Viola and Barna, Chapter 2 – The Red Flags

As you might have guessed if you read my previous post, I don’t think Viola and Barna’s chapter (in Pagan Christianity?) on church architecture is without its problems.  Here are a few (in my mind) glaring issues:

1. Frank and George seem to denigrate the visual arts in worship (though they do not think it worth devoting a chapter to).  Their basic argument seems to be that it originated with honoring dead saints.  Two problems with that: a) what’s wrong with honoring those who have gone before us?  Honoring that “great cloud of witnesses” is far from idolatry; b) the origin of the first Christian worship art is irrelevant – the question is, how do we use the arts in our worship?  Art can be used in so many edifying and God-honoring ways!
2. In addition to many things that the Constantinian era brought from Roman culture into the new church buildings, “The Roman custom of beginning a service with processional music was adopted… Choirs were developed and brought into the Christian Church.” (25) etc. etc. etc.  All I could say to this was what Barna himself said in the introduction to the book, “we cannot avoid bringing our culture into the church”.  I have yet to see how processionals and choirs, regardless of their origins, detract from the worship of the Church.  As a former raging Petra fan (okay – I’m still a ragin Petra fan!), I’ve seen God take, redeem and use many things from the “world” for His glory!  To paraphrase Larry Norman, “Why should the devil get all the good choirs and processionals?”  Viola and Barna – as I will opine in my posts about Chapter 3 – are woefully unconvincing in their arguments that formal worship is unedifying to the Body of Christ.
3. [The Gothic cathedrals] relied heavily on the teachings of the … Greek philosopher Plato.  Plato taught that sound, color, and light have lofty mystical meanings.  They can induce moods and help bring one closer to the ‘Eternal Good’.  The Gothic designers took Plato’s teachings and set them to brick and stone.” The authors argue that the influence of a “pagan philosopher” is somehow negative and manipulative; that the use of color, awe and beauty somehow puts parishioners in the wrong frame of mind.  I would argue that art and beauty, being an inherent part of our being created in God’s creative image, belong in the Church, whether in a Gothic cathedral or an apartment living room!
4. To continue from #3, “So with its use of light, color and excessive height, the Gothic cathedral fostered a sense of mystery, transcendance and awe… borrowed from Plato and passed off as Christian.” (29)  Two thoughts: a) Is a sense of awe really so bad in the presence of God?  b) On a personal note, I recall my Chrysalis walk – a youth retreat in the tradition of the Catholic Cursillo.  I spent a three-day weekend at Greene St. United Methodist Church in Piqua, Ohio (the most beautiful, majestic church building in all of Ohio, as far as I’m concerned).  The sanctuary was big, old and beautiful.  The back of the balcony, if I recall correctly, was adorned with a large mural depicting a Bible story.  The sense of awe I had in that place had a lasting impact on me, but not in the way that the authors warn; the smells, the echos, the cold stone mixed with warm company – these set the stage for a life-changing event in my life.  The sense of awe prepared me to receive what God had for me.  I don’t see that as a negative.
5. “The main message of Gothic architecture is: ‘God is transcendant and unreachable – so be awed at His majesty.’  But such a message defies the message of the Gospel…” (30) Since when?  Emmanuel, God-with-us, the intimate Lover of our souls, is awesome and majestic.  He is the most wonderful of paradoxes!  If Viola has lost touch with God’s transcendance, then I fear for him.  And, by the way, I’ve been in some rather majestic cathedrals, and many of those times I have felt closer to God than ever; somehow acknowledging his transcendance brings us closer to Him!

They go on and on… through the evolution of the church building… some of their arguments are compelling (see yesterday’s post), and some are ridiculous (they compare the steeple to the Tower of Babel).  But the crux of the argument is: the church building is a barrier to ministry and must be done away with!

I’d say, no, they are a tool and need to be taken off the pedestal we have set up for them.  Is the church-building-versus-home-church argument really a matter of either-or?  Or is it possibly one of both-and?  In my last post, I recommended a few ways we could use our buildings in new ways, such as various parishes sharing buildings.  Of course, many who read this chapter of the book (such as church plants, and my own tradition of the Anglican Mission in America, many of whom lost their buildings as they left the fold of ECUSA) will find the question moot; they are already doing the first-century-church practice of renting spaces and meeting in homes!

I may have another post in me on this topic…