The Shapes of Future Church
Peter Phillips, Dean of Students, Cliff College
Title Slide
Pictures taken from all over the place, many examples from article in SCM‟s „A New
Dictionary of Liturgy and Worship‟, edited by J. G. Davies. Unfortunately, in the new
edition all the pictures have been removed! In his article on Architectural Setting in the
disctionary, Davies begins with the following words:
Slide of this paragraph
The nature of Christian worship is such that it does not of itself require any
particular architectural setting. It does not centre in a cult object, such as an
image, that has to be protected within a shrine. It does not require a large item of
liturgical furniture, such as a stone altar, that has to be housed in a special way. It
can be and has been celebrated in a dining room, a hospital ward or an open field.
Nevertheless, throughout the centuries, it has had an architectural setting, which
has expressed the Christian understanding of worship. Hence the study of
worship historically cannot be divorced from a knowledge of the buildings in
which it was conducted.
Of course, there is little to debate in that paragraph. Christian worship does not make
demands upon architecture. But that makes Christianity somewhat unique in the ancient
world. You only need to think of the kind of demands Jewish temple worship demanded
to think of how religious architecture in the ancient world was a pretty prescribed area –
with little room for the imagination. Temples were basically constructed around the cella
format – a central shrine around which was built a portico for reflection or protection.
Slide of typical Roman temple
But our interest is in Christian Churches not pagan temples. So why am I beginning a
conference on the Shapes of Future Church by looking back at Church Architecture? We
are used to people telling us that church is the people not the building. Surely by
mentioning buildings I am just falling into the trap of thinking that church=building and
if we change the building we can renew the church. Of course, it is not that simple.
However, it strikes me that there is a central theme which Davies has missed out in his
discussion of the interplay between architecture and liturgy. I think that a building can
represent what a church thinks of itself. In other words, the building becomes a symbol
of what church is all about.
Slide with words „the building becomes a symbol of what church is all about‟
Indeed, you could turn that round and say that the building can also effect what church is
all about. Put a congregation in a certain type of building and they will respond to that
building and mould their expression of Christianity to that buildings facilities,
opportunities and difficulties. Moreover, if a building has other issues attached to it, if
the building itself brings a history, then this history can affect the expression of Church as
well. We need to know and acknowledge where church has been if we are going to
understand where church can go in the future. We need to make the whole journey rather
than pretend that we can start at the end!
Let me explore what I mean by describing some expressions of church over the years and
map out some of the ways in which the church architecture or context affected the
expression of church itself. Of course, I could have begun with the Jerusalem temple
since that was the first place that the early Christians gathered according to Acts. But
let‟s assume that was only a transient period and follow the Johannine line of making the
temple obsolete. What else is there? Well, the other key aspect of Jewish liturgical life
was the synagogue. These buildings were in the ascendancy, particularly once the temple
was destroyed. Do they provide the historical background to the Christian church? The
answer is probably that they do not!
1. Synagogues and Churches?
In Palestine v. v. few. In fact, only one definite is the one in Gamla in the Golan
Heights, which was deserted by the time of the fall of the temple.
Slide of Gamla Synagogue
Possibly in Palestine in the first century, the synagogue simply meant the place
where people came together at the centre of the village – the equivalent of the Old
Testament‟s elders‟ meeting at the city gates (Deut. 16:18; 21:19; 25:7; Josh.
20:4; Judges 9:35). Of course, all of the Gospel writers talk of Jesus entering into
synagogues and even of preaching in the synagogue in Nazareth. So, how could
we argue that there were no synagogues at the time of Jesus? Well, the
archaeology seems clear enough – there is no trace of a synagogue in Nazareth or
in Capernaum in the first century. Perhaps, though, the texts are not referring to
the permanent structures like the synagogue at Gamla, but rather an open village
meeting in a public space or a temporary structure, or perhaps we simply haven‟t
found the first century synagogues yet!
Slide of open air public worship gathering – developing world church pic?
Whatever, the truth, it is unlikely that the synagogues influenced the v. earliest
Palestinian expressions of Christian worship. Although perhaps that is too harsh.
