I’ve been reading Michael Hyatt’s new book Platform lately and came across a quote that made me think. Even though the context of the statement centered on website construction, I began to reflect on it in another light. Specifically, contemporary church design and the loss of symbolism.
Here is the quote,
Never let the design compete with the message for attention. It should rather facilitate it (Michael Hyatt, Platform, p.28).
If the medium is the message, what message are we communicating when the emphasis on interior design evident in many contemporary churches (the medium), often lacking or devoid of symbolism, has often trumped the importance of our controlling message (Jesus and the kingdom of God)? In such a climate, the message is not competing for attention, it has lost the competition altogether.
More and more Evangelical churches, particularly in the Pentecostal and Charismatic traditions, spend a considerable amount of resources making the sanctuary look like a concert hall. Trying to create the perfect ambiance conducive to facilitate a worship experience has become the medium, whether we realize it or not. However, this medium, as it stands, is void of meaning; it has no message attached to it at all. Rather than allow our controlling message of Christ to inform and shape our design, we have instead created an empty medium. In such an atmosphere, the design has no message to promote. Empty designs create empty messages.
In churches where symbol and art are virtually non-existent, so goes the imagination. Imagination is vital if faith is to be reflected on and lived in deeper, more compelling ways.
I’ve visited churches where not even the symbol of the cross was present. What message are we communicating in such an atmosphere? Where is the sense of wonder and awe as we sit and contemplate the beauty of the cross as it stands in front of us, pointing us to the most powerful story ever told? What meaning can be derived from a symbol-less church? What will draw our imagination toward thoughts of God? What message are we facilitating if not a Jesus-shaped one?
Sadly, many contemporary designs have often not facilitated our controlling message, but have created a message of its own. Yet, it proves to be an empty message, because anything that distracts us from our controlling story is void of meaning.
I remember touring the Roman Catholic Basilica in St. John’s, Newfoundland a few years ago. I recall feeling a deep sense of wonder as I looked around and reflected on the symbolism that surrounded me. On each post there was a picture that highlighted various moments during Christ’s passion, focusing my thoughts on the moments before and after his death. The sacrament table at the front was made of glass, and inside lay a sculpture of Jesus, laying there, reminding me of his sacrifice. Imagine for a moment the impact this would make when participating in communion/sacraments. Everything around me seemed to have meaning and significance. And, I have to say that I was deeply impacted by it all and felt close to God.
Symbol has the power to peak the imagination and draw us closer to the invisible God. The story of the gospel and the testimony of the divine can be found in every inch of space; speaking, drawing, inviting, calling. Contemporary church design may be suited to put off a good show, but something profound is missing in its lack of symbol. The design is competing with the message for attention, and the design has won.
Never allow the design to compete with the message or we will run the risk of losing the message altogether. Instead, allow the message to flow through and impact our designs so they function as the symbols they were meant to be. Cross, art, sculpture, biblical depictions in stained glass and wood carvings can have a significant impact on our faith development, while serving as constant reminders of the story that saves.
I’m not calling for every church to look like the picture above. I am, however, inviting each of us to reflect more on what our church buildings reflect in its overall structure and design. Does what we see, hear, and read as we enter a building cause us to focus our collective attention on God and the story of Christ? Instilling within us a sense of wonder and contemplation? Or, are we entering empty spaces, void of symbol and meaning, lacking communicative power?
Wherever it is you gather on any given Sunday, spend a few moments during the service to look around to see if there is anything in the design of the building that draws your attention closer to God and one another, and ask yourself the question, “What message does this building communicate?”
