The Pros and Cons of Beautiful Churches
- Thread starter Maddox
- Start date
Cornelius V.E.
Orthodox
The Orthodox Church has often been criticized for offering too much beauty and luxury in her worship of God. For spending too much to build beautiful church buildings, to craft golden chalices, to handcraft exquisite vestments from natural fibers, to offer up the sweet smell of incense, to decorate with meticulously crafted hand-painted iconography, or whatever else that might seem excessive or unnecessary. Whenever I have heard this, the interaction between Jesus and St. Mary Magdalene in John 12:1-8 always comes to mind:
"Six days before the Passover, Jesus came to Bethany, where Lazarus lived, whom Jesus had raised from the dead. Here a dinner was given in Jesus’ honor. Martha served, while Lazarus was among those reclining at the table with him. 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. But one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, who was later to betray him, objected, “Why wasn’t this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year’s wages.” 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. “Leave her alone,” Jesus replied. “It was intended that she should save this perfume for the day of my burial. You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me.”
I cannot tell you how thankful I am that the Church, like St. Mary Magdalene, believes it is a worthy thing to offer her best for the worship of God. No beauty can be deemed "too much" when offered sincerely for the honor of God.
The most beauty I have ever personally experienced has come to me in at the Divine Liturgy or on pilgrimage to some sacred place. I do not look upon any moment I have passed at these places as time wasted. In fact, during Holy Liturgy I have often found myself in tears of joy and gratitude, overwhelmed by the wonderful and beautiful gift to be in God's presence doing what I know I have been called by Him to do.
Unlike the rich who hoard their luxury and beauty mostly for themselves (if they have good taste, which is rare), the Church believes it is necessary to share these immense treasures so that the hearts of all men might be touched, converted, and inspired by the great beauty and sacrifice of God at the altar. So that my heart might be touched though I am a miserable sinner from a broken family and have so often mocked Christianity. So that the poorest Georgian peasant who wallows daily in industrial pollution and dust can walk into a beautiful cathedral and not only taste this beauty, but even contribute to it in a way that is unique and distinctive to his person and culture. So that we all might be nourished, healed, and lifted up by uniting with a transcendent reality that brings us out of ourselves.
Paradoxically, all I have mentioned can only be achieved if we focus not on ourselves but on seeking first the Kingdom of God. In the worship of God by offering the Divine Liturgy we are all called to accomplish this very deed. "Do this in commemoration of me."
We must feed the hungry and clothe the naked. But truly I believe that modern man is most starved for beauty and most thirsty for the sacred. The Holy Liturgy, in feeding us the body and blood of God Himself, also feeds our starving souls in so many other unspeakable ways.
Name me one young man who, in falling in love with a beautiful woman, tries to do the "bare minimum" to win her heart. Minimalism has no place in the life of one who truly loves. All of these things may be "unnecessary", but only from a cold, bean-counting, and logically minimalist perspective that robs the faith of all of its spiritual significance.
"Six days before the Passover, Jesus came to Bethany, where Lazarus lived, whom Jesus had raised from the dead. Here a dinner was given in Jesus’ honor. Martha served, while Lazarus was among those reclining at the table with him. 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. But one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, who was later to betray him, objected, “Why wasn’t this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year’s wages.” 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. “Leave her alone,” Jesus replied. “It was intended that she should save this perfume for the day of my burial. You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me.”
I cannot tell you how thankful I am that the Church, like St. Mary Magdalene, believes it is a worthy thing to offer her best for the worship of God. No beauty can be deemed "too much" when offered sincerely for the honor of God.
The most beauty I have ever personally experienced has come to me in at the Divine Liturgy or on pilgrimage to some sacred place. I do not look upon any moment I have passed at these places as time wasted. In fact, during Holy Liturgy I have often found myself in tears of joy and gratitude, overwhelmed by the wonderful and beautiful gift to be in God's presence doing what I know I have been called by Him to do.
Unlike the rich who hoard their luxury and beauty mostly for themselves (if they have good taste, which is rare), the Church believes it is necessary to share these immense treasures so that the hearts of all men might be touched, converted, and inspired by the great beauty and sacrifice of God at the altar. So that my heart might be touched though I am a miserable sinner from a broken family and have so often mocked Christianity. So that the poorest Georgian peasant who wallows daily in industrial pollution and dust can walk into a beautiful cathedral and not only taste this beauty, but even contribute to it in a way that is unique and distinctive to his person and culture. So that we all might be nourished, healed, and lifted up by uniting with a transcendent reality that brings us out of ourselves.
