The Pros and Cons of Beautiful Churches

[Maddox]

From a post by Jaguar...

What's a point of those ornate churches?

Pure idolatry, from my standpont. I understand when it's historic, times used to be different, people were more used to architectural opulence, when churches looked somewhat like king's palaces. But America is young and never had kings.

A simple gathering of, say, Seventh Day Adventists in someone's rural home is more of a real church to me than ornate pompous ones.

The more ornate, the more corruption and further away from faith. Never felt comfortable in those big fancy churches, neither felt presence of God there. God is more present in people and other things he created, like majestic forests and mountains, than in man made objects. Man made objects are just what they are: man made objects. Architects of St Basil's cathedral in Moscow had been blinded by the king, so that they couldn't build anything like that elsewhere again. The fancy churches were exercise in kings' pride often.

One of the few real believers left in America are Amish, they do not even build churches.

IMO, all of these beautiful churches with their statues and ornamental touches are there to show honor and respect for God. People don't go to these places to worship a beautiful statue. However, the beauty of these buildings glorifies the Lord.

Some of these things also serve as educational aids. For example, stained glass windows in a church often depict biblical scenes which can help younger children better understand the Bible. I believe they can also help bring one closer to God.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

I lean more on simplicity. I'm there for the Word and for the theology. I believe God's power is shown best in His simplicity.

 

[Iacobus]

I think there is a lot of value to beautiful churches as long as they are done with taste and not gaudiness, and of course iconography has deep theological significance in the Orthodox tradition. They are meant to transport you to the heavenly realm. It is a form of offering to God to spend money on such things. I suppose some people argue that you should spend money on the poor instead of on nice churches, but in counterpoint I would look at Christ accepting the woman's offering of perfume, as well as God's consistent acceptance and commandment of giftly offerings that glorify Him.

 

[Hannibal]

Would you rather go to church in an ornate basilica that has Biblical depictions on the walls, ceiling, and windows or would you rather go to church in a room that looks like a Marriot conference center?

 

[Iacobus]

Also just to address this from @jaguarcat

The more ornate, the more corruption and further away from faith. Never felt comfortable in those big fancy churches, neither felt presence of God there. God is more present in people and other things he created, like majestic forests and mountains, than in man made objects. Man made objects are just what they are: man made objects. Architects of St Basil's cathedral in Moscow had been blinded by the king, so that they couldn't build anything like that elsewhere again. The fancy churches were exercise in kings' pride often.

I'm gonna go ahead and quote some Scripture:

Exodus 25

And they shall make an ark of acacia wood; two and a half cubits shall be its length, a cubit and a half its width, and a cubit and a half its height. 11 And you shall overlay it with pure gold, inside and out you shall overlay it, and shall make on it a molding of gold all around. 12 You shall cast four rings of gold for it, and put them in its four corners; two rings shall be on one side, and two rings on the other side. 13 And you shall make poles of acacia wood, and overlay them with gold. 14 You shall put the poles into the rings on the sides of the ark, that the ark may be carried by them. 15 The poles shall be in the rings of the ark; they shall not be taken from it. 16 And you shall put into the ark the Testimony which I will give you.

17 “You shall make a mercy seat of pure gold; two and a half cubits shall be its length and a cubit and a half its width. 18 And you shall make two cherubim of gold; of hammered work you shall make them at the two ends of the mercy seat. 19 Make one cherub at one end, and the other cherub at the other end; you shall make the cherubim at the two ends of it of one piece with the mercy seat. 20 And the cherubim shall stretch out their wings above, covering the mercy seat with their wings, and they shall face one another; the faces of the cherubim shall be toward the mercy seat. 21 You shall put the mercy seat on top of the ark, and in the ark you shall put the Testimony that I will give you. 22 And there I will meet with you, and I will speak with you from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubim which are on the ark of the Testimony, about everything which I will give you in commandment to the children of Israel.

