Agrey, Gerald E.

English

Wilfrid Laurier University

ConsensusVolume 25Issue 2 The Arts and the Church Article 611-1-1999Architecture: An Art and a Theological StatementGerald E. AgreyFollow this and additional works at: http://scholars.wlu.ca/consensusThis Articles is brought to you for free and open access by Scholars Commons @ Laurier. It has been accepted for inclusion in Consensus by anauthorized editor of Scholars Commons @ Laurier. For more information, please contact scholarscommons@wlu.ca.Recommended CitationAgrey, Gerald E. (1999) "Architecture: An Art and a Theological Statement," Consensus: Vol. 25 : Iss. 2 , Article 6.Available at: http://scholars.wlu.ca/consensus/vol25/iss2/6Architecture: An Art and aTheological StatementGerald E. AgreyArchitect, Kindrachuk Agrey Architects, Ltd.Saskatoon, Saskatchewanhe church, as we know it, has always presented itself throughvarious architectural forms as works of art, and these forms inturn have usually represented the theology of a given church.Of course, the church as we know it did not always exist. Early Christiansavoided the construction of ecclesiastical buildings because they weretoo few in numbers (though not for long), too poor, and sometimes toopersecuted.The followers of Jesus did not simply represent the presence of God onearth; they were the presence. Any sense of need for a specific locuscould scarcely have occurred to them, and the lack of any reference inthe New Testament supports that it didn’t. From the beginning theygathered to “break bread” in their homes and other private places. Theystarted to teach and preach in the synagogues, but they soon foundthemselves excluded. So they met wherever it was convenient. Wherethey were, God was, for his name was Emmanuel.^The earliest known ruins of a Christian church were discovered in thearea of Dura-Europos. It was a dwelling, converted in 232 A.D. to be asmall church building. This domestic type of church continued late intothe 3rd century and it wasn’t until Constantine’s proclamation of tolera-tion in the Edict of Milan (313 A.D.) that there occurred “that overwhelm-ing change in churchmanship and in the attitudes towards place, enclo-sure, and the nature of worship which has given us the tradition of churchbuilding that has lasted sixteen hundred years and is just now coming toan end.2Official toleration was followed ten years later by Constantine’s bap-tism and then the establishment of Christianity as the official religion of68 Consensusthe empire. This change caused a movement toward associating God’spresence with places rather than with people.E.A. Sovik believes there were three circumstances that contributedto the change . First, converts came to the church by multitudes, amongthem the rich, the powerful, and the eminent. The gatherings of thechurch, which had been private, if not clandestine, became public. Sec-ond, the necessity of providing for the assembly of swelling congrega-tions meant that homes and ad hoc places were no longer adequate.The third factor in the change derived from the immense honor thatcome to be accorded to the memory of martyrs. Now honour was givento architectural and monumental forms, and sites of martyrs’ deaths andgraves became favourite places for church buildings.The Middle Ages is a record of theology, liturgy, as well as a piety thatcontradicted in many ways the essential teachings of Jesus. However,even the Reformation of the 16th century did not effectively bring theminds of the church back into harmony with the mind of the early church.The lesson to be learned here is that architecture is a more influentialfactor in the life of society than most people suppose. Theincompleteness of the Reformation in terms of architecture was nodoubt the result of the longevity of architecture. Buildings stand, and arenot easily removed or changed.^As far as church architecture and the environment of worship wereconcerned, this “Middle Age thinking” continued for the most part up tothe first part of the 20th century. Peter Hammond believed that this“legacy of vast, dim naves, unrelated to human scale, has been a factorof major importance in the persistence of the psychological proletarian-ism that prevents the Church from manifesting its true nature today.Splendid as these buildings are, they embody a particular and transientrelationship between the Christian community and society at large whichdid not survive the passing of the Middle Ages; they are essentially ‘rhe-torical assertions of the temporal triumph of Christendom’, not housesfor the family of God.”"^A least these builders realized that architecture needs to be related totheology. These structures were built as monuments, to impress a largelyilliterate congregation, and were ministered to by a clergy with increasedpublic dignity and power. It is no wonder that today’s Christians aresometimes frustrated, without knowing why, when they worship in build-ings that imply beliefs they do not hold and patterns of worship they doArchitecture 69not practice.Theology must be manifested in the architecture of the church. Therewas a reawakening, spurred on in part by a change in thinking of thearchitectural circle in the early part of the 20th century. This new think-ing was manifested in what we tag as the International Style. It idealizedsuch principles as function, honesty and structure, lack of adornment,and simplicity in detail, and led architects and their clients to re-evaluatethe reasons behind some of the things they did when designing a build-ing, and rethinking the basic question of what a church is for. PeterHammond says.Our most urgent need is still to recover the conception of a church as ahouse for a community, the form of which must grow out of thecharacteristic actions in which the community manifests (or shouldmanifest) its essential nature. It is still necessary to insist that thebuilding exists for the people who are themselves the temple of the livingGod; that it is not a shrine or a monument to some abstract concept ofreligion but a liturgical and pastoral instrument for the furtherance of theChurch’s apostolic task.^Probably one of the most noticeable changes that took place in thiscentury, even in many existing churches, was the moving of the altaraway from the back wall. “The old rule of worship was that the pastorturned his back on the congregation for the times of praise to God andprayer, and only faced the congregation when reading the Bible, preach-ing and making announcements. This model became popular in the12th century when Europeans became fascinated with Jerusalem ruinsduring the Crusades.”