IS THERE A CHRISTIAN ARCHITECTURE?
Prof. Duncan Stroik, from the University of Notre Dame School of Architecture, interviews Daniel Lee, an architect in Old Town Alexandria, Virginia:
DANIEL, WHAT IS YOUR VIEW OF THE STATE OF CHRISTIAN ARCHITECTURE TODAY?
What I sense and see in my own involvement in the religious community, and as I read, is that most Christians cannot begin a conversation on architecture. Several years ago I met a highly regarded Christian poet, who in response to a similar question I posed, answered, “I really don’t know, architecture is such an esoteric art form”. Her comments surprised me but illustrate well the current state. The architecture which churches are building today is as confused as the tastes, and faith, of building committee members. Building committees, or other deciding powers, want inexpensive construction that solves basic functional needs. As they select their architect, they are often most concerned with how many churches he has designed, or whether he is well known. It would be nice if he is a believer but they are looking, first, for a safe choice. They feel inadequate to assess philosophical or artistic aspects inherent in their task and simply hope for the best. The results we are seeing are disappointing, and the Church is missing important opportunities to create significant new architecture.
DURING TWO THOUSAND YEARS OF CHRISTIANITY OUR MOST IMPORTANT BUILDINGS WERE HOUSES OF WORSHIP. HOWEVER AFTER THE SECOND WORLD WAR THE CHURCH NO LONGER SEEMS ABLE TO BUILD CHURCHES THAT ARE BEAUTIFUL, COMMODIOUS AND DURABLE.
After the war, new architectural ideas found receptive ground in western culture. Contemporary beliefs that we were approaching a point in history where we could, by the use of reason, science and technology, construct a new world, gave rise to an architectural style known as Modernism. It was utopian in its intent, and its minimalist abstract aesthetics expressed a “scientific” functionalism, glorifying technology’s promise of a mass produced and consumed wealth. Lead proponents included the German architects Walter Gropius and Mies Van DeRohe, the French architect Le Corbusier, and others like Phillip Johnson here in the US. The reductionist nature of their architecture was shocking, new and appealed especially to the avant-garde. Corporate America adopted the architecture almost immediately, and following the war, used it as a symbol of their progressive visions for a new age of corporatism. Whole new cities sprung up in this new “International Style”, the best example being Brasilia, in the jungles of Brazil. But this architecture had liabilities. Its leaders, who had been trained as classicists, were able to develop striking signature buildings, but their followers were less adept and it spread like a cancer. Much of the initial power of this new architecture grew from its dramatic contrast to the existing older city fabrics around it. But as that surrounding fabric was replaced with a similar architecture, its power to hold interest quickly began to fail.
By the 60s and 70s, the oppression of the Marxist states, defeat in Vietnam, and social unrest in the US began to undercut the Modernist ideology. We began to find ourselves in the Postmodern period with many competing ideologies and the collapse of cultural consensus. Architecture turned to Postmodern ironic eclecticism in the 80s, and today, “cutting edge” architects have become consumed with the entirely subjective chaos architecture of Deconstruction. And so, in a fifty years span, we have witnessed the actual death of consensus, and therefore meaning in our culture.
But, it is important to remember that before the Modern period, works of art were often loaded with meaning as we expressed our understanding of the relationship between transcendant Truth and daily life, and this is the mindset Christians must reclaim. Most of the popular art and architecture we see produced in the market today is simply feeding market demand at the lowest, cheapest level. While some serious art and architecture is still being produced, churches and works commissioned by Christians are rarely the buildings receiving such attention or resources.
WE HEAR CONCERN IN THE CHURCH OVER THE INFLUENCE OF MASS MEDIA TODAY, BUT VERY LITTLE CONCERN ABOUT THE IMPACT OF THE ARTS OF PAINTING, SCULPTURE, AND ARCHITECTURE. WHAT IS THE ROLE OF CHURCH ARCHITECTURE IN CHRISTIANITY?
Church architecture serves to frame and enhance our worship, in a way that honors the One we worship. Churches are buildings shaped, crafted and set aside for the very special purpose of our corporate communion with our covenant God. But as works of art, they also speak to the larger culture around them. This is because architecture symbolizes, within the fabric of a community, the social hierarchy and aspiration or actual position of the institution housed within it. It reveals, through artistic means, the relationship between larger transcendent constants and the immanent issues we confront in daily life. And, it provides a meaningful setting for our daily social and spiritual interactions.
