house of worship
As an architect I am intrigued how built form influences cultural norms. The built form we create has a direct link to how it influences the culture at large. Years ago I was doing research for a paper about how the early church gathered together and I came across a little book that had a vague reference as to how the built form of the time influenced the church. I had always felt built form influenced its size, it influenced its expression, it influenced its reach and this influence has changed over time as the built forms churches have occupied changed.
The early church began in a world that was segregated and stratified. This strata in large part was due to the occupation of Rome. Rome controlled how, where, when, why people gathered, how they conducted business, how they fit into the imperial system. As the early church sought to share the message of Christ they were met with a daunting task. There were public spaces where markets and other public business was conducted. There are stories in the Bible how those spaces were used in dramatic ways to grow the church’s influence and reach. What is not recorded in any detail is how the church struggled to create a sense of community and belonging. The church was a subversive force in a culture that did not embrace change. Rome ruled with power and authority and that power was not to be questioned. So along came this strange group of people who had witnessed events that had been foretold and this upheaval changed the course of history.
For me as one trained to create built forms to address needs and functions essential to living out life I am struck with how the church managed to grow the way it did. Houses of this era were built as a series of small rooms with few windows and no large gathering areas. Homes were created to support a small family or group of people. So the church used these houses to build a network of small gatherings to spread the message of Christ in a world held tightly by those in power. These small gatherings were forced into existence due to the limits of the built form of the era. Yes, this community with its subversive message met in large public spaces but the telling, the connecting, the growth come through people gathering in small houses whenever and wherever they could. Yes, there were those trying to destroy this rebellion and these homes did give them a way to meet unnoticed. Yet, the limits of the built environment of the region had a dramatic impact on how this community gathered. For millennia this small group approach flourished and the message of freedom and love grew to the point it was a shaping force in the Roman world and beyond.
Then in 310 AD on a bridge heading into battle the emperor met the God of the universe and in that moment the small group rebellion would quickly become part of the status quo. When Constantine became a follower of Christ and made Christianity one of the many accepted religions in the empire the course of this rebellion would never be the same. With public acceptance and support the movement that had been limited by these small cramped facilities was given access to large public structures. The Basilica became the meeting place of the church and because of this public gathering the church became a group focused on using these large spaces to get the message out. Church became synonymous with large public gatherings. Church became synonymous with the empire. Church became more of an event than a gathering. This image of the church occupying a large public building is still with us to this day. Gone was the dependence on the house, gone was the small group of follower meeting together over meal to tell the story of Christ, to teach others how this story could change their lives. The church was given a platform for orators to take center stage.
Fast forward two thousand years and we were in the midst of a house church revolution. Many in this new expression desperately attempted to tie their vision for church to house centered gatherings of the past. This modern movement misinterpreted the fact that the early builders of this revolution used houses because they had to, not because they wanted to. They used houses because it was all they had to use. They met in small groups not to be “missional” but because it was their reality. It did not cost the church anything to meet in a members house, it did cost them exposure to meet in houses. Houses were already there waiting to be exploited and with dramatic effect. This attempt to recreate something that had been was born from frustration with the dependence on large built forms being the center of the church’s tools to reach our world missed the impact the built form had had on the early church planters.
We look past the parts and pieces of the past, of the forms built and intangible and we harvest what meets our needs. Today the church has access to whatever size space it wants to exploit. Yet we have become a movement focused on those built forms. We have become a movement tied to built tools that drain money, drain time, drain impact. I have designed many churches over the last thirty years and rarely has there been a thoughtful discussion on how and why the church is being built today both physically and relation-ally. I have contributed to the confusion of the built environment of this movement and still do today. Church is an expression of the culture it is a part of, it is an expression of the impact that culture’s built forms can exert, it is an expression of an interpretation of the past, present and future. Today the church spends time, money and impact creating built forms with a clouded vision of why they are needed, why they are used and why they are the forms they are. Does the church live in large dark spaces because of theology or because that is what is accepted. Does the church live in large technically brilliant boxes because we should or because we want to. Does the church live in houses because that is the true expression of community or because it is what is available. The rub comes when we stop and think carefully and thoughtfully about what built form should be for the church. The church should be creating built forms that clearly express the theology, the message, the purpose of this movement. Too often the expression of church is formed by the container that is chosen to hold it. These containers are functional, at times beautiful, at times ugly, at times misguided. What we need is a careful, thoughtful and thorough analysis of this movement’s past, present and future to create built forms that truly expresses the ideas, the message and the mission of this rebellion.