yeah, because practicality is THE criterion for buildings?In a very PoMo way I chose to interpret the comments as I wished and created/assumed an entire argument in my head. And as Sarah put it I, 'Wrote another blogpost in the comments'.
Here's what I said;
"Well, even such a measure as practicality is notoriously difficult to use as the measure of success. For example, uncomfortable pews can be seen either as a subtle donation to the chiropractic profession, or a way of getting people to stay awake during boring sermons!
But to put it in the false proposition of architectural beauty versus practicality, then I am appropriately torn.
One of my most favourite shows on television is Grand Designs and I have definitely grown in my appreciation of the beauty that can be achieved in construction. And I am aware of the positive and negative psychological affect that design has on human beings. So thumbs up for architecture.
But lets be honest, the creation of these architectural marvels that are historically significant church buildings, have left many a church with an expensive to maintain and impractical space. This can have particularly significant costs for the proclamation of the gospel. So thumbs up for practicality.
Perhaps I may offer a solution to this potentially incompatible proposition of art vs pragmatism?
Our desire to spend exorbitant amounts of money on excessive and extravagant construction is in most situations a failure to grasp the significance of the times we are living in being the final days, and is an expression of the consumerist society in which we are so dramatically absorbed. It is a further aspect of 21st century Christianity which exposes the corruption of our hearts and the failure to live differently from the world and its desires.
In some sense practicality vs beauty isn't a false dichotomy because it echoes the larger battle of valuing the things of this world above the kingdom of God.
That said, it is possible to achieve both, but extremely rare.
A final thought;
I'm pretty sure I've been thinking all day about arguing the exact opposite to what I have above, in relation to the article on MasterChef which appears on the back of the latest copy of Eternity.
Okay, I'm officially back on the fence."
Be honest, who has never been part of a conversation where you've joked about the benefits of arson in fixing some of the issues involved here?
Thank goodness our forebears spent money on buildings that we have to maintain. If it was up to us, we would contribute to the harrowing ugliness of the modern city by building K-Mart-style churches - as banal as a shopping centre and about as soul-destroying. Yikes!
ReplyDelete:-)
The church I used to attend had an old (60s) building we wanted to sell, and there were a bunch of people who hated the idea of selling - they were attached to the building itself. Lots of mucking around, lots of frustration.
ReplyDeleteAnd then the building caught fire one night (electrical fault) and burnt to the ground.
That fixed it.
@ Michael
ReplyDeleteWith a sly acknowledgment of your smiley face, I think I concur. It would indeed be interesting to reflect on what our churches would look like had Christianity not come with the first white settlement, and instead exploded in the 1970's.
@RodeoClown
ReplyDeleteAh, the old electrical fire trick. I'm telling you, many a beloved Christian brother and sister has thought of the benefit of leaving faulty wiring unchecked.
I'm almost certain this is NOT what Jesus meant when he said be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.
Practicality sometimes goes too far. The trend at the moment seems to be building great big open multipurpose halls, which can be used for all sorts of things during the week and then for Church on Sunday. They are great in theory, but often result in a space which feels devoid of character and life. Good for basketball games, not so good for enjoying Church together.
ReplyDeleteThese kinds of buildings also assume that the best way for a Church to meet is in one huge mega-meeting, which is definitely debatable. I'd much rather meet in a congregation of 100 or less people. Perhaps a better option is to build one big building with many meeting places, each capable of holding congregations of, say, 150 (a bit like St Pauls Carlingford)?