Ship of Fools: Eccles: What is the best layout/architecture for a new worship space?

Thread: Eccles: What is the best layout/architecture for a new worship space? Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=001140

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

I am struck by how ugly many churches built from the mid twentieth century onward are, but at the same time I sympathize with some of the goals of their architects (emphasize the participation and importance of the people, emphasize the centrality of Word and Altar and draw people's attention to the activity around them, etc.). As a Catholic I think of a worship space not just in terms of people, pulpit, baptismal font, and choir/band, but also in terms of altar, presider's chair (and seating for other ministers), and tabernacle. What do you think is the best way to lay out the worship space in a newly-constructed church? What style of architecture and art in the church works best for new churches in the West?

Here are some of my thoughts and questions:

1. I like how everyone feels closer to the altar and to each other in churches where the congregation "wraps around" the altar, but I find that the acoustics in such churches are often poor without amplification and that such churches often feel too much like a secular auditorium rather than a sacred space. I guess a small church with seating in rows of pews in front of the altar is ideal for me, but the trend in both Catholic and Evangelical churches is toward bigger congregations (and closing of smaller churches), so I guess this is not realistic.

2. I like having the tabernacle behind the altar and worshiping ad orientem (people and priest both facing liturgically "East") but that will probably not work for most people since they have been taught to associate that with the priest turning his/her back on them. That said, I do not like the priest turning his/her back on the blessed sacrament when the tabernacle is behind her/him and s/he faces the people. But putting the tablernacle off to the side or in a separate room altogether seems to inevitably result in reduced reverence for the reserved Sacrament - not among people who are going to revere it anyway, but among the majority who kind of just go along with what the architecture and other people are indicating they should do. How to resulve this?

3. Possible places for the choir:
a. the back loft where they do not appear to be an stage and seem to be somewhat part of the worshipping assembly and not presiding (good things - but you cannot see them)
b. in the traditional "quire" which is between the crossing and the apse, which seems to put them on stage as separate from the congregation but not as much so as actually having them on a stage
c. in a special set of pews positioned to be separate from the altar area but to be easily seen and heard by the congregation (similar to b.)
d. On an actual stage or rafters behind or next to the pulpit (quite popular in non-liturgical churches where the choir/band is a key part of leading the people in worship, but seenin liturgical churches as well - I'm not a fan of it).
Which is best?

3. Whither the pulpit? Should it just be a little lectern or a big thing with stairs leading up to it? Should it be next to the altar or out in the middle of the pews? Should one pulpit be the place for all readings, sermons, psalms, intercessions, and announcements, or should there be a side lectern for some or all of these other than the gospel and sermon (or other than the sermon alone)?

4. Should the baptismal font be at the church's entrance and hard for people to see without turning around? Should it be at the entrance and elevated for people to see if they turn around? Should it be in the front of the church near the altar? Should it be in front and to the side (and therefore possibly hard to see)? Should it draw a lot of attention to itself compared with the altar, pulpit, tabernacle, etc.

5. Should the presider's chair be behind the altar or to the side of it? Should it look like an important chair or just a chair? Should it try to portray the presider as part of the assembly when s/he sits and listens to readings, or should it reflect his/her leading role throughout all worship?

6. Should the decoration of the worship space be minimal, so as to not distract from the importance of the worship and/or sacraments happening now, or should it be full of images and ornaments that teach people about what happens in worship/sacraments and help them feel that they are in a sacred space? Should the art be traditional to remind people of what they are brought up to think of as sacred, modern to appeal to people skeptical of tradition, or largely absent to appeal to people used to churches that look little different from secular assembly halls and who might be turned off by "churchy"-looking churches?

[ 04. March 2014, 09:30: Message edited by: seasick ]

Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :

Wow. A lot of questions. So much of this depends on... so much. But, let me first give you my knee-jerk reactions, thinking of a 'typical' parish context (not that such a thing exists), without footnoting or even checking documents that I would if I were actually planning a new space, or scrutinizing my own instincts too much.

1) I'm a strong proponent of the altar being truly central, and not just on one axis. An altar which is at the far end of a space gives an image of a distant God. God, truly present on the altar, should be central to our lives, and I like the people to surround the altar to embody this reality. The very traditional cruciform shape is, I think, the best way of doing this: with transepts that people actually sit in (the arms of the cross), and a large 'main space' ('body' of the cross) so as people that are only ready to be more peripheral can be. Second best is a fan arrangement. Bowling alley churces are a pet peeve of mine.

2) I also like the tabernacle on the central axis behind the tabernacle. On a cruciform design, you could have the tabernacle right behind the main altar, and then a small daily mass chapel on the other side of it (the 'head' of the cross).

3) I've come to think that the back (or a loft) really is the best place for a choir, after having not thought this for a long time. In my cruciform church, I'd be OK with them taking one transept if they're big enough for this to make sense.

4) Near the main doors, it's how we enter the church. People can turn around. I would also make sure it's possible to do immersion in it.

5) I'd prefer it to be to the side (opposite side to the ambo). It should definitely be substantial. The three main places of action in the Mass are the altar, ambo and chair and these three should be somewhat commensurate.

6) In general, I like stuff in a church (not too plain). Quite what that stuff should be would need to be a delicate negotiation between the local particularity of that community and the universality of the Church catholic.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

Firstly there is no reason why you can not have good acoustics and wrap around seating you just have to know what you are doing. There are examples of the style in late Victorian Non-Conformity. This chapel is typical of the style with the pulpit above the communion table and everyone very close to the central act.

Jengie

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

The ideal new worship space is sort of like pornography. I'll know it when I see it. Most of the new stuff I don't like.

[ 02. December 2013, 23:58: Message edited by: Beeswax Altar ]

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

I like sitting in rows facing the altar.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

Our little church has rows of pews that wrap around in about a third of a circle. (Most of the other two thirds of the church circle is in the labyrinth garden which contains an outdoor font and columbarium.) The organ and the choir loft is behind the altar. The aumbry and sanctus candle is to the right of the altar. The ambo, used for the first two readings, is to the left. The priest faces the congregation from behind the altar offering the Eucharist. Works for us.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Obviously different worshipping traditions have different foci - for instance the Catholics and High Church Anglicans place the Altar in a central spot while Nonconformists, for whom preaching is almost sacramental, make sure that the Pulpit is most prominent.

Without entering that debate, may I say:

1. Worship spaces need to be flexible so they can be used in many ways and formats. To me this says chairs rather than pews, moveable furniture etc. It doesn't have to be tacky or "cheap". Permanent pews can be very restrictive.

2. Worship spaces should be beautiful and convey a sense of the numinous; very often they are terribly bland - one new Baptist Church I know is totally functional and feels like a school Assembly Hall. The problem of course is cost - either because cash is tight or because people will say, "This money should be spent on outreach/the poor/missionary work".

I realise that these do not really answer the questions being posed in the OP.

[ 03. December 2013, 07:33: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

New Catholic churches tend to be either neo-traditional (like old churches with straight pews, lots of statues, etc., but accomodated for modern techonology, people with disabilities, etc), abstract and cold, or assembly halls devoid of much decoration. The abstract and cold churches tend to be built by liberal leaning types, the neo-traditional by conservative leaning types, and the assembly halls by both types and those in-between. Do other people have similar or different observations for your denominations?

