My wife recently recommended the Philosophy Bites podcast to me, so I’ve been listening to it off and on today. One of the recent episodes struck me as particularly interesting, given the discussions we’ve had here at TC about church building architecture: an interview with Alain de Botton, author of The Architecture of Happiness, about the role of beauty in architecture. Here’s the exchange that first grabbed my attention:
Warburton: There’s also a sense of the potential moral force of buildings—the way a building might seem to promise to make your life go better.Alain de Botton: Yes, again, this is a traditional question of aesthetics: can good art make us into good people? The hope is always “Yes, it can.” The way I look at it, is I think that works of art do have a moral, in the sense that they do have suggestions about the way we might behave. You can look at a glass, a chair, or a picture, and it has certain suggestions about what might be appropriate behavior if we were to take that work of art seriously. But these are merely suggestions, rather than binding laws. Good architecture is a suggestion of good behavior, but nothing more or less than that.
Much good discussion about the relationship between form and function in architecture. There is much to be said about being as efficient and functional as possible with your church’s construction budget; the attractiveness of a church building doesn’t affect whether or not God is present in our lives. But if de Botton is correct, striving for beauty in a church building isn’t useless extravagance; it communicates something significant to everyone who sees or uses the building.
What does your church building say to people who see it? Does it seem odd to think of a moral message in architectural design? What do you think?
(Related items posted previously on TC: ten beautiful church buildings, is your church building a ministry?, recognizing true beauty when you see it.)
Loading ...
July 19, 2007 at 08:58
If we look at it from a negative point of view, the argument that art has the power of moral persuasion becomes more apparent. We are not encourage to watch shows of a violent or pornographic nature, lest we become influence by them. Thoughts are very powrful motivators, and wat we see and hear will shape our thoughts, and eventually affect our behaviors.
July 19, 2007 at 11:42
I guess it would be as Peter said—if we walk into a house and it’s a mess, it would affect what we think and feel and we will leave if it is not right. But if we walk into the house of the Lord and it is clean, then it feels right and we will want to stay, so I guess it could affect our thinking/behavior. But the real thing that strikes me is that God is not in the art—he’s in our heart.
July 19, 2007 at 11:43
Art is a gift from God. He is the master craftsman of creation, the sunset, the sunrise, the beautiful colors of the rainbow and the significance behind it. The heavens proclaim his glory and the firmament the work of his hands. In other words, Look, see the amazing design of creation? That speaks of God.
In the same way, God gave specific examples of the building of both the tabernacle and the Temple. The use of glorious stones, gold, etc. It was to be a Glorious place. The art and design were to speak of this great God. How are we any different? Design and beauty should be important and it does speak of the place of worship. Now, due to limited resources, it doesn’t have to be “expensive design”. Flowers, colors, art… the little things that scream out “beauty is here in the same way our maker is the master artist”.
Art and design is important, but not the only importance. Its people is the beauty of the church, put both of them together and what can be better than that? A community of people who love God and share the creativity of “dressing” their place of worship with art.
July 20, 2007 at 09:14
I know that when I enter a beautiful building or any sort, but especially a church or synagogue, it’s uplifting, and when I enter an area – neighborhood, building, etc., that is ugly – not just utilitarian but just unattractive, I can feel disappointed and depressed, if not a bit polluted myself. This is because I am a creature generally aware and affected by my environment, and also because I am award of our built-in requirement and responsibility to be stewards – caretakers, if you will – of the world G-d has given us, because the Psalms testify that the whole earth belongs to Him as King and Creator. So, it is important that as far as it is possible to have the spaces where we live, play, work, and worship be places that are clean, safe, and attractive.
July 22, 2007 at 19:05
I would like to state at the start that in general, I agree that a church building should be attractive and functional. I also believe that architecture can indeed send a message. I would hope that any church would want a place that says “all who come here are loved by Christ.” I will say that I have been part of ministries where only a tent covering was used that spoke a far more loving message than some churches I was a part of. In fact, I was involved in an attempt at one church to change the sanctuary in order to make it more accessible for those in wheelchairs. I was part of the design for the changes that were revised twice so that we could placate those who were extremely upset that this was going to happen. Not because they had anything against handicapped people, but because they just thought changing the look would “ruin the church.”
Brothers and sisters, let’s remember that the churches established in the New Testament didn’t even have special buildings built; they were in houses. Meetings for worship and preaching and fellowship and evangelism were held both inside and outside. Having and creating beautiful things is certainly not wrong in the least, as long as we remember that we should first worship and love God, love other people, and use things. I’m afraid we too often get those imperatives in the wrong order.
July 23, 2007 at 13:58
In my personal opinion, beautiful architecture is the kiss of death for a church.
Why would I say that? Imagine sending this article to China, 1/5 of the world’s population, where Christianity is functionally illegal and yet the church is experiencing unprecedented growth with estimates of 40 to 80 million converts. The most powerful, beautiful churches in the world meet in tenement apartments and rural homes. They have more life than Chartres cathedral. During the Cultural Revolution every single church building was closed in China. The formal, permitted structures of Chinese Protestantism and Catholicism were dissolved by Mao’s Red Guards. Christians became used to gathering in totally clandestine situations, in homes, fields, forests. Because the government was so overtly hostile to religion, Christians took the view that the best response was open and energetic evangelism wherever and whenever they could. My brother participated in an unregistered christian meeting last year in China and he was moved to tears by the beauty of the the “Church” that met in a crowded, dingy apartment.
Two years ago I worshiped with a church that met in a converted strip mall in Kansas and did not want to leave for the beauty and quality of the worship and fellowship. Paul said we bear this treasure in earthen vessels. Europe’s great cathedrals, with their ennobling vertical volumes, frescos, flying buttresses are sparsely attended if at all. The church in Europe is growing in homes, shopping centers and hastily assembled, functional buildings.
I think there is an inverse relationship to beautiful architecture and the life of the church. The more beautiful the church, the less likely authentic christian life will flourish in it. I have a degree in graphic design and appreciate beautiful architecture, but once again I have to remind myself, THE CHURCH IS NOT A BUILDING. The church is a beautiful structure made out of believing people and we should not get the two confused.