Paradoxically, all I have mentioned can only be achieved if we focus not on ourselves but on seeking first the Kingdom of God. In the worship of God by offering the Divine Liturgy we are all called to accomplish this very deed. "Do this in commemoration of me."
We must feed the hungry and clothe the naked. But truly I believe that modern man is most starved for beauty and most thirsty for the sacred. The Holy Liturgy, in feeding us the body and blood of God Himself, also feeds our starving souls in so many other unspeakable ways.
Name me one young man who, in falling in love with a beautiful woman, tries to do the "bare minimum" to win her heart. Minimalism has no place in the life of one who truly loves. All of these things may be "unnecessary", but only from a cold, bean-counting, and logically minimalist perspective that robs the faith of all of its spiritual significance.
Forgive me if I missed the context, had you tagged Jaguar with an @, then I would have probably passed over and waited for his response, but I looked at his post and didn't see anything about "empty white churches", just that he prefers "spartan" style churches, which I think is the same thing. I'm glad you strongly disagree with his take and like beauty in architecture.
What about a tower cathedral in the middle of a big city could give an impression of idolatry? I suppose you could take that position if it's built in the middle of poverty, under slave labour, but that more or less fits the description of these modern glass steel and concrete aberrations, and not beautiful temples, For instance, I was able to visit Holy Cross Monastery in WV, where they're constructing a large new church and some of the workers are asking to be put on that jobsite rather than one closer to where they live, because they'd rather build something unique and beautiful, than soulless garbage.
Don't sweat it too much. The OP was kind of jumbled since the start, since it was based on one post of a small topic start on that other thread.
I assumed the original point was about the architecture being over the top. Unclear to me on whether exterior or interior. My opinion on this is that I prefer a more external good look on a church, and the interior mostly basic. Gives a better experience for what I like in a church. Not for everyone, as indicated many times in this thread, but I'm not sure what is. I feel that is roughly what he meant in the post, but I also got lost.
I think Churches should be beautiful, it helps involve all the senses and elevate the mind to God. My mind is less likely to wander if my eyes are constantly directed toward icons of Christ, or his Saints or scenes from scripture. Beauty points toward God, and I think considering a worldly distraction is almost like equating it to a human, social construction.
I think prayer is more important, and that’s what truly adds to the effect a church has on you. I don’t know how to express it. I’ve been to architecturally stunning cathedrals in Moscow like Christ the Saviour, which is definitely awe-inspiring… but it isn’t as beautiful as Sretensky Monastery for example. In these gargantuan cathedrals like St Isaac’s in Saint Petersburg, it seems like it was a flex, and they hired foreign architects to make it as dazzling as possible. People go there on big feast days, but there isn’t really a steady parish in those huge places.
A monastery like St Alexander of Svir’s, which started with a hand built wooden church and has since been elevated into something almost otherworldly has an altogether different “feel.” But perhaps we ought not put too much stock in such things.
I don’t really know what I’m talking about or if this has a theological basis, but some places it’s seemed like the Grace of God is more tangible, not something inside of you, but connected to the place you’re in. Anybody who has been to Mount Athos will know exactly what I mean.
I suppose my extremely laboured point is the royal path, grandiosity designed to impress vs people making a church beautiful out of sincere love for God. To focus entirely on magnificent architecture to inspire awe, and to have a church like conference centre stray off this path imo
I think prayer is more important, and that’s what truly adds to the effect a church has on you. I don’t know how to express it. I’ve been to architecturally stunning cathedrals in Moscow like Christ the Saviour, which is definitely awe-inspiring… but it isn’t as beautiful as Sretensky Monastery for example. In these gargantuan cathedrals like St Isaac’s in Saint Petersburg, it seems like it was a flex, and they hired foreign architects to make it as dazzling as possible. People go there on big feast days, but there isn’t really a steady parish in those huge places.
A monastery like St Alexander of Svir’s, which started with a hand built wooden church and has since been elevated into something almost otherworldly has an altogether different “feel.” But perhaps we ought not put too much stock in such things.
I don’t really know what I’m talking about or if this has a theological basis, but some places it’s seemed like the Grace of God is more tangible, not something inside of you, but connected to the place you’re in. Anybody who has been to Mount Athos will know exactly what I mean.
