Since the Notre Dame fire, I've been thinking about this one even more than normal. Why have we gone away from building churches in that monument, gothic, style? It's a style absolutely unique to Christianity yet barely anyone does it anymore and instead they either go for a tin box that looks like a storage unit or something that looks like a stadium if it's a bigger church. These churches have zero aesthetics and don't give you a feel like you're entering something grand at all. It's just another piece of modern architecture that will won't last.

My question is more directed to Protestants than Catholics or Orthodox who still appear to understand that aesthetics in a church do matter.

88Warrior said:

---

Marv C. World said:

---

Since the Notre Dame fire, I've been thinking about this one even more than normal. Why have we gone away from building churches in that monument, gothic, style? It's a style absolutely unique to Christianity yet barely anyone does it anymore and instead they either go for a tin box that looks like a storage unit or something that looks like a stadium if it's a bigger church. These churches have zero aesthetics and don't give you a feel like you're entering something grand at all. It's just another piece of modern architecture that will won't last.

My question is more directed to Protestants than Catholics or Orthodox who still appear to understand that aesthetics in a church do matter.

---

Just my guess..Probably because that money is better spent on programs and funding missions to help people and spread God's message..Not only the initial cost but the upkeep on those buildings have to be expensive?

---

Aesthetics like that are one of those things that keep men going to church. Christian Churches have slowly become very female dominated in the West despite levels of belief being similar because churches are struggling to retain men. This is something that could stop the loss.

Further, those kind of churches absolutely will attract people just on looks alone whereas a modern church usually isn't even given a 2nd glance. I can't tell you how much I hate the design of most modern churches. Every other religion has kept their style even when building temples and churches in the West yet Christianity has embraced post-modernism in architecture or just pure laziness in general and it's just absolutely horrible. I really don't get it at all. I mean even the old churches from the 1800s had the classic look despite being a lot smaller. I don't understand why they discontinued doing this.

If you're only there for the architecture or for the type of music then I think you're missing the point..imho..

88Warrior said:

---

If you're only there for the architecture or for the type of music then I think you're missing the point..imho..

---

If you think these things don't matter then you're delusional. There is a reason why classical architecture evokes such an emotion from people. Do you think Notre Dame would meas as much as it does if it wasn't in that style and looked like some random modern art museum?

Aesthetics in a church absolutely matter because they help to build a connection to the church and build up that well of emotion. No it's not the most important aspect of a church by any means, but it's not wise to ignore it especially when the converse is some sort of postmodern monstrosity that looks like it's some sort of cult worshipping an idol.

k2aggie07 said:

---

And if you think the economia or means and modes of worship are irrelevant you're just as wrong.

---

Ultimately I don't think any of us know who's right or wrong...All I know is my relationship with the Lord and how it guides me and my understanding of it...I can worship him in a palace, pre-fab building, tent, laying in my bed or in my car driving to wherever....I can understand what the OP is expressing...The older grand churches can be awe inspiring but to ME it comes down to my personal relationship with him..that's what's keeps me close to him not the building ..Like I said earlier..imho..Good day to all!

I agree with you that places of worship should get back to the way they used to look.

They way the used to look in the first century was a synagogue that met on the Sabbath.

Go and do likewise.

JJMt said:

---

Quote:

---

Further, those kind of churches absolutely will attract people just on looks alone whereas a modern church usually isn't even given a 2nd glance.

---

I'm actually sympathetic to your point, but I suspect that the actual numbers don't support it.

Those modernistic stadiums are attracting people, including many Catholics, in droves, whereas the Catholic church with its beautiful sanctuaries is losing people (in the U.S., at least).

Finally, given what precipitated the Reformation (the outrageous spending on St. Peter's and the sale of indulgences to fund it), is it any surprise that Protestants have at least some nominal resistance to spending huge sums on buildings (I say nominal because some of those stadium churches ain't cheap to build, as we found out with our own football stadium)?

---

Then why are churches losing massive amounts of men? The classical styles have a much more masculine and imposing aesthetic than do the modern churches. It evokes a larger than life feeling where you are in the presence of a Great Authority.

The thing is, the use of postmodernism in church architecture is only a recent thing. Prior to the latter part of the 20th century, churches still had the classical look.