In the past, churches were often the most prominent architectural edifices of a community, and Christians gladly served as patrons of church architecture, because it proclaimed their faith and affirmed their worldview. But today things have changed.
SO, IN CONSTRUCTING CHURCHES TODAY, WHICH ARE OFTEN FAIRLY BANAL OR FUNCTIONAL AT BEST, WHAT ARE WE SAYING ABOUT THE CHURCH’S PARTICIPATION IN THE PUBLIC SQUARE?
We are no longer heard in the public square. Christians cannot be distinguished from the rest of culture by our divorce or abortion rates. Most of us do not live like people of faith. The shopping mall is the cathedral of contemporary culture. It is the focus of what little social life many of us share with others. Materialism has its own liturgies and sacraments. It confirms you as a person when you acquire the power to purchase and it has its holy days. It blesses you and affirms you when you present your plastic to the sales clerk. The business elite are the stars of this faith, doted on by the press in the evening news. Some become high priests by underwriting art and expensive “avant-garde” art museums, such as Frank Gehry’s recent Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao, Spain. Make no mistake; this is the architecture of mammon. We must proclaim the gospel in the public square and show the world how it transforms life, including culture and architecture.
ONE AGE OLD CONCERN IS HOW CAN WE SPEND ALL THIS MONEY ON A CHURCH BUILDING WHEN THERE ARE SO MANY POOR AND SO MANY WHO HAVE NOT YET HEARD THE GOSPEL.
Events surrounding the death of Diana, Princess of Wales illustrate my thoughts on this. To express their grief over her passing, the public spent over 40 million dollars on flowers alone. She was a living symbol of important virtues to many people around the world. Could you ever justify on practical grounds alone such an expense? Of course not. But, this was a spontaneous expression of affection and sorrow, from peoples’ hearts toward one whom they loved. Should not our expressions of love for our Savior be of a much greater kind? Judas Iscariot complained when Mary bathed Christ’s feet, just before His death, in a perfume valued at a year’s wages. As we know, Jesus rebuked Judas for his greed and false economy. We have been commanded to care for the poor and to share the gospel. We have also been commanded to love and honor God with all of our being. Here in the west, we have more than enough resources to do all three.
WHAT ABOUT THE ARGUMENT THAT THE CHURCH ARCHITECTURE OF THE LATE 20TH AND EARLY 21ST CENTURY, IN ITS SIMPLICITY, IN ITS FORM FOLLOWING FUNCTION, IN ITS EMPHASIS ON A BUILDING AS AN AUDITORIUM FOR HEARING THE WORD OF GOD, IS MORE BIBLICAL THAN PREVIOUS CHURCH ARCHITECTURE?
The argument is Gnostic, not biblical. The God we see in the Bible delights in the physical, and the diversity and beauty of His creation. The temple in Jerusalem was one of the finest works of art in its day. It combined figurative sculpture, exquisite materials and beautiful proportions, all created by His explicit design. Public worship included musical instruments of all kinds and a trained choir with thousands of voices. To eradicate all traces of artistry and references to the created world from worship is as sinful as idolatrous use of art in worship. Christ came to redeem both men and creation.
To be made in the image of God means to be creative and artistic. Our places of worship should be beautiful works of architecture. It is possible to worship God in a gymnasium or lecture hall, because if people are truly seeking Him, God will meet them there. But to worship in such architecture is to suggest that our purpose is either recreational or cerebral. We should build spaces crafted specially for a human-divine encounter with God. Our churches should help us focus our spirits on God in worship. Let our worship be a spiritual love feast, and may our banquet hall be appropriate to a King.
WHAT SORT OF ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS CAN HELP ONE EXPRESS WORSHIP IN A BUILDING? CAN YOU TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT HOW AS AN ARCHITECT ONE CAN EXPRESS THE SPIRITUAL REALITY USING MATERIAL THINGS?
Worship is the work of acknowledging the awesome greatness of our God and is not passive. An architect tries to celebrate this greatness through a strategic integration of Christian symbols, works of art and fine materials. He orders these components using the design elements of axis, symmetry, geometry, space, color, texture, proportion, scale, light, pattern, line, point and counterpoint. His objective is to convey a sense of the majesty, glory, and presence of God.
SO, FOR THE ARCHITECT TO DESIGN A BUILDING SHOULD BE AN ACT OF WORSHIP IN THE SAME WAY THAT SINGING A HYMN OR READING A PSALM SHOULD BE ACTS OF WORSHIP.
