|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Buildings and worship
|
gog
Shipmate
# 15615
|
Posted
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24045643
having seen this on the Beebs web site about an entry for this years Stirling prize. Talking about how the building helps (or as some of us know hinders) worship. What do others think?
Posts: 103 | From: somewhere over the border | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
sabine
Shipmate
# 3861
|
Posted
Although I have a fondness for a nice, plain Quaker Meetinghouse, I also think worshipping in a place with edgier architechture might be interesting. I think I can sit in waiting silence for God's message in just about any place without an overabundance of noise (and I can even tolerate quite a bit of that).
sabine
--------------------
"Hunger looks like the man that hunger is killing." Eduardo Galeano
Posts: 5887 | From: the US Heartland | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
I do love that particular building. It's the best of the lot for the Stirling prize.
As for church buildings in general, I do get annoyed when people say "church" when they refer to the building rather than the community. Having been part of several nomadic churches which don't have their own buildings, and a few that have a permanent home, I've seen the good and the bad in both.
A physical building can be a good reference point that everyone in the area knows. It also helps if you run regular events such as a mums & tots group or an Alpha course.
Yet the costs of building purchase and upkeep can outweigh the costs of renting. At my last church, which met in the function room of a budget hotel, the church had minimal overheads so was able to put a lot of its financial resources into the ministries it ran and supported.
I am wary of those who need a particular kind building for worship, as the reformed part of me cries out "idolatry". While some environments can be more conducive, I am sceptical about their necessity.
--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile
Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
As for church buildings in general, I do get annoyed when people say "church" when they refer to the building rather than the community.
In which case you'll like this picture of the Baptist meeting house in Cromer, Norfolk. The letters are part of the stonework, not recent additions.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by gog:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24045643
having seen this on the Beebs web site about an entry for this years Stirling prize.
Reminded of the very lovely Meeting House (AKA Chapel) at Sussex University. Very very different inside I think - the Meeting House is all concrete and bright colours like a smaller and artier and rather more solid version of the interior of Liverpool Catholic Cathedral (which is exactly contempory with it so I don't think either copied the other) But from tthe few pictures on the website the outside has some of the same feel to it.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sabine:
Although I have a fondness for a nice, plain Quaker Meetinghouse, I also think worshipping in a place with edgier architechture might be interesting. I think I can sit in waiting silence for God's message in just about any place without an overabundance of noise (and I can even tolerate quite a bit of that).
sabine
More or less what I was trying to say on the Clashing of Symbols thread. It's not about elaboration or the lack of it, it's about the absence of noise. Just as a complex anthem can enable prayer, in the same way that simple chant can, so a beautifully intricate but harmonious building can enable prayer in the same way a simple meeting-house can.
Too many church buildings are full of visual noise!
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
As for church buildings in general, I do get annoyed when people say "church" when they refer to the building rather than the community.
It can mean both innit, as in the Church or a church. I don't know why some people get so hung up in that.
As the for the church in tbe article: hidious!
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
S. Bacchus
Shipmate
# 17778
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by sabine:
Although I have a fondness for a nice, plain Quaker Meetinghouse, I also think worshipping in a place with edgier architechture might be interesting. I think I can sit in waiting silence for God's message in just about any place without an overabundance of noise (and I can even tolerate quite a bit of that).
sabine
More or less what I was trying to say on the Clashing of Symbols thread. It's not about elaboration or the lack of it, it's about the absence of noise. Just as a complex anthem can enable prayer, in the same way that simple chant can, so a beautifully intricate but harmonious building can enable prayer in the same way a simple meeting-house can.
Too many church buildings are full of visual noise!
I would agree (partly) from an aesthetic point of view, but it seems to me that what your preferences require a church and designed by a single architect. Such churches, if the architect is any good, won't have any visual 'noise', whether they are as plain as the example above, or rather more elaborate (or even very much more elaborate, and I don't just have a baroque churches in mind ).
The problem is that most churches don't exist as the masterpiece of one brilliant mind. Even Amiens Cathedral, about which Ruskin swooned, has numerous baroque side altars and the like. The Pevsner entry for an average English church will, as often as not, reveal that the nave, chancel, and tower all date from different periods. Add in a few old funerary monuments, and you've definitely got a mismatch of styles. But this mismatch of styles isn't to be deprecated as a lack of a unified artistic vision, but something to be celebrated as an integral part of local history.