I suppose my extremely laboured point is the royal path, grandiosity designed to impress vs people making a church beautiful out of sincere love for God. To focus entirely on magnificent architecture to inspire awe, and to have a church like conference centre stray off this path imo
This is an excellent point. Those of use brought up in a better age, were taught to "wear our Sunday best" when going to church. We didn't dress as slobs, so we could just "focus on the word". When God blesses you with much, you should show your gratitude as a congregation by offering the best you have, of your first fruits. You can't compare 3rd world grass hut churches with European cathedrals...perhaps this is the best the 3rd world villages have to offer. To not put your best foot forward, to offer your best, is akin to slobby fat beta guys chasing the homecoming queen, a real 10, and saying she should just accept him for who he is.
Jesus taught the two Greatest commandments: Love God and Love Thy Neighbor.
So loving God means creating a beautiful place to honor Him, and there is no better place to do so than the bride of Christ, the Church. That is why we have marble altars, and golden chalices - not to covet wealth, but as sacrifices to God. We spend the money for no other reason than to glorify God, and thereby create a Holy space.
At the same time, none of these things are enough by themselves to save someone. Which is why Christ said not to worry about the clothes you'll wear, or why early Christians worshipped in living rooms, basements, and catacombs. Because strictly speaking, God does not care about worldly things in of itself.
And yet God also wants to be loved. So we do so by creating wonderful places to worship him. The Great commandments are equally important - loving God is just as important as Loving thy Neighbor. To reach Heaven with the Lord, both commandments must be followed with zeal.
Also, the reason early Christians did not worship in beautiful places was not their choice - they first worshipped in the synagogues, as well as the Second Temple, openly with other Jews preaching that the Messiah had arrived. Once they were driven out and hunted down like animals, and had to retreat to places like Antioch, only then were they forced to worship in living rooms, basements, and catacombs. But their first choice was in beautiful synagogues and the Second Temple (one of the most magnificent structures ever created).
Now compare Protestants today, to Protestants of the past such as the ones who founded America. Prots today are content to worship in "humble" spaces - meanwhile they spend lavish amounts of money on their cars, children, vacations, combined with some generous charity. And then when it comes to God, suddenly they become cheap stingy people. Meanwhile, the Prots of the past always made sure their nicest building in town was the Church.
Seems to me many Prots today are in deep sin, and no longer love God. That is why they are disconnected from their own past and other denominations - who all understood a beautiful Church was how one showed their love to God.
So loving God means creating a beautiful place to honor Him, and there is no better place to do so than the bride of Christ, the Church. That is why we have marble altars, and golden chalices - not to covet wealth, but as sacrifices to God. We spend the money for no other reason than to glorify God, and thereby create a Holy space.
At the same time, none of these things are enough by themselves to save someone. Which is why Christ said not to worry about the clothes you'll wear, or why early Christians worshipped in living rooms, basements, and catacombs. Because strictly speaking, God does not care about worldly things in of itself.
And yet God also wants to be loved. So we do so by creating wonderful places to worship him. The Great commandments are equally important - loving God is just as important as Loving thy Neighbor. To reach Heaven with the Lord, both commandments must be followed with zeal.
Also, the reason early Christians did not worship in beautiful places was not their choice - they first worshipped in the synagogues, as well as the Second Temple, openly with other Jews preaching that the Messiah had arrived. Once they were driven out and hunted down like animals, and had to retreat to places like Antioch, only then were they forced to worship in living rooms, basements, and catacombs. But their first choice was in beautiful synagogues and the Second Temple (one of the most magnificent structures ever created).
Now compare Protestants today, to Protestants of the past such as the ones who founded America. Prots today are content to worship in "humble" spaces - meanwhile they spend lavish amounts of money on their cars, children, vacations, combined with some generous charity. And then when it comes to God, suddenly they become cheap stingy people. Meanwhile, the Prots of the past always made sure their nicest building in town was the Church.
Seems to me many Prots today are in deep sin, and no longer love God. That is why they are disconnected from their own past and other denominations - who all understood a beautiful Church was how one showed their love to God.
Last edited:
That was because the Church was under persecution.
The moment the Church was legitimized by Saint Constantine, beautiful big Churches became the norm.