Perhaps the crucial influence that the early synagogue was to have upon
Christianity was to focus religion at the heart of the community. Religion in
Hellenistic-Roman society was more commonly a matter of domestic and private
devotion rather than a public corporate expression. There were, of course, public
rituals, processions, sacrifices and so on. However, so much of the worship of the
Roman, Greek and Asian pantheons focussed on the devotion paid by individuals
rather than the community as a whole. Christianity followed the lead of Judaism
in making worship a community event – the gathering of God‟s people rather than
individual expressions of devotion. The focus is on synagogue worship not
temple worship.
Of course, this should make us sit us and reconsider some contemporary
expressions of worship. There is a polarity within Christianity between active
participation in worship and the passive observance of worship. I think that I
would want to argue that Christianity from the earliest times chose active
participation over against passive observance. However, the historical pattern I
want to trace will suggest that this polarity has frequently been at the heart of the
battle over the architectural setting for worship. I would argue that it is at the
heart of the battle for the expression of church today. Do we create churches
which allow passive observance – so pandering to the voyeuristic fetish of our
times, or do we create churches which encourage, even demand, active
participation, even if this fits uneasily with a 21st Century voyeuristic culture? Do
the phenomena of Megachurch, Seeker-Church, Multiplex Church, dark and
gloomy Alternative Worship, and the increased use of meditation and personal
reflection drive us into ourselves rather than into community? If so, then they
undo the very first lesson we could have learned from the history of Church
architecture – any future church needs to be fundamentally community-shaped.
2. St Peter’s House in Capernaum – 1st Century Courtyard Dwelling.
Slide of St Peter‟s House
The slide shows the gradual development of a fifth century octagonal church
building in Capernaum. This church centred on a room which had been a central
feature of a previous fourth-century building. This room was plastered in a
different style to the rest of the building and in the plaster were hundreds of
graffiti in Greek, Syriac, Habrew and Latin. It has been argued that some of this
graffiti was written by Christian pilgrims visiting the presumed site of Peter‟s
House in Capernaum and the place where Jesus healed his mother in law.
Underneath all the fifth and fourth century ruins lies an original first century
courtyard house – the typical domestic structure of the time of Jesus and probably
the earliest example of church – a simple domestic dwelling where Christians
gathered as a family to worship God. There is no evidence of any new Christian
architecture in the first century. There is no Church in Ephesus or Corinth or
Rome. What seems to be happening from the very earliest period is that
Christians are meeting in their homes – in the domus ecclesiae – the home of the
church. The archetypal shape of church is fundamentally domestic
Slide of domus ecclesiae
3. The Domus – the Roman town house
Slide of Domus
Explore slide – focus on Atrium as the meeting place. Worship would happen
here although meal probably in triclinium. Note the public view of what is going
on in the Atrium. Roman domus is the essential image of Church in first few
centuries.
Slide of view through entrance hall
Although note this is the upper class version. In Rome more likely that tenement
flats would have been used and the largest room selected. More private, upper
room experience may well have been the norm. Note that this means churches in
the first few centuries were small (2 dozen people?), family-sized, networked with
other churches into a great congregation in some way – Paul talks of the church in
Rome – he actually means the networks house churches NOT one megachurch.
4. Dura-Europus House
Slide of Dura-Europus
Example from c.250 – Dura-Europos on the v. eastern edge of Empire and
destroyed by Parthian invasion about 256. Under the rubble of one of the walls,
archaeologists found three houses converted into different religious shrines. One
was a Christian worship centre. Note the similarity to the domus. Still courtyard,
even a converted house, but most of the rooms have taken on a specific role –
baptistery, teaching rooms, development of a liturgical space with altar.
Still domestic context but refined into functional building. Still relatively small
congregation and one which could be at home in the place of worship.
5. The Synagogue and the Diaspora
Slide of Gamla?
Paul began in the synagogues. Note the design. It is a public hall. Likely that
Christians also used public buildings for worship – great congregation meetings.
Compare Paul using the Hall of Tyrannos in Ephesus for his teaching seminars.
was this a common practice? Was their co-use of synagogues? he problem is
there is so little new Christian building before Constantinian settlement. Looks
probable that they stayed domestic!