The Table for the Showbread
23 “You shall also make a table of acacia wood; two cubits shall be its length, a cubit its width, and a cubit and a half its height. 24 And you shall overlay it with pure gold, and make a molding of gold all around. 25 You shall make for it a frame of a handbreadth all around, and you shall make a gold molding for the frame all around. 26 And you shall make for it four rings of gold, and put the rings on the four corners that are at its four legs. 27 The rings shall be close to the frame, as holders for the poles to bear the table. 28 And you shall make the poles of acacia wood, and overlay them with gold, that the table may be carried with them. 29 You shall make its dishes, its pans, its pitchers, and its bowls for pouring. You shall make them of pure gold. 30 And you shall set the showbread on the table before Me always.

...

“You shall make a veil woven of blue, purple, and scarlet thread, and fine woven linen. It shall be woven with an artistic design of cherubim. 32 You shall hang it upon the four pillars of acacia wood overlaid with gold.

...


So you shall speak to all who are gifted artisans, whom I have filled with the spirit of wisdom, that they may make Aaron’s garments, to consecrate him, that he may minister to Me as priest. 4 And these are the garments which they shall make: a breastplate, an ephod, a robe, a skillfully woven tunic, a turban, and a sash. So they shall make holy garments for Aaron your brother and his sons, that he may minister to Me as priest.

5 “They shall take the gold, blue, purple, and scarlet thread, and the fine linen, 6 and they shall make the ephod of gold, blue, purple, and scarlet thread, and fine woven linen, artistically worked. 7 It shall have two shoulder straps joined at its two edges, and so it shall be joined together. 8 And the [j]intricately woven band of the ephod, which is on it, shall be of the same workmanship, made of gold, blue, purple, and scarlet thread, and fine woven linen.

9 “Then you shall take two onyx stones and engrave on them the names of the sons of Israel: 10 six of their names on one stone and six names on the other stone, in order of their birth. 11 With the work of an engraver in stone, like the engravings of a signet, you shall engrave the two stones with the names of the sons of Israel. You shall set them in settings of gold. 12 And you shall put the two stones on the shoulders of the ephod as memorial stones for the sons of Israel. So Aaron shall bear their names before the Lord on his two shoulders as a memorial. 13 You shall also make settings of gold, 14 and you shall make two chains of pure gold like braided cords, and fasten the braided chains to the settings.

The Breastplate
15 “You shall make the breastplate of judgment. Artistically woven according to the workmanship of the ephod you shall make it: of gold, blue, purple, and scarlet thread, and fine woven linen, you shall make it. 16 It shall be doubled into a square: a span shall be its length, and a span shall be its width. 17 And you shall put settings of stones in it, four rows of stones: The first row shall be a [k]sardius, a topaz, and an emerald; this shall be the first row; 18 the second row shall be a turquoise, a sapphire, and a diamond; 19 the third row, a [l]jacinth, an agate, and an amethyst; 20 and the fourth row, a [m]beryl, an [n]onyx, and a jasper. They shall be set in gold settings. 21 And the stones shall have the names of the sons of Israel, twelve according to their names, like the engravings of a signet, each one with its own name; they shall be according to the twelve tribes.

22 “You shall make chains for the breastplate at the end, like braided cords of pure gold.

God specifically commanded His people to make extremely expensive, ornate, elaborate, fancy materials for His place of worship and His priests.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

God specifically commanded His people to make extremely expensive, ornate, elaborate, fancy materials for His place of worship and His priests.

The danger comes when people think that the fancy church will save them. It is not the outward form of the temple that made it holy, but the inward nature of God's Presence, which did leave the temple in the time of Jeremiah.

 

[Christos_NIKA]

One of the biggest travel letdowns I've ever had, was when I visited the Helsinki Cathedral. I had always wanted to visit this big majestic white Lutheran "cathedral" on the hill, overlooking the whole city. It had to be beautiful inside.
Wrong. 4 bare white walls, a bunch of pews, and 4 statues of Protestant reformers. That's it.

Solzhenitsyn Explains "Beauty Will Save the World" - Intercollegiate Studies Institute

Lies can prevail against much in this world, but never against art.

isi.org

 

[Iacobus]

The danger comes when people think that the fancy church will save them. It is not the outward form of the temple that made it holy, but the inward nature of God's Presence, which did leave the temple in the time of Jeremiah.