Here are some 1800s churches:
[img][/img]
[img][/img]
[img][/img]

[img][/img]

Some of these churches are not even that big yet they still maintain more of the classic look.

Here are some horrible modern examples:

[img][/img]

[img][/img]

I'm not saying we should spend exorbitant amounts of money on a church like the Catholics did in the past, but you can get the look without going off the deep end in costs. Traditional >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Modern

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

Marv C. World said:

---

Since the Notre Dame fire, I've been thinking about this one even more than normal. Why have we gone away from building churches in that monument, gothic, style? It's a style absolutely unique to Christianity yet barely anyone does it anymore and instead they either go for a tin box that looks like a storage unit or something that looks like a stadium if it's a bigger church. These churches have zero aesthetics and don't give you a feel like you're entering something grand at all. It's just another piece of modern architecture that will won't last.

My question is more directed to Protestants than Catholics or Orthodox who still appear to understand that aesthetics in a church do matter.

---

The church is not the building, it's the faithful inside.

---

Sure, but the church does help to draw people in and to retain them. It also reflects upon the values of the ministry/pastor/preacher/priest of the church. A postmodern monstrosity is more likely to have gone full bore into postmodernism whereas a traditional looking church is likely to be far more socially conservative.

Win At Life said:

---

I agree with you that places of worship should get back to the way they used to look.

They way the used to look in the first century was a synagogue that met on the Sabbath.

Go and do likewise.

---

Tell that Paul in Acts 20:7 and Justin Martyr....

Quote:

---

Then why are churches losing massive amounts of men?

---

I'd say it has to do more with this perverse obsession we have with individualism and material success in the West, than it does what the building looks like. I also think our culture's flawed understanding of masculinity contributes, where vulnerability and emotion are ridiculed as "feminine". Why go to a place that encourages community, vulnerability, emotion, and de-emphasizes material gain when you've been raised to believe those things are bad or "feminine"?

PacifistAg said:

---

Quote:

---

Then why are churches losing massive amounts of men?

---

I'd say it has to do more with this perverse obsession we have with individualism and material success in the West, than it does what the building looks like.

---

This guy nails it. Men leave the church because they don't feel like traditional masculinity is respected and feel alienated in a place that has become infested with ignoring the traditional in favor of modern touchy feely things. It's absolutely related to the reasoning behind the change in aesthetics.

Sorry, you had responded before my edit below:

Quote:

---

I also think our culture's flawed understanding of masculinity contributes, where vulnerability and emotion are ridiculed as "feminine". Why go to a place that encourages community, vulnerability, emotion, and de-emphasizes material gain when you've been raised to believe those things are bad or "feminine"?

---

Marv C. World said:

---

PacifistAg said:

---

Quote:

---

Then why are churches losing massive amounts of men?

---

I'd say it has to do more with this perverse obsession we have with individualism and material success in the West, than it does what the building looks like.

---

This guy nails it. Men leave the church because they don't feel like traditional masculinity is respected and feel alienated in a place that has become infested with ignoring the traditional in favor of modern touchy feely things. It's absolutely related to the reasoning behind the change in aesthetics.

---

Agree with this. Look at the denominations high on emotional fluff (Pentecostals, charismatic). Mostly women.

It can maybe be even more interesting. You could consider the creeping kind of dualism in modernist thinking. That the physical is not as important, the perhaps ignorance or loss of the principle that a human being is body and soul...that the promise of scripture is for physical, material redemption. Maybe some of this is reflected in the lack of appetite for beauty, for the breaking of the link between physical beauty and the confession of the truth. I mean even the idea that the church of God should be beautiful, decorated, is challenged...yet God Himself prescribed material decorations for His tent and His temple. You could also make a case that this perhaps is also seen in the iconoclast nature of modern Christianity.

Marv C. World said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

Marv C. World said:

---

Since the Notre Dame fire, I've been thinking about this one even more than normal. Why have we gone away from building churches in that monument, gothic, style? It's a style absolutely unique to Christianity yet barely anyone does it anymore and instead they either go for a tin box that looks like a storage unit or something that looks like a stadium if it's a bigger church. These churches have zero aesthetics and don't give you a feel like you're entering something grand at all. It's just another piece of modern architecture that will won't last.