® During the Reformation, Luther called for thealtar to be moved away from the back wall, but Lutherans reverted to theold orientation to Jerusalem in the 19th century.This renewed thinking didn’t only affect the altar being moved.Jorgensen says there are four major things to see in worship, accordingto the Augsburg Confession; these are the Gospel (Bible), the water, thebread and wine, and the believers. In most well thought-out churchesthat have been designed in the last half of this century, these manifesta-tions are obvious. The pulpit’s design and prominence are downplayedand the Bible is central. Baptismal fonts are more prominent, not only intheir location which is often by the entry, but old covers have been re-moved and the water is open. The altar or the table is left bare so theemphasis is on the meal and not all the other clutter that tends to collect70 Consensusthere. The creating of a space where the believers themselves are morevisible has had the greatest impact on architectural design in this cen-tury.In the old picture of worship, fellow Christians were considereddistractions to our meditation. [However] worship involves bothspeaking to God and to each other. Thus a conversational seating planas is used in a living room seems better suited to what we are doing. Theold seating plan in our churches resembles that of a Greyhound bus,with a separate compartment at the front for the driver (pastor). Aspeople who believe in the priesthood of all believers, we are all driversbelonging to the front.^The way we design and shape our churches and worship spacesinvariably reflects our beliefs and theology. In turn these spaces have aformative influence on the people who worship there. As Robert Maguiresays:If you are going to build a church,you are going to create a thing which speaks.It will speak of Meanings, and of values,and it will go on speaking.And if it speaks of wrong values.It will go on destroying.There is a responsibility here.®1 have recounted some specific changes that have been incorpo-rated into church buildings that are a result of specific theological be-liefs. There are, however, many other qualities of an architectural spacethat affects us in ways, often without our knowing it.In the western world over the past several hundred years, we havebecome verbally oriented. We believe that truth or knowledge is bestexpressed through the symbol systems that support this orientation. Thereare, however, other symbol systems that communicate not through therational intellect but through the senses; music is one of the most obvi-ous. “Tones, rhythms, harmonies, sequences and other qualities of soundare symbols which meet our sensibilities, and move us to feel as com-posers and performers wish us to feel.”^ Ail the arts carry this dimensionof being able to communicate. “People are aware of being affected bythe tones of rooms. They have said to themselves. What a peacefulplace! Or they have felt restless and uncomfortable without knowingprecisely why. It is possible immediately and profoundly to influenceArchitecture 71people by the tonal character of an interior.Agood designer under-stands the effects of the physical arrangements of colour, light, shadows,shapes, scale, etc., and church building committees should be aware ofthis and give thought to the tonal quality desired. Vogt believes that“there are many American churches which repel people because theyare chilly and barren in atmosphere.”” Just as pianists train their fingersso that they can communicate the complexities of music, or poets learngrammar to be able to write poetry, so architects equip themselves withknowledge about building so they can design shapes and spaces thatare more than just s shelter.They only constant is change and the future church must also changeif it is to stay relevant and alive. Change doesn’t come easily, especiallyin the church. “In an Edmonton Journal article, Richard Caemmererwas quoted as saying, ‘One church lost six families after the pastor movedthe altar just far enough away so that he could squeeze behind it.” (Healso said, “Some churches find it easier to get rid of a pastor than a pieceof furniture. In addition to reflecting our theology in the design ofwell-thought and well-planned spaces, good stewardship should also bereflected. All spaces carry a message and theuse of fuel, electricity, the presence of absence of comfortable gatheringspaces and accessibility all make statements about the structures’intended function...good thinking about space will result in a diversity ofbuildings, but will involve common planning elements— attention to thewisdom at hand, a sense of historical and physical location, andresponsible and creative use of available resources.”Other practical wants of the community will also play a role in de-signing the future church.For example, the new building proposal could provide meeting space forAA or other groups, or provide administration for a food bank orconsignment clothing store. Depending on the socio-economics of theneighborhood, the new church might be able to provide resources thatthe municipality could not afford, such as auditorium time for youth atnight, pleasant park-like settings for seniors, or access to affordablehousing. In places like Chicago or Detroit, churches have initiatedcommunity economic development programs which create jobs andprovide training, entrepreneurial linkages and community-widepromotion.”The future church will incorporate many new functions; however, wemust remember that, “the public worship of God is the reason for the72 Consensusbeing of the organized church. As such, the art of worship must besupported by good architectural planning. The worship space should beflexible so it can easily adapt to changes in worship patterns and notfrustrate those who use it. A well-designed church is an invaluable toolto the pastor and those who worship there.Notes^ E.A. Sovik, Architecture for Worship (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg PublishingHouse, 1973) 13.2 Ibid. 15.3 Ibid. 19.^ Peter Hammond, “A Radical Approach to Church Architecture,” Towards aChurch Architecture, ed. by Peter Hammond (London, CJK: TheArchitectural Press, 1962) 35.5 Ibid. 29.® Philip Jorgensen, “Architecture: A Way to Worship Renewal,” CanadaLutheran (July/August, 1987) 20.^ Ibid. 22.® As quoted by Peter Hammond in Hammond, Towards a ChurchArchitecture, 33. For the actual text and quotation see Robert Maguire’sarticle, “Meaning and Understanding” (p. 66) in this same volume ofcollected essays on church architecture.9 Sovik, 45.Von Ogden Vogt, Art and Religion (Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 1960) 193." Ibid. 197.^2 Jorgensen, 22.Melinda R. Heppe, “Where Buildings Speak, ” In Trust 6 (New Year, 1 995) 1 0.Doug Makaroff, “So You Wanna Build a New Church?” Christian Week(August 20, 1996) 8.Vogt, 232.15

Architecture: An Art and a Theological Statement

https://scholars.wlu.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1480&amp;context=consensus

Architecture: An Art and a Theological Statement

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Wilfrid Laurier University