July 11, 2012 at 9:15 am
I appreciate your point and completely understand your desire to see God and the message of freedom in Christ in the structure and symbolism included and intrinsic to the contemporary church facility. It is true that many of the “facilities” and churches/cathedrals of Europe make one consider and even stand in awe of the awesomeness of our God. The sad truth is though, many if not most of those churches are just tourist attractions today. They are funded mostly by the price patrons pay to enter and look. They are simply shells of what used to be. They are memorials as such. It is very sad to me. As I read about the early church most churches that Paul established in his missionary efforts were actually house churches. Large buildings used for “church” didn’t really come into play until much later when it kind of became popular to build buildings and cover them in ornate art and architecture which magnified God. I love art. Especially that which points to God. I believe though something has been lost. I appreciate wanting to see God when we enter the building but I know of churches which meet in huts and buildings where they cannot display God. And isn’t it true that the “church” is us? As is evidenced in numerous places in Europe the church cannot be about the buildings symbolism. Balance must come into play. I believe in using the facility when possible to point to God but I prefer the people in that building to point to God. I prefer that people see Jesus in the body much more than the facility. Jacob, while camping awakes from a dream where he saw angels and says, “surely the Lord is in this place and I didn’t even know it.” Jacob wasn’t in a church. He was in God’s presence. It is my prayer that I personally will be a tabernacle where God is glorified. Isn’t that really the point?
July 11, 2012 at 9:58 am
We are the church…not any building.
July 11, 2012 at 10:38 am
Greg, I couldn’t agree with you more. However, I used church in this context as a description for the buildings we use only because it would resonate with readers as many, of not all people, would use it in a similar way, even though they are aware that the church is the body of Christ. Thanks for your comment.
July 11, 2012 at 10:32 am
this makes me think of Eugene Peterson’s book the Pastor. Blessings
July 11, 2012 at 7:42 pm
An excellent book! He captures this theme so beautifully.
July 11, 2012 at 11:19 am
As a musician might say; You’ve riffed off a great idea, but sadly in the wrong key.
The reason Google won over others is their clean or blank sheet of ‘paper’ they understand clearly the focus is on the search for the message.
Cathedrals in Europe are morgues, not what you ‘wish’ they could be. This approach has not stood the test of time, and is exactly the point mike made in his book. You are twisting an idea to fit your desires, thats actually dangerous territory.
Next time I’m in church, I’ll be focusing on the needs of the people around me, the message that is alive from the bible and pastor not the walls, wood and paint. Some once said that could lead to idolatry and take away from the message. Thank you for posting your thoughts Jeff.
July 11, 2012 at 2:08 pm
“Next time I’m in church, I’ll be focusing on the needs of the people around me, the message that is alive from the bible and pastor not the walls, wood and paint.”
The time in which many of the cathedrals were built was a time of great illiteracy. The reason for the icons, mosaics, frescoes, and statues were to convey the content of the Bible without having to read. People could have a visual understanding of the Gospel.
July 13, 2012 at 1:47 am
Unfortunately it was also a time of over taxation of the poor and powerless to feed the greed that had crept into the Church, “GOLD” all in the name of God. The Church was not meant (according to Jesus anyway) to focus on icons or the tools (as was the case in the first two temples), rather the church was to meet the needs of the poor, the widows, and the Fatherless, and to proclaim the good news. the monies spent on opulence was everything Jesus was not.
July 11, 2012 at 11:50 am
On the one hand, where would we be without symbols?; symbols are everywhere and do more than just promote the ease of universal understanding and acceptance by instantly uniting consciousness. What’s more, there were plenty of symbols empl…oyed at the time Christ walked here. I agree that a fractured church has less to do with its architecture than a host of other more pressing issues. Having said that, design can impact worship. But what’s being ignored by the writer is the impact and cost of inflation and OSHA :) namely to confect a structure today using the equivalent labor and capital to recreate cathedral structures of yore would result in something even Tammy Faye would balk at for its indulgence…
July 11, 2012 at 8:02 pm
Jeff, I guess the same argument can also be used against the variety of mega-church complexes in many parts of the USA, and in many other parts of the world as well.
