New Life Church Worship Center, Colorado Springs, Colorado. Photo: myamericanodyssey.com
When speaking at the conference where I talked about suburban sacred space, I ran into architect Duncan Stroik, a professor of architecture of Notre Dame and someone you turn to when you want to build a church that looks like a church. His book on the subject of church architecture is “The Church Building as a Sacred Place: Beauty, Transcendence, and the Eternal,” which you can learn more about in the review of it in City Journal.
Stroik is also the editor of a semi-annual magazine called Sacred Architecture. Unsurprisingly, its emphasis is on Roman Catholic architecture, but other traditions are included as well. After an invigorating discussion on the topic, I agreed to write an article about the Protestant church architecture question, which is now online in the most recent issue. Called “Erasing Distinctions,” it looks at eight theological trends in contemporary Evangelical Protestantism that tend towards placing a low value on architecture. Here is an excerpt:
1. Low view of the church and place. The Roman Catholic tradition emphasizes the big-C Church–the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church of the creeds–with the local church as a mostly standardized operating subsidiary. By contrast, most Protestants emphasize the small-c church, their local congregation. This is truer than ever, as demonstrated by the rise of non-denominational churches.
This produces a system with no theology of place. Protestants feel a sense of duty to the place and community where they personally live. But if the majority of church members move, say, from the city to the suburbs, then a new church building can be constructed, the old building sold, and the duty transferred to the new place where the members now reside. The original building only served a pragmatic purpose as meetinghouse for the members.
The Roman Catholic Church views its remit as covering the entire globe. So when there is population change in a locale, the church is not relieved of responsibility for it. The church building is an outpost of Christianity in a particular place (the parish concept), not just to a group of people. In short, Protestants see place as ephemeral, while Roman Catholics see it as permanent.
You can click through to read the whole thing.
Impressive article. I completely agree that the theological differences between Protestants and Catholics are at play here, dating back to the reformation. And you’ve really nailed all of them. Especially in recent years, evangelical churches have actively sought to disassociate from sacred architecture for missional purposes, on the premise that seekers may be turned off by traditional church symbols. Even the practice of displaying a cross above the building is often intentionally forgone.
However, I would add that there are many practical realities of contemporary church growth that also lead to design decisions. Churches tend to fluctuate in size much more rapidly than they used to. Most new evangelical churches rent for a number of years, and some choose to do so indefinitely, especially in urban centers, where property values are prohibitively high. When a church chooses to buy property and build, they often have a 10-20 year time frame in mind to meet projected needs. This makes it hard to justify a large investment in a building, and it favors designs that can be flexible.
I used to attend an evangelical church plant in Boston. We were growing quickly and renting a conference room in a hotel (still renting now, as it turns out). Just down the road were venerable old Protestant churches with truly beautiful architecture – and, frankly, congregations that had dwindled down to almost nothing. I remember being struck by the incongruity of the situation.
I was going to jump your poop because I went to cool old churches as a Presbo kid but then I realized you were in a different, later time frame.
So I went to look at the shiny new suburban church my old congregation built in the 70s and, whoops. They have built a newer church even farther from the center of town…
The 2nd church they built looked like some kind of restaurant chain. The new one is
interesting.
The first one is still a church – some weird new agey group.
But I’m still not sold on the fundamental differences you speak of and, in Cincinnati, Catholic churches & schools are being abandoned, too.
I know the land is relatively cheap, but look at the size of the parking lot. Old churches, money goes into the building, with new ones money goes into the land acquisition.
In this way, churches reflect the throw away nature of almost everything in a sprawl suburb.
There seem to be a large number of pretty amazing modern synagogues of all types. (At least they look interesting from the outside)
Is there some particular reason why the quality is often high or does traditional form meld better with modernism?
Obviously, observant Jews tend to walk to temple- keeping the older footprint. The model of people living near a religious site may effect design.
John Morris, yeah, and since the people who moved away have to drive to their old churches with little parking, they just don’t bother till, maybe Christmas.
The lone temple in my hometown was on the edge of town with no sidewalks. It was a simple orange brick box 60’s?
today your typical new Protestant church building, say a suburban mega-church, is dreadful. Why is that?
This is a totally pragmatic answer, unrelated to the theological arguments:
A big part of the ugliness of the suburban mega-church is the necessary road setback to accommodate its “big box” design and its sea of parking.
—
IMO the author did not make enough of a distinction between the “liturgical Protestant” denominations (which are some of the “mainline” denominations but not all) and the non-denominational/independent mega-church brands.
The practices of the Lutheran, Episcopal, and many Presbyterian churches are relatively indistinguishable from American Catholic liturgy; the services are virtually identical if they are not “modern”, “jazz”, or “contemporary”, and in my experience this has been so since the 1970s.
