Sacral (Not Sacred) Architecture

http://issuesetc.org/2014/01/13/3-church-architecture-chad-bird-11314/

This programme deals with Church architecture and is critical of the Mega-Churches which have adopted the sports arena model for their meetings. The guest argues that Church architecture is theological.

The premise is a good one. Church architecture does make a theological statement. Right away you can know something, sometimes even a lot about a congregation by what you see as you walk into the auditorium. Please note I did not say sanctuary. Even how we describe the building reveals something of our theological assumptions.

The Lutherans on this show are asking good questions but their answers are all wrong.

This is not to say that I in any way support or resonate with the views of the Mega-Church. Far from it.

Though their reflections and conclusions (from a theological standpoint) are of little value, there are still some lessons to be learned from this programme.

What's happening here is a debate between two traditions...traditions which reflect the cultures that fostered them.

The Lutherans are coming from the standpoint of 16^th century remodeled Catholicism.

The Mega-Church is coming from the standpoint of 20^th century post-Enlightenment consumerist culture...which though the Lutherans wouldn't like to admit it, is also a child of Protestantism.

They're arguing over which extra-Scriptural paradigm is best.

The problem is all extra-Scriptural paradigms are wrong and in addition are a functional denial of Scripture's authority.

For Sola Scriptura to have any teeth it must be expanded into an elaboration of the Sufficiency of Scripture, something Lutheranism has always denied and thus I have always considered the professions of Sola Scriptura to basically meaningless. What they mean is Scripture alone is the standard when it comes to questions of soteriology (the doctrine of salvation)...but beyond that Scripture (and thus worship and practice) can be supplemented by tradition. That's a pretty impoverished view of Sola Scriptura.

The Reformed always emphasized that Scripture alone was authoritative for all of life and doctrine... though I would argue in many ways they did not follow this and within a century had abandoned it.

The medieval dissenters like the Waldensians also held to Scripture Alone, though there was a wide spectrum in terms of practice and application. Some individuals and congregations still embraced many of the medieval ecclesiastical norms. Others were more rigid about purging out anything that was extra-Scriptural.

Lutheranism has never had any problem with innovating in the realm of piety and borrowing from the centuries of extra-Biblical (and thus non-Biblical) traditions generated by Roman Catholicism.

Both the Lutheran and Church Growth camps have already crossed the line and this is why these debates go nowhere. What's the authority? Both groups have abandoned the Rock of Scripture and are resting on Scripture plus Reason and Tradition.

It really comes down to you say tomato and I say tomah-toe.

Now I will grant there is something to be said for reverence. I can more or less happily sit through a conservative Lutheran service while I will not darken the door of a Mega-Church. I dislike all the additions in a Lutheran or Anglican services but I can endure them if that's the only available option.

Actually in my flesh, I love all that stuff. I would be quite happy in a Greek Orthodox Church....but for the Scripture.

Of course with regard to this programme we could point to a plethora of additional fallacies. First of all, there's no such thing as 'sacred' architecture. The whole conversation is begging several questions. So right from the start we have some serious problems.

To appeal to the Old Testament temple is to Judaize and can't be done with any kind of consistency let alone the hermeneutic and methodology are rejected by the New Testament. This is one of the key points in the Epistle to the Hebrews.

There is no 'altar' in Christian worship. We don't use crosses or crucifixes. The Church is not a building at all. So if we're going to speak of Church Architecture....we've already abandoned Biblical categories.

We can talk with regard to historical/sociological categories, but as the conversation demonstrates, that's not what they mean.

Congregations can meet in a building but that building is never a 'church' and in no way is sanctified.

What does a Biblical building look like? It's going to be deliberately bare, because if we believe God has provided a pattern for us in the Apostolic Church, there are no decorations or props. There's no such thing as Sacred art or music. That's why the believers in the New Testament could meet in an upper room. That's why believers could meet in a cave or in the woods. The building itself is a prop along the same lines as a chair or table. Its functionality is all that really matters. We're trying to get out of the rain and snow.

Though there's much to criticize with regard to the Puritans they were right to refer to the building as a meeting house. And I love walking into those old buildings and seeing the front completely bare of any adornment.

The only tangible item we use is the Word. The Word can be spoken, or represented on a page, or be in the form of sanctified water or bread and wine. And that's it. No case can be made from the New Testament that anything else was being used.