When an architect designs, it should be for the glory of God and an act of worship before Him. The work should be a “pleasing and fragrant offering”, and reflect His character and ways even in detail. Both in worship and in life, whether changing diapers, waiting tables, paying our taxes or designing great works of architecture, we want to give our best to God.
WHAT SHOULD BE THE ROLE OF THE ARTS AND SYMBOLISM WITHIN OR ON OUR CHURCH BUILDINGS?
They should help us understand life, as it really is, our sin and the gospel. In the book of Numbers we read how God’s people, when leaving Egypt, grew tired of manna the bread from heaven, and became bitter against God. So, God sent serpents among the people to strike them and many died. Then the people came to Moses, confessed their sins and asked him to pray that God would remove the deadly serpents. God responded to Moses’ prayer by instructing Moses to cast a serpent in bronze and raise it high above the people on a staff. Moses obeyed, and when the people looked upon this work of figurative art, they were healed. It is important to understand that the bronze serpent did not heal them. The bronze serpent served as a potent symbol of their grave sin and God’s powerful work of redemption. Later, Jesus noted that it also represented His day, when He would be raised up on the cross to redeem His people from their sin for all time.
This was a correct use of a work of art in the life of God’s people. It represented both the law and the gospel and was evangelistic in a most powerful sense. But, generations later the Israelites began worshipping the bronze serpent, offering incense before it, leading King Hezekiah to destroy it. Such use and misuse demonstrates both how valuable as well as how dangerous works of art can be in the life of the church. Protestant reformers reacted to idolatrous use of art in the church in their day. I believe we should see the law and the gospel conveyed through works of art in the church, and on our church buildings. We should have murals depicting the history of God’s people through the ages; we should have stained glass honoring the heroes of the faith; we should make use of symbols provided they are understood. But if they are worshipped, they should be removed. And our teachers and elders bear great responsibility in helping us keep this balance.
MANY CHRISTIANS WHILE DISPARAGING HAVING ANY IMAGERY IN THEIR CHURCHES YET FILL THEIR SUNDAY SCHOOL ROOMS WITH CHRISTIAN POSTERS.
It doesn’t fit does it? I think most Christians believe these illustrations and videos in Sunday School are temporary and harmless. Maybe, since Sunday School classrooms are not spaces dedicated to worship, they feel there is less risk of abuse. Most of this art is not great art, and doesn’t really engage anyone in a profound way. I suspect this art cultivates in our children a taste for the mediocre.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT HAS BEEN WRITTEN ABOUT A BIT IS HOW MANY PEOPLE COMING INTO THE LITURGICAL CHURCHES ARE DRAWN THERE IN PART BECAUSE OF THE PAINTING, SCULPTURE AND THE ARCHITECTURE. YET ON THE OTHER HAND THE SEEKER CHURCH MOVEMENT CONSCIOUSLY DESIGNS THEIR BUILDINGS TO LOOK LIKE A SHOPPING MALL SO THAT PEOPLE FEEL COMFORTABLE AND IT BECOMES JUST ANOTHER PLACE TO GO TO ON THE WEEKEND.
From what I understand of seeker churches, they rely heavily on demographic studies and careful targeting of their message. They develop a profile of the kind of person they are surrounded by and tailor their ministry techniques accordingly. Worship services become primarily evangelistic in form. People who are attracted to a seeker church have often naively assumed that the traditional, historic church really has no relevance to their lives. When they go to these churches, what they see are forms of communication and imagery they are already comfortable with, and a freedom to consume, come, and go, like in a shopping mall. Others though, are hungry for substance. They may not necessarily know what form it takes, but they’re looking for God and where they find Him is in old, half lit traditional sanctuaries, with worship grounded in a mature tradition.
WHAT IS IT ABOUT THE CLASSICAL TRADITION OF ARCHITECTURE THAT YOU FIND SO COMPELLING?
Its humanness is what attracts me. I draw from the classical tradition. What intrigues me, is how responsive people are to it when living in its midst. This architecture, which has enjoyed countless revivals in popularity throughout history, has qualities of rest, peacefulness, order, balance, harmony of parts, and a sense of permanence that is very satisfying. Many have observed that its systems of proportions, general principles of organization, placement of parts and its ornamental moldings convey the impression that the architecture senses and responds to the forces of nature much as we do. The swell of the shaft of a column near its base, called “entasis”, expresses almost poetically our own experience with gravity. The diameter of the column in proportion to its height seems similar to our own proportions and sense of how large a column should be to carry its load. Classical buildings have a clear point of entry. Their doors are of a pleasing scale and proportion, ornamented in keeping with their role in a hierarchy and sequence of rooms. Internal spaces seem to respond to our needs with dignified proportions, ornamentation and finishes. Rooms flow one to the other in a natural progression. Windows are usually upright in orientation and of a size that permits natural light to meet most lighting needs throughout the day.