Granted, I have listed the shrinking segment of Christianity in America…but there are some pretty transcendent churches of those denominations, though most are from the first half of the 20th Century and not from the modern era.
First and Second Presbyterian; St. Paul’s, Trinity, and Christ Church Cathedral (Episcopal); and Bethlehem Lutheran in Indianapolis all come to mind. They are of various sizes and of different Reformed Christian denominations. And of course there is DC’s National Cathedral, an Episcopal church, which was just completed in the second half of the 20th Century. I suppose these might be exceptions that prove the author’s point?
@Chris Barnett
Yes, that describes most of Shadyside’s great churches in Pittsburgh.
https://www.google.com/search?q=shadyside+churches&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=SgXtU6-zI4GNyASPxIGQDA&sqi=2&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAg&biw=1600&bih=799
I appreciate Aaron periodically tackling the topic of religion in the context of urbanism, despite its potential to offend. I also enjoyed his piece.
I might add a few points to the discussion:
1. @Chris is right about the important distinction between “Liturgical Protestant” (Episcopal/Anglican, Lutheran, sometimes Methodist), which often appear similar to Catholic in practice and architecture, and what I would call “Reformed Protestant” (Baptist, most independent churches), which usually have simpler church structures. I think most of Aaron’s comments are meant to apply to “Reformed Protestant”.
2. One unmentioned reason for the often auditorium-like feel to Reformed churches is that these churches are deeply suspicious of religious art and iconography, which they regard as a temptation to idolatry and superstition. Contrast this with Catholic churches, which often feel like a neighborhood religious art museum. Once a church is denuded of religious art, it will tend to feel somewhat like any other public assembly spot.
3. Aaron also focuses primarily on the sanctuary (place of worship), which is generally only one part of a church complex. Many churches, especially medium/large-ish ones in US suburbs, are the locus of numerous activities throughout the week: the frequently support schools and day care centers, run athletic leagues, host a Scout Troop and a Youth group, sponsor ESL classes for immigrants, etc.. The sanctuary is simply the biggest room where the congregation meets for worship on Sunday. In fact, an uncluttered sanctuary is easier to use during the rest of the week for such purposes as, say, showing a film to a large group, or for a day school parents’ meeting.
None of above contradicts Aaron’s points; rather, they give more context as to why so many successful US churches have such “non-sacred” looking architecture.
Derek, thanks. The liturgically oriented Protestants do tend to have more traditional churches, but I wonder how much of that is due to the fact that they are fast shrinking groups who aren’t building a lot of new facilities?
I agree with you on the complexes. I sometimes can’t tell if a group of buildings is a church or a high school at first glance. Of course sometime’s it’s both. Willow Creek’s campus reminds me of an upscale conference center.
LDS wards are generally pretty nondescript as well. (The temples, OTOH, are often beautiful to behold).
At least that seems to be the case around here…
I can’t believe I left out a couple of what I consider great modern churches. Eero Saarinen’s North Christian in Columbus, Indiana manages to be modern, fairly spare, and yet deeply sacred space all at once. Similarly, Harry Weese’s First Baptist in Columbus is pretty awe-inspiring and very traditionally shaped. There is also a Lutheran church (I think by Gunnar Birkerts) that I was in once but have only dim recollection of.
But then, I like Columbus and its modern architecture.
But, modern churches in Columbus, Indiana are small scale and integrated into a mostly walkable community. This probably helped to create designs sensitive to their setting.
People live near and around them and deeply care about how they look, feel affect property values.
The massive suburban or exurban church usually doesn’t have a lot of neighbors. They are just another thing to drive to or drive past.
Now that I think about it- single use zoning probably increases people’s tolerance level for low quality design.
Here is a modernist NYC gem,
The Baruchim Ha Ba’im Synagogue in Tribeca.
http://ontherealny.com/the-civic-center-synagogue/
It disrupts but at the same time plays off neighboring historic buildings.
NYC has a lot more modernist masterpieces of all types than one would expect. Adopting to the street grid and street face seems to force creative solutions.
A big factor is that these buildings have neighbors and people who care how they fit in.
Who really cares about what goes up in a commercially zoned district along an exurban stroad?
I think today’s churches are a reflection of the community’s tastes. If you’re happy living in a McMansion and shopping at big box stores, why are you all of sudden going to demand your church be a work of great architecture? I’d argue that if the new churches had classical features, it’d feel “old” and “out of date” to the congregation, too reminiscent of the urban cities they typically dislike. On the other hand, if the design was overly modernist and abstract, the congregation wouldn’t “get it” and would view the church as an ugly waste of money.
The typical McMansion is usually a mishmash of historical styles & many suburbs are loaded with pseudo, “Ceasars Palace” style facades that don’t stand up to careful observation, designed to be seen from cars, not slowly moving pedestrians.