Take my own little parish church. At its basis is a Mediaeval barn of particularly undistinguished design, sadly mutilated in the Civil War, turned into a preaching box by the Georgians, and somewhat creatively 'restored' in the late Victorian/ early Edwardian. Other than some fine glass in the chancel, it's an entirely undistinguished building. I'd go so far as to say ugly. Some of the fittings are nice enough, many more are rather tawdry. Re, have, for instance one of the best Christmas cribs I've ever seen, and a damn fine Easter Garden, but (with one arguable exception) our altar frontals are not of the best workmanship, nor is the statuary in the church.I appreciate, though, all the work that people put into decorating the church, which seems to me a very holy thing, even a 'sacramental', if you like. A church building that is loved, and cared for by, by generations of devout worshipers does indeed take on a very definite quality of holiness. 'These stone that have echoed their praises are holy' and all that.
--------------------
'It's not that simple. I won't have it to be that simple'.
Posts: 260 | Registered: Jul 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
Quite. I wouldn't regard what you are describing as 'noise.' Indeed, a unified building by a single architect can appear cold and heartless, or else bland. (St Paul's Cathedral, wonderful as it is, lacks the warmth of more 'lived in' buildings like my favourite cathedral across the river). A building of varied styles and periods, full of memorials, shrines, statues, and so on can still appear harmonious; it's features that draw attention to themselves rather than to the whole I would describe as visual noise.
I think distinguishing one from another depends on an intuitive feel for what is right, as much as clear criteria. But then I'm not a very clear-thinking sort of person.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
Baptist Trainfan - I do like it. Thank you. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Well, my late mother lived nearby so I often passed it and liked it. Not so sure about the gates (very common in Nonconformist church buildings) which shout, "Keep out!" to passers-by.
[ 17. September 2013, 17:18: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
It can mean both innit, as in the Church or a church. I don't know why some people get so hung up in that.
It's pedants like me who get hung up on it because to refer to a building as a church demonstrates a laxity with the translation of ekklēsia, which always refers to a collective of people, never to a building. i.e. If you destroy the building, the church would not be harmed at all (providing no one was in it at the time). The bride of Christ is not made of bricks & mortar, or even stone, it is a living and active thing, made up of each and every one of us.
*Steps off high horse*
--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile
Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oblatus
Shipmate
# 6278
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
It's pedants like me who get hung up on it because to refer to a building as a church demonstrates a laxity with the translation of ekklēsia, which always refers to a collective of people, never to a building. i.e. If you destroy the building, the church would not be harmed at all (providing no one was in it at the time). The bride of Christ is not made of bricks & mortar, or even stone, it is a living and active thing, made up of each and every one of us.
True, but like many other words, "church" can have more than one meaning. It's still perfectly useful to describe what some now awkwardly refer to as the "worship space." In addition to the broader meaning you well describe above. There's "family," for instance, meaning a set of specific name-able people or a more nebulous community with a common feeling about something. Et cetera...
Posts: 3823 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
There is something very complex that moves me about this particular building never seen it in real life, but something draws me to it from the pictures.
Yes I know that the site is French. It is hard enough at present to find a French site let alone an English one.
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
There is something very complex that moves me about this particular building never seen it in real life, but something draws me to it from the pictures.
Yes I know that the site is French. It is hard enough at present to find a French site let alone an English one.
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
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
Having read through this thread, I need to go and re-read bits of Aidan Kavanagh's Elements of Rite. As far as I recall, his thinking goes like this: "space" condenses into "place" when people create or discover meaning within that space. Space becomes liturgical place when the meaning of the space is Christ. I think what he means is that we build our churches, so to speak, around Jesus, or around places where we think he is, or where he has been found.
I think in this line of thinking there may be something to inform an aesthetic of church architecture.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
I love the outside. Best example of a modern church I've seen in a long time. Inside doesn't impress me as much but that's hard to judge entirely from two dimensional pictures.
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwalchmai
Shipmate
# 17802
|
Posted
I know this is regarded as wrong, not to say heretical, in Christian circles, but I can't "do" church unless I am in a church building. Services in halls or hotel conference suites (not that I have ever been to such an event) would feel totally wrong. I need the religious atmosphere of the building to put me in the right frame of mind. Similarly services in houses (unless it is specifically a sick communion) feel intrinsically wrong.
The two modern chapels mentioned up thread (Cuddesdon and Versailles) are fantatstic buildings which I would love to visit for a service - I don't just like buldings that are mediaeval and pointy!
Perhaps what I am trying to say is that worship, for me, needs to take place in a space that is consecrated and holy.
Or perhaps it is just because all my doubts mean I am not a particularly good Christian and need some kind of physical prop.
Posts: 133 | From: England | Registered: Aug 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
georgiaboy
Shipmate
# 11294
|
Posted
Which reminds me of a passage from 'Being Dead Is No Excuse' (I think that's the correct title) about funeral customs in the American South.
