Hypothesis: this is because modernism has a problem with the glorification or sanctification of material things, because of a recession into neopagan ideas of dualism.

PS. For fun fact, a cathedral is not a large church. It is a place where the bishop serves, where his kathedra or seat is. Lots of large beautiful churches in history are not cathedrals.

Marv C. World said:

---

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.

---

Yes, there is a "being raised to believe". Being vulnerable with others, showing emotion, not placing an emphasis on material gain are not innately "feminine". Those are culturally conditioned perspectives, and leads to a toxic form of masculinity that's incapable of expressing emotion in a healthy way, or stunts one's ability to be vulnerable with others. There's nothing biological in men that keeps them from showing emotion or being vulnerable, nonsensical claims about soy or oxytocin notwithstanding.

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

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.

---

I grew up Baptist. I am not Catholic nor Orthodox so please don't make any assumptions about me. This is something that has been on my mind for years. I never understood why megachurches made a church that looked nothing like a traditional church. I always liked singing hymns far more than the easy listening christian love songs they try to pass off as religious music nowadays.

Those churches I posted above were mostly Protestant churches (the ones with the aesthetic classic looks). This has little to do with Protestant vs. Catholic as their are some horrific RNC postmodern monstrosities as well. A church doesn't have to be huge to have a solid aesthetic, I mean I did post a church small Montana church built in the 1800s that has a good look. There is nothing that says it needs to be a grand spectacle, but given that Christianity is 2000 years old, I don't see why it should shun its traditional looks.

I'm just very much of a traditionalist who despises modern architecture and modern art.

k2aggie07 said:

---

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.

---

Well maybe we should work on decorating the heavenly tabernacle and not the modern church building. Or was your argument about God not changing his character/attitude about something else?

Quote:

---

I always liked singing hymns

---

Quote:

---

I'm just very much of a traditionalist

---

Which tradition, because many of those hymns are fairly new in terms of church history?

PacifistAg said:

---

Marv C. World said:

---

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.

---

Yes, there is a "being raised to believe". Being vulnerable with others, showing emotion, not placing an emphasis on material gain are not innately "feminine". Those are culturally conditioned perspectives, and leads to a toxic form of masculinity that's incapable of expressing emotion in a healthy way, or stunts one's ability to be vulnerable with others. There's nothing biological in men that keeps them from showing emotion or being vulnerable, nonsensical claims about soy or oxytocin notwithstanding.

---

It doesn't really matter what you think on this issue. Behavioral genetics has proven that you are wrong. I could go and post dozens of peer reviewed articles about genetics in this thread, but I won't because I don't want to derail the thread like you seem so intent on doing.

I do find it funny that your method of getting people to accept garbage postmodernism and postmodern architecture is to literally change the way men behave though. Clearly you don't find any value in traditionalism or the importance of history. Are you glad that Notre Dame burned?

Quote:

---

I never understood why megachurches made a church that looked nothing like a traditional church.

---

Bill Hybels' experiment to turn the church into a corporation - dress casually, easy music, easy preaching, come as you are, etc.

PacifistAg said:

---

Quote:

---

I always liked singing hymns

---

Quote:

---

I'm just very much of a traditionalist

---

Which tradition, because many of those hymns are fairly new in terms of church history?

---

Unless you're talking about Psalms (these aren't sung that often) then just normal hymns. Most of the traditional hymns were written in the 1700s and 1800s, which to me is old enough to qualify as traditional since it's well before postmodernism even came into being.

Even then though, no hymn can compete with this:



I would take that 100 times out of 100 for music in a church over anything else.

Marv C. World said:

---

PacifistAg said:

---

Marv C. World said:

---

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.

---

Yes, there is a "being raised to believe". Being vulnerable with others, showing emotion, not placing an emphasis on material gain are not innately "feminine". Those are culturally conditioned perspectives, and leads to a toxic form of masculinity that's incapable of expressing emotion in a healthy way, or stunts one's ability to be vulnerable with others. There's nothing biological in men that keeps them from showing emotion or being vulnerable, nonsensical claims about soy or oxytocin notwithstanding.

---

It doesn't really matter what you think on this issue. Behavioral genetics has proven that you are wrong. I could go and post dozens of peer reviewed articles about genetics in this thread, but I won't because I don't want to derail the thread like you seem so intent on doing.

I do find it funny that your method of getting people to accept garbage postmodernism and postmodern architecture is to literally change the way men behave though. Clearly you don't find any value in traditionalism or the importance of history. Are you glad that Notre Dame burned?

---

Goodness. Take a deep breath and relax brother. No, I'm not glad Notre Dame burned. What a nonsensical question. Peace to you. Just remember, just as Christ showed us, it's okay for us to weep, be vulnerable, and to not be driven by material wealth.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Quote:

---

I never understood why megachurches made a church that looked nothing like a traditional church.