Interesting thread. I have to say I don't understand the "cons" of traditional church buildings. I rarely talk on spiritual matters here for my own reasons so I will ask this as a rhetorical question:
Can anyone find me a building on earth that is more beautiful, uplifting, and timeless, than those designed, built, and maintained by men who lived in a culture of worship and were inspired by Christ?
The incredible quality, quantity, and diversity of churches and classic buildings from around the world, especially Europe, are some of the most stunning visual, aesthetic, and concrete, tangible examples of Western civilisation, design, ingenuity, determination, and beauty... which were derived, more than anything else, from Christianity.
Related vid:
A more detailed look at church architecture:
Here in Australia we don't have anywhere near the range and scale of churches around the world:
I've visited a few of these Churches (like MIlan Cathedral, Sainte Chapelle, Notre Dame) and even as many years pass, they are still awe-inspiring.
Now to advise the international readers what is here... I will first note that the Opera House and Sydney Harbour Bridge and absolutely iconic, but none of them can stir the heart and soul like St Patrick's in Melbourne and St Mary's in Sydney, among others. The interior of both are very beautiful.
St Patrick's Cathedral, Melbourne
St Mary's Cathedral, Sydney
Can anyone find me a building on earth that is more beautiful, uplifting, and timeless, than those designed, built, and maintained by men who lived in a culture of worship and were inspired by Christ?
The incredible quality, quantity, and diversity of churches and classic buildings from around the world, especially Europe, are some of the most stunning visual, aesthetic, and concrete, tangible examples of Western civilisation, design, ingenuity, determination, and beauty... which were derived, more than anything else, from Christianity.
Related vid:
A more detailed look at church architecture:
Here in Australia we don't have anywhere near the range and scale of churches around the world:
I've visited a few of these Churches (like MIlan Cathedral, Sainte Chapelle, Notre Dame) and even as many years pass, they are still awe-inspiring.
Now to advise the international readers what is here... I will first note that the Opera House and Sydney Harbour Bridge and absolutely iconic, but none of them can stir the heart and soul like St Patrick's in Melbourne and St Mary's in Sydney, among others. The interior of both are very beautiful.
St Patrick's Cathedral, Melbourne
St Mary's Cathedral, Sydney
Modern conference center churches that are usually of the rock n roll Jesus concert variety, though they do praise the name of the Lord and Savior, are completely soulless otherwise. Simple churches have their beauty too, but the Cathedrals that arose out of the abbeys and missions in Europe from the 10th century onwards were all constructed with divine intelligence, and their beauty reflects this. Every single one I've set foot in, despite how in recent times many European countries have turned most of them into tourist attractions, one can still feel the ancient energy that invigorated the parishioners from olden times. Sacred geometry is essential in a church, in my humble opinion.
I don't see any con of these kinds of structures, they have lasted the ages, and will continue to do so as long as they are protected. I think that smaller churches should be planned out more thoroughly, given natural materials for construction, more stone, and should all have a type of stained glass, even simple chapels. I plan to build a real church some day, I don't know when, or where, I just know that I want to do it before I leave this earth.
I don't see any con of these kinds of structures, they have lasted the ages, and will continue to do so as long as they are protected. I think that smaller churches should be planned out more thoroughly, given natural materials for construction, more stone, and should all have a type of stained glass, even simple chapels. I plan to build a real church some day, I don't know when, or where, I just know that I want to do it before I leave this earth.
It's a good question.
My favorite church is a very small brick stone church in a monastery, very simple, very beautiful.
But I also love the grand Cathedral.
I think we can honour God in many different ways, a small altar, in personal prayer, in the golden marble filled Cathedral, in the brick church.
I like the diversity. The danger is the dogma. Whenever we place our house of prayer above our Lord I think we are in error.
I like this line by @Samseau
It's a sacrifice.
What I have seen around me is that many beautiful churches are now closed and bought by the state.
They are turned into conference / party centers / museums.
I have been in a few, and the soul is gone, that's what I felt, they hang these weird info banners, who designed the building, in what year it was built, in what style it was built, how long it took, which painters made some art pieces, some anecdote of a disease when it was used as a shelter.
They turned our house of prayer in a secular museum. In which you walk around a say: "wow how could they build it like this in 1753?" and make photos.
When Christ is gone, I feel I don't care anymore, it's just stones.
Primarily the prayer is what makes the church. Secondarily let's do that in beautiful chuches.
My favorite church is a very small brick stone church in a monastery, very simple, very beautiful.