6. The Basilica
Constantinian settlement – Christianity becomes the formal state religion and so
moves from a domestic gathering to a public occasion. As such, the largest
meeting hall available in each community would be used – the Basilica.
Slide of Basilica of Pompeii
Massive structure – largest enclosed space in any Roman town. General meeting
place, even an exercise area for the army. Main focus was as a business exchange
and a law court. Note the use of the Bema and Apse for the magistrates – raised
dias at the end of the building. Often Apse would be decorated with the
Emperor‟s picture or statue. The whole building was a place of power and
privilege – it was the Emperor‟s territory, the law of the land was administered
here. When Emperor accepted Christianity, if in fact he did!, his territory became
Christian territory and the new mass religion took over the basilicas and used
them for the public assembly of the church. The church had come into power in a
big way.
Christian interpretation of this...
Slide of Christian basilica
Christian interpretation is pretty unsubtle – bishop and priests assume the place of
the magistrates and the emperor. They rule the church/community in the name of
the emperor – they are the emperor‟s men. Altar is placed at the bema – the legal
focus of the basilica – the altar therefore takes on a legal dimension – no wonder
we soon see theologians arguing that Jesus‟ sacrifice as a legal transaction.
Church is about the law.
NB the context has completely changed – domestic has become public. Family
orientated setting has become business or power orientated setting. The church
has altered what it thinks of itself by moving its meeting place onto the Emperor‟s
stamping ground.
7. The Martyrium
Slide of a Martyrium
Alongside the development and dominance of the basilica, two other forms of
church developed in the Middle Ages. One focussed on the ornate buildings
created to celebrate the resting place of saintly remains – the martyrium. These
buildings were often cruciform in shape with a central altar. This church
architecture presents a fundamentally different concept of Church to the Basilica.
In this setting, the witness of the saints is what is paramount in church order rather
than the domination of the legal-pentitential model of the basilica. The church is
about involvement and community memory rather than observance of distant
hierarchical figures. Interestingly the cruciform model is maintained in the
Eastern Orthodox traditions even to the present-day.
Slide of a Porch-Church
The second form was the development of the Porch-Church – a church with two
levels allowing for grand processions of the whole congregation to celebrate
Easter and other major Christian festivals. These were churches where
community was celebrated and where Christianity was seen as a community
event, a community pilgrimage. Theatre and re-enactment of the Christian story
was central. The whole building reflected what Christianity was about.
8. The Medieval Cathedral/Minster
The Medieval development of the Basilica began to incorporate the elements of
the Martyrium and the Porch-Church into the model. However, the
congregational participation hoped for in the development of the Porch-Church
design had become a rarity by this period. The congregation were now observers
of the divine mystery. The language of the church was still Latin, the priesthood
maintained their distance from the congregation and ultimately communion itself
became the preserve of those in the sanctuary. The heart of Christian worship
became a ceremony you watched through the rood screen rather than something
you participated in.
Slide of Chartres Cathedral
Slide of Canterbury Cathedral
In medieval cathedrals, like Chartres in France, the Martyrium was brought into
the design of the basilica with a multiplicity of side-chapels. With worship which
was distant and spectator-based, also came worship which was private and
individual. Pilgrims came to the great Cathedrals and routes were established
around the various chapels to allow the tourists to see as may relics as possible,
for them to be blessed as many times as possible, for their souls to receive as
much benefit as possible. The Cathedrals became Mass factories with priests
celebrating communion constantly to deliver souls from purgatory and give
indulgences to those who could afford them.
Was Chartres a place of community involvement? Is this where the Christian
community of Chartres gathered to break bread and hear the apostles teaching?
For me, Chartres looks more like a temple than a church – a place of private
devotion rather than community participation! Of course, the community would
have been involved. The churches have become central to the economy and
power-structures of the local communities. They are places of wealth and
influence. They have taken on a central role as brokers between the aristocracy
and the peasants in the medieval concept of the chain of being. How could they
be anything other than community-centred.