Classical architecture had its genesis in the Mediterranean basin and its moldings and details have been articulated to respond to the changing nature and moods of light. Light’s subtle shadow across the face of a column is similar to its play on our own flesh. These buildings are noble and they speak to us intuitively, at a deep level.
Paul spoke of the beauty of holiness. I want to capture something of holiness in my work. I seek to design buildings which in their beauty reveal something of the spectacular beauty of God. My goal is to create architecture which connects to generations past, across centuries of time.
Christ Church Spitalfields, London
WHAT CHURCH BUILDINGS WOULD YOU LOOK AT OR WOULD YOU RECOMMEND OTHERS LOOK AT AS GOOD EXAMPLES FOR NEW CHURCH BUILDING?
When architects design a church, they are trying to solve client-specific, practical, site related and aesthetic problems in an integrated way. I look for church buildings that breathe the glory of God through their beauty in the midst of these other concerns. One I love is Christ Church, Spitalfields, a Georgian church on the east side of London by the architect Nicholas Hawksmoor. It breaks many rules of composition, with one Palladian serliana superimposed directly above another on the face of its bell tower. The mysterious presence Hawksmoor evokes in this composition overwhelms me every time I see it. I also find the London churches of Wren to be wonderful. When he rebuilt the churches of London after the great fire, Wren devised the now familiar central space with surrounding galleries, ideal for Protestant preaching in worship. St. Martin-in-the-Fields, by James Gibbs, incorporates these modifications and, for the first time, includes a tower springing directly from the roof. This church was frequently emulated in designs for new places of worship in the United States, an example being St. Michael’s in Charleston, South Carolina. King’s Chapel, Boston has a magnificent interior with beautiful paired Corinthian columns supporting the galleries and roof. First Church of Christ in Lancaster, Massachusetts, and Christ Church, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, are also well worthy of study.
CAN YOU SHARE ANY EXPERIENCES YOU HAVE HAD WITH CHURCHES THAT WERE PARTICULARLY MOVING FOR YOU, AS AN ARCHITECT?
I traveled to St. Petersburg, Russia, in December, 1991, my expenses underwritten by members of my church, as part of an international Christian artists effort to encourage persecuted Christian artists in that city. That winter, the city was going to reclaim its legitimate name, shedding the hated “Leningrad”. Political unrest was a serious possibility, the ruble was suffering a raging inflation and there were bread lines all along Nevsky Prospect. We installed and opened a massive art show of recent western works of faith. We sponsored a week of concerts and plays bringing in musicians and actors from around the world, and visited the homes of many artists of the city. After a week, we had a free afternoon and a friend and I decided to visit old Nevsky Monastery, where the city’s greatest artists, writers and musicians were buried.
The monastery and graves were in terrible disrepair. After viewing the graves, we decided to explore the rest of the grounds. It was winter, extremely cold and snowing. With a few other visitors, we stumbled upon the monastery’s small chapel, freestanding in a large interior courtyard. The courtyard was populated by destitute old women, sitting or standing in the falling snow, dressed in rags and begging visitors for money, food, or anything else.
No one seemed to enter the chapel, so my friend and I mustered our courage, stepped under its small portico, and squeezed through thick heavy doors. The cries of the women ceased as the doors closed, and we quickly lowered our voices to a whisper for there, in front of us, lit by hundreds of shimmering votive candles, were magnificent images of the saints and stories from the scriptures. We stood still for a long time overwhelmed by the beauty of this humble place. It seemed such a stark contrast to the anxiety and despair we had met at every turn in the city. The acoustics in the room were so crisp that no one could move an inch without shattering the silence. As I was taking in the power of this place of worship, I slowly turned to my left and my eyes fixed on the bold profile of a column base and pedestal, contrasted against a wall beyond. As my eyes focused more closely on the torus of the column base, I caught the soft glow of gold. It was fresh gold leaf. In the midst of that winter’s stark poverty, inevitable political unrest, and sub-zero freezing temperatures, the monastery monks had Hope. And, they were slowly, faithfully, sacrificially restoring the gold leaf finish on their column bases. And with the believers of Russia, I wept.
Note: This interview was first published in Regeneration Quarterly Magazine.
***