---

Bill Hybels' experiment to turn the church into a corporation - dress casually, easy music, easy preaching, come as you are, etc.

---

That kind of makes me sick to know that this came from an experiment to turn a church into a corporation. I had no idea.

Quote:

---

Most of the traditional hymns were written in the 1700s and 1800s, which to me is old enough to qualify as traditional since it's well before postmodernism even came into being.

---

And they weren't traditional in the 1700s and 1800s. They were new. I would agree much of Christian music coming out today is shallow, but there is also some great stuff. Traditional, in and of itself, does not necessarily mean better.

PacifistAg said:

---

Quote:

---

Most of the traditional hymns were written in the 1700s and 1800s, which to me is old enough to qualify as traditional since it's well before postmodernism even came into being.

---

And they weren't traditional in the 1700s and 1800s. They were new. I would agree much of Christian music coming out today is shallow, but there is also some great stuff. Traditional, in and of itself, does not necessarily mean better.

---

Those hymns were written by theologians. Today's songs are written by country music singers. They're not even close in content.

PacifistAg said:

---

Quote:

---

Most of the traditional hymns were written in the 1700s and 1800s, which to me is old enough to qualify as traditional since it's well before postmodernism even came into being.

---

And they weren't traditional in the 1700s and 1800s. They were new. I would agree much of Christian music coming out today is shallow, but there is also some great stuff. Traditional, in and of itself, does not necessarily mean better.

---

Traditional almost always means better when it come to religious music. There is nothing modern that even comes close to that piece that I posted above.



Hildegard of Bingen is another creator of music whose religious compositions blow away anything from the 20th century.

I can't fathom how anyone would ever want to listen to some sort of Faith +1 style soft rock love song over any of this especially now thanks to postmodernism expanding its influence into the church.

Quote:

---

Most of the traditional hymns were written in the 1700s and 1800s, which to me is old enough to qualify as traditional

---

So, 200-300 years of a 2,000 year old church qualifies as "traditional"? Wouldn't truly traditional be more along the lines of Catholicism or Orthodoxy? Heck, Protestantism seems to have been a rejection of "tradition".

Marv C. World said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Quote:

---

I never understood why megachurches made a church that looked nothing like a traditional church.

---

Bill Hybels' experiment to turn the church into a corporation - dress casually, easy music, easy preaching, come as you are, etc.

---

That kind of makes me sick to know that this came from an experiment to turn a church into a corporation. I had no idea.

---

How Willow Creek Is Leading Evangelicals by Learning From the Business World
Jesus, CEO: Churches as businesses
A business model for saving souls

PacifistAg said:

---

Quote:

---

Most of the traditional hymns were written in the 1700s and 1800s, which to me is old enough to qualify as traditional

---

So, 200-300 years of a 2,000 year old church qualifies as "traditional"? Wouldn't truly traditional be more along the lines of Catholicism or Orthodoxy? Heck, Protestantism seems to have been a rejection of "tradition".

---

That depends on how you view tradition. Martin Luther's intent was never to actually break away from Catholicism, he wanted to bring it back to its roots. Had the Catholic Church actually listened to what he was saying, he probably would have gone down at the greatest Catholic of all time. I do not consider Protestantism a break with tradition considering how it got its start.

As it is, neither Catholicism nor Protestantism are anything like what they used to be.

With regards to the music, I would say anything prior to the massive expansion of communism, cultural marxism, and postmodernism would qualify as traditional in 2019. Why? Because the beliefs of the population in the 1800s are probably a lot closer to the beliefs of those from 1000 than they are to those now when you look at them from a religious perspective.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Marv C. World said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Quote:

---

I never understood why megachurches made a church that looked nothing like a traditional church.

---

Bill Hybels' experiment to turn the church into a corporation - dress casually, easy music, easy preaching, come as you are, etc.

---

That kind of makes me sick to know that this came from an experiment to turn a church into a corporation. I had no idea.

---

How Willow Creek Is Leading Evangelicals by Learning From the Business World
Jesus, CEO: Churches as businesses
A business model for saving souls

---

Wow, I had no idea. Why would they decide it was a good idea to abandon everything that worked in the past? Why would they do this?

The argument is not that God ordered us to decorate the old tabernacle therefore we should decorate whatever the new covenant equivalent of the tabernacle is.

The argument is that it pleased God for His people to glorify Him through the use of art, artisans, decorations, statues, floral motifs, fine gems, and precious metals. It is silly to suggest that He would no longer sanction or be pleased by these activities.

k2aggie07 said:

---

The argument is not that God ordered us to decorate the old tabernacle therefore we should decorate whatever the new covenant equivalent of the tabernacle is.

The argument is that it pleased God for His people to glorify Him through the use of art, artisans, decorations, statues, floral motifs, fine gems, and precious metals. It is silly to suggest that He would no longer sanction or be pleased by these activities.

