Israel's God, the one true holy God.
No, we don't worship in a tabernacle any more, or in temples of the biblical sort. That doesn't mean that we modern Reformed folks shouldn't try our utmost to build beautiful worship spaces specifically in which to worship the holy God of the universe and our Savior who is the author of beauty.
I think we DO, or should, have "holy places" set aside for worship of our holy God, places that immediately elicit quiet, reverence and awe (as much as possible) when one enters them. "Sanctuary" is related to the Latin "sanctus," meaning holy -- which applies to God, first of all, and then the space in which we worship him. What does it mean to "worship God in the beauty [or splendor] of his holiness"? (Ps. 96). Can we do that adequately or properly in a "worship space" that is essentially an auditorium or a theater?
Evangelicals have for some decades now been building such all-purpose auditoriums/theaters for "worship." And many Reformed congregations have essentially copied them. Such buildings are in line with the evangelical attitude of God as our Buddy. That approach should have no place among Reformed Christians. Not all evangelicals adopted this, but a very large number have. And it shows in their behavior in "church": attendees (I call them that advisedly) have no problem coming into their church auditorium with their coffee, water bottle and/or morning snacks, and no problem chatting, out loud, with their neighbors once they're seated; or even walking around to visit with friends further afield in the auditorium: one could say they're waiting for the show to begin. (How is this substantially different than waiting for a movie to begin in an auditorium built specifically for movie viewing?
My own conservative Reformed congregation is about to decide (next week) whether to move ahead with constructing a new "sanctuary." The current one was originally built as an all-purpose space and converted to the worship space. It definitely has drawbacks (acoustically, among others) but it is NOT an "evangelical auditorium" or a terrible space for worship. The church has grown and now needs its all-purpose space, and thus the new sanctuary. But the proposed sanctuary leaves quite a bit to be desired, in my view: it strikes me as simply a gussied-up evangelical auditorium. My husband and I don't want to worship in that kind of place for the rest of our lives. (I'm also a primary organist and occasional choir director there.)
The proposed sanctuary is NOT beautiful. It doesn't elicit a quiet spirit, the feeling of entering and being in a holy space, of being there to worship our holy and magnificent God. In short, it doesn't come across as a sanctuary. (We already have problems -- in great part, I think, due to the nature of our current worship space -- with drinking and even eating, and chatting in church during the organ prelude, kids and even adults walking in and out during the service, etc., not wholly dissimilar to what goes on in many evangelical churches. It is not a distinctly Reformed space -- unlike the nearby recently constructed church in the same denomination. It uses immense amounts of white drywall, including on the "pulpit wall," which make it look like it could be a giant viewing screen. It uses almost no God-created materials (wood, stone, etc.), and -- this seems a Reformed requirement for some reason unknown to me: it is almost colorless. (What is the seeming "Reformed" obsession with avoiding color? God, after all, is the Creator of color, and riotous color at that!) From fellow congregation members I've talked with, most don't share, or have even thought of, my concerns, alas.
Admittedly, beauty -- creating a beautiful sanctuary -- costs money. (We are not a poor congregation by any means.) If our God isn't worth that kind of commitment maybe we need to rethink our commitments.
As a Lutheran (I know, not the intended audience) I prefer the split chancel. The altar in the middle reflects our sacramental theology and the high place we reserve for Christ’s body and blood. This emanates out to the lectern and pulpit from which the word is preached. The set up highlights that Word and Sacrament go together.
I'm actually surprised you resisted the temptation to title this post, "Dancing About Architecture."
I picked up a book, many years ago, now, titled, "Christ and Architecture: Building Presbyterian/Reformed Churches" that is really quite good.
It was published in 1965, so somewhat dated, now, but there are scores of pictures of what would still pass for modern churches, designed specifically for Reformed worship. Many really focus on word, sacrament and prayer with very simple designs featuring a pulpit (often raised, sometimes offset), usually a simple table, a font, sometimes prominent, and seating. I see it's still available on Amazon. Long out of print, so somewhat pricey, but it's a big book and quite thick.
https://www.amazon.com/Christ-Architecture-Building-Presbyterian-Reformed/dp/B0006AYKHI
I'd love to have the wherewithal to have even one of these designs realized for a modern US Reformed church. It seems like a good resource to think about this topic, at least.
Brad,
Even Walter Benjamin, secularist member of the Frankfurt School of semi-Marxists, was aware of the duty of the architect, whose work was public. In his The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction (and elsewhere), he argued that many art forms are private (in the sense that one can choose not to go to a gallery or a movie), but architecture is always public, which places enormous responsibility on the architect. When we were in Paris several years ago, I was appalled at I. M. Pei’s monstrosity in front of the Louvre. While I appreciate much of Pei’s work, his crystal tent in front of the Louvre was/is an eyesore, that obscures the beauty of the original building (thanks also to Mitterrand, who commissioned it). Thanks once again for your thoughtful comments.
