Interesting post here from iMonk reflecting on this video which documents a church in Nashville that recently built a new huge gothic style sanctuary. (Watch the video, it's impressive)
I have often grieved the fact that all our new church buildings (for the most part) have very little aesthetically pleasing qualities when compared to the church buildings of the past. I presume that this is mostly due to us living in and capitulating to a culture of impatience, immediacy and instant gratification.
iMonk understands the tension between spending huge amounts of money to build beautifully bigger and using money to "build bigger barns" (Luke 12:13-20) that perhaps could have been spent for more eternal purposes.
Can we do both?
I think these matters are worth our reflection.
11 comments:
Whenever this comes up, I think about the contrast between the stunning temple in Jerusalem, vs the simple, barebones, functional, probably relatively drab houses that served as the houses of worship in the first century.
I don't think we should be indifferent to architecture, but it seems like the farthest thing from the mind of the NT writers. Nary a word on the subject, as far as I can tell!
JT
I'm with JT on this.
You might find Matt Chandler's last sermon "Games People Play, Pt. 3" and his take on the widow's mites interesting and relevant to this as well.
yeah... but...
(Can you hear my contrarian comment winding up?)
As you know, the NT is also very silent about any number of things. Like how big of a house should I buy? How many kids should I have? How much money should I give? Should I own property?
I don't want to get into the whole discussion about money and drawing lines, etc cause we all know we can't, and I want to live sacrificially just as much as anyone, but I think there is a value in beauty in our churches. Not sure what that means or what the implications are yet.
JT, one could make the same argument about our music. The NT doesn't say anything about the style or form of our music. Should we just settle for simple and "poor" music because God doesn't say anything about it? The NT doesn't say anything about beauty in our music (the OT certainly does), does that mean we shouldn't pursue beauty in music?
Granted there is probably a difference between spending huge amounts of money (in light of what the Bible says about money) and our use of music, but I'm just trying to think in terms of aesthetics and how human creativity can reflect the glory of God and draw our hearts into worship.
the answer is "Yes" we can do both. i don't agree that it has to be a "building bigger barns" vs. eternal purposes mentality. i do think one's eschatology and ecclessiology necessarily plays into it. and the first century church did not only meet in homes. they also met in Solomon's colonade and in the temple court. Paul also had meetings in public lecture halls. i think the folks at Covenant Presbyterian have the right perspective about longevity and honor. frankly, i grow tired of the steel pole buildings thrown up as churches and then using the sanctuary for sports too.
"These people have a Lord that I want to know" because of a stinking building CRAZY.
I must have forgot about the scripture that says"They will know you are mine not because of your love for one another or your fruitful lives or your repentant heart but by the buildings that you build, If you build it they will come.
That whole video creeped me out. And I love the PCA.
"sanctuary"?
I just finished Crazy Love by Francis Chan and I think I like their church's approach better. They decided to build an outdoor amphitheater instead because it would cost substantially less and they could pour the money back out on those less fortunate.
I fear that most people who come to large, ornate buildings will not say "wow, what an awesome God!" but rather, "there are hurting people; how can they show demonstrate such waste?"
I do like the Washington National Cathedral, though the remembrance of the moon landing, Lewis and Clark, and Iwo Jima seems out of place in a house of worship, if not flat out sacreligious (but I digress).
Matthew 6:19-21 Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal, but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.
(John 12:3-8) "Then Mary took about a pint of pure nard, an expensive perfume; she poured it on Jesus' feet and wiped his feet with her hair. And the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume. {4} But one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, who was later to betray him, objected, {5} "Why wasn't this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year's wages." {6} He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it. {7} "Leave her alone," Jesus replied. "It was intended that she should save this perfume for the day of my burial. {8} You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me.""
I see what the folks in Nashville are doing as pouring perfume out on Jesus... their gift to him. And look who complained about where the money should be spent instead. Careful now.
I was going to let this drop, but I don't appreciate having been compared to Judas in my response.
I appreciate your perspective on the Nashville church being akin to Mary pouring out the nard on Jesus and I think it has some merit, but I think there a couple of points that need further clarification.
1) I believe this story was as much an admonition against Judas's heart as it was an endorsement of Mary's behavior. It says very clearly that Judas "did not say this because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief."
2) We can't lose sight of the fact that this was honorable because Jesus was with them. Jesus told his disciples, "you will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me." Christ has ascended, he is not here with us now (at least bodily), and we longingly await His return. What we do have are the poor. In Christ's absence, we are to see Him in His people.
Matthew 25:31-40 "31 When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. 34 Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ 37 Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38 And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? 39 And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ 40 And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers,you did it to me.'"
I think understanding this issue is complex, which is part of the beauty of the gospel. I pray that people know Christ because of this building rather than just come to appreciate architecture.
Post a Comment