---

Amen.

k2aggie07 said:

---

The argument is not that God ordered us to decorate the old tabernacle therefore we should decorate whatever the new covenant equivalent of the tabernacle is.

The argument is that it pleased God for His people to glorify Him through the use of art, artisans, decorations, statues, floral motifs, fine gems, and precious metals. It is silly to suggest that He would no longer sanction or be pleased by these activities.

---

Actually, they got in a lot of trouble trying to use metals and statues to try to glorify him outside of his specified instructions.

k2aggie07 said:

---

The argument is not that God ordered us to decorate the old tabernacle therefore we should decorate whatever the new covenant equivalent of the tabernacle is.

The argument is that it pleased God for His people to glorify Him through the use of art, artisans, decorations, statues, floral motifs, fine gems, and precious metals. It is silly to suggest that He would no longer sanction or be pleased by these activities.

---

Thank you for putting it into better words.

Quote:

---

Wow, I had no idea. Why would they decide it was a good idea to abandon everything that worked in the past? Why would they do this?

---

/protestantism

Also, like I said... architecture reflects the cultural and theological milieu. The folk religion of America - evangelical Christianity - reflects the cultural zeitgeist of Americans. America becomes more modernist, capitalist, and so go the church buildings.

Actually, they got into a lot of trouble for worshipping idols. Does not follow.

Marv C. World said:

---

PacifistAg said:

---

Quote:

---

Most of the traditional hymns were written in the 1700s and 1800s, which to me is old enough to qualify as traditional

---

So, 200-300 years of a 2,000 year old church qualifies as "traditional"? Wouldn't truly traditional be more along the lines of Catholicism or Orthodoxy? Heck, Protestantism seems to have been a rejection of "tradition".

---

That depends on how you view tradition. Martin Luther's intent was never to actually break away from Catholicism, he wanted to bring it back to its roots. Had the Catholic Church actually listened to what he was saying, he probably would have gone down at the greatest Catholic of all time. I do not consider Protestantism a break with tradition considering how it got its start.

As it is, neither Catholicism nor Protestantism are anything like what they used to be.

---

Depends on how you view "tradition"? Interesting. So you seem to concede that some view it differently, which makes it odd that you're ranting about it so much as the standard.

As for the music, I do notice you love your politically-charged buzzwords, but we are probably closer to each other than not. I love old hymns. I love the Psalms. I just don't immediately dismiss a song, though, because it was written in the 20th century.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

k2aggie07 said:

---

The argument is not that God ordered us to decorate the old tabernacle therefore we should decorate whatever the new covenant equivalent of the tabernacle is.

The argument is that it pleased God for His people to glorify Him through the use of art, artisans, decorations, statues, floral motifs, fine gems, and precious metals. It is silly to suggest that He would no longer sanction or be pleased by these activities.

---

Actually, they got in a lot of trouble trying to use metals and statues to try to glorify him outside of his specified instructions.

---

His only real guidelines were no idols, needless greed, and he also appreciated the man who gave everything he had more than the man who only gave a small portion. It's clear that God in the Bible does respect beauty, art, the trades, etc. I mean Jesus was a carpenter afterall and we all know what carpenters are capable of with wood when they are good. I see no reason to believe that he would not want us to decorate churches in his honor using the skills we were given and worked hard at perfecting.

k2aggie07 said:

---

Quote:

---

Wow, I had no idea. Why would they decide it was a good idea to abandon everything that worked in the past? Why would they do this?

---

/protestantism

Also, like I said... architecture reflects the cultural and theological milieu. The folk religion of America - evangelical Christianity - reflects the cultural zeitgeist of Americans. America becomes more modernist, capitalist, and so go the church buildings.

---

I personally can't stand the cafegymatoriums and warehouses that I see in most Protestant churches. I love the beauty of cathedrals and Orthodox churches.

BTW, I took my family to visit St. Silouan a couple weeks ago. That was a mistake. Not because we visited, but I don't think we were adequately prepared. I had been emailing the priest (can't remember exact name/title) and trying to prepare our kids, but it was such a radical change which is not good with one kid who is Asperger's and the other that we believe is on the spectrum. I thought it was absolutely beautiful, but when we get a chance, I do want to set up a weekend to maybe come down to yours and go w/ you so you can explain things to me.

PacifistAg said:

---

Marv C. World said:

---

PacifistAg said:

---

Quote:

---

Most of the traditional hymns were written in the 1700s and 1800s, which to me is old enough to qualify as traditional

---

So, 200-300 years of a 2,000 year old church qualifies as "traditional"? Wouldn't truly traditional be more along the lines of Catholicism or Orthodoxy? Heck, Protestantism seems to have been a rejection of "tradition".

