 Home
Current
issue
Previous
issues
Noticeboard
Discussion
board
About
CTiB
|
Common place or holy space?
Does the shape of worship space
shape a theology of worship?
by Richard Hubbard
Harold Daniels states that "worship should never be shaped by architecture".(i)
J.G Davies says "the nature of Christian worship is such that it does
not of itself require any particular architectural setting. It can be
and has been celebrated in a dining room, a hospital ward, or an open
field".(ii) However, Robert Webber offers
this perceptive and provocative comment: "The shape of worship ultimately
shapes the beliefs, sensibilities and understandings of those who worship
in its confines".(iii)
Can the environment in which we worship actually change what we believe
about what we are doing?
Webber goes on to suggest three principles for the design of worship
space. Space for worship, he says, should:
1. Convey the MYSTERY of God’s transcendence and imminence,
2. Convey HOSPITALITY, congeniality and warmth,
3. Enable PARTICIPATION of the people in both speech and movement.(iv)
History suggests that one or two of these aspects have usually been
present in church worship space, but rarely all three. The early Christians
met, of necessity, in homes, gathering round a central table in a people-centred
re-enactment of the Last Supper. The common place became the holy space.
Hospitality and Participation were certainly enabled, but Mystery may
have lost out in an essentially domestic environment.
After Constantine's conversion in 313 AD, Christians were given the
use of basilicas in which to worship; long, narrow buildings, with a
raised platform at the front to facilitate public speaking. Adapting
to this radically different environment, leaders utilised the raised
area by placing the communion table upon it, thereby sowing the seeds
for a gradual but monumental change in the church's theology of worship.
Instead of gathering around the table, the people looked towards it,
the raise platform creating a small but significant barrier.
Mystery was in, but Hospitality and Participation began to take a back
seat. The shape of worship space was beginning to change the theology
of worship; holy space was no longer the people’s space.
By the time of the Reformation, western church architecture thoroughly
reinforced this theology. The clergy carried out the ceremony of worship
in the chancel; the people watched from the nave, separated by the roodscreen.
Post-Reformation non-conformist groups, strongly influenced by Calvin,
designed buildings whose stark simplicity contrasted strongly with the
ornate trappings of their Anglican counterparts. Mystery, at least that
conveyed through the art and architecture, was rejected. The central,
high pulpit took the place of the altar as the dominant feature, and
thus the worship space both reflected and contributed to a theology
of worship that placed the central emphasis on preaching rather than
the Eucharist.
In the 19th century, the organ became the dominant feature in many
Baptist churches. Its sheer size and typical central position behind
the pulpit in the place occupied by the altar in Anglican churches might
suggest to some that music, rather than God, is the object of worship.
Certainly not the theology of the Baptist church, but how helpful is
the design of such buildings in conveying the truth?
Churches of the renewal of recent decades face a new problem. Some
find themselves struggling to reorder an historic building whose design
reflects a different theological emphasis. Many New Churches, having
no building of their own, have been forced to meet in school halls.
The flexibility of seating in such venues may enable Hospitality and
Participation, but it is difficult to create a sense of the transcendent
Mystery of God amidst walls adorned with Year Three's pictures of frogs.
The problem is exacerbated by the requirements of a sound system, whereby
effective placement of the equipment necessitates some physical separation
between the musicians and the congregation.
If Webber's assertion that worship space shapes theological understanding
is right, then we would do well to consider the surrounds in which we
meet. The Alternative worship movement have addressed this issue. Gatherings
may be held in diverse venues, none built for the purpose, but the use
of lighting, images projected onto the walls, screens and sheets, creative
seating, worship 'stations' and labyrinths all combine to recreate the
lost Mystery without losing Hospitality and Participation in the process.
Functionality may be forced on us in many situations, but if we are
deeply concerned for the close encounter with God, we will do all possible
to transform the common place into holy space.
Richard Hubbard is Visiting Lecturer, Composition &
Arranging, Director of Evening Courses, London School of Theology
© Richard Hubbard/Cantus Firmus Trust, www.cantusfirmus.org.uk
(i)
Harold Daniels, Pulpit font and table, Reformed Liturgy and Music 16:2,
Spring 1982, as cited in Robert Webber, The Complete Library of Christian
Worship, Book 2: Music and the Arts in Christian Worship (Nashville:
Star Song publishing, 1994), 563.
(ii) Davies.J.G (Ed.), A
Dictionary of Liturgy and Worship, (London: SCM Press, 1972) 21.
(iii) Robert Webber, The
Complete Library of Christian Worship, Book 2 Music and the Arts in
Christian Worship (Nashville: Star Song Publishing, 1994), 544.
(iv) ibid., |
|
