On Beauty and Church Buildings

Having returned from Paris a few days ago and seeing all the magnificent architecture, especially churches, I have been thinking about the nature of worship and beauty.  Isn't there something to be said for how we build?  Does not our culture of instant gratification make the thought of building a grand cathedral simply impossible?  50 years to build something?  No way!  Do it in 50 days!

I don't have all these issues worked out in my head yet, but I do know that when I worshipped, two weeks ago, in a huge beautiful cathedral in Paris, it gave me a sense of transcendence and humility that I had not experienced in quite some time.

In light of these issues I was please to see this post on the Gospel Coalition blog.

Should churches build? If so, should our buildings be extravagant, like European cathedrals? Or should they be as minimal as possible, like a YMCA gym? How should churches think about buildings?

This is a very good question that congregations--especially church plants--need to think through. Here are four thoughts.

1. The church is a people, not a building. Thus building people must be more important philosophically than building buildings.

2. Because the church is a people, the church needs a place to meet. That place could be the catacombs, a park, or a public school (except here). But at minimum the meeting place should be (a) accessible to its members and the community at large, (b) large enough to house its members and some guests from the community, (c) compliant with the laws of the land for such meeting places, and (d) sufficient for the purposes of the church's gathering (e.g., the proclamation of the Word, corporate worship, evangelizing, and discipling).

3. Because the church is often people with children, the church likely needs a place for them, too. Churches will differ as to how much space is needed; perhaps a room for nursing moms will suffice. But to some degree just about everyone agrees that some space for children is necessary.

4. Because the church as a people reflects the glory of God, the church's meeting place ought to reflect well on his character. There is a wider variety of opinions on this point than the last. But at minimum, this means there are sufficient and clean restrooms, relatively fresh paint on the walls, and sturdy flooring. Our Roman Catholic friends may reason that this point justifies massive, extravagant cathedrals. I don't entirely disagree. There is certainly room for churches to decide to what extent they should do things to demonstrate the beauty of God in their building. But I would argue that utilitarianism is not the path of spirituality. God created beauty for us to enjoy. We can't sacrifice everything on the altar of beauty, but if the finished product is not beautiful, then we've failed to reflect his glory.

Read the rest.


Every congregation is going to define these things differently.  Terms like "beauty" are obviously subjective in nature and will be relative to the gifts and leanings of the local church leadership and their people.  I think an important question in this regard has to do with the simply question, "Who do we have?"  Just like we would ask for our church music, the same should be said for our worship space.

Who do we have that has an eye for aesthetic beauty?  Who do we have that has great wisdom when it comes to architecture?  Who do we have that would love to serve in creating a space that communicates transcendence, humility, facility, primacy of the Word, and fellowship?