My question is more directed to Protestants than Catholics or Orthodox who still appear to understand that aesthetics in a church do matter.

---

The church is not the building, it's the faithful inside.

---

Sure, but the church does help to draw people in and to retain them. It also reflects upon the values of the ministry/pastor/preacher/priest of the church. A postmodern monstrosity is more likely to have gone full bore into postmodernism whereas a traditional looking church is likely to be far more socially conservative.

---

Perhaps people are more drawn to church that is humble in appearance as Christ taught us to be. Perhaps a church that isn't ostentatious provides a visible example that we are to serve others more than ourselves.

Or perhaps your OP was a less than thinly veiled insult to your Protestant brethren.

Why do you think beautifying a house of worship is self serving and ostentatious?

Christ also cautioned us against this type of thinking, didn't he?

Eh, what's the problem?

k2aggie07 said:

---

It can maybe be even more interesting. You could consider the creeping kind of dualism in modernist thinking. That the physical is not as important, the perhaps ignorance or loss of the principle that a human being is body and soul...that the promise of scripture is for physical, material redemption. Maybe some of this is reflected in the lack of appetite for beauty, for the breaking of the link between physical beauty and the confession of the truth. I mean even the idea that the church of God should be beautiful, decorated, is challenged...yet God Himself prescribed material decorations for His tent and His temple. You could also make a case that this perhaps is also seen in the iconoclast nature of modern Christianity.

---

Old worship and old priesthood. Heb. 9

The contrast to the earthly temple is the heavenly temple not made by human hands as well as the human temple.

In no way does that show that wherever we choose to worship should not be physically beautiful.

k2aggie07 said:

---

The contrast to the earthly temple is the heavenly temple not made by human hands as well as the human temple.

In no way does that show that wherever we choose to worship should not be physically beautiful.

---

Well you said "God Himself prescribed"...in the old covenant like Heb. 9:1 says. Nowhere does he prescribe material decorations for his church in the new covenant. It is purely human invention.

His character doesn't change. The argument that "yeah well God doesn't want us to have nice buildings because ostentatiousness and reasons" at lest implies His attitude toward things changed. The point I was making is he was happy for Israel to decorate with precious gems and nice things - he commanded it.

k2aggie07 said:

---

His character doesn't change. The argument that "yeah well God doesn't want us to have nice buildings because ostentatiousness and reasons" at lest implies His attitude toward things changed. The point I was making is he was happy for Israel to decorate with precious gems and nice things - he commanded it.

---

His character doesn't change. So I should sacrifice bulls and goats, tell Pharaoh to let my people go, and smash infants against rocks. Otherwise his attitude toward things changes.

The priesthood changed, the law changed, worship changed.

His attitude does not change, and those are all prefiguring or shadows of truth. Maybe *you* need to go reread Hebrews 9, as well as James 1.

k2aggie07 said:

---

His attitude does not change, and those are all prefiguring or shadows of truth. Maybe *you* need to go reread Hebrews 9, as well as James 1.

---

I agree. Those are all prefiguring or shadows. We live in the age of substance.

PacifistAg said:

---

Sorry, you had responded before my edit below:

Quote:

---

I also think our culture's flawed understanding of masculinity contributes, where vulnerability and emotion are ridiculed as "feminine". Why go to a place that encourages community, vulnerability, emotion, and de-emphasizes material gain when you've been raised to believe those things are bad or "feminine"?

---

---

There is no "being raised to believe" these things are almost entirely behavioral genetics. That is, men are men because they are biologically inclined to behave in specific ways just as women are women for the same reasons. What you are talking about is trying to go against biology, which is literally never going to work no matter how much soy or oxytocin you try to force down the throats of boys.

Ok? And what? The antitype of the temple in Hebrews is the heavenly tabernacle, not the modern church building. That chapter is not relevant to the discussion.

And you still haven't shown in any way that the change of law, the change of priesthood, from type to reality, has any bearing on the idea that God no longer wants us to beautify the spaces where we worship Him.

PS worship didn't change. The worship of God still requires sacrifice. The sacrifice changed. The worship did not. Reread Hebrews 9.