July 11, 2012 at 3:09 pm
I love this post, Jeff! I couldn’t agree more with you. Yes, we are the church. Yes, the church is more than a building. But spaces matter. The spaces where we worship matter. They certainly matter more to some than others, but they still matter. In my research into spiritual styles, I’ve found that some people connect with God through aesthetically-appealing spaces, spaces that are saturated with symbolism. Some people people God can’t be expressed through words alone, so they turn to symbol-rich environments to sense the presence of God. So while some might say that cathedrals are morgues, others say they’re greenhouses.
July 11, 2012 at 3:16 pm
Dave, beautifully written. Thank you.
July 11, 2012 at 3:33 pm
I had not given much thought to the symbolism of our church setting until we did a service of tenabrea and stripped the church of all that symbolized Christ and his presence with us. I felt a profound loss without the symbols of my faith. I had not until that time really given it any thought. I can’t imagine worshiping without some sort of symbols to remind us of who we are and why we worship together. It is a powerful image to see the empty cross before us and remember.
thanks for your thoughts.
July 11, 2012 at 3:47 pm
This was Dave Csinos’s point exactly. Thanks for sharing your experience with us.
July 11, 2012 at 3:55 pm
Let’s be careful we don’t make to much of symbols. Idolatry??
July 11, 2012 at 3:59 pm
The same argument can be made for the written word. Many people have even made scripture into an idol. Food for thought.
July 17, 2012 at 4:10 pm
Are we so immature in our faith that we can’t embrace symbolism, imagery, sensuality, creativity and iconography without it immediately becoming an argument about idolatry? This is the height of immaturity in the faith that we have to shut out anything that could possibly, in some small way, influence us or cause us to think for ourselves, ask questions and have to wrestle with whether it is something that affirms God or not. I am so tired of this attitude. It is not reflective of the breath, width and joyful feast for the senses that God has given to us for our (and his) pleasure.
And, btw, thanks Jeff, for a well written post. . .sorry that there’s so much negativity around this issue. I guess it means that more dialogue is needed (although it seems that lots of folks aren’t really open to the conversation).
July 17, 2012 at 4:16 pm
Thanks for the comment. I too get a little weary when I confront the same issues over and over again. But I always try to remember that I was probably there myself 15-20 years ago and believed some of the same things as they do now. That usually helps to keep me in check…sometimes. Pleasure meeting you here.
July 18, 2012 at 10:58 pm
I appreciate your sensitivity and willingness to engage with everyone. After I ranted, I wondered if maybe the post I was responding to was tongue-in-cheek :) we can hope! I grew up in a community that affirmed the arts and creativity and I am so thankful for that legacy. Also thankful for the ongoing affirmation (through studying with Len) that invites a love of culture, while calling each of us to a mature discernment and engagement with it. I enjoy reading your blog – thanks. Be encouraged!
July 11, 2012 at 7:30 pm
First of all, thank you for taking the time to drop by and read my article. I really do appreciate your time and attention.
My response is multifaceted and will attempt to address the major themes brought to my attention so far.
We so often associate symbol only with what we have seen in institutional churches, particularly European cathedrals, which in turn elicits a strong reaction because we perceive them as being cold, dead and irrelevant; the church at its worst. However, symbols are not dead in meaning and significance because of this association. They are only dead to those who can’t or refuse to see the meaning they convey. Cathedrals and symbols are not one and the same and we need to learn to differentiate one from the other.
I used the picture of a basilica only to illustrate my point about symbol and to provide a visual for those who may not understand what I’m referring to. It was not a full and unqualified endorsement of cathedral buildings, but an example of what symbols and images look like and the meaning they can convey. It’s always great to see something when it is being described.
Miracles are also symbols or signs that point beyond themselves. They are used to capture attention and move someone toward God. However, not everyone believes and many choose to ignore and/or discredit them. Jesus encountered this during his public ministry time and time again.
God has used and continues to use every means he can to communicate and testify concerning himself in an attempt to draw people to himself. When we choose to ignore symbol, we effectively say that God is no longer permitted to use that particular medium as a witness.
