Martin Q. Blank said:

---

PacifistAg said:

---

Didn't know you need to see in order to hear.

---

We have a deaf ministry too.

btw...I'm glad to see your family trying out new churches. I believe I predicted your conversion for this October, no?

---

I have no idea what your obsession led you to predict. I don't anticipate converting to Orthodoxy, but that's largely because my family isn't there yet. I can assure you since you seem obsessively concerned with what church I attend, that I won't be chrismated (I may have the wrong term) by October. I've not hidden my growing interest in Eastern Orthodoxy, which was sparked largely by the Orthodox posters here and how they engage, as well as the depth of their knowledge. It's a stark difference from what I have seen throughout my life in Protestantism.

k2aggie07 said:

---

I know this is your schtick

---

Indeed it is.

Quote:

---

Hi Diehard. I like talking to you, because you don't troll and youre thoughtful.

I think framing it as utility vs aesthetics isn't a good way to look at it. For one, they're not naturally opposed. I mean, even outside of my faith this is an important philosophical truth for me. One thing I strongly believe is that things should be both functional and beautiful. I reject an art-craft distinction, so I think anything a human creates is a unique expression of that human... whether its a church or a sandwich. And that anyone who interacts with that thing has a measure of a kind of communion with the person who made it, which is a personal, intimate interaction. It is unavoidable.

I think a lot of people don't like this, and sometimes I think that's because it comes with a whole heap of responsibility for what we make.

It's difficult for me, then, to accept a dichotomy between utility and aesthetics. I might even go so far as to say that something that is ugly has lost a kind of utility.

As another odd thought, I think my church is extremely utilitarian. It has really only one purpose, and that is to serve as a liturgical space for my parish. It's a highly specialized tool for that end.

---

Thank you for the kind words. I, too, have enjoyed our conversations.

I think it's just a semantics issue with this and we are talking about different things. I mean utility in the non-worship/adoration sense - feeding the poor, etc. With your usage, I think we are in agreement - I don't see a separation between the aesthetic and the utility...and that a bad aesthetic takes away from the utility.

To circle back to the OP, I don't have a problem persay with large churches...it just personal preference of mine that they aren't just spaces to bring out worship but that they have a larger serving component to them.

Disclaimer: Yes, I understand and acknowledge that these cathedrals have other buildings and methods to serve this function...so I am not criticizing.

'WHY GOTHIC ARCHITECTURE IS IMPORTANT'
https://dwightlongenecker.com/why-gothic-architecture-is-important/?fbclid=IwAR1-ad8rzrM-GfNaffbT613l3bRPhBHsPw6wEA8HpH1YcwXAHKkLZKYhBE0

Should It Matter to Christians When Churches Burn?

Excellent piece from Ancient Faith. I hadn't ever heard this perspective before.

length of construction is also a reason. The National Cathedral took 83 years to complete, Notre Dame took 200 years, the Cathederal of the Sacred Heart in downtown Houston only took three years, but while inspired by Italian Romanticism its modern and not ornate, which shortened the construction.

Cost.

txaggie79 said:

---

Cost.

---

Was it cheap to build originally?

Yes, proportionally it was. The skilled labor required was still less than 20% of the total cost. Today it would probably be 80% of the cost. Not saying cost is the ONLY factor, but it is probably the single biggest factor.

txaggie79 said:

---

Yes, proportionally it was. The skilled labor required was still less than 20% of the total cost. Today it would probably be 80% of the cost. Not saying cost is the ONLY factor, but it is probably the single biggest factor.

---

Interesting if true.

The european french who built Notre Dame did it as a show of glory to God.

I kinda made that up. :-)

txaggie79 said:

---

I kinda made that up. :-)

---

Nicely done

txaggie79 said:

---

I kinda made that up. :-)

---

Awesome

" I estimate that over this 150-year period, on average, 21.5 percent of the regional economy was devoted to the construction of these Gothic churches, 1.5 percent of which is directly related to the implicit cost of labor."
https://fau.digital.flvc.org/islandora/object/fau%3A1433/datastream/OBJ/view/How_much_did_Gothic_churches_cost_.pdf

But seriously if I remember correctly the materials and time were donated for Notre Dame.

This thread reminds me about churches that split over the color of the carpet.

Frok said:

---

This thread reminds me about churches that split over the color of the carpet.

---

And that's what's wrong with modern churches. They shouldn't have carpet. They should have stone floors like cathedrals in the olden days.

Beauty is truth by another name.

But $$$ is the reason modern churches don't look like they should.