But I also love the grand Cathedral.
I think we can honour God in many different ways, a small altar, in personal prayer, in the golden marble filled Cathedral, in the brick church.
I like the diversity. The danger is the dogma. Whenever we place our house of prayer above our Lord I think we are in error.
I like this line by @Samseau
It's a sacrifice.
What I have seen around me is that many beautiful churches are now closed and bought by the state.
They are turned into conference / party centers / museums.
I have been in a few, and the soul is gone, that's what I felt, they hang these weird info banners, who designed the building, in what year it was built, in what style it was built, how long it took, which painters made some art pieces, some anecdote of a disease when it was used as a shelter.
They turned our house of prayer in a secular museum. In which you walk around a say: "wow how could they build it like this in 1753?" and make photos.
When Christ is gone, I feel I don't care anymore, it's just stones.
Primarily the prayer is what makes the church. Secondarily let's do that in beautiful chuches.
ALL architecture should be beautiful, and church architecture should beautifully enhance worship of God. It doesn't need to be lavish, although it was Judas who whined that money could have been given to the poor (he wanted to pilfer some).
Our problem is no architecture is beautiful now, but freakish depraved novelty, something anti-aesthetic, soul-killing, devilish. And the system makes is so expensive to make something nice, "why not build this warehouse shell and have a great church??" laughs the devil "it's beautiful in its mercury vapor lighting and angular simplicity!"
Our problem is no architecture is beautiful now, but freakish depraved novelty, something anti-aesthetic, soul-killing, devilish. And the system makes is so expensive to make something nice, "why not build this warehouse shell and have a great church??" laughs the devil "it's beautiful in its mercury vapor lighting and angular simplicity!"
Here's a crucial element of the argument that you shouldn’t spend money on “lavish” churches which always gets overlooked in these kinds of discussions: at least in Orthodoxy, anybody can go in the church and worship there. The church is for everyone.
It's not like when you go out and buy a BMW or a Rolex with the purpose of enjoying it yourself, and maybe enjoy being seen in it. Presumably the guy with the BMW isn't giving rides to homeless people, who don't benefit from his luxury at all; but with a nicely-furnished Orthodox Church, it's a place where everyone can enter and worship and experience God, whether you are rich or poor. So in a sense, a beautiful church is more like a public works project than a luxury good. This distinction is absolutely vital and transforms the way you perceive this. It's also worth pointing out that the things you the parishioner don't directly interact with, like vestments and the Holy Table and chalices and stuff, aren't luxury goods enjoyed by the clergy, but tools for performing a function, and part of their office; the same as how a police officer, or fire fighter, or a judge, wear particular outfits and are given particular tools for performing their job. The Bishop doesn't go out to lunch clad in vestments, for instance, he wears a simple black cassock. This might seem obvious for those who've been in the Orthodox Church for a while, but I think folks on the outside genuinely aren't aware of this sort of thing.
My parish is doing pretty well by American Orthodox standards, but compared to the many large and wealthy evangelical churches in the area, we're a small congregation without a lot of money. But the inside of the church is beautiful, much of the adornment hand-painted by one of our monks (who recently passed away), and the iconostasis consists entirely of hand-painted icons. This was all done over a long period of time through the contributions of the parishioners.
Another thing I think has been overlooked is that evangelical churches spend a fortune on lavish accoutrements as well, they just take a different form: it's sophisticated audio/visual equipment. I've attended small churches with AV systems and production values that put medium-sized music venues to shame. All of this is extremely expensive and requires vast overhead and manpower to operate and maintain - and unlike hand-painted icons which can last for many generations, the AV stuff will all be replaced in a few years by newer, slightly nicer AV tech. Rather than adornment that glorifies God and elevates our hearts and minds to contemplate and focus on Him, the AV tech is entirely for the purpose of exalting and magnifying the preacher man and the band, showing that the focus is really on man and not God, despite all protestations to the contrary.
And before you say "well MY church isn't like that, I go to So-And-So Reformed Confessional Presbyterian Church where the preacher holds a Bible behind the plywood pulpit and there are no screens!", remember that you are in the tiny minority and that 95%+ of evangelical churches that are (seemingly) growing and dominate "the market" in the US look a lot more like what I described than the place you attend, which is the exception rather than the rule.