One lady of a certain age was a member of an Episcopal parish which split over some real or imagined issue. Most of her friends went with the departing group, which was meeting in temporary quarters. She elected to stay put, however, since she 'just couldn't imagine being buried from a school cafeteria'.
(Nor could I, if it came to that!)
[deleted duplicate post]
[ 21. September 2013, 05:48: Message edited by: seasick ]
--------------------
You can't retire from a calling.
Posts: 1675 | From: saint meinrad, IN | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
I wouldn't mind being buried from a school dining hall. I'd be more concerned about who was leading the funeral service, whether it'd be to my liking and whether anyone would turn up!
The church in the link above was very beautiful. But I'm afraid I'm not terribly convinced about the viability of dedicated worship spaces in modern Britain. We've got so many lovely old churches that are falling apart because noone can afford to maintain them, so it seems unwise to spend millions on new ones. Did the nuns really want all that money to be spent? They must have been in two minds about that, but the men in suits dreaming of glory and architectural prizes were obviously able to convince them. I suppose Cambridge University is a special case.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
The Reformers did their best to convince us that intellect alone is all we need for worship, but the children of the Reformation have for centuries been rediscovering that which our forbears in faith have always known: senses and actions do indeed make a difference in helping to maintain our faith, enrich our faith, and offer our faith in acts of worship, devotion, and charity. Whatever style the building may have, it should convey both transcendence and immanence. For active churchgoers, we are kidding ourselves if we think the building doesn't matter. Are many buildings underutilized? Sure. Are many Christians underutilized? Yep. But both the buildings and the people doing the work are necessary. Can a church group survive without it? Probably, but in my experience these groups tend to remain very insular and do not grow well.
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Did the nuns really want all that money to be spent? They must have been in two minds about that, but the men in suits dreaming of glory and architectural prizes were obviously able to convince them. I suppose Cambridge University is a special case.
I'm sorry, but these seems really rude. The nuns have responsibility for running their college. If they built it, I imagine it was because they damn well wanted it built. Who are you to say that 'must have been in two minds'? How can you possibly know this? What shred of evidence if there to suggest such a thing?
My experience of nuns is that they have a lifetime of serving the Lord as they see fit and take very little shit from anybody. I imagine they knew full well what they were about and it seems pretty unworthy to patronise them in this way.
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
dj_ordinaire
My assumption was that the nuns wouldn't necessarily be overjoyed at spending so much money on a fancy new building. It's an assumption based on the idea that nuns have chosen to turn away from worldly and prestigious things. I accept that I could be quite wrong about that.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwalchmai
Shipmate
# 17802
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
The Reformers did their best to convince us that intellect alone is all we need for worship, but the children of the Reformation have for centuries been rediscovering that which our forbears in faith have always known: senses and actions do indeed make a difference in helping to maintain our faith, enrich our faith, and offer our faith in acts of worship, devotion, and charity. Whatever style the building may have, it should convey both transcendence and immanence. For active churchgoers, we are kidding ourselves if we think the building doesn't matter. Are many buildings underutilized? Sure. Are many Christians underutilized? Yep. But both the buildings and the people doing the work are necessary. Can a church group survive without it? Probably, but in my experience these groups tend to remain very insular and do not grow well.
Exactly! If you arrive in a strange town or city and wish to join a local Christian congregation, where do you start looking? Not by knocking on the doors of houses asking if the church meets here.
A church building announces to the world that there is a Christian community here where God is worshipped. If the church building is used for community events (concerts, exhibitions, meetings, etc) as well as for worship it says that God is involved in the world as a whole, not just the section of it that happens to enjoy church services. If somebody who does not consider themselves religious finds peace from sitting quietly in a church building, perhaps at a difficult time in their life, then the Christian community has reached out to that person even if no other human being was in the building at the time. That is unlikely to happen where the church meets in a school canteen.
Posts: 133 | From: England | Registered: Aug 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Well, we have to start from where we are; in our towns and cities as they are now, there's a certain convenience in having dedicated church buildings. But it's a convenience that tolerates a high level of wastage. Most churches certainly aren't open to visitors at all times, and many aren't well-used throughout the week - although I suspect that over time poorly used buildings will increasingly have to close, because declining congregations won't be able to look after them.
With modern technology it shouldn't be hard for visitors to a town to find out where the nearest and most appropriate organic churches are, and not all of them would need to be in private homes. Cathedrals and a few of the grander parish churches could serve for those people who want to be nearly alone in a grand cavernous space on a Thursday afternoon, or people who want to preserve historical forms of worship.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Qoheleth.