Sure, like any virtue it can become a vice. Totally correct that the Tabernacle and priests weren't holy *because* of the materials used, and something beautiful externally can certainly be ugly on the inside. My point is that God expressed a clear approval of beautiful materials and artisanship in worship.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

Sure, like any virtue it can become a vice. Totally correct that the Tabernacle and priests weren't holy *because* of the materials used, and something beautiful externally can certainly be ugly on the inside. My point is that God expressed a clear approval of beautiful materials and artisanship in worship.

True, but we can see that the beautiful materials weren't enough to save the Jews, which spotlights what actually is important for the Church.

The fact is, if we were in the 1st century worshipping under the Apostles, many of the trappings and pretties we're used to would be unheard of. We'd be worshipping in someone's house, catacombs, or in a cave as many Christians still do to this day.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

One of the biggest travel letdowns I've ever had, was when I visited Helsinki. I had always wanted to visit this big majestic white Lutheran "cathedral" on the hill, overlooking the whole city. It had to be beautiful inside.
Wrong. 4 bare white walls, a bunch of pews, and 4 statues of Protestant reformers. That's it.

Solzhenitsyn Explains "Beauty Will Save the World" - Intercollegiate Studies Institute

Lies can prevail against much in this world, but never against art.

isi.org

If you think Helsinki is drab, then you have expensive taste.

 

[Iacobus]

True, but we can see that the beautiful materials weren't enough to save the Jews, which spotlights what actually is important for the Church.

The fact is, if we were in the 1st century worshipping under the Apostles, many of the trappings and pretties we're used to would be unheard of. We'd be worshipping in someone's house, catacombs, or in a cave as many Christians still do to this day.

No one here is arguing that building a fancy church will save you. Or that a humble place of worship is, consequently, spiritually deficient. These assertions aren't under contention. Your point is correct of course, as Christ says: First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean.

I feel as if you are implying a false dichotomy. It is totally possible to be both externally beautiful/awe-inspiring and internally/spiritually pure. In fact this is a characteristic of God. So it stands to reason that, financial circumstances permitting, it is appropriate to make churches beautiful. You are of course welcome to to your preference of minimalism, most monastics follow the traditions you cited of asceticism in places of worship. But you haven't substantiated the assertion that "it is not good to make beautiful, intricate churches" which was quoted in the OP. If you're not defending or arguing that then fair enough.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

But you haven't substantiated the assertion that "it is not good to make beautiful, intricate churches" which was quoted in the OP. If you're not defending or arguing that then fair enough.

OK then: the cons of an expensive, gaudy church outweigh the pros. While it is true that an ornate church does not necessitate a deficient Gospel, the correlation is too strong to ignore. I would rather the members keep their focus on God's Word and its transformative power on their lives.
Even though I am advocating for a lean position, I recognize that my church, which has electricity, running water, and a kitchen, would be considered a palace by millions of Christians who do not even have a building to worship in, and I am thankful to God for His provision.

 

[God's lonely asperger]

There is a distinction between "beautiful", well planned, and full of decoration like statues. Three completely different things. Some of you guys seem to be unaware the original post was about Protestant churches not wanting idolatry in their design, which was a reply to my post with a Presbyterian church that has good/beautiful architecture. Jaguar was mainly talking about the empty white churches at first, though he can correct me if I'm wrong.

https://christisking.cc/threads/moving-abroad-before-the-collapse.226/post-20166
^
Context here.

My take on beauty is that a lot of ornamented churches wouldn't look too well if they didn't stick out like a sore thumb on big cities.

 

[Christos_NIKA]

If you think Helsinki is drab, then you have expensive taste.

Helsinki isn't drab. Just the Lutheran cathedral. However, the Russian Orthodox Cathedral nearby is wonderful and ironically, the reverse: drab red brick on the outside, but gorgeous on the inside.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

Helsinki isn't drab. Just the Lutheran cathedral. However, the Russian Orthodox Cathedral nearby is wonderful and ironically, the reverse: drab red brick on the outside, but gorgeous on the inside.

I bet the gift shop inside was also beautifully decorated.

 

[Thomas More]

I see both sides of the question. On the one hand, I have seen that congregations in rich suburbs have bigger, fancier churches than poor congregations, so it seems like they are just flaunting their wealth.

On the other hand, God is worthy of being honored with beautiful churches. I certainly appreciate the historic cathedrals I've seen. I think those historic cathedrals represented the public church at that time, and they are for everybody in the community, whereas now churches are generally for just their congregation.

