# Christ and Architecture



## rjlynam (Sep 20, 2006)

I just got finished reading a book called Christ and Architecture. I don't remember who it was by as I've already loaned the thing out to an elder. 

Anybody familiar with this work and want to discuss?

One of the points made in the book is that Christ is communicated to His people in the worship service through the reading/expositing of His Word, through the sacrament of Baptism, and through the Lord's Supper. 

The book suggests that each is of equal importance and preeminence. They further suggest that most American churches do not give them equal weight in the architecture and should.

Examples: Pulpit in the front/center, communion table when not in use holding flowers or the offering plates etc, absense of the baptismal font when not in use.

Any thoughts/comments on this?



[Edited on 9-21-2006 by rjlynam]


----------



## Coram Deo (Sep 21, 2006)

I am not familiar with the book, but would love to read it. I have studied such issues on my own and agree to some of what you wrote about it. For Example, we should not have stages in the church that gives the feel of entertainment, but it should be a chancel which should be raised enough (I believe it is 30 or 32 inches high or more) for every person in the pews to have eyes on the preacher who is preaching the very words of God. The very Word of God should be central to the sanctuary.
As for the Lord's Supper Communion table, I am of the mind that we should partake of the Lord's Supper every Lord's Day for his remembrance and for imparting grace upon us. So, it should or would not be a problem that flowers were on it if we use it for the very purpose it was meant for. Sided noted about the offering, I am still studying the issue out whether we should be passing out offering plates for Alms giving, or if we should do it like the historical church has done for centuries, have a Alms Box in the back of the church for the giving. I question whether the offering is a part or element of the Worship service. But that is a side note.

We don't have baptismal fonts since we are Reformed Baptist..  but, I would say I enjoy a Baptismal pool that is out of sight and in the ground of the chancel, so it is not seen until a baptism takes place.

I am trying to think of other issues, but I am coming up blank at the moment... In the end what we want is a place of reverance and inspiring of Awe of Almighty God, not some entertainment driven service... We are not going so we can be entertained but worshipping the Lord of Host, and we should have the place feeling like we are worshipping.

Well that is my two cents for the moment..

Michael



> _Originally posted by rjlynam_
> I just got finished reading a book called Christ and Architecture. ....
> The book suggests that each is of equal importance and preeminence. They further suggest that most American churches do not give them equal weight in the architecture and should.
> 
> ...


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Sep 21, 2006)

Is the book that you are referring to: Donald J. Bruggink and Carl H. Droppers, _Christ and Architecture: Building Presbyterian/Reformed Churches_ (Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1965)? If so, I haven't read it, but it looks intriguing (Bruggink also wrote _When Faith Takes Form: Contemporary Churches of Architectural Integrity in America _ and a commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism). There is an excerpt from _Christ and Architecture_ here.

You may also be interested in reviewing this thread and this and this.

[Edited on 9-21-2006 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## rjlynam (Sep 21, 2006)

That's the one. It had alot of interesting dialog about how our ancestors' view of Christ (central) was influential in the construction of the place of worship. Alot of Dutch reformed buildings and such. I wasn't so impressed with the pictures, of which there were many, so I actually read it. lol. One of the points that they make is that the pulpit should not receive any greater place of prominence than the baptismal font or the communion table.

It's a good read, if you can find it.


----------



## SRoper (Sep 22, 2006)

"The book suggests that each is of equal importance and preeminence. They further suggest that most American churches do not give them equal weight in the architecture and should."

At our church we give them equal weight by having no fixed pulpit, communion table, or baptismal font.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Sep 22, 2006)

Here is a good question / topic in this vein...

Or rather, let me give a statement then ask the question -

I think that when people enter a local meeting house (in ideal circumstances) they should leave the profane and enter the sacred.

Different people have differeing conceptions of what it meas for something to be sacred.

In the realm of architecture and local meeting houses, what would "sacred" look like?


----------



## rjlynam (Sep 22, 2006)

And the easy answer is: "Set apart"

I am much more inclined, after reading this treatise, that the center of attention in our places of worship needs to be Jesus Christ. Not focused on one specific thing, i.e. the pulpit, but rather all the areas which prescribe Christ's communicating to His people (word, baptism, communion). 

And I am hard pressed to see where any one of the three should be given prominence over the others. As sacred, or "set apart", I wonder if it's a debasement of the communion table to have anything but the cup and plate on it. 

Should there be altars in the place of worship? The folks who wrote "Christ and Architecture" clearly think the altar has no place in New Covenant worship.


----------



## Romans922 (Sep 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by rjlynam_
> And the easy answer is: "Set apart"
> 
> I am much more inclined, after reading this treatise, that the center of attention in our places of worship needs to be Jesus Christ. Not focused on one specific thing, i.e. the pulpit, but rather all the areas which prescribe Christ's communicating to His people (word, baptism, communion).
> ...



Altar?

Are you sacrificing something?


----------



## rjlynam (Sep 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Romans922_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by rjlynam_
> ...



Not only no, but I don't even think that there should be any reference to the altar as even a place in the church. Wouldn't it be nice to ask one of your congregant brethren to meet you at the altar in a couple of minutes for a chat, and have them not know where to go?

For those of you in _reformed_ churches, try it this Sunday. Pick someone to chat with, and then tell them you've got to do something for just a minute, but ask them to meet you down at the altar in a couple of minutes because you want to ask them something. Then, when you meet them at the front of the church in a couple of minutes, you can ask them to point out the altar to you.

Wouldn't it be nice if they abruptly stop you before you run off, and ask, "The altar? Where's that?"




[Edited on 9-23-2006 by rjlynam]


----------



## Scott (Sep 25, 2006)

The book is very good, the best I am aware of from a reformed perspective. I have a summary a friend wrote, that I will try and post later.

While not from the book, Churchill said, "We shape our buildings and then they shape us." He is right, they influence our attitudes and thoughts.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Sep 27, 2006)

Has anyone read another book along these lines (ie., Reformed architectural aesthetics): _Building Codes: The Aesthetics of Calvinism in Early Modern Europe_ (1999) by Catharine Randall? If so, thoughts?


----------