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

If money and resources are plentiful you can have whatever you like, but plenty of churches, even RC ones, have to go with something much simpler. I don't know if the spirituality that emanates from worship in hired school halls is less than what we find in ancient and beautiful cathedrals; and I know of one RC congregation that has to meet in a small school chaplaincy that's basically a couple of rooms.

There's a Methodist church I know that's raising money to move its toilets and kitchens from their central position so that people will be able to look through the main doors and see right into the church, to the altar. Apparently they've been inspired by the Baptist church down the road from them. To me, this isn't the best use of their money, but fortunately, it's not my concern!

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

Going back to the Middle Ages, should the huge amounts of money and labor used to build cathedrals been used elsewhere? Cathedrals were symbols of power and prestige of course, and were built in part to cash in on the lucrative pilgrim tourist industry. But I can't imagine being Christian without being inspired to create monumental works of art to express one's faith. Today though, I agree that some churches spend a bit too much on making their worship spaces just perfect for the upper middle class types they want to come inside and not enough on being Christ to the poor.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:

1. Worship spaces need to be flexible so they can be used in many ways and formats. [/QB]

Interesting. Putting the rather depressing cash angle to one side for a moment, in the "best" of all possible worlds, why? As an AC by inclination - my best layout/architecture would include a church hall for anything that wasn't worship, and would definitely have fixed pews in the worship bit.

Of course, if we're compromising (and therefore I would argue getting away from the "best layout/architecture" bit), then I take your point.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

I'm off to practice quoting - I've got no idea what's going wrong given I had got it sorted. If anything the longer I've been posting on here the worse I've got at that. I was doing very well at the start!

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
... As an AC by inclination - my best layout/architecture.....would definitely have fixed pews in the worship bit.

Oh no, no, no. Definitely chairs if you're AC: preferably rickety ones with rush seats.

[ 03. December 2013, 20:13: Message edited by: Albertus ]

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

In the United States, chairs are mostly for modern worship centers with forward thinking liturgists who want "flexible seating arrangements" to make room for the roll-out labyrinth an perhaps some liturgical dance. American Ango-Catholics prefer pews precisely because they prevent such business. ISTM, anyway.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

Individual chairs are awkward to deal with - handbag straps get caught around the legs, people put the rows too close together so one can't kneel, etc. Surely moveable pews exist?

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Individual chairs are awkward to deal with - handbag straps get caught around the legs, people put the rows too close together so one can't kneel, etc. Surely moveable pews exist?

In my experience, once the chairs are installed they are so seldom rearranged that the church might as well have gone with pews anyway.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

My current place has quite nice early 20th century chairs, nailed together on long bits of wood.... Name that Oxford church in one...

Posted by monkeylizard (# 952) on :

One word: Sanctinasium.

How do you know if you're beating the devil if there's no scoreboard behind the pulpit?

Seriously though, moving chairs depends greatly on the congregation and the space available. A couple of good friends attend a church that moves the chairs out every Sunday after church and moves them back in every Saturday afternoon. During the week they use the space for various activities and ministries. The sanctinasium space is the only space they have that's large enough to support any one of those items so it has to be multi-use. On the flip-side, for a short time I attended a church with movable chairs that never got moved. It was dead during the week and only slightly less so on Sundays. I've also seen movable chairs stay put because a church had a large enough annex space to accomodate non-worship activities.

That said, I don't like multi-use/sanctinasium spaces. I prefer pews, but it's not always about me...something that God and Dr. Phil seem to have to constantly remind me of.

[ 03. December 2013, 21:39: Message edited by: monkeylizard ]

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

Before getting into specifics, it's important, I think, to address the more basic questions of aesthetics (see below) and other issues that undergird the impulse to place a font or an altar here rather than there.

My main comment would be that whatever you do, you're going to gain something and you're going to lose something. It's important to recognize that, and to thoughtfully and prayerfully discern in community what is most important to that community.

It's also a good idea to keep the future in mind. Do you want the space to be flexible, to accommodate changes in liturgy and ideas about how things should be arranged?

Also, aesthetics is really important here. Aesthetics isn't just how you pretty up the space. It involves how we learn through our senses. The architecture should speak to our bodies about our faith. How we orient ourselves in the space, and how/where things are placed are really important. So is the symbolism involved when you make a pulpit the main focus or make the altar the main focus, or use a moveable lectern or table rather than something permanent.

The kind of furniture and the way the space looks can also contribute to either a sense that this place is simply a gathering place or a sense that this space is sacred space. Do you want it to be a space where people would feel comfortable, e.g., bringing coffee? Do you want it to inspire awe in visitors? Do you want to emphasize the people in the space more than the material elements of the space?

Typically, the more catholic churches (that emphasize sacraments) tend to go for the sacred space model, since they are more likely to consider the building itself sacramental, and a house for the Reserved Sacrament as well as for the activities of the worshipping community. Protestant churches, particularly the more Evangelical, stress the meeting-place aspect of the building, but may still want to make it clear that it's a particularly special, dedicated, sacred meeting space.

Just some considerations I think are prior to the more specific decisions.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
... It's also a good idea to keep the future in mind. Do you want the space to be flexible, to accommodate changes in liturgy and ideas about how things should be arranged? ...

Certainly not. We raised the money and we know best. We want to ensure that when we're gone, our preferences and tastes live on, and impose themselves on those who come after until the time shall be no more, and if possible thereafter.
[Razz]

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

Exactly

We have to spend our money to construct a worship space for our community that is easily adaptable to whatever fad is handed down from on high by the experts.

[Roll Eyes]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Cathedrals were symbols of power and prestige of course, and were built in part to cash in on the lucrative pilgrim tourist industry. But I can't imagine being Christian without being inspired to create monumental works of art to express one's faith. Today though, I agree that some churches spend a bit too much on making their worship spaces just perfect for the upper middle class types they want to come inside and not enough on being Christ to the poor.

Many wealthy church communities, then and now, have tried to help the poor in various ways, but I doubt that cathedral worship in the Middle Ages was much more accessible to the poor than worship is in posh churches today.

In some ways the layout of both ancient churches and modern ones is very similar. Some might say the similarities are far more significant than the differences.

Posted by S. Bacchus (# 17778) on :

I think that one of the most important things about church architecture, possibly THE most important basic thing, is the sense of a journey to the altar (usually symbolically by way of the font, although rarely literally through it!). For me that means churches with long naves are brilliant, and those built in the style of lecture theatres are sadly lacking.

The example shown by Jengie Jon is a very pretty room, but to me it looks more like a debating chamber than a church. I know that's a tradition in church building, but it wouldn't work in the liturgical tradition shared between Roman Catholics, Lutherans, and many or most Anglicans (not just the Anglo-Catholics).

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Firstly there is no reason why you can not have good acoustics and wrap around seating you just have to know what you are doing. There are examples of the style in late Victorian Non-Conformity. This chapel is typical of the style with the pulpit above the communion table and everyone very close to the central act.

Jengie

Except you're not close to the central act if you're in the upper level - unless the point is only to see and hear. It does allow you to see others gathered with you, except those directly above or below you, though.