However, the role of the great churches of the Middle Ages seems to have been to
perpetuate the cult, to provide opportunities for rituals to be performed and
observed, to portray the drama of Christianity on a truly awesome stage. There
seems little evidence of the community‟s involvement. Everything has become so
grand, so huge, so populous that the community aspect that had been central to the
courtyard houses and Roman domus of the first century seems long gone.
Is this still authentic Christianity? Is this a possible shape of future church?
Should our future churches be centres catering to the spiritual needs of our
communities? We find it already in the almost obligatory survey question on
missions – “What can we, your local church, do for you?”. That was not a
question Paul would ever have asked the Corinthian community! He would not
have sent Aquila and Priscilla out door-knocking to find out what the Ephesian
public thought the Church should do for them!
But we live in a different society. So, should we provide a 24/7 religious
environment tailor-made to suit our contemporary communities, where people can
pop in for worship when their hectic diaries allow them to? Should we provide a
rolling celebration of communion to allow people to fit the bread and wine in
between an afternoon business meeting and an evening meal with the kids?
Should we provide multiple entry points of worship to allow different people to
experience God in different ways – labyrinths, installations, meditation areas,
places of quiet, spiritual directors? Should our Church become the spiritual
equivalent of Meadowhall or Bluewater? And with that, where has the word
„Christian‟ gone? Is there anything unique about the Christian expression of
worship? At the centre of Canary Wharf, there is a chapel, but not a Christian
chapel. Is it still church?
9. The Preaching Hall/Auditory Church
Slide of an Auditory Church
The reformation demanded a change from the observance-based, relic-centred
worship of Catholicism. In its place, Calvinist-based churches developed the
auditory church – a unitary shape focussed on the need for the congregation to
hear and to see what was going on. Worship was now in the vernacular – people
could understand sermons. Moreover, sermons were meant to have an effect –
preaching was an opportunity to convert, to admonish, to encourage the faithful.
Communion was no longer the repetition of a sacrifice, but a memorial of the last
supper. The altar diminished in significance, while the pulpit became ever more
powerful a symbol. Of course, the question is whether involvement has
increased? What is the essential difference in function between the theatrical
opulence of the counter-reformation‟s Baroque splendour and the puritanical
barrenness of the preaching hall?
Slide of a Baroque Church interior
In the Baroque, the congregation is encouraged to engage with their eyes. To see
the splendour of God‟s glory in all around them. To see at the pinnacle of the
church, at the end of the carefully orchestrated sightlines, the wonder of that glory
summed up in the elevation of the bread and wine – the awesome splendour of
Christ‟s sacrifice upon the cross.
Slide of Preaching House interior
In the preaching house, nothing is allowed to hinder the passage of the word of
God from the preacher‟s mouth to the congregation‟s ears. Nothing distracts
them visually. Nothing takes their eye. Nothing allows their thoughts to wonder.
The congregation sits around the preacher, sometimes sitting in box pews to shut
themselves off even from one another. All that is important is that the message is
conveyed from Bible to Christian via the authorised minister of the word. It‟s
interesting that the theology behind each is perhaps poles apart, and different
senses are used, but the function is so similar. The role of the Church architecture
is to help convey the message. To some extent both are expanded versions of the
courtyard house. However, the dominance of the context has removed from both
any concept of domesticity and community. In both models, whether the
congregation are sat in a circle around the preacher, or in pews facing the front,
their attention is not on one another, on the Christian community gathered with
them, but rather on the central vehicle of the message – the altar or the preacher.
There is little room here for community at all.
Moreover, we are once again back to the basilica model – a large hall, often with
side aisles, meant for public gatherings, for public announcements and for the
transfer of information. A public hall where law was enacted. The role of the
legal argument in the reformation process is perhaps not far from the surface in
the dominance of legal architecture. Even in the resurgence of the two-room
Gothic model in the Victorian era, the basilica model predominates. As the
missionaries and reformers built around the world, the same model of church pops
up everywhere – the nave for the observing congregation, the sanctuary for the
celebration of the communion. It is not until Vatican 2 and the developments in
modern church architecture that this changes.
