A hearty “Amen!” from this corner (Lutheran at that ).

I also agree with what Radagast said above re. “poaching.” Maybe it’s all semantics, but for me a “missional” approach differs from the kinds of “church planting” strategies that seem to be so popular in evangelical circles today.

Thanks muchly for hosting this discussion, iMonk!

One must remembered that those beautiful Churches took several life times to build. Not only that but each generation added to them.

I guess to a certain extent we do disagree I don’t think you can add enough to a Church to make it look worthy of his presence.

I do understand the point of bad taste though and that is why one must be guided by what the Church has done in the past and build upon it, rather than re-invent the wheel.

(Sorry for this getting off-topic. I’ll refrain from further postings, but alas…)

Understanding where you come from, I can certainly see why you may see things the way you do. One of my old Battalion Commanders went on after retirement to teach JROTC in Harlan. I agree wholeheartedly that at some point, things do go a little “over-the-top” but look what that left us with: Notre Dame Cathedral and Sacre Couer in Paris, Speyer and Cologne Cathedrals in Germany, among others. Our “simple, ancient roots” are a result of having to stay underground and not draw attention to the Church. Once that was no longer necessary, the Church naturally gravitated toward more grand facilities to honor the “King of Kings.” It’s leaders also tended toward the wear of clothing that identified them as holding high office. The bishops could not meet with the nobles and royals in common clothing, hence mitres, croziers, and other ceremonial garb. Likewise the facilities had to speak rather loudly “God is here!” and reminds not just the people, but also, and more importantly so, it reminds the temporal authority that ultimately, God is in charge.

One a purely philosophical level, I would disagree that God doesn’t have a high concern about such things. I would agree that He does expect us to keep all things in perspective, and is more concerned with the temple of the heart, but on a certain level, the temples we build are an indirect reflection of the temple of the heart. Everything in the world is part of God’s creation. Man is made in the image and likeness of God. Man sees beauty in certain colors, gems, metals, artforms. God must have written that in man’s heart for a reason. We are to glorify God in all things. The way I look at it, how we adorn His houses is one of the important things.

End of Hijacking

We, on the other hand, do. That is not to say that our concerns and efforts in such things are done with bad motives or to make monuments to ourselves. I don’t think that’s often true. I do believe, though, that over the years, in our common brokenness, we have gotten a little mixed up about what does and does not honor God. Don’t get me wrong, I am no iconoclast or anti sacred space guy. I love beautiful sacred space. Now, I’m not drawn to a heavenly mindset by gold-covered gaudiness. Things get to be over the top after a certain point. It can become a little ironic when we are using that which the world views as valuable to separate ourselves from the world. I’m just saying we may need to rethink some of those things and move back to some of our more simple, ancient roots.

I mean, sure, corn or apple trees or even evil stuff like tobacco needs to be planted but that’s just the start. It’s the howing, fencing around and keeping bugs off that take most of the work.

Shucks, even the planting part mostly depends on preparing the soil beforehand, that’s just natural law.

However once there is a community set up it is rather “proper” to build a Church that represents the best that community has to offer in both architecture, art and liturgy. Call it a way of building a church with a “first fruits” theme.

I think in some ways you misunderstand the idea of the a beautiful building. These are not monuments to the ego of men but rather buildings that set them selves apart from the world in order to convey that which is most loved that being God.

The building as a rule must set it self apart from the rest of world because what is celebrated there is not of this world. It can not be simply a continuation of fallen world but must be set apart as God’s house.

The church building is part of the liturgy they are the organic construct of history of Christianity not only there to admire but to teach of the word of God.

The erecting of new parish churches in certain diocese is most likely a result of influx of existing Catholics from other dioceses. I don’t see a significant change in that unless we a. start to seek more new members whether it’s from unchurched sources or people looking for something they’re not getting wherever they currently are; and b. we get more good vocations to the priesthood. As a decidely NON-cafeteria Catholic, I don’t believe changing the rules is going to affect those numbers. In fact, the evidence seems to show that in RC dioceses with (small o) orthodox bishops that teach faithfully the doctrines of the Roman Church, vocations to the Priesthood, Diaconate, and religious orders are on a decidedly positive trend.

With respect to church architecture, artwork, etc. I believe that, at least with respect to Roman and Eastern Churches, a certain level of grandeur, though not “needed” by God, is firstly DESERVED by God from us, and secondly needed by us as a sign that this is HIS house, and not just a barn. Churches SHOULD be PERMANENT EDIFICES, regardless of denomination. The Italian POWs at Camp Atterbury, IN, where I work, built a small chapel that stands to this day. http://www.campatterbury.in.ng.mil/pow_chapel.htm It is quite ornate given the lack of materials they were able to acquire to work with in the 1940s, but it stands as testimony that for GOD, only the best will do. To do otherwise is to make the offering of Cain. Put it this way: would you house great masterpieces of art (i.e. the Mona Lisa) in a barn and call that building a museum of fine art? Of course you wouldn’t. You would build something like the L’ouvre that was befitting of such works.

Now, with respect to Roman Catholicism, you are building the house for God where you not only celebrate the sacred mysteries, the rites of worship, but you also are going to house the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of our beloved Lord, and you propose to do it in a mere building? Even the most austere monastics such as the Carthusians (watch “Into Great Silence”) built a grand edifice (the chapel) to honor God, even though it wasn’t particularly ornate within. This is not to say we need to spend extravagant sums of money on a small to medium sized parish.

In the past, Catholic churches were built one of at least two ways. In the country, they often started with a small temporary wooden frame church, and when sufficient funds were available, they started the permanent brick church from brick that was fired on-site. In the cities, due to lack of space, they often built a “crypt church” (the basement of the main church) and used it for liturgy until the main church above it was finished.

As far as parish size, I would agree that there has been a move toward “mega-parishes” which I agree is a negative thing, but I think it’s been driven mostly by the lack of new priests. I think the solution to that problem is for Catholics to trust God and therefore be better Catholics. We are going to be hard pressed to plant new churches before we are able to take care of the ones we already have.

We don’t have vestments and liturgy yet, but give us time….we even said the Apostle’s Creed a few months back (one time only), and spontaneous applause broke out afterward. We never said it again….