In the US, that style was often used during slavery days to segregate white "owners" (who sat on the ground level) from their black slaves, who sat in the balcony. Sadly, that's all I can think of when I see a church design like that.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Firstly there is no reason why you can not have good acoustics and wrap around seating you just have to know what you are doing. There are examples of the style in late Victorian Non-Conformity. This chapel is typical of the style with the pulpit above the communion table and everyone very close to the central act.

Jengie
Except you're not close to the central act if you're in the upper level - unless the point is only to see and hear. It does allow you to see others gathered with you, except those directly above or below you, though.

In the US, that style was often used during slavery days to segregate white "owners" (who sat on the ground level) from their black slaves, who sat in the balcony. Sadly, that's all I can think of when I see a church design like that.

It was the same idea in England—with the servants sitting in the balcony.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Firstly there is no reason why you can not have good acoustics and wrap around seating you just have to know what you are doing. There are examples of the style in late Victorian Non-Conformity. This chapel is typical of the style with the pulpit above the communion table and everyone very close to the central act.

Jengie
Except you're not close to the central act if you're in the upper level - unless the point is only to see and hear. It does allow you to see others gathered with you, except those directly above or below you, though.

In the US, that style was often used during slavery days to segregate white "owners" (who sat on the ground level) from their black slaves, who sat in the balcony. Sadly, that's all I can think of when I see a church design like that.

When the central act is the Eucharist, you can't get much closer to the central act than receiving the Body and Blood of Christ. Where one sits before during the consecration isn't important. When the central act is preaching, then seeing and hearing is enough. Nothing is special about the body of the messenger only the message delivered.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
In the United States, chairs are mostly for modern worship centers with forward thinking liturgists who want "flexible seating arrangements" to make room for the roll-out labyrinth an perhaps some liturgical dance. American Ango-Catholics prefer pews precisely because they prevent such business. ISTM, anyway.

Many otherwise AC Cathedrals have chairs because that allows them to clear out the floor of the nave for performances, often secular, the revenue from which allow said cathedrals to remain open.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

In fact, for the vast majority of British congregations now any new structure needs to be easy to care for and flexible in its use. Buildings have to pay their way, especially in the Nonconformist and other Protestant denominations, where most new church structures now seem to exist due to fundraising by congregations, not due to huge donations from wealthy benefactors nor from denominational funds. The few funding bodies that exist expect church groups to be able to explain how they intend to use the space other than for Sunday morning worship.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

A quick response to the OP without having yet read the rest of the thread.

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
What style of architecture and art in the church works best for new churches in the West?

I've changed my mind on this in the last few decades. Or perhaps the world we live in has changed so what would have worked a genertion agao now does not work, so we need to adjust.

Not so long ago I might have said that modern multi-purpose buildings were the way to go. Church-as-community-centre. But now I think that new church buildings should look like church buildings, that is they ought to engage cultural expectations of what a church building is. And I also think that as far as possible nowadays church buildings should be church buildings, their primary function should be gathering to worship God. All very well to use them for iother thigns as well, and keep their doors open. But the popular multi-use projects of the 1970s-1990s where some charity or local government organisation ran the building during the rest of the week and the church just rented space on Sunday is a bit of a busted flush now.

quote:

1. I like how everyone feels closer to the altar and to each other in churches where the congregation "wraps around" the altar, but I find that the acoustics in such churches are often poor without amplification and that such churches often feel too much like a secular auditorium rather than a sacred space.

Wrap-aroubnd works for small congregations but is harder for large ones

quote:

2. I like having the tabernacle behind the altar and worshiping ad orientem (people and priest both facing liturgically "East") but that will probably not work for most people since they have been taught to associate that with the priest turning his/her back on them. That said, I do not like the priest turning his/her back on the blessed sacrament when the tabernacle is behind her/him and s/he faces the people. But putting the tablernacle off to the side or in a separate room altogether seems to inevitably result in reduced reverence for the reserved Sacrament - not among people who are going to revere it anyway, but among the majority who kind of just go along with what the architecture and other people are indicating they should do. How to resulve this?

By reforming your practice so the Blessed Sacrament is no longer carried about, lifted up, or worshipped? [Two face]

But if you must have an AO position the way to make it work in our society is to have the table in the nave, or equivalent position in whatever odd layout of seats you have, so the priest is standing alongside the laity and facing in the same direction as them

quote:

3. Possible places for the choir:

Galleries are best for the musical performance, but separate the choir from the people. Why not just reserve a row or two of seats for them near the front and off to one side?

I have seen churches where there is a special little block of pews at the front facing "sideways", this seems to work quite well.

quote:

3. Whither the pulpit?

MIcrophones make big pulpits unneccessary. In fact they make lecterns unneccessary. But peopel like lectersn, so I'#d guess the traditional position is still best - one for reading to the liturgical south of the table, one for peraching to the liturgical north. Why two? I have no idea. A portable lectern positioned front-and-centre and then removed is fine too. Persons of a Reformed disposition might prefer a permanent lectern facing the peopel across the holy table.

quote:

4. Should the baptismal font be at the church's entrance and hard for people to see without turning around?

Get them to turn around. It does them good.

quote:

5. Should the presider's chair be behind the altar or to the side of it? Should it look like an important chair or just a chair? Should it try to portray the presider as part of the assembly when s/he sits and listens to readings, or should it reflect his/her leading role throughout all worship?

Just a chair. Unless maybe some bishoping is going on, or its a really big do for some festival. I'm quite happy with the prioest sitting in the pews with everybody welse and standing up to do their bit then going back again.

quote:

6. Should the decoration of the worship space be minimal, so as to not distract from the importance of the worship and/or sacraments happening now, or should it be full of images and ornaments that teach people about what happens in worship/sacraments and help them feel that they are in a sacred space?

No right answer. I know peopel who hate fussy images and decoration in church buildings because it makes them feel as if they are not in a sacred space at all. They associate holiness with simplicity. And there our others who go "gosh wow!". Whatever approach you take to decoration in church, some peopel will love it, some people will hate it, and some people, maybe most people, simply won't notice.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

1. Worship spaces need to be flexible so they can be used in many ways and formats. To me this says chairs rather than pews, moveable furniture etc.

Chairs are "flexible" from the point of view of thiose in charge, because they can force people to sit where they want by moving them about according to their latest whim.

Pews are more "flexible" for the punters because yiou have room to arrange yourself as you need to. Places to put your books and your bags. Room to kneels or stand if you want to. Pews are especially helpful if you are in church with small children. Child control is greatly eased by proper pews.

They are also often a lot better for fat peopel and peopel with arthritis. Trust me, I am fat and I have arthritis.

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

It doesn't have to be tacky or "cheap".

Chairs don't have to be, but they always bloody are. And too small as well.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
It was the same idea in England—with the servants sitting in the balcony.

Not really. Or not exclusively. Musicians went in the gallery. Also naughty young folk who would rather have a quick canoodle than pay attention to the sermon. (not mutually exclusive categories). Also at fashionable churches, visitors (who might be really rather posh) might go in the gallwery while the parishioner stayed in their customary pews below.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
... Child control is greatly eased by proper pews.

