Thursday, 28 April 2011
Monday, 18 April 2011
Sunday, 17 April 2011
Creating sacred architecture
The notion that church architecture is only sacred because of what it contains, a congregation which are the temples for the holy spirit, sets up an interesting framework. I propose the physical presence of the congregation, should invoke a reaction within the church architecture. Such that the physical presence of the congregation empowers the architecture to change and become sacred. Whilst this idea may seem absurd, it is passed in a theological understanding of the notions of what is sacred...
Simply put: Church architecture begins to be articulated by the idea that the presence of the congregation actually creates the space in which they worship. The congregation is sacred and as such they empower the architecture to be sacred through their presence.
Simply put: Church architecture begins to be articulated by the idea that the presence of the congregation actually creates the space in which they worship. The congregation is sacred and as such they empower the architecture to be sacred through their presence.
New dialogue between architecture and notions of the sacred....
The foundations of church architecture was established by 'Constantine the Great', the first Roman emperor to be converted to Christianity, this occurred around 300AD. Before this time Christianity was not viewed as a typical religion, and it wasn't. It didn't adhere to the fundamental framework for a religion of the time - expressed through an architectural image (Temple); man's sin resolved through sacrifice (Sacrifice) and the notion of a dedicated, separately ordained priesthood (often virgin males and females) (Priesthood). This three elements were not present with the religion of Christianity up until this point. It is worth noting that before the reign of Constantine, Christians were persecuted, and martyred by both the Roman empire (through Diocletian) and from the Jewish culture. As such Constantine has been established as a fundamental figure in the growth of Christianity.
Constantine introduced the notion of Church architecture to Christianity, in an attempt to make it more palatable to society and culture. Despite this theologically flawed action, the notion of architectural space for worship and gathering have been discussed ever since. Whether one agrees that Church architecture is fundamental in the religious service, or simple a box which is not connected with the function with takes place inside it, one has to decide.
Theologically the notion of a 'sacred temple' for the spirit of God to dwell within is no longer something constructed by human hands, but is in fact people (see Matt 26:61; 1 Cor 6:19). The 'new temple' or sacred vessel are the people, such that I believe that church architecture is not sacred unless the 'sacred vessels' are congregated. This sets up an interesting dialogue between the architecture and the congregation. The architecture is not sacred in its own right, but sacred because of what it contains, and as such is only sacred in the presence of the congregation. This opens up the question on how can church architecture respond to the presence or absence of the sacred vessels of God, and should the architecture be different?
Constantine introduced the notion of Church architecture to Christianity, in an attempt to make it more palatable to society and culture. Despite this theologically flawed action, the notion of architectural space for worship and gathering have been discussed ever since. Whether one agrees that Church architecture is fundamental in the religious service, or simple a box which is not connected with the function with takes place inside it, one has to decide.
Theologically the notion of a 'sacred temple' for the spirit of God to dwell within is no longer something constructed by human hands, but is in fact people (see Matt 26:61; 1 Cor 6:19). The 'new temple' or sacred vessel are the people, such that I believe that church architecture is not sacred unless the 'sacred vessels' are congregated. This sets up an interesting dialogue between the architecture and the congregation. The architecture is not sacred in its own right, but sacred because of what it contains, and as such is only sacred in the presence of the congregation. This opens up the question on how can church architecture respond to the presence or absence of the sacred vessels of God, and should the architecture be different?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)