10. The One-Room Modern Church
Slide of Le Corbusier‟s Notre Dame de Haut in Ronchamp
In the first half of the last century, the style of church architecture developed
away from the two room model back to a more defined basilica model, although
heavily influenced by the old Martyrium style. More and more churches focussed
on the need to accentuate three aspects of worship the altar, font and pulpit. For
some, this developed into a path structure with font at the door, pulpit halfway
down the rectangle, and the altar at the far end. For others, all three could be
moved and brought to prominence at different parts of the Church‟s year and
celebratory cycle. Suddenly, church was a focus for activity and participation
again. It is interesting that Davies traces the first development to the redesigning
of the chapel used by a youth movement in Germany before the war.
Slide of Schloss Rothenfels
This redesigning impacted a whole generation of Church leaders to such an extent
that thirty years later the impact was being felt in theological debates, liturgical
arguments as well as in church design. Where these young people worshipped
seemed to affect the way that they were as Christians. The participatory style of
the Schloss Rothenfels, had a profound effect upon the development of German
Christianity.
11. Return to the domus ecclesiae
Slide of domus ecclesiae
Schloss Rothenfels and the other churches which were developed as part of the
movement tended to focus again on the role of the church as the domus ecclesiae.
In other words, the role of the church building was to create a place where the
community could come together for worship. This perhaps reflects the
marginalisation of Christianity and a return to its pre-Constantinian basis. No
longer is Christianity the recognised religion of many Western societies.
Christianity has to take its place alongside other faiths and philosophies.
Moreover, the decline in church attendance and the resulting lack of finance and
confidence has driven the church back upon its own resources. It now needs a
place where it can feel at home – perhaps even a place to which it can retreat and
pull up the drawbridge.
As such, many church buildings reflect domestic dwellings rather than public
spaces. This may well encourage these spaces to be comfortable and welcoming.
More and more soft furnishing are used, as well as a welcome return of the Arts
into the Church. This means that the Church can be seen as a home for God‟s
people. The question, though, is whether such a context will encourage others to
become part of God‟s people. Western society, particularly British society, is
developing an avoidance of trespassing on other people‟s private domain space.
We love to watch what other people are doing, but the destruction of the extended
family and the sense of local community, has led to the isolation of the domestic
unit. With such isolation, the Englishman‟s home has more and more become his
castle. Note the recent newspaper poll stating that the most desired law is one
which would give homeowners the power to use all means possible to repel
someone breaking into their home – including the use of guns. If our churches
become our homes, then it may well be that they actually put people off entering
them. Is the courtyard home model the best model for the shape of future church
after all?
In fact, it could be argued that the Church has made its greatest impact when it
has stood out against the society within which it is situated. Christianity did not
follow the temple-model of worship, even when Constantine authorised
Christianity. The Christians of the first century chose the domestic dwelling as
the locus of worship, the Christians of the fifth century chose the secular basilica
model for their Church architecture. The question is what the Christians of the
twenty first century should choose as their expression of their Christianity. I
would suggest that the majority of churches being built even today represent the
rather uncomfortable compromise between auditory basilicas with all the soft
furnishings of a domestic dwelling. In the end it is neither fish nor fowl! We
need to determine what the shape of future Church needs to be before we create
the buildings to house those future churches – if we need buildings at all.
12. Modern expressions of Church...
Finally, some attempts to think about how some forms of modern church fit into
this historical pattern:
Slide of Megachurch, Cell Church, Seeker-centred gradual reveal
Firstly, the megachurch. In the UK, mega-churches are relatively rare. We think
of some large multi-hundred churches as being large, however these are pretty
small in comparison to some of the global megachurches. But even these UK
mini-megachurches can easily represent the observant side of the historical
pattern rather than the participatory. I well remember going to Christchurch in
Clifton during my theological training and observing what as going on. I have
been to St Thom‟s in Sheffield and All Souls in Langham Place. Nothing has
encouraged me to become participatory in these settings. The worship, the size,
the anonymity offered by the large gathering panders to the voyeuristic modern
persona. Megachurches can so easily be the impersonal, observation-focussed
basilica of the modern day.