The older buildings were not just made to please congregants but display pride and care to the surrounding community.
Columbus, Indiana shows modernist designs can often fit in the same way.
Seems like George & John are on point. In a throwaway society that is more or less place-less and culture-less, why would religion be treated differently than anything else. Many communities used to build grand government and school buildings as well which some (including myself) treat as sacred, but when you’re only building something in suburbia to last 30 years why put in the effort?
By the time these buildings are paid off many of those same burbs would likely be in decline with residents and development moving onto greener pastures, literally.
Architecture and design are merely a reflection of our own culture. Contrast those protestant mega-churches with this Greek Orthodox church which was fairly recently built and expanded in a central and desirable location in Columbus:
http://photosbygarth.com/summer2005photoTour/19841.jpg
http://www.columbusgreekfestival.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/annunciation_greek_orthodox_NEW.jpg
Clearly the Greek church is meant to be a repository and display of Greek culture in a way no non-denominational church ever will be. I can also think of a number of examples of civic buildings that would also be great examples of what can be done but rarely is.
Yes, Josh, I agree. That’s my point #6 about cultural adaptation to consumerism, pragmatism, and industrialization.
My mom’s church in suburban Detroit looks like a repurposed Walmart and has a gift shop and a Starbucks-style coffee shop. And you know what? She think it’s the greatest thing since communion wafers. She was thrilled to find a church that fits her values, and left the ol’ RCC in the dust faster than Benedict XVI.
And, as Aaron noted is common today, she also loves the church’s high production values. Electric guitars. Jumbo screens. Theatrical productions made to resemble daytime television. This, to her, makes sense as a modern way to celebrate the sacredness of life.
Me? I wouldn’t touch that “church” with a ten foot pole.
I find this thread interesting, in large part because it appears that >75% of the responses could be described as “non-Christians criticizing church architecture of vibrant churches” (I apologize if I have misjudged in this). As I think many on this thread don’t have a lot of personal experience belonging to such a church, allow me to add some more commentary, and I apologize if I become tiresome.
Most urbanists celebrate such things as local, non-chain businesses and coffee shops in cities. They value environments that can fill the role of “third place” (ie- neither home nor work). Urbanists also tend to exalt neighborhoods of character, which reflect the values of those that live there.
Guess what? This is exactly the role many of these churches provide. Think of an independent bible church as a non-chain, locally grown community organization. In addition to weekly worship services (which is only 1 hr/week for most church members), the church houses numerous community activities (such as Boy and Girl Scouts, AA mtgs, Senior groups, Day Care, ESL classes) which bring together people of different ages, interests and purposes throughout the week, who are united by at least some shared values. Adding a coffee shop (which was mocked in an earlier comment) makes perfect sense – a comfortable place for people to meet, relax, socialize and/or just wait for the kids (and the coffee is probably much cheaper than Starbucks).
Isn’t this part of what urbanists claim is missing from suburbs? I would suggest these churches are an important part of “community glue” and fill a role that is neglected by outside observers because it is not generally in a downtown setting. These churches notably provide lots of services that makes child-raising easier on parents (day care, youth groups, etc.) – a weak spot in many urban areas.
Non-Christians might wish a church had more interesting architecture for a visitor to see; church members (who, after all, are paying for it) are more likely to want practical, flexible space that can host a Scout meeting one evening, a day care classroom the next day, and an AA meeting the evening thereafter. The music is modern and has high production values because it is performed by members (most of them for free or a modest stipend) who play the styles of music they like and want it to sound good – people haven’t stopped writing religious music and plenty of it gets written in current styles (Rock, Country, and, yes, even Hip-Hop).
A Reformed Christian might ask why a real Christian needs a expensive, dedicated sanctuary to feel connected to their faith? Shouldn’t believers rather find and express that connection all week long, in many different activities? That can be done even in a church that looks like a Wal-Mart.
That is also part of why so many of these churches are full of life, whereas so many traditional-looking churches have struggled with modernity.
(I apologize if that was too long)
BTW – I should add that I am not actually a member of an independent bible church, merely that I think I have more insight into them than most of this thread. If others have observations to share, please do so.
Nice insights, Derek. I speak as a confirmed Roman Catholic that attended a suburban church for many years. Granted, I don’t practice anymore, but I do think I have a legitimate perspective on modern churches.
In my opinion – and again, I stress that this is an opinion – church, by and large, no longer functions as a space for religious instruction and deep meditation. The modern church is, first and foremost, a feel-good gathering place. You go there, sip a latte with others from your community, and get told how everything is OK and that you’re on the right path.
“Your SUV is good! Your consumerist lifestyle is good! Just donate and maybe volunteer once in blue moon, and say all the right stuff when it’s convenient, and you’re on your way to heaven!”