Especially really proper ones- that is, with (lockable) doors.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:

2. I like having the tabernacle behind the altar and worshiping ad orientem (people and priest both facing liturgically "East") but that will probably not work for most people since they have been taught to associate that with the priest turning his/her back on them. That said, I do not like the priest turning his/her back on the blessed sacrament when the tabernacle is behind her/him and s/he faces the people. But putting the tablernacle off to the side or in a separate room altogether seems to inevitably result in reduced reverence for the reserved Sacrament - not among people who are going to revere it anyway, but among the majority who kind of just go along with what the architecture and other people are indicating they should do. How to resulve this?

By reforming your practice so the Blessed Sacrament is no longer carried about, lifted up, or worshipped?

Now why would a Roman Catholic do that?

But if you must have an AO position the way to make it work in our society is to have the table in the nave, or equivalent position in whatever odd layout of seats you have, so the priest is standing alongside the laity and facing in the same direction as them

Ad Orientem is not a realistic option for most US Catholics, other than fuddy duddies like me, because they really feel that it smacks of clericalism and makes them feel ignored or left out. I get that and I don't think liturgical orientation is so important that we need to do some huge catechesis effort to get people to support the "correct" orientation. So...that leaves us with no good place to put the tabernacle if the priest is facing versus populum (toward the people). It's not good to put it behind the new altar up on the old high altar because then the priest turns his back to it during the Mass. Putting it off to the side or in another room also diminishes its importance (and if it's to the side in the same room, people are never sure when to genuflect or bow or both as they move around the church (the rule being that you bow to an altar with no tabernacle behind it and genuflect to a tabernacle or to an altar if a tabernacle is behind it).

Putting the tabernacle in front next to the baptismal font would mean that the people's backs are all to it during the Mass. I guess you could have a hanging pyx at the crossing between the altar and the people, but that is not realistic for most churches.

Maybe you could have a moveable tabernacle? Kind of like an Ark of the Covenant. It could rest on the altar between Masses (when there isn't a monstrance) and be ceremoniously carried out before Mass. Then, when Communion has been given, it can be brought into the church, filled with what is left over, closed and put back on the altar? It is a complete innovation though with no real basis in tradition. Complicated too. I guess the "off to the side but not too far away from the altar" is the best solution. No idea where or when I (or the priest and ministers, for that matter) should bow or genuflect though.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

Not so long ago I might have said that modern multi-purpose buildings were the way to go. Church-as-community-centre. But now I think that new church buildings should look like church buildings, that is they ought to engage cultural expectations of what a church building is. And I also think that as far as possible nowadays church buildings should be church buildings, their primary function should be gathering to worship God. All very well to use them for iother thigns as well, and keep their doors open. But the popular multi-use projects of the 1970s-1990s where some charity or local government organisation ran the building during the rest of the week and the church just rented space on Sunday is a bit of a busted flush now.

Can you explain why your views have changed now? What's different today?

The historical congregations still tend to hold worship in buildings that look like churches, although some of them have had to go elsewhere to ensure their survival. But the newer denominations that tend to meet in hired school halls or converted offices seem to be able to make their buildings work for them.

ISTM that the historical churches find it much harder to deal with being tenants in a building owned by someone else, though they're quite happy to have other groups as tenants in their buildings. This being the case, they need to ensure that their buildings are as appealing as possible to potential tenants. This means having buildings that are adaptable on the inside,. After refurbishment they may look a bit less 'churchy' than many churchgoers would like. Unfortunately, 'cultural expectations' alone aren't enough to keep traditional church buildings in pristine condition, so other solutions have to be found.

Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Individual chairs are awkward to deal with - handbag straps get caught around the legs, people put the rows too close together so one can't kneel, etc. Surely moveable pews exist?

They do indeed exist. They work best with no arm rests on the ends.

Pews are much friendlier for the, erm, American proportions. Also for parents with infants and toddlers. And for children who want to spread out and be active during the service. And for the homeless who come into the church to nap during the day (special shout-out to Chicago Temple-First United Methodist).

St. Peter's of the Moveable Pews --though these have arms
St. Peter's with a different configuration

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

Or for seminarians to nap during the sermon.

Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :

Meant to add:

It's really annoying to kneel for prayer, open one's eyes, and realize half the people in the space are staring at you across the aisle. I vote for placing the center of attention off to one wall, and pointing the seating at it. People do like to see what's going on, so elevate the front platform, and don't make people sit behind the presider/celebrant--a problem that occurs with a central altar.

[cross-posted. Zach82, I've frequently been of the mind that people have been snoozing through seminary.]

[ 04. December 2013, 23:59: Message edited by: Olaf ]

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

I'm with the view that seating is very important. I've hideous memories of chairs in church with twins: it only worked when they were in carry seats, once sitting up and/or wanting to see chairs were a nightmare.

Pews, on the other hand, allow either a child on a knee with one seated beside or, in our case, one under each arm.

Of course, mine also spent a lot of time in organ lofts - lucky to have space for a play-pen!

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

One thing I'm sad has fallen out of church architecture, at least in the United States, is bell towers. If new churches even have a tower, it's usually purely decorative.

Not that bell ringing was ever very big in the United States. Most churches only had the one bell back in the day, and churches that do have bells often don't even ring them. Trinity Church, Copley Square, the finest church building of any denomination in the city of Boston with likely the wealthiest congregation, doesn't even have a bell.

[ 05. December 2013, 17:03: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

I am definitely on Team Pew.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
One thing I'm sad has fallen out of church architecture, at least in the United States, is bell towers. If new churches even have a tower, it's usually purely decorative.

Not that bell ringing was ever very big in the United States. Most churches only had the one bell back in the day, and churches that do have bells often don't even ring them. Trinity Church, Copley Square, the finest church building of any denomination in the city of Boston with likely the wealthiest congregation, doesn't even have a bell.

When I hear a church bell rung in England I know it's the CofE calling a community to worship, but in a county like the USA where there's no established church and no church with the authority to act as one, bell-ringing wouldn't serve the same purpose, would it?

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

Worship services are still public meetings, and bells served to alert the community one was about to begin. Town halls and schools had their own bells for that reason. Tolling bells for weddings and funerals came across the Atlantic too.

Even in states that had established churches, most parishes only invested in one bell.

[ 05. December 2013, 18:18: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Worship services are still public meetings, and bells served to alert the community one was about to begin. Town halls and schools had their own bells for that reason. Tolling bells for weddings and funerals came across the Atlantic too.

Even in states that had established churches, most parishes only invested in one bell.

Most Church bells here in NYC just tell the time. The Cathedral of St. John the Divine does carillon before Sunday Mass, but I can't think of any other examples.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Worship services are still public meetings, and bells served to alert the community one was about to begin. Town halls and schools had their own bells for that reason. Tolling bells for weddings and funerals came across the Atlantic too.

Even in states that had established churches, most parishes only invested in one bell.
Most Church bells here in NYC just tell the time. The Cathedral of St. John the Divine does carillon before Sunday Mass, but I can't think of any other examples.

St. John's carillon is electronic, alas.

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

49 dongs rang out from my pad today. There will be 89 on Monday. It's a to me previously unknown and quaint local custom to conclude a funeral with one dong for each of the years of the deceased's life. A neophyte death I guess only warrants none? [Tear]

I won't necessarily change it but am not entirely impressed.