Another way that American churches tend to spend money is on building projects, just about every evangelical church I ever attended went millions into debt to build some giant new facility of some sort or other. It's just that these projects tend to reflect an emphasis on vast utilitarian scale rather than beauty and end up looking more like college campus or a shopping mall than something that any Christian from before the last 50-100 years would recognize as a church. And such building projects also tend to incorporate the expensive tech stuff I also mentioned above, and aren't designed to endure for centuries, but have roughly the same life cycle as any modern utilitarian building.
As someone who spent most of my life in bland utilitarian church building settings that I never really considered before converting to Orthodoxy, I can say confidently that the environment of the Orthodox Church helps me focus on God and put me in a physical, spiritual, mental space for worship, reflective of the heart of the Orthodox faith and its emphases, while the four-bare-walls-and-a-pulpit setting is the physical manifestation of a Christianity that is an abstract, coldly theoretical system that has a hard time becoming physically incarnate.
It's not like when you go out and buy a BMW or a Rolex with the purpose of enjoying it yourself, and maybe enjoy being seen in it. Presumably the guy with the BMW isn't giving rides to homeless people, who don't benefit from his luxury at all; but with a nicely-furnished Orthodox Church, it's a place where everyone can enter and worship and experience God, whether you are rich or poor. So in a sense, a beautiful church is more like a public works project than a luxury good. This distinction is absolutely vital and transforms the way you perceive this. It's also worth pointing out that the things you the parishioner don't directly interact with, like vestments and the Holy Table and chalices and stuff, aren't luxury goods enjoyed by the clergy, but tools for performing a function, and part of their office; the same as how a police officer, or fire fighter, or a judge, wear particular outfits and are given particular tools for performing their job. The Bishop doesn't go out to lunch clad in vestments, for instance, he wears a simple black cassock. This might seem obvious for those who've been in the Orthodox Church for a while, but I think folks on the outside genuinely aren't aware of this sort of thing.
My parish is doing pretty well by American Orthodox standards, but compared to the many large and wealthy evangelical churches in the area, we're a small congregation without a lot of money. But the inside of the church is beautiful, much of the adornment hand-painted by one of our monks (who recently passed away), and the iconostasis consists entirely of hand-painted icons. This was all done over a long period of time through the contributions of the parishioners.
Another thing I think has been overlooked is that evangelical churches spend a fortune on lavish accoutrements as well, they just take a different form: it's sophisticated audio/visual equipment. I've attended small churches with AV systems and production values that put medium-sized music venues to shame. All of this is extremely expensive and requires vast overhead and manpower to operate and maintain - and unlike hand-painted icons which can last for many generations, the AV stuff will all be replaced in a few years by newer, slightly nicer AV tech. Rather than adornment that glorifies God and elevates our hearts and minds to contemplate and focus on Him, the AV tech is entirely for the purpose of exalting and magnifying the preacher man and the band, showing that the focus is really on man and not God, despite all protestations to the contrary.
And before you say "well MY church isn't like that, I go to So-And-So Reformed Confessional Presbyterian Church where the preacher holds a Bible behind the plywood pulpit and there are no screens!", remember that you are in the tiny minority and that 95%+ of evangelical churches that are (seemingly) growing and dominate "the market" in the US look a lot more like what I described than the place you attend, which is the exception rather than the rule.
Another way that American churches tend to spend money is on building projects, just about every evangelical church I ever attended went millions into debt to build some giant new facility of some sort or other. It's just that these projects tend to reflect an emphasis on vast utilitarian scale rather than beauty and end up looking more like college campus or a shopping mall than something that any Christian from before the last 50-100 years would recognize as a church. And such building projects also tend to incorporate the expensive tech stuff I also mentioned above, and aren't designed to endure for centuries, but have roughly the same life cycle as any modern utilitarian building.
As someone who spent most of my life in bland utilitarian church building settings that I never really considered before converting to Orthodoxy, I can say confidently that the environment of the Orthodox Church helps me focus on God and put me in a physical, spiritual, mental space for worship, reflective of the heart of the Orthodox faith and its emphases, while the four-bare-walls-and-a-pulpit setting is the physical manifestation of a Christianity that is an abstract, coldly theoretical system that has a hard time becoming physically incarnate.