The religious element is just there to add an extra degree of certainty to the message. The feeling that the moral instruction you’re receiving is backed by thousands of years of wisdom acts as a reassurance. “We know what we’re talking about. Why, it’s right here in John 3:16!”
Of course, I’m sure Aaron doesn’t want a philosophical debate on religion in his comments section. So I’ll let this post be the last I write on the subject.
OK, I lied. I do want to add one last bit.
I attended an American Buddhist temple for awhile, and ran into the same problems. It’s an issue that transcends any one religion.
An aside: I object somewhat to the appropriation of the term “Reformed” in this thread and its application to independent evangelical Christian congregations.
In the context of Christian churches, the term is properly applied to the organized denominations of the Reformed Tradition…the descendants of Luther and Calvin (and the Anglicans), which includes most Episcopalian, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Reformed, and United Church of Christ congregations. “High Church” Protestants, if you will.
The term “independent” or “evangelical” or “non-denominational” is more properly applied to the type of church outlined by Derek above.
Of course, only someone steeped in German Lutheran tradition would raise this point, I suppose.
And this same person might argue for the transcendent quality of a refined worship space, where worship includes Bach hymns played on a pipe organ and a robed choir reinforcing the congregation’s singing…a third place really set apart from “everyday modern life”. A completely different hour.
Still with Boy Scouts, AA, bible-study, young-family groups, and child care in the building during the week. And, of course, pitch-in Sunday dinners in the basement complete with jello molds and green bean casserole and gallons of hot coffee. (Sorry, channeling my inner Garrison Keillor, who completely nails small-town Lutheran church life in “Prairie Home Companion”.)
@George, I suspect we could have an interesting discussion on modern American religious culture, but this isn’t the place for it.
@Derek, “Most urbanists celebrate such things as local, non-chain businesses and coffee shops in cities. They value environments that can fill the role of “third place” (ie- neither home nor work). Urbanists also tend to exalt neighborhoods of character, which reflect the values of those that live there.”
You are correct to assume that this is the angle I am coming from. I also agree that a community needs a “third place” (though I could have a debate on that place being a church).
I personally believe that all communities deserve character in their architecture and public spaces, whether that be a church or a city hall. Places of character and grandeur have the power to inspire in the way that something from the ‘throw-away’ culture never will.
Also, I’m willing to bet that traditional churches are struggling due to location rather than architecture and I’m also guessing that most of those churches have waiting lists for weddings.
“I personally believe that all communities deserve character in their architecture and public spaces, whether that be a church or a city hall. Places of character and grandeur have the power to inspire in the way that something from the ‘throw-away’ culture never will.”
I wish I could find the article, but I read an interesting critique of Columbus, Indiana once that put forth the argument that for all the forward-looking churches and municipal buildings in that city, it’s still taken a largely prototypical path of suburban sprawl.
I believe that real change starts at the community or individual level. You can’t change people, generally, by constructing an impressive building. That’s backwards. The churches aren’t the real problem. It’s the people that funded the churches, as harsh as that sounds. They want those buildings. They like it.
“Also, I’m willing to bet that traditional churches are struggling due to location rather than architecture and I’m also guessing that most of those churches have waiting lists for weddings.”
I think that is mostly true. I don’t want to say the size of the parking lot determines congregation size, but it often does.
http://chicagotonight.wttw.com/2011/09/21/faith-politics-and-parking
That being said, I do remember big Catholic churches as pretty authoritarian. You often can’t see the priest, and the sermon got lost in the vast space. The Latin mass pretty much sounded like adults in Charlie Brown cartoons to me.
A lot has been said about the church’s relation to worshipers. But older houses of worship were designed to be loved parts of the community as a whole, often a symbol that particular groups had “arrived” as good citizens and members of the larger neighborhood.
To have a simple or humble church was accepted but not something just outrageously ugly- like the building shown here. The same went for pretty much all public buildings, banks, stores, etc.
I think this ethos still exists in the more urban parts of NYC.
@George, I believe this is the article you are looking for:
http://www.metropolismag.com/July-2006/Goodbye-Columbus/
You may want to Google Philip Nobel to get a sense of the kind of person he is.
“You may want to Google Philip Nobel to get a sense of the kind of person he is.”
What does that have to do with the validity of his opinion?
Sadly, after Googling Columbus, Indiana Street View, I think he may have a point.
I probably have a romantic vision of what the place actually feels like.
All too real reminder of the world we live in:http://www.indystar.com/story/news/crime/2014/08/31/vandals-spray-paint-infidels-graffiti-onto-churches-columbus/14915981/
Perhaps its more to do with practicality of the bottom line. Why put money into a nice building if people are paying anyway?