[ETA ... but I further a digression, by the way]

[ 06. December 2013, 02:30: Message edited by: Zappa ]

Posted by Gwalchmai (# 17802) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
One thing I'm sad has fallen out of church architecture, at least in the United States, is bell towers. If new churches even have a tower, it's usually purely decorative.

Not that bell ringing was ever very big in the United States. Most churches only had the one bell back in the day, and churches that do have bells often don't even ring them. Trinity Church, Copley Square, the finest church building of any denomination in the city of Boston with likely the wealthiest congregation, doesn't even have a bell.

You have to go to Old North Church if you want to hear proper change ringing in Boston.

Posted by BulldogSacristan (# 11239) on :

Well that's not true at all. The Church of the Advent in Beacon Hill has a fine set of change ringing bells that are rung between the sung and solemn high masses most every Sunday and feast day. The MIT Bellringers first ring the Advent's bells then trundle off to the North End to ring Old North's bells after its main morning Eucharist.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

Ok, since I wrote the OP I'll take my stab at suggesting my "ideal" newly-constructed church:

-Cruciform in shape with a long nave and wide arms. Pews.

-Large open space at the crossing in front of a dais (with steps and wheelchair ramps), atop which are a free-standing altar (for Mass celebrated versus populum), a big pulpit to one side and a significant but moveable presider's chair and small lectern at the other side. If a priest ever wanted to celebrate Mass ad orientem with six candles, or even celebrate a Tridentine Mass, s/he could.

-a removable altar rail at the foot of these stairs that is thin enough that people can receive standing if they wish. Gaps in the altar rail for wheelchairs to pass through.

-Two main crucifixes, one on the wall of the apse behind the altar (perhaps part of a non-high altar reredos of sorts?) and another above the main door on the opposite end of the nave, so the priest when celebrating versus populum has a crucifix to look at during the Eucharistic prayer that isn't on the altar between him/her and the people.

-choir, organ console, piano, and any other instruments in one transept. Space designed to accomodate modern instruments if they are used.

-imposing tabernacle to one side of the altar but still in the chancel or apse, ideally facing directly opposite the presider's chair.

-large baptismal font that can be used for immersions (with an elevated mini-font for infants pouring into it) at the entrance to the nave. Font perhaps on a dais so people can see it from anywhere in the church, even the transepts.

-traditional decor but not cluttered. Biblical/saint figures depicted as our best guess of how they would have appeared at the time, with saints drawn from a variety of cultures.

-The large space in the crossing can be used for performances or other events but under no circumstances can performers stand in the middle in front of the altar or in front of the tabernacle. The blessed sacrament should be removed from the tabernacle before any such event. (Ideally, for social gatherings and performances and lectures that are maybe a bit too secular for the worship space, there will be a parish assembly hall. This is difficult in urban parishes where space is at a premium, though.)

Note that a lot of these features are not things I necessarily would want but that I feel are necessary in a modern liturgical space with a multicultural congregation. Personally, I would want a small cruciform church with an altar facing the apse and a tabernacle and crucifix on the apse wall. This just isn't realistic for large congregations, which are the norm now, and for congregants who have big cultural reservations with ad orientem celebration that it would take generations of catechesis to overcome.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BulldogSacristan:
Well that's not true at all. The Church of the Advent in Beacon Hill has a fine set of change ringing bells that are rung between the sung and solemn high masses most every Sunday and feast day. The MIT Bellringers first ring the Advent's bells then trundle off to the North End to ring Old North's bells after its main morning Eucharist.

The ones at Advent are muffled, since I don't suppose the residents of Beacon Hill are going to let their rich people activities be interrupted by the clatter of church bells. Sigh.

Posted by BulldogSacristan (# 11239) on :

This is true; however, I don't know if they were ever designed to be "unmuffled," per se. I have heard that when they were rehung in the mid 20th Century, they were hung lower in the tower, but I don't know what effect that has.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
49 dongs rang out from my pad today. There will be 89 on Monday. It's a to me previously unknown and quaint local custom to conclude a funeral with one dong for each of the years of the deceased's life.

This custom is mentioned by John Betjeman in "English Parish Churches" (1958) and (I think) by Ronald Blythe in "Akenfield" (1967).

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

And in the Dorothy Sayers book The Nine Tailors.

Blah, Lord Peter. [Disappointed]

Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :

Two things I tend not to like in churches, for vague reasons:

1. Soaring, eye-lifting architecture but the furnishings are just a bunch of stuff at floor level: pews, drum set, music stands, little tables, folks milling about.

2. Gothic architecture and furnishings but some stuff has been moved to be diagonal, like the sedilia...formerly parallel to the center aisle. Not sure why this bothers me. Is there something basic about Gothic churches that makes everything need to be parallel or perpendicular to look OK to me?

3. Contemporary (usually bland, mall-like) architecture but with arches or other features designed to evoke a style that the church isn't. This says to me, "If this were an actual Gothic/Romanesque church, there would be an actual window here, in this shape, sort of."

And by "two things," I mean three. Two things bother me; of three things my heart is disturbed...yes, I meant to use that Biblical poetic device. Sure, I did.

[ 06. December 2013, 19:30: Message edited by: Oblatus ]

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

Where is the 'like'button around here, Oblatus?

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

I like relative plainness in a church, but Catholic/monastic plainness rather than Nonconformist - not iconoclasm. Seems to be difficult to find in UK parish churches though - does anyone have any examples? Lady chapels/side chapels count.

Speaking of Lady chapels and other side chapels, what are others' preferences? Ones where they are almost a separate room, or barely more than a wall shrine? Or something else? I personally like Lady/side chapels to reflect something of the BVM/the saint being honoured, which is easier to achieve in a more closed-off space (like the ones in Westminster Cathedral for example).

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

On a practical level, because I've suffered from the lack of this, side-chapels should be able to be closed off with some kind of sound barrier from main spaces or hallways.

Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on :

It is sometimes desirable to design side chapels that open to the nave and can be used for overflow seating. My parish's Lady chapel, located in the south transept and furnished with chapel chairs, serves such double duty.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I like relative plainness in a church, but Catholic/monastic plainness rather than Nonconformist - not iconoclasm. Seems to be difficult to find in UK parish churches though - does anyone have any examples? Lady chapels/side chapels count.

I suppose it depends what you call plain. What about this ? A wonderfully light and airy space.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I like relative plainness in a church, but Catholic/monastic plainness rather than Nonconformist - not iconoclasm. Seems to be difficult to find in UK parish churches though - does anyone have any examples? Lady chapels/side chapels count.

I suppose it depends what you call plain. What about this ? A wonderfully light and airy space.

That is lovely - not massively dissimilar to Northampton RC Cathedral (not the best picture, sorry).

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Yes, not hugely different, although a little plainer than the cathedral. But still those high ceilings and white walls and lack of clutter. It's St Martin, Roath, Cardiff (CinW), by the way.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

Uncluttered is preferable for me. Mind, I don't think uncluttered means unadorned.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I've realised from this thread that what counts as a 'new' worship space for a Catholic or an Anglican/Episcopalian is probably quite ancient for a Christian from a younger denomination! The churches pictured in those links all look pretty old to me!