I would say that rich congregations can reasonably build bigger, nicer churches, but they should avoid ostentation, and give their money to support ministries and charities. Poorer congregations must necessarily have plainer buildings, but they can usually still find a way to decorate with some beauty, which I think is good to do.

 

[Aboulia]

From a post by Jaguar...



IMO, all of these beautiful churches with their statues and ornamental touches are there to show honor and respect for God. People don't go to these places to worship a beautiful statue. However, the beauty of these buildings glorifies the Lord.

Some of these things also serve as educational aids. For example, stained glass windows in a church often depict biblical scenes which can help younger children better understand the Bible. I believe they can also help bring one closer to God.

I agree wholeheartedly, and I go a bit further, as we are people with 5 senses, and a church should engage all of our senses. To add, the church is a focal point for a community to gather, if it exists as that, we should in part show our care for another by attending to that space, and it should be more beautiful than the homes of those that attend live in.

My take on beauty is that a lot of ornamented churches wouldn't look too well if they didn't stick out like a sore thumb on big cities.

Shouldn't a building dedicated to God be the most beautiful building in the city? We only have ugly utilitarian architecture because we've lost reverence for each other and God. In a world full of ugliness, it's good to have a sanctuary where we can look to beautiful things, to help purge our ugliness within.

OK then: the cons of an expensive, gaudy church outweigh the pros. While it is true that an ornate church does not necessitate a deficient Gospel, the correlation is too strong to ignore. I would rather the members keep their focus on God's Word and its transformative power on their lives.
Even though I am advocating for a lean position, I recognize that my church, which has electricity, running water, and a kitchen, would be considered a palace by millions of Christians who do not even have a building to worship in, and I am thankful to God for His provision.

Can you elaborate on what the cons are of an ornate church?

If that's really your position, how do you show your thankfulness to God in real life? If you really care about these millions of Christians, what do you do to elevate their position to have the same? Personally, I do not care for "millions of Christians" I try to care for those I know in person first and foremost as those God has put in my path in life to help, then extend outwards from there.

 

[God's lonely asperger]

Shouldn't a building dedicated to God be the most beautiful building in the city? We only have ugly utilitarian architecture because we've lost reverence for each other and God. In a world full of ugliness, it's good to have a sanctuary where we can look to beautiful things, to help purge our ugliness within.

That is a different point entirely, which no one is arguing for. I said that in response to Jaguar claiming the more ornate church I posted was idolatrous, which I very much disagree with.

I mean, a kind of tower cathedral in the middle Rio de Janeiro gives the impression of idolatry, I can't blame him. But if all buildings were not soulless modern towers, that would not have been the idea at all. In fact, the church is from that era.

Mildly disappointed you cherry picked the last part on a post about context.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

Can you elaborate on what the cons are of an ornate church?

Their ostentations are worldly and distract from the Word.

If that's really your position, how do you show your thankfulness to God in real life?

Romans 12:1.

If you really care about these millions of Christians, what do you do to elevate their position to have the same?

We have missionaries who go out to support these people. There are many Christians such as these in the Middle East and China.

Personally, I do not care for "millions of Christians" I try to care for those I know in person first and foremost as those God has put in my path in life to help, then extend outwards from there.

Care for your inner circle first, sure. But I can't help but feel deflated when I see people jeering over "empty white walls" when many Christians don't even have a building to conduct their services in. You should care for these Christians. The Church is Universal after all.

 

[Lawrence87]

I believe that it is necessary for churches to be beautiful. If you are going to create a space within which to worship the author of beauty, it makes zero sense to pay no heed to creating a beautiful space and atmosphere within which to do so. You are worshipping the creator of the universe, its not like you're going to file a form with the city council or buying some stamps. The building should reflect the purpose. Opinions on what constitutes beauty will vary, but I think purposely trying to make something that is not beautiful in some measure as a place to worship God is backwards.

Even though my standards of beauty when it comes to churches uses Orthodox churches as the benchmark. Even in Protestant churches that have white walls and less ornamentation etc can be beautiful in their own way, and I can see how someone would see beauty in the simplicity. These mega churches, or churches that are purely utilitarian though, I do not understand why you would want to worship somewhere indistinguishable from a theatre or community centre.