This is exactly a crucial point of difference between the Orthodox liturgy and Protestant/post-Vatican II services. In Orthodoxy, the focus is on God, the priest faces the altar (ad orientem), and not the parishioners. At least in mega-churches and from experience, the focus is on entertainment and getting people excited and having an emotional experience (and there's usually no altar). Where is the sublime, the Holy, the ethereal in any of that? Can you compare a praise band, lasers, and catchy tunes with a good guitar riff with the experience of being transported to the presence of the Almighty and the Saints, where the heavenly liturgy is 24/7/365? When we celebrate liturgy, we are transported into their presence for a brief time, to participate in their eternal worship. It is a foretaste of what is to come.
According to the tradition, Vladimir (Prince of Kiev) didn’t like the dietary restrictions of Islam and Judaism. Catholic Christianity was all right, but what impressed the grand prince was the dazzling worship his ambassadors described seeing in the great Cathedral of Hagia Sophia in Constantinople: “We knew not whether we were in heaven or on earth, for surely there is no such splendor or beauty anywhere upon earth. We cannot describe it to you. Only we know that God dwells there among men, and that their service surpasses the worship of all other places. We cannot forget that beauty.”
Last edited:
A few months ago, our Priest announced that we were in need of a new communion spoon. Our former one had tarnished from years of use and the gold flaking had worn. Weeks later, at the end of service, our Priest made an announcement, recognizing the family that had donated a new communion set.
During coffee hour many people were sincerely thanking this couple for their donation because they understood how significant these tools were for preparing and delivering the Body and Blood of our Savior.
Years ago I would have scoffed at this, thinking, “It’s only a spoon. Why does it have to be so fancy?”
Matthew 26:
26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
27. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink you all of it;
28 For this is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
The
Excellent reply. I want to just comment on:
This is most certainly true. To @GodfatherPartTwo's point: Our bodies are the true living Temples of God. Our spiritual lives should be oriented to making our lives and heart-Thrones set-apart and beautiful for the indwelling of the Blessed Trinity. That being said, we are physical beings and need to engage in liturgical/bodily worship (note when the Lord says we will "worship in spirit and truth," the word for "worship" is used for bodily kneeling/bowing worship). What we do on the outside must be a reflection of what is on the inside, and vice versa. This is where the Jews got it wrong. They went through the letter and ignored the spirit. But as the Lord told them elsewhere, "you should have done the one without neglecting the other." We need synthesis. It doesn't have to be either/or. And we don't want the one to distract from the other. There is a time and a place for everything. What matters is the motivation of the heart.
To add to what HeremeticSeal said about how evangelical megachurches tend to have more an utilitarian focus, something that I notice that these churches has which Orthodox and Catholic churches tend not to have are lots of add-ons that you typically would associate with a mall, as was pointed. I've seen churches that had cafes, bookstores, and even gyms. And let's not forget about YMCAs which I suppose aren't strictly churches and these days seems to have lost a lot of it's religious identity but were originally supposed to be at least partially serve as spiritual center of some sort.
Coming along with all of this is a tendency to treat a church almost as a business organization of some sort. A major mega-church in my area that is pretty successful with around 10 different campuses (yes some megachurches are so big these days the church will actual have multiple buildings all across an area with one main campus and a bunch of other campus locations where the congregation watches the pastor preach on stream from the main campus) has a behind the scenes pastor who used to be a CFO for a major corporation. I wouldn't be surprised if this an atypical thing for the successful megachurches to have one or several people with extensive business experience running things in the background.
Coming along with all of this is a tendency to treat a church almost as a business organization of some sort. A major mega-church in my area that is pretty successful with around 10 different campuses (yes some megachurches are so big these days the church will actual have multiple buildings all across an area with one main campus and a bunch of other campus locations where the congregation watches the pastor preach on stream from the main campus) has a behind the scenes pastor who used to be a CFO for a major corporation. I wouldn't be surprised if this an atypical thing for the successful megachurches to have one or several people with extensive business experience running things in the background.
This is a great point I hadn't thought of. My Orthodox parish does have a bookstore where I often volunteer, but it's a bit tucked away in the church and pretty easy to walk past if you don't know it's there, and given the somewhat specialized nature, and general lack of accessibility in the US, of Orthodox books and goods, visitors and parishioners alike benefit from having the bookstore and knowledgeable people staffing it. But it has more of a little gift shop vibe than a slick venue for turning a profit, as our lack of inventory management and frequent use of the honor system makes apparent.
The con would be that they are in danger of violating the second commandment.
I'm not saying that I believe they are, but I can see the argument for it.