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Oh, I wasn't posting mine as 'new'- just as light and airy and uncluttered. Built c 1890, I think, bombed c1941, partially rebuilt (in a much plainer style) 1950s.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

I was just posting Northampton RC Cathedral as an example as what I like - it was first built in 1864. Given having to wait until 1850 for the Catholic hierarchy in the UK to be restored, many RC churches here are Victorian or younger, so not particularly old. I see more modern Catholic buildings than I do Anglican.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

You might want to look at the work Quinlan Terry did at Brentwood RC Cathedral - certainly a much more inspiring place than God's wigwam in Liverpool.

Posted by Quam Dilecta (# 12541) on :

As an architect who has designed several churches for the Roman Rite, Stonespring's questions have a familiar ring. They cover many issues which invariably arise during the the planning of a new church. My observations on the altar and tabernacle, for what they are worth, follow. A discussion of the remaining issues would turn into a rather lengthy essay.

The designers of post-conciliar churches have generally sought a feeling of closeness to the altar. I remember being quite proud of the plan for a church seating 1200 people in which the most distant pews were no more than 80 feet from the altar. This was achieved in a quite traditional-looking building by providing transepts nearly as long as the nave. Sound amplification is necessary for speech to be heard clearly everywhere.

A century ago, when my own parish church was built, the designer's goal was a sense of mystery and awe. The high altar is 60 feet from the nearest pew in the nave, and the predella is elevated five feet above the nave floor. This elevation and the narrowness of both chancel and nave allow unamplified sound to reach the rear of the church. Not surprisingly, a church thus arranged works best when Mass is celebrated ad orientem and with fairly traditional ceremonial.

The large church mentioned above was provided with a separate Chapel of Reservation. Even though a large area of clear glazing was provided to make the tabernacle visible from the nave, the tabernacle has recently been moved from the chapel to a central location behind the altar. In a large church, where there can be a considerable distance between the altar and the tabernacle, this arrangement can seem quite dignified, but in a small chancel, the awkwardness which Stonespring mentions is unavoidable.

The closest I have come to reconciling these conflicting requirements is in a renovated church, where an apsidal chapel, enclosed by an open screen and a central doorway, is located directly beyond the altar. During Mass, the doors can be closed, temporarily concealing the tabernacle and focusing attention on the altar; at other times, the gate can stand open, making the tabernacle fully visible from the nave.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
You might want to look at the work Quinlan Terry did at Brentwood RC Cathedral - certainly a much more inspiring place than God's wigwam in Liverpool.

I actually prefer Liverpool RC cathedral to that - at least it has some originality. Brentwood cathedral just looks like a higher-class town hall to me.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

<continuing tangent>

quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
49 dongs rang out from my pad today. There will be 89 on Monday. It's a to me previously unknown and quaint local custom to conclude a funeral with one dong for each of the years of the deceased's life. A neophyte death I guess only warrants none? I won't necessarily change it but am not entirely impressed. <snip>

The tolling bell should be preceded by nine for a man, 6 for a woman or 3 for a child, so a child would be tolled as groups of three, with the age, or not, following the threes.

It's not just in Dorothy L Sayers and Betjeman, but also in the Village School/Thrush Green books, and I remember counting bells as a child, growing up in villages when the tolling would almost certainly tell you who it was. You hear the bells go, and the first group tell you man, woman or child, then you hear how old - and as it goes past certain numbers you breathe with relief.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I've often wondered what the ideal setting for an organic church would be. Proponents like Frank Viola tend to assume a house, but there are problematic cultural issues with meeting in someone's home.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I've often wondered what the ideal setting for an organic church would be. Proponents like Frank Viola tend to assume a house, but there are problematic cultural issues with meeting in someone's home.

Especially in the Independent Catholic house churches I have been to. They kind of become pet projects of the bishop/pastor/homeowner to "collect" whatever s/he can get from clerical supply stores and eBay, and when you have a Mass with 8 priests and 2 laypeople in someone's living room, with the kitchen and bathroom viewable through a door and pets visible (or just audible) in the house, something just doesn't feel right.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Independent Catholic house churches? How interesting. Are they breakaway groups?

I was reading somewhere that in the developing world, RC priests are spread even more thinly than than are in Europe. The joy at welcoming one for worship, particularly if he can't come every week, must surely overcome any reservations about the architecture or the general environment in which the mass has to take place.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
... when you have a Mass with 8 priests and 2 laypeople in someone's living room, with the kitchen and bathroom viewable through a door and pets visible (or just audible) in the house, something just doesn't feel right.

It's a good thing you weren't a Catholic in C16-18 Britain or Ireland then. From what one can gather from cherished myth, apart from a few embassy chapels in London, that was all you ever got. Indeed, in Ireland you might have had attend Mass on some bleak open hillside in the rain.

Nor do I think there would have been the privilege of being served by 8 priests. More likely one who in some years was at risk of having his head cut off if caught, and who even in good times had to keep his head down.

Like Svitlana, I too am a bit puzzled by the reference to 'Independent Catholic house church'. That sounds schismatic to me.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

The term "Independent Catholic" means schismatic. Lots of people who enjoy dressing up in vestments and collecting lines of apostolic succession from anyone willing to sub-conditionally consecrate them bishop one more time. Some of these bishops have actual congregations. Some actually are competent at ministry. But quite a few do not and are not.

The early Christisn church under Roman persecution met in houses. I'm sure there are plenty of illegal Catholic house churches in China today. But the house churches I am talking about are not persecuted.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I've often wondered what the ideal setting for an organic church would be. Proponents like Frank Viola tend to assume a house, but there are problematic cultural issues with meeting in someone's home.

Isn't the whole point that an organic church can - should - meet wherever people are already gathering? Talking of Mr Viola, one of his books goes into admirable detail about what he thinks you need to bear in mind if you're hosting a church in your home. I've not read it for a while but it really is impressively practical and detailed!

What do you see as the cultural issues of meeting in a home, by the way? Do you have any thoughts on what would make a good layout for the room where a church meets, if that room is in someone's home?

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

Possibly there's a cultural issue with someone's home belonging to that person and not the group, and if the church wants a very egalitarian leadership structure then that gets in the way. It's the cultural norm to defer to the person whose home it is, if you are their guest. And it's much better to have one building to meet in every week/whenever they meet rather than alternating between houses. Also, some people are just plain uncomfortable with their private sphere of the home being used for church. As an introvert who appreciates my own home being my space that I can recharge in, I would not want to hold a church service there and would rather meet in a space that is especially for church.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
The term "Independent Catholic" means schismatic. Lots of people who enjoy dressing up in vestments and collecting lines of apostolic succession from anyone willing to sub-conditionally consecrate them bishop one more time. Some of these bishops have actual congregations. Some actually are competent at ministry. But quite a few do not and are not.

Indeed. Dip into any of the standard works on or indeed perhaps by episcopi vagantes and you'll come across photos of Pontifical High Masses or consecrations of Patriarchs that are quite clearly happening in someone's sitting room in Eastbourne.