T. David
Thanks for the explanation. I guess part of it has to do with what a person has grown up with and is used to, and there is a certain amount of comfort in the familiar. I totally agree about the whole stage thing though. It turns the church into a place for spectator sport. I recently moved and only went to the local PCA church one time: A stage, a hipster pastor, the oversized tattooed young women swooning with their microphones.... I couldn't handle it. Presently attending a non Reformed church which is traditional and reverent. Not the best solution, but better than staying home a livestreaming my old church. 🙄
The term "sanctuary" strikes me in an entirely different way - as a place of sanctuary from the world outside the doors. A safe and special place where we are fed and can fellowship with like minded people.
One question... since the early church met in houses (or catacombs) rather than an official building, who ever decided what style building or placing of the pulpit, was of such importance? I can hear the Word preached just as well from a pulpit to the side as a central one. Is it strictly a symbolic act? If so, who decided what was "proper and acceptable" in the first place? This is a serious question, not some sort of jab, on my part. Thanks.
Leviticus 16:33 - He shall make atonement for the holy sanctuary, and he shall make atonement for the tent of meeting and for the altar, and he shall make atonement for the priests and for all the people of the assembly. -- in the OT, "sanctuary" is associated almost exclusively the temple or tabernacle sacrifices. Those are fulfilled in Christ. It's not a bad thing to call the worship hall, I simply question whether is the best thing to call it. We do not have holy places anymore. Same for pulpit placement -- central is often best, some other position is not wrong.
There are numerous things in the Old Testament from which we can, and should, still take our cues. Beauty and holiness are related. The description in the book of Exodus of GOD'S specifications for, and the immense beauty of, the tabernacle goes on for multiple chapters. (God specifically gave his spirit to two artisans to enable and supervise the work). Solomon's temple, and the second temple were also exceptionally beautiful, suitable for worship of Israel's God, the one true holy God.
No, we don't worship in a tabernacle any more, or in temples of the biblical sort. That doesn't mean that we modern Reformed folks shouldn't try our utmost to build beautiful worship spaces specifically in which to worship the holy God of the universe and our Savior who is the author of beauty.
I think we DO, or should, have "holy places" set aside for worship of our holy God, places that immediately elicit quiet, reverence and awe (as much as possible) when one enters them. "Sanctuary" is related to the Latin "sanctus," meaning holy -- which applies to God, first of all, and then the space in which we worship him. What does it mean to "worship God in the beauty [or splendor] of his holiness"? (Ps. 96). Can we do that adequately or properly in a "worship space" that is essentially an auditorium or a theater?
Evangelicals have for some decades now been building such all-purpose auditoriums/theaters for "worship." And many Reformed congregations have essentially copied them. Such buildings are in line with the evangelical attitude of God as our Buddy. That approach should have no place among Reformed Christians. Not all evangelicals adopted this, but a very large number have. And it shows in their behavior in "church": attendees (I call them that advisedly) have no problem coming into their church auditorium with their coffee, water bottle and/or morning snacks, and no problem chatting, out loud, with their neighbors once they're seated; or even walking around to visit with friends further afield in the auditorium: one could say they're waiting for the show to begin. (How is this substantially different than waiting for a movie to begin in an auditorium built specifically for movie viewing?
My own conservative Reformed congregation is about to decide (next week) whether to move ahead with constructing a new "sanctuary." The current one was originally built as an all-purpose space and converted to the worship space. It definitely has drawbacks (acoustically, among others) but it is NOT an "evangelical auditorium" or a terrible space for worship. The church has grown and now needs its all-purpose space, and thus the new sanctuary. But the proposed sanctuary leaves quite a bit to be desired, in my view: it strikes me as simply a gussied-up evangelical auditorium. My husband and I don't want to worship in that kind of place for the rest of our lives. (I'm also a primary organist and occasional choir director there.)
The proposed sanctuary is NOT beautiful. It doesn't elicit a quiet spirit, the feeling of entering and being in a holy space, of being there to worship our holy and magnificent God. In short, it doesn't come across as a sanctuary. (We already have problems -- in great part, I think, due to the nature of our current worship space -- with drinking and even eating, and chatting in church during the organ prelude, kids and even adults walking in and out during the service, etc., not wholly dissimilar to what goes on in many evangelical churches. It is not a distinctly Reformed space -- unlike the nearby recently constructed church in the same denomination. It uses immense amounts of white drywall, including on the "pulpit wall," which make it look like it could be a giant viewing screen. It uses almost no God-created materials (wood, stone, etc.), and -- this seems a Reformed requirement for some reason unknown to me: it is almost colorless. (What is the seeming "Reformed" obsession with avoiding color? God, after all, is the Creator of color, and riotous color at that!) From fellow congregation members I've talked with, most don't share, or have even thought of, my concerns, alas.
Admittedly, beauty -- creating a beautiful sanctuary -- costs money. (We are not a poor congregation by any means.) If our God isn't worth that kind of commitment maybe we need to rethink our commitments.
As a Lutheran (I know, not the intended audience) I prefer the split chancel. The altar in the middle reflects our sacramental theology and the high place we reserve for Christ’s body and blood. This emanates out to the lectern and pulpit from which the word is preached. The set up highlights that Word and Sacrament go together.
Excellent article!