Of course, one way of avoiding this is to create cell-church micro-structures
within the megachurch structure. Cell Church focusses on community and on
participation. Because of the relatively small size of each cell, individuals are
both encouraged and coerced into participation in order to maintain their status
within the cell. Moreover, the development of different community roles by
different cells allows for the participation of each cell and each cell member in the
life of the Church as a whole.
Cell church within a megachurch, then, can help to alleviate the issues of
anonymity and observance within such church structures. Of course, the cells
needs to be managed well, and you need to fit into one in the first place!
Two other modern models of church provide the similar issues. Seeker-centred
worship and seeker-centred church are clearly popular ways of attracting people
into the Christian sphere of influence. We want people to come to know Jesus. If
we get them interested on their terms, then they will come along and become part
of our Church community. It is another expression of the old belong-believe-
behave conundrum. If we charm people enough to belong, then eventually they
will believe in Jesus and behave accordingly. And there are enough successful
seeker-centred churches around to say that this is a truism.
The question for me is what kind of a model of Church seeker-centred worship
presents. Isn‟t Chartres a seeker-centred experience? Is the Christian Gospel
something you observe? Where does participation come in? Where is the sense
of community? Of course, there are different ways of doing seeker-centred
activities. If Alpha is a seeker-centred activity, I think it succeeds because of the
meal and the conversation – the meal is the central act of participation, it provides
the context for the conversation and for the discussion of faith issues. The meal
provides opportunity for the testimony of faith and for God to minister both
through word and sense. The meal becomes the sacrament – the place of
connection between God and the non-Christian. Nicky Gumbel‟s talk may
provide some kindling for the flame, but it‟s the meal which acts as the match! It
is not without coincidence that Jesus was known as a glutton and drunkard, as one
who could often be found at a party, around a table with tax collectors and
sinners. In fact, he seems to have been as such places much more than he was in
the synagogues!
In this talk I have tried to focus on the historical development of different kinds of church
setting and the role that setting has played in developing or expressing different kinds of
church. Where we do church is important. It tells people what kind of people we are. It
tells people what we think church is about. It tells people what church might be like.
Slide of Threshold Models – gradual reveal
At the end of Threshold of the Future, Mike Riddell talks of different models of future
church ...
Parallel Universe – nightclub based church in Auckland – café style worship – informal
community celebrating through arts – multilinear, multisensory, multimedia, low level
leadership structure
Graceway – focussed on the needs of the community – suburban, relaxed community,
running social programs alongside worship -focus on „barstool‟ where people can be
themselves…small, arts-based, like Forrest Gump‟s chocolates – you never know what
you‟re going to get next!
Spine – intentional community focussed on sex industry neighbourhood and young
people caught up in that industry. 2 adjoining flats and associated dwellings nearby.
Community meets to eat, talk, pray – no formal meetings.
Bread and Breakfast – group of families meet in each others homes every Sunday – bring
food and share – all ages. Breakfast moves into worship – all age, communion. Kids
have activity/play/rehearsal and adults do meatier teaching or discussion, prayer and any
business. Focus is on friendship and sharing. Mutuality of life.
Glenbrook – creative worship group meeting in hockey-club bar – focus on encouraging
and renewing rather than evangelistic – modelled on Christian family sitting round a table
enjoying a meal together – worship is all age throughout – intro, worship, singing,
communion, devotional, barstool time, fifteen minute sermon. Closes with shared meal.
Slide of Conclusion
We began by exploring the domus ecclesiae model of church – the archetypal shape of
church, we heard, is fundamentally domestic.
We traced the history of church architecture through the various patterns it has followed –
from the home environment, through the dominant basilica model, through to the
renewed emphasis on the church as a home – indeed the Pope himself as delivered a
Vatican paper calling for Church design to represent domus dei – the home of God.
The future shape of church then, whether that church meets in a building or not has to be
fundamentally community. Indeed, I would go further and say that it must really be
family. Our society has led to the destruction of the extended family. Christianity rejects
this and provides us with new extended families. We need to live as families. We need
to worship and be church as families – not huge congregations of anonymous Christians
watching professional performers masquerading as worship leaders. Church must not
only be shaped as the domus ecclesiae – church must be God‟s people at home!