I am impacted and moved by symbols because it directs me to God. The symbol by itself is meaningless, but the one it points to is full of meaning, beauty, majesty and love. That is what draws me to symbol and image. No idolatry is present here.
The Ichus (fish) was one of the first symbols Christians used for self-identification. The use of symbol has also marked the Christian faith from the beginning. Think of Jesus’ words, ‘This is my body. This is my blood.’ Symbols. They point to something that mere words could never fully convey. Meaning is multi-layered and sometimes complex.
On the role of symbol and image, I ask that you take a moment and reference a section of my ongoing interaction with Len Sweet’s book, Viral. I think it may help us better appreciate the function of symbol and what it communicates in what he calls the Googler generation.
http://jeffkclarke.com/2012/04/23/my-review-of-viral-by-leonard-sweet-chapter-7-google-story-and-action/
Again, thank you for your time and thoughts. Though we may not always agree with one another, I do appreciate your input.
July 13, 2012 at 12:34 am
Thanks for the article Jeff. Gives some food for thought. I too struggle with the medium becoming center stage and taking the focus off of the King. I wonder, though, if the difference between modern facilities and the more symbolic places of worship really matters in the sceme of things! Wouldn’t the message from both camps be “come and see?” How has that notion served the King? The church has done much better historically and currently when it operated underground. It may even be a better use of resources to do home churches and give the money collected to the poor. What is the price tag for symbolism or lack there of? Perhaps an approach for us should be to be more mission ally and incarnationally planted in our zip code rather than raising symbolism up above the king. An argument can be made for us doing that as well. Does symbolism really play that big of a role in faith development and experience. Not that God can’t use them. I would argue the loss of the narrative of Jesus is perhaps the bigger elephant in the room. Not trying to be confrontational or adversarial. I ask myself similiar questions but end up asking what God highly values. Thank you again.
July 13, 2012 at 6:32 am
Matt, thanks for your comment.
However, I never argued for the indulgence we’ve all witnessed in some church cathedral’s (and even million dollar mega-church complexes, but used it only as an illustration of the good side and power of symbol/icon to visually draw our attention away from ourselves, towards God. It is true that it doesn’t guarantee anything, but for visual learners, as well as a deeply visual world, the use of symbol should never be denigrated as something negative because our immediate association with is normally perceived as dead religion. Nothing is truly dead, though, just our response to it is dead.
Symbol points to the narrative. The few examples I used in the article illustrated just that. The cross, pictures of Jesus’ passion, the sacrament table with the sculpture of Jesus inside, were all meant to draw our attention to the story of Jesus.
I think God values story and involves himself in ours through the incarnation. However, the incarnation (and God) is far too big and complex for us to one medium in our attempts to better understand it. Words are powerful, but pictures and symbols can also be tools for God to witness and lead us back the story of his redemptive work in Christ.
Again, thanks for your comment and the spirit in which it was given. Blessings.
July 13, 2012 at 6:43 am
This is a reply I copied from a Facebook group that has been discussing the article. It gave such a compelling, thoughtful and fair assessment of the use of symbol.
“The OT is full of symbols and markers, remembrances. (Ebenezer stones, altars, etc.) In the NT tthe Spirit of God descended “like a dove”. Jesus gave us the ritual of communion, giving us the symbol of the bread and the cup, symbols which can move most Christians I know to deep gratitude. Response to symbol and metaphor is part of how we are created. They speak to us, remind us of the Story, stir us in the deep places. Like icons, they point us to something Larger. It’s only since the enlightenment that the church has begun to eschew symbols. We came to believe that cognitive faith was superior and experiencing and knowing through any other way than our human reason was inferior or suspect. It is only modern people that think symbol is unnecessary or even a hinderance to our worship. In China it may be dangerous to have recognizable symbols. But where we are free to use them, they can be enriching. Not everyone wants or needs them and that’s ok too. But there’s no need to judge them as either necessary or unnecessary (or worse). They are simply a gift.” (from Ellen)
Very helpful.
July 13, 2012 at 11:16 am
Hi Jeff, I found your article through David Csino’s blog and have enjoyed reading it. I agree that many protestant churches, in a drive to be culturally relevant or to historically separate themselves from liturgical churches, have alienated those who thrive on symbolism as a way of connecting to God. I remember my own experience of being overwhelmed with the beauty of liturgical churches in Europe and feeling very close to the Lord in them. I really try in my children’s ministry to create spaces that are full of symbolism.
July 13, 2012 at 12:11 pm
Thanks, Sheila. I completely agree with you. I particularly appreciate the comment that many have reacted to liturgical churches for a variety of reasons and have since decided to alienate “those who thrive on symbolism as a way of connecting to God.”
I believe that words alone can never plunge the depths of God’s nature and character. And, symbol and icon can spark our imaginations to reflect on God in ways that words never could. That’s why we need both word and sacrament. Yet, it all points to God.
Thanks again.
July 13, 2012 at 12:04 pm
Jeff, your comments about the importance of symbolism is pretty spot on. I was reared rural Pentecostal–not much symbolism–and became Episcopalian–lots of symbolism. I didn’t convert for the symbolism, but the visual and liturgical symbolism has been important to me. At the same time, we often overlook the symbolism that is rich in these churches–movement and music. So these churches are not without symbolism at all. The symbols are just not present until the worship begins.
Another angle. I just returned from Indonesia where I visited a 12,000 seat charismatic church and interviewed the pastor. No symbols, not even a cross. And the name of the church at the entrance is “HOLY STADIUM.” Why, you might ask. Not for the Zwinglian anti-symbol reasons indicated in this discussion. Rather, it is intentionally to create an inoffensive low-threshold Christian space for Muslims to enter without discomfort.
The lesson here is that so much is contextual. The author and this discussion is Western, very contextual. This is not bad, and it may well apply to our western world. We just need to be aware that it is contextual. Practices may be similar but reasons and meanings are often very different.
July 13, 2012 at 12:16 pm
Yes, David, your comments about context are incredibly important and many thanks for sharing them. We would all do well to remember this in our theological conversations.
As you me mentioned, though, I am a Westerner, speaking out of and to a Western context, hence the reason for my emphasis.
Deeply appreciate your correction.
July 17, 2012 at 5:32 pm
David, I appreciated your comments on the importance of context and also the place of music in liturgy.
A few weeks after 9/11, I was leading a group of 40 teens from different faith groups (Jewish, Muslim, Catholic & Protestant) on a journey to several cities in Spain. The trip was subsidised by the Spanish government and designed to promote respect towards different cultural & religious traditions. We visited ancient & modern synagogues, mosques, cathedrals & smaller churches. Having just toured the liturgically ornate Gothic cathedral in Seville, our next port of call was the First Baptist Church in the same city. The young people were immediately struck by the contrast between the interior design of the two buildings and this provoked lots of thoughtful discussion & inquiry. They appreciated that the rather bare walls in the Baptist church and the far fewer symbolic and liturgical elements, as compared to those in the cathedral, were in fact very strong theological statements, as was the emphasis on the pulpit rather than the altar, and of course the strategically situated open step-down baptistry. The young people were keen to ask the church minister for an explanation for each of these symbols, and she of course was happy to provide one!
I would like to suggest the following:
1) There is really no such thing as a ‘non-liturgical’ church.
2) Liturgy is not measured by the sum of the symbolic elements on display.
3) White space is not devoid of significance. In fact it is essential in aesthetics – e.g. the silence between the notes in music.
4) The absence of particular symbolic elements, or the emphasis placed on alternative elements, often provides a strong theological and historical statement regarding identity & religious affiliation.
July 17, 2012 at 6:19 pm
Thanks, David.
In Eugene Peterson’s book, The Pastor, he highlights the various stages that went into the construction process of their first church building. For instance, he described how much thought went into the placement of the pulpit, at the center of the building, with the seats all around, emphasizing the centered place that scripture should have in our lives. He also outlined other elements as well (a good read).
My point in mentioning this is that even in protestant church buildings where symbols may not be as defined as those in Orthodox and Catholic cathedrals, the symbolic can still be very much present, pointing those who attend towards a definable goal, Christ. In a symbol-free or symbol-less concert hall setting, the sense of definition and movement towards the divine is either largely absent or unidentifiable to most people. In such a context, what would be the point of a symbol if its significance goes largely unnoticed or uninterpreted, and its effects are mute in terms of its intended trajectory? Blank walls can be the breeding ground for the imagination, but in what direction? Even an artist derives inspiration, not from an empty canvass, but from images, pictures, stories and scenes played out in the mind that are normally derived from living things and episodes. A painting becomes a painting only after paint is applied, not when it lies blank.
While we may laud the benefits of a symbol-free or symbol-less church building, the benefits of having a variety of intentional and interpreted symbols around the building can stimulate the imagination to thoughts toward God. It has direction built into its design and can lead people in a specific direction – Christ. It would be difficult to ascertain how an empty room can have the same impact.
Context plays an important role, but most situations people face are not like those in David Reed’s example. In fact, church buildings the world over in a variety of settings and liturgical emphases have successfully incorporated varying degrees of symbol into their buildings, creating space for the imagination to come alive.
I don’t think a blank stop sign would have the same effect as a red one with the words Stop printed on it.
Appreciate your reflections.
July 14, 2012 at 11:09 pm
So, I just turned 30 years old and have not been in ministry a very long time (under 15 years) and I appreciate this post. I love the modern churches, mainly because it reaches out to my generation and the younger generation as well. We are comfortable in these environments where it feels as if a concert is going on with AI lights and projection screens everywhere so even the bugs can see well. Even with my own blog I’ve tried to “modernize” so that I’m “relevant” with the culture at hand. However, I can see your point vividly as well. One of my spiritual fathers mentions that the projector is a modern stained glass window for this generation. In our church we have a black wall, projector and basic lights, and a big cross on the stage with the lights on it. It seems balance would be the key here.
July 15, 2012 at 7:03 am
Thanks, Jason. Yes, balance is basically what I argued for. And, I appreciated your “projector as a modern stained glass window for this generation” line as well. Though, whether or not it always communicates a good message is largely dependent on the lyrics at the time :) Thanks for stopping by! Appreciate your comment.
July 17, 2012 at 10:09 am
Symbol is not an entirely lost art to our culture, but it is not utilized in a literate society like it was before the masses could read. Our symbols these days usually are associated with marketing. Everyone knows the Nike swoosh and immediately recognizes that brand without “Nike” being written anywhere. Symbols have the ability to take on all sorts of meaning both emotive and cognitive. Churches utilized this brilliantly in pre-literate cultures. I was in Romania and stopped in one of the Orthodox churches in the town square. The icons that covered the walls were stunning. It inspired contemplation and reverence like no other “faith space” I have ever entered. The skill alone required to create them was amazing, much less all the love and worship poured out by the artist in the process. Post Enlightenment western cultures have lost this to a large degree. What makes spaces like Notre Dame and others so awe inspiring is that they reach out and capture the imagination by stretching it beyond what mere words and film media that spell it all out for us can. I am not saying print and film are not wonderful and worthy means of expression, but they tend to be used to “spell it all out” for us and not require us to imagine beyond them. A sad product of the enlightenment where mystery was something that had to be explained instead of, in some cases, merely being enjoyed and appreciated for what it is. Symbols speak to that “blank space” that demands the engagement of our imagination. We, as believers, neglect their use to our own impoverishment.
July 17, 2012 at 7:18 pm
Surely, for iconoclasts, the blank wall in a church building is not seen in isolation as a ‘blank wall’, but rather in contrast to what was there before — i.e. the religious symbols, images and icons that are now deemed to be excessive, irrelevant, distasteful or just plain idolatrous. As such, a blank space may acquire meaning. Context (in this case historical & theological) is all important for the original iconoclasts and for those who, rightly or wrongly, seek to perpetuate that particular reform. In this case, the blank space is not like the artist’s white canvass, but rather like a work of art that has been deliberately painted over in some way — it is a reaction. My reference above to the story of the young people in Seville was that they were not viewing the minimalist interior design of the Baptist church in isolation, but in comparison to what they had already seen in the cathedral. The blank walls were significant for them — and therefore liturgically symbolic — by what was NOT there. And this discriminatory context — i.e. the immediacy of the visit to the two religious buildings and the strong contrast between them — was very important to them for drawing out such meaning.
By the way, my own position is similar to yours. For a number of years I have been involved in helping so-called ‘non liturgical’ churches in Spain to appreciate the creative use of symbols, especially in their work with children.
July 20, 2012 at 11:35 pm
I have no problem with symbols of the Christian faith being on every wall of our churches, but to actually use the churches of Europe as some kind of example to be looked up to is a little much. Christianity is unwanted in most of Europe even with the beautiful symbols. Most of those cathedrals are nothing more than memorials to what once was.
July 21, 2012 at 7:09 am
Thanks, Robbie. A few things in response. First, I never used European churches as an example. The church I highlighted in my original post is located in Canada. Secondly, European Cathedrals remain beautiful in there symbolic significance the message inherent each symbol/icon remains powerful in what it points to – God. The problem is not with the Cathedrals, but with those who have lost touch with what those symbols represent. The same can be said of those who attend churches where the only ordinances practiced would be communion (sacraments) and baptism. I’m sure after a while, even the sacraments can become a dead symbol for some; losing the significance it once had. However, the symbol isn’t to blame. God can still use it as a witness. We are. Over familiarity sets in and it no longer means anything to us. My response to the experience in the Basilica I highlighted meant something to me, so obviously symbols can still speak, if we are open to it. Finally, as I mentioned in another response, our reactions to symbols, particularly in a European context, is in large part conditioned by our aversion to Cathedrals themselves, not the symbols within them. Because many perceive the Cathedrals as having a dead faith, museum-like in its remaining significance, that aversion causes us to reject it all equally. But, we should learn to separate them. As the old saying goes, we shouldn’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Thanks again.
August 20, 2012 at 10:49 am
Thanks a ton for this post, Jeff, very interesting.
Just throwing my two cents out there, I think that the discussion really boils down to the contemporary vs. classical debate. Progress vs heritage. New vs Old. This upcoming generation in particular (I can speak rather authoritatively because I happen to be a part of it) has a bit of a fixation on ‘relevance’ when it comes to the programmatic structure of the Church, specifically in reference to Sunday mornings. Trying to make church a “concert hall” actually has a lot of value in a missionary or outreach minded congregation because it allows people who feel uncomfortable with their ideas of “church” to feel at home. It feels fresh, new, and relevant. Crosses and stained glass make it feel old and stuffy (or so some people believe).
The problem as I see it is that there is a misconception that Christian symbols turn people away from God. But, as Jeff here has already pointed out, symbols are God given and a great way for many people to visually connect with Him who, last I checked, is sort of invisible or something. The problem lies not in the symbol, but in the historic application of it. It is a question of art not importance.
What Jeff is saying is not that symbolism is the be all and end all of christendom, but that art without symbolism is pointless. Which is true. Straight up. The cross doesn’t matter. But what the cross represents can change lives.
We don’t need to question the intentions of the people designing these new layouts of church, nor do we need to condemn people who appreciate symbols. Their hearts are both in the right place. However, removing biblical imagery from church just because it offends people, or because its “irrelevant”, is a mistake. If God can use symbols, so should we. The challenge is to look passed human history and find the modern relevance in the imagery that God has used.
August 20, 2012 at 6:44 pm
Thanks, Chris, for your helpful and balanced perspective. I appreciate your insight.