Semi-Sagacious One
# 9265
|
Posted
<poignant tangent>
And this shows us a few churches where the people have moved out.
And there's Cardross too.
<\poignant tangent>
--------------------
The Benedictine Community at Alton Abbey offers a friendly, personal service for the exclusive supply of Rosa Mystica incense.
Posts: 2532 | From: the radiator of life | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
VDMA
Apprentice
# 17846
|
Posted
When it comes to "evangelistic architecture", I am a firm believer in Classicism: Wren, Hawksmoor, and Gibbs. The beauty and symmetry of Baroque/Classical form conveys majesty to the modern world without giving a sense of darkness or the demonic, as Gothic and Romanesque can tend to do. Modernist cube or round churches such as that one in the O.P. are just laughable.
We do need church buildings - as Gwalchmai said - to let everyone know that there is a Christian presence in the world. Consideration of human tastes is very important when trying to discern what would attract people. It's a shame that dark gothic has come to be associated indelibly with Christianity! We need bright, light, and joyous spaces such as St. Paul's Cathedral in London - just without going into big, fat golden curly-cues as with St. Peter's in Rome. We must be Majesty for the world without looking hypocritically rich.
A lot goes into this! For example: columns must be used, in some way, to keep large spaces from falling down. Modern architecture tries to get past this by using load-bearing walls or piers (square columns), but it looks jagged and bloated. People subconsciously feel silly in such a place. Now, if we reinstate graceful columns, which of the three Orders do we use? Doric conveys thick, 'masculine' plainness. Ionic conveys academic or heavy-handed intellectuality, with its scrolls/volutes at the capitals. Corinthian columns are 'feminine' in their gracefulness and use of acanthus leaves.
Human beings respond to physical stimuli because we are incarnate souls. Everything is important... ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
[ 28. September 2013, 19:50: Message edited by: VDMA ]
--------------------
Des Christen Herz auf Rosen geht, wenn's mitten unterm Kreuze steht.
Feel free to visit the Anglican Forums: http://forums.anglican.net/
Posts: 29 | From: Canada | Registered: Sep 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
The truth is that most British Christians aren't worshipping in a building that's anything like St. Paul's Cathedral. For some of us worshipping in our own homes might even be an architectural improvement when you consider how shabby many ordinary churches are! In any case, you don't have to be a Christian to admire great church architecture.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
roybart
Shipmate
# 17357
|
Posted
quote:
[QB]Originally posted by Qoheleth.
And this shows us a few churches where the people have moved out.[QB]
These photos are deeply poignant. Thank you, Qoheleth.
The part of the US where I live now does not have this kind of rather grand, romantic ruin.
Instead, it is full of very small, inexpensively built churches, originally (I think) inhabited by fundamentalist sects that proliferataed here in the 1940s-60s. They are not, and never were, something to look at for aesthetic pleasure. Now many of these buildings -- spruced up with fresh paint and new signage -- are occupied by a new generation of worshipers, often Pentacostal, and Hispanic, Haitian, and Korean in origin. Religious worship goes on, with a slightly different cast of characters.
Some of our churches are empty, delapidated and unsightly, though not nearly as picturesque as Qoheleth's photos. I don't know what will happen to the ruins. Perhaps just having them there, as a reminder of past hopes and dreams, and of long gone people, is something good in itself.
--------------------
"The consolations of the imaginary are not imaginary consolations."
-- Roger Scruton
Posts: 547 | From: here | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. Rob
Shipmate
# 5823
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by gog:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24045643
... What do others think?
WOW! What a spendid, imaginative new buidling. I like the dedication title to Bishop Edward King of Lincoln, as well. He certainly was courageous and not afraid to try new things in approaches to worship in for his time.
*
Posts: 862 | From: USA | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
pererin
Shipmate
# 16956
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
It can mean both innit, as in the Church or a church. I don't know why some people get so hung up in that.
It's pedants like me who get hung up on it because to refer to a building as a church demonstrates a laxity with the translation of ekklēsia, which always refers to a collective of people, never to a building. i.e. If you destroy the building, the church would not be harmed at all (providing no one was in it at the time). The bride of Christ is not made of bricks & mortar, or even stone, it is a living and active thing, made up of each and every one of us.
*Steps off high horse*
But it isn't from εκκλησια. It's from κυριακος, "pertaining to the Lord". It's along the same lines as "domus Dei".
--------------------
"They go to and fro in the evening, they grin like a dog, and run about through the city." (Psalm 59.6)
Posts: 446 | From: Llantrisant | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