[ 11. December 2013, 09:10: Message edited by: Albertus ]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Isn't the whole point that an organic church can - should - meet wherever people are already gathering? Talking of Mr Viola, one of his books goes into admirable detail about what he thinks you need to bear in mind if you're hosting a church in your home. I've not read it for a while but it really is impressively practical and detailed!

What do you see as the cultural issues of meeting in a home, by the way? Do you have any thoughts on what would make a good layout for the room where a church meets, if that room is in someone's home?

Which of Viola's books are you referring to, BTW? Is it 'Finding Organic Church'? I hope to read that at some point.

Jade Constable highlights some of the challenges of meeting in homes. In British culture, people aren't particularly used to 'gathering' in each others' homes. There's a passion for privacy, and I believe that's actually increased in recent decades.

Quite a few people are also embarrassed about their homes and reluctant to open them up to visitors. I think there's a class problem here; if the church group were socially mixed, would the poorer or simply more disorganised members really feel comfortable opening up their homes, knowing how some of the other members live? On the other hand, as Jade implies, if meetings are always held in the nicest homes, this may give the owners of those homes a subtle power advantage. I read about this somewhere in relation to house churches in Brazil.

Moreover, we tend to assume that such gatherings are going to occur in 'Christian homes', but this isn't necessarily the case. Many British churchgoers live in homes where the other inhabitants aren't practising Christians, maybe not Christians at all. But British homes are often small, and other family members could resent the intrusion on their space. Walls are often thin. The result could be awkwardness and tension.

Does Viola address any of these concerns? Every culture would have to address them in a slightly different way, at the earliest opportunity. To me the ideal would be for the gathered group to love each other deeply, support each other and to go with the flow regardless of dogs, babies, piles of old smelly newspapers in the corner, naked light bulbs, noisy neighbours and a recovering junkie of no fixed address testifying boldly in a lawyer's expensive dining room.... The ideal would be for members, introverts and extroverts alike, to become so comfortable together that they could help with de-cluttering, decorating, cleaning and fixing things in someone's home prior to a meeting, if help were needed. But getting to that point would be HARD. That's why I'm hesitant! But where there's a will, there's a way....

The texts I've read about contemporary or historical house churches and cell groups haven't gone into much detail regarding setting. Further study would surely highlight some interesting practices and fruitful principles.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Which of Viola's books are you referring to, BTW? Is it 'Finding Organic Church'? I hope to read that at some point.

That's the one. There's a section starting on page 194 where he goes into lots of practical details about having a church meet each week in your house. He covers various issues around eating together (this is a must, Viola says; a tremendous way of building community), house rules (these should be set by the host(s), he says), time-keeping, how to encourage a sense of openness to each other and to God, how you might handle differing incomes and expectations (especially regarding food). It's very comprehensive, ISTM.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

Jade Constable highlights some of the challenges of meeting in homes. In British culture, people aren't particularly used to 'gathering' in each others' homes. There's a passion for privacy, and I believe that's actually increased in recent decades.

Big cultural thing here, although it is fading with time. In traditional English working class society men did not typically entertain their friends in their homes. That was women's space. They met (and to some extent still meet) in pubs and clubs (or even churches sometimes).

I once heard a fascinating sermon given by an Arab minister. He said that when he had first arrived in Britain with his wife (before he was ordained they were both working for some company or other) he had been seriously upset by the lack of social contact with his British workmates and neighbours. His wife had very quickly got into a round of visiting and tea-drinking with other women from which he felt excluded, but he didn't see much of the men. And it took him over a year to realise that the Friday night visits to the pub after work were where the men got to know each other.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

If it's the 'organic' church thing, meeting in living rooms or hired halls etc then it's a case of adapting what you're doing to the format of the meetings ...

Same as it is with a function room for any other kind of gathering.

Interestingly, the earliest examples of 'house-churches' from the Roman period - and the evidence is sketchy - is that those villas which apparently had a room set aside for church services had a slight apse or possibly an altar area at one end - showing that the eucharist was central at that early date ...

[Biased]

With the organic thing, of course, it's a question of working with the space available. But then, those churches which use the buildings that belong to other churches have to do that - Orthodox congregations which use Anglican buildings, for instance, don't have a great deal of difficulty - even though they find the pews a bit of an impediment.

I conduct a few poetry and open-mic/spoken word sessions in pubs and it's a case of arranging the furniture in the function rooms accordingly. Either all sat around a grouping of tables when we're critiquing stuff of else a cafe-style when it's the open mic.

For the kind of gatherings that SCK has in mind it'd be a similar set up I'm imagine.

I used to belong to a Baptist church which met in a hired room in a primary school and it was a bit of a faff setting up but a few banners and T-lights/candles could make it feel the part at times.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I used to run a housegroup in my house once ... it went quite well for a while. People seemed to like it.

I can't remember us paying that much attention to layout and so on provided there were places for people to sit and some tea/coffee and so on that was all there was to it.

I find it hard to understand how and why people can write books about this sort of thing. What is there to say?

I used to have a bunch of people meeting at my house. Sometimes we'd study the Bible, sometimes we'd pray sometimes we'd play games ...

So what? Plenty of house-groups operate that way.

Why is all this such a big deal?

These things are what they are. Why have a blinkin' industry of books and conferences around them?

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Thinking about it ... I don't know about independent, schismatic Catholic groups, but it strikes me that Catholic worship in general can quite easily happen in homes and other non-purpose built for religious purposes type venues.

The RC lectio-divina group I know meets in the priest's house and that's a very pleasant setting. It's all painted white and very plain but light and airy. People sit around a long table with a white table cloth and they lay out their knick-knacks - a few postcards of cathedrals (Anglican ones) for some reason and the odd bit of tat to provide some focus and atmosphere - and then they get on with it. They have lovely soup and sandwiches afterwards.

There's a 'grotto' in the back yard with blue madonna in it to give things that extra RC flavour.

But other than that, it's similar to how any informal study/worship set up would be for a Protestant housegroup or small group meeting.

The obvious point, of course, is that if we were looking for a 'new' space for worship than the shape/format that this would take is bound to be determined by what we want to do with it and how we envisage worship and meetings/services taking place.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I used to run a housegroup in my house once ... it went quite well for a while. People seemed to like it.

I can't remember us paying that much attention to layout and so on provided there were places for people to sit and some tea/coffee and so on that was all there was to it.

I find it hard to understand how and why people can write books about this sort of thing. What is there to say?

I used to have a bunch of people meeting at my house. Sometimes we'd study the Bible, sometimes we'd pray sometimes we'd play games ...

So what? Plenty of house-groups operate that way.

Why is all this such a big deal?

These things are what they are. Why have a blinkin' industry of books and conferences around them?

Perhaps because not everyone's had the same experience as you? Perhaps some people want to develop a theology to match and sharpen up their practice?

Not every Christian is knowledgeable about small groups. I know a well-attended suburban Methodist church where there are none - despite the heritage of class meetings. Moreover, in my earlier post I was focusing on the small group as church, not on small groups as a subset of church. The former is certainly a novel idea for many Christians, at least in the UK, so I see no reason at all why there shouldn't be material about it.

