Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: vladimir998; WileyPink; Frank Sheed; NYer; Salvation

Vladimir,

I looked at the virtual tour and would, on the surface, tend to agree that it may be stretching a bit much...but if they are able to pull it off, it could potentially be one of the great Cathedrals (the question is, are they going to be able to pull it off?). I like the use of the vertical and the architect’s ideal of using light as one of the design elements. As to the concrete and steel, as well as the lack of Christian art, you should consider the National Shrine in DC...it continues to be a work in progress. As are most great churches.

Wiley,

With due respect, you are dead wrong about the majesty in the worship space. A properly designed worship space (i.e., the church building) serves two main purposes: it draws people in and draws their minds toward God as they worship. Secondly, through the artwork in that worship space (the stained glass, the icons, the statuary, even the altar), parents are given a tremendous opportunity to educate their children and learned people are provided an equally powerful opportunity to educate the ignorant and illiterate.

I know of no church building that is designed to be ugly (even the buildings from the 60s-70s “Church Ugly” period were intended to be beautiful in the eyes of the designers). That goes not only for the Catholics and the Orthodox, but for the vast majority of Protestants, as well. Most buildings, including many fundamentalist church buildings that I’ve been in, have tried to have a vertical structure, they are designed so that the congregants’ attention is drawn toward the front, and they attempt to make use of the best craftsmanship in construction that they possibly can. Yes, some do not have steeples (for theological reasons), some do not utilize organs, some make use of flowers more than others, and so on. But I know of very few, if any, that are intentionally designed to be ugly.

If you think about it, it is the scriptural way, too, btw. Consider the beauty of the Temple. And then consider the beauty of the New Jerusalem. Why in the world would we be called to abandon that in these few moments that separate the two?


7 posted on 06/03/2007 7:24:43 AM PDT by markomalley (Extra ecclesiam nulla salus CINO-RINO GRAZIE NO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]


To: markomalley
With due respect, you are dead wrong about the majesty in the worship space.

Why in the world would we be called to abandon that in these few moments that separate the two?

First, thank you for the spirit of your disagreement. (A refreshing change)

Secondly, I may have made my statement unclear. I'm certainly not saying that a place of worship shouldn't be filled with majesty to honor the Creator of the universe. I'm just afraid that in many cases that the creation (building) is put before the Creator (God). I just believe that the priority should first be the condition of the soul and second the condition of the building.

In Christ, Wiley

9 posted on 06/03/2007 7:34:24 AM PDT by WileyPink ("...I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." John 14:6b)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson