Thoughts on building for worship. . .

The term sacred architecture does not immediately translate into a single form but it is not without its ideas.  Who among us has not winced at a church that was clearly built without worship in mind and who has not stood in awe of a structure that was clearly constructed to know and fulfill its purpose?  What is it that makes architecture sacred?

It helps if the architect and building committee are on the same page and fully understand what the purpose of the building is to be.  Yes, everyone knows about building codes and toilets, heating and air conditioning, cost and long term maintenance.  But the first place to begin is with the liturgy.  Preaching is important, music is important, acoustics to preserve both are important,, but as a liturgical space the focus is centered upon the altar.  The whole idea that worship is but one function of a multi-purpose space may work in concept but not in reality.  The gathering of God's people around His Word and altar is central and you know right away when somebody forgot that and built an auditorium or gym that now fails to fit what the Church does in that space.

Too often, the architect and building committee begin with the exterior.  This is not where you start but where you end.  The interior and the working of that space for the liturgical purpose of God's gathered people is always first.  We focus from the altar and back again.  Preaching is also central but the pulpit is a piece of furniture for the benefit of the preacher and the eye of the people and not what defines the worship space.  Everything flows out of the altar and back to it.  Circular buildings are imaginative but cost the worshiper the vital perspective so necessary for a liturgical church and a liturgical assembly.  Add to this the false idea that everyone needs to be close to the action in order for the building to "work."  If anything, the space should welcome people with a sense of the sacred and less as a vantage point to see something happen.  The expanse of the space needs to be vertical more than horizontal and it should lift the eye and the soul up to the heavens.  Yes, it is not cheap to built vertically but squatty churches fail almost from the get go.  They keep the focus down low and do not lift the worshiper to heaven.  This space needs to be proportionate to size but it needs to reach upward in little chapels as well as mighty cathedrals.  Yes, it is just air space but it may be the most important space in the entire building.

It is so sad when the volume of a structure is prevented.  How many times does a chancel feel like a forgotten closet added at the end rather than an expansive and important space for everyone?  How many times do we skip on the space where the altar and cross bring us together and there is no room left for the effective functioning of the liturgy, especially distribution?  How often does a Christmas tree steal the valuable real estate that belongs to the ministers and leaves them strangers to the very place where they serve God's people with God's gifts? 

How sad it is when the architect views the church as a his creation or the building committee sees the building in terms of cost effectiveness and then allows either or both of these to rob the churches of a structure that actually supports what happens on Sunday morning!  Both architect and building committee need to start by looking around and talking about what makes this building effective and that building disappointing.  Both architect and building committee need to study the liturgy and actually watch what happens on Sunday morning so that both know clearly and well the shape of the task before them.  We building our buildings and then they define us (Winston Churchill).  We want the legacy of our building to be a positive one.  Of course, there are always compromises and costs to be considered but building a cheap building that does not serve well its liturgical purpose will never be a wise or prudent stewardship decision.