IMO the challenge of developing small group church as a desirable 'new worship space' in modern Britain, particularly in deprived and/or socially and culturally diverse settings, certainly deserves a book. I can see it starting life as a PhD thesis. I think South Coast Kevin should write it!

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Sure, I agree there should be a book or thesis about that, but with the best will in the world, I don't think SCK should write it.

I think you should.

You're better placed than he is because that's the environment you live in.

I don't think he does.

My point about the 'industry' around books/conferences and so on re-envisioning church and so on was aimed at bourgeois middle-class types - in which I include myself.

There'd be no point in writing a book about small groups in that kind of demographic and context because they happen already. They're the Christian equivalent of the Tupperware party (as was) or the Anne Summers one as is ...

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
IMO the challenge of developing small group church as a desirable 'new worship space' in modern Britain, particularly in deprived and/or socially and culturally diverse settings, certainly deserves a book. I can see it starting life as a PhD thesis. I think South Coast Kevin should write it!

Well, I do have a Masters dissertation to write next year... [Big Grin]

I already have a couple of other ideas, though, and I think Gamaliel is right; I don't think my life experience so far has equipped me to write a such a thesis or book with any real authority.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Gamaliel

Actually, I did think of adding a sentence to the effect that there's little need for more books about middle class housegroups, so fair enough! But any exploration of the organic church experience in the pluralistic British context would have to refer to the middle class aspect, since that's probably the most normative environment at the moment.

I'd find it very interesting to write about organic church in a pluralistic British setting. But SCK's thinking about organic church is more developed thanks to the workings of his own church. My main experience of small group church (as opposed to small groups within a church) has been in worshipping with a fellowship at a residential home.

South Coast Kevin

Has your church, which already works in quite a distinctive way, ever considered transitioning to a fully organic church model? If not, why not? Is it the notion of worshipping in homes that has put everyone off, or are there other issues?

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
South Coast Kevin

Has your church, which already works in quite a distinctive way, ever considered transitioning to a fully organic church model? If not, why not? Is it the notion of worshipping in homes that has put everyone off, or are there other issues?

Considered and rejected it, at least in the full-on Neil Cole / Frank Viola etc sense of organic church. I've spoken with our senior pastor and a couple of the other leaders and they don't really buy into the purely small group-based, unplanned meetings approach.

We do place a strong emphasis on house groups (indeed the Sunday meetings are often introduced as 'just the place where all the house groups gather together') so meeting and worshipping in people's homes isn't the problem. I suppose the leadership team agree with most of the Christian world that church meetings should have a clear structure and plan set out in advance!

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Well, that's a lot easier to manage, of course ...

I think there's wisdom in their approach. Which isn't to say that a different one wouldn't be called for elsewhere.

I don't know if any of you can remember the move to 'deconstruct' church that came about in some quarters of the independent charismatic evangelical scene back in the mid/late 90s?

At the same time there was a move towards a 'cell' model, although in rather more prescriptive way than the model that SCK envisages.

Well, I had friends involved with each of those.

In the first instance the churches involved effectively 'deconstructed' themselves out of existence and either fizzled out or ended up with people moving elsewhere because the whole thing had become completely amorphous to the extent that they weren't actually meeting together at all (I kid you not ...).

In the second instance the 'cell' structure became just that. People felt trapped and imprisoned by it.

My own view these days - and yes, I'm sorry, I can only go on my own experience - is that these things are best developed out of necessity.

So, for instance, if SCK's Vineyard church ain't bust there's no point in trying to fix it, reconfigure it - unless there were a pressing need of some kind to do so.

Things would undoubtedly be a lot different where SvitlanaV2 is and perhaps there are grounds there for the genuinely innovative and ground-breaking.

What form this would or could take, I have no idea.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by monkeylizard:
One word: Sanctinasium.

I have a friend who refers to that style as "Romatorium".

Unfair, because RCs are far from the only people building such churches...

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
... I don't know if any of you can remember the move to 'deconstruct' church that came about in some quarters of the independent charismatic evangelical scene back in the mid/late 90s?

At the same time there was a move towards a 'cell' model, although in rather more prescriptive way than the model that SCK envisages.
...

I can cap that. I encountered two examples as far back as the early '70s. I knew two people who were thrown out of one of those examples, ostensibly for not attending one Sunday. It was clear to me that the real reason was that the leader suspected - correctly as it happened - that they weren't totally convinced of his infallibility.

I remain to this day very wary of that whole 'tendency' using the word in the same sense as in 'Militant Tendency'.

Every time I encounter anybody advocate similar ideas 'seen that' or 'there is no new thing under the sun'.

[ 12. December 2013, 21:27: Message edited by: Enoch ]

Posted by magnum mysterium (# 3418) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
49 dongs rang out from my pad today. There will be 89 on Monday. It's a to me previously unknown and quaint local custom to conclude a funeral with one dong for each of the years of the deceased's life. A neophyte death I guess only warrants none? I won't necessarily change it but am not entirely impressed.

[ETA ... but I further a digression, by the way]

Not a quaint local custom - you obviously need to read up your Dorothy Sayers Nine Tailors!!!

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

Ah ... I fail! In that case I swear to God I shall aim for 110!

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Independent Catholic house churches? How interesting. Are they breakaway groups?
*snip*

There have been several in Ottawa over the years- the two I know of are no longer functional. Not having attended any of their services, I can't tell you much about them other than, in one case, it was a de-licensed (particulars not known to me) RC priest who had set up on his own in a Catholic Workerish establishment. I see from some googling that there are two in the suburbs and there is a francophone independent catholic church in Hull, on the other side of the river.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Do these places have a deliberate commitment to a house church style, or is it just that they can't afford anything grander? The impression that I've got from reading about many 'classic' episcopi vagantes is that they'd have loved to have a great big full on cathedral, but just found themselves obliged by circumstance to make do with an "Oratory of the Sacred Heart, Our Lady of Walsingham, and St Willibrord" which was actually the cupboard under the stairs with a bit of tat draped round the gas meter.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Do these places have a deliberate commitment to a house church style, or is it just that they can't afford anything grander? The impression that I've got from reading about many 'classic' episcopi vagantes is that they'd have loved to have a great big full on cathedral, but just found themselves obliged by circumstance to make do with an "Oratory of the Sacred Heart, Our Lady of Walsingham, and St Willibrord" which was actually the cupboard under the stairs with a bit of tat draped round the gas meter.

I have not met many episcopi vagantes that do not have some dream in their head of a Cathedral (or at least parish church) that they would have built if there was enough money. Sometimes the architecture would be over-the-top traditional, other times it would be the "perfect" expression of the spirit of Vatican III [Smile]

. There are a few who are so out-of-the-box in their thinking that they don't really want to build a physical building for their idea of Church - but they seem to be in the minority.

There also is a big difference between the priests who leave major denominations to minister under an episcopus vagans (or be consecrated by one (and two others if they can be found)) and those lay people who are exposed to the Independent Catholic movement and then feel a calling to ordained ministry. The latter are often a bit more grandiose, while the former often want little to do with the administrative functions of a bishop and want to get away from the formality and rules they had in the denominations they left. If the priests from other denominations get consecrated bishop, it is often because they want to have their own little parish church where they can be left alone and know that no one can boss them around because they can now form their own independent church if they want to.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0