---

That depends on how you view tradition. Martin Luther's intent was never to actually break away from Catholicism, he wanted to bring it back to its roots. Had the Catholic Church actually listened to what he was saying, he probably would have gone down at the greatest Catholic of all time. I do not consider Protestantism a break with tradition considering how it got its start.

As it is, neither Catholicism nor Protestantism are anything like what they used to be.

---

Depends on how you view "tradition"? Interesting. So you seem to concede that some view it differently, which makes it odd that you're ranting about it so much as the standard.

As for the music, I do notice you love your politically-charged buzzwords, but we are probably closer to each other than not. I love old hymns. I love the Psalms. I just don't immediately dismiss a song, though, because it was written in the 20th century.

---

That comment was explicitly directed to Martin Luther and the Protestantism/Catholicism debate. Protestantism was absolutely not a break from tradition, not if you know how it started. I generally view someone who was trying to bring something back to its roots to be someone who was more traditional, not less.

k2aggie07 said:

---

Quote:

---

Wow, I had no idea. Why would they decide it was a good idea to abandon everything that worked in the past? Why would they do this?

---

/protestantism

Also, like I said... architecture reflects the cultural and theological milieu. The folk religion of America - evangelical Christianity - reflects the cultural zeitgeist of Americans. America becomes more modernist, capitalist, and so go the church buildings.

---

Evangelical Christianity is a modern thing. Prior to 1950, most protestant churches were hellfire and brimstone oriented and not evangelical. Yes they wanted to convert, but they went about doing it in a significantly different manner than how evangelicals do it now.

PacifistAg said:

---

Quote:

---

Most of the traditional hymns were written in the 1700s and 1800s, which to me is old enough to qualify as traditional since it's well before postmodernism even came into being.

---

And they weren't traditional in the 1700s and 1800s. They were new. I would agree much of Christian music coming out today is shallow, but there is also some great stuff. Traditional, in and of itself, does not necessarily mean better.

---

When it comes to religion, "traditional" is ALWAYS better. Anything else, and the religion becomes something entirely different

Quote:

---

Prior to 1950, most protestant churches were hellfire and brimstone oriented and not evangelical. Yes they wanted to convert, but they went about doing it in a significantly different manner than how evangelicals do it now.

---

Yes, they went about it by trying to scare people to Christ. I grew up in those churches, and still struggle w/ the scars.

Marv C. World said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

k2aggie07 said:

---

The argument is not that God ordered us to decorate the old tabernacle therefore we should decorate whatever the new covenant equivalent of the tabernacle is.

The argument is that it pleased God for His people to glorify Him through the use of art, artisans, decorations, statues, floral motifs, fine gems, and precious metals. It is silly to suggest that He would no longer sanction or be pleased by these activities.

---

Actually, they got in a lot of trouble trying to use metals and statues to try to glorify him outside of his specified instructions.

---

His only real guidelines were no idols, needless greed, and he also appreciated the man who gave everything he had more than the man who only gave a small portion. It's clear that God in the Bible does respect beauty, art, the trades, etc. I mean Jesus was a carpenter afterall and we all know what carpenters are capable of with wood when they are good. I see no reason to believe that he would not want us to decorate churches in his honor using the skills we were given and worked hard at perfecting.

---

I don't either. But God's instruction on the old testament temple doesn't mean he prescribes it for the new testament church.

Yeah that parish is wonderful, I enjoy going to church there because it's intimate. It's tough right now since they don't have a priest, Fr Gregory moved to Colorado. Have you been taking with Fr Meletios? He's such a kind man, his day job is working with special needs kids. Was Fr Joseph or Fr Meletios there when you went?

Let me know whenever you're coming down.

k2aggie07 said:

---

Actually, they got into a lot of trouble for worshipping idols. Does not follow.

---

What do you think an idol was?

Neon R said:

---

PacifistAg said:

---

Quote:

---

Most of the traditional hymns were written in the 1700s and 1800s, which to me is old enough to qualify as traditional since it's well before postmodernism even came into being.

---

And they weren't traditional in the 1700s and 1800s. They were new. I would agree much of Christian music coming out today is shallow, but there is also some great stuff. Traditional, in and of itself, does not necessarily mean better.

---

When it comes to religion, "traditional" is ALWAYS better. Anything else, and the religion becomes something entirely different

---

We were talking about music, not the faith itself. If we're talking about "traditional" faith, then I am getting to the point of agreement that Orthodoxy is better.

PacifistAg said:

---

Quote:

---

Prior to 1950, most protestant churches were hellfire and brimstone oriented and not evangelical. Yes they wanted to convert, but they went about doing it in a significantly different manner than how evangelicals do it now.

---

Yes, they went about it by trying to scare people to Christ. I grew up in those churches, and still struggle w/ the scars.

---

The primary difference is that they didn't beat around the bush about the truth. Nowadays everyone hems and haws about what happens to people who reject God.