|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Eccles: What is the best layout/architecture for a new worship space?
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
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 ]
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
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
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
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
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
I like sitting in rows facing the altar.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
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 ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
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?
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
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!
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
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!
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
My current place has quite nice early 20th century chairs, nailed together on long bits of wood.... Name that Oxford church in one...
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
monkeylizard
Ship's scurvy
# 952
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools. ~ Herbert Spencer (1820 - 1903)
Posts: 2201 | From: Music City, USA | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
churchgeek
Have candles, will pray
# 5557
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.
My article on the Virgin of Vladimir
Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
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]](tongue.gif) ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
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]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
S. Bacchus
Shipmate
# 17778
|
Posted
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).
--------------------
'It's not that simple. I won't have it to be that simple'.
Posts: 260 | Registered: Jul 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
churchgeek
Have candles, will pray
# 5557
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.
My article on the Virgin of Vladimir
Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
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]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
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.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
... Child control is greatly eased by proper pews.
Especially really proper ones- that is, with (lockable) doors.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
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? ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
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.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
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
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
Or for seminarians to nap during the sermon.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
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 ]
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
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!
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
I am definitely on Team Pew.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
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?
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zappa
Ship's Wake
# 8433
|
Posted
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]](graemlins/tear.gif) 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 ]
--------------------
shameless self promotion - because I think it's worth it
and mayhap this too: http://broken-moments.blogspot.co.nz/
Posts: 18917 | From: "Central" is all they call it | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwalchmai
Shipmate
# 17802
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 133 | From: England | Registered: Aug 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
BulldogSacristan
Shipmate
# 11239
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 197 | From: Boston, Massachusetts | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
