Episode Transcript
Carey Griffel: [00:00:00] Welcome to Genesis Marks the Spot, where we raid the ivory tower of biblical theology without ransacking our faith. My name is Carey Griffel, and today in this episode I am going to continue going through the book Sacred Power, Sacred Space. I began going through this book a couple of weeks ago and if you haven't listened to that episode, it is okay.
You can just continue listening to this episode, because I will briefly go over some of the introductory material from that book. But in my last episode, I went through the history of sacred space in the Christian tradition from early times up to about the time of Constantine. And so today I'm going to pick up where that left off in history, and I will start talking about Christian worship spaces from the time of Constantine forward.
Now, [00:01:00] unfortunately, from that point, the book doesn't get into any of the spaces in the Eastern tradition of the Church. So, this is strictly going to be about the Western side of Christianity. Maybe I can find a comparable book to this for the Eastern side of Christianity, but for now we're just going to be focusing on Western Christianity and the development of sacred space and worship spaces within that tradition.
And in a way that kind of makes sense, because a lot of our different flavors of Christianity today are stemming from that Western tradition rather than the Eastern tradition. It seems to me, as far as sacred space went, they kind of separated and went Different directions, as far as meaning, and the way they structured it, and things like that.
So I would really like to find some books as to the historical Eastern Church, and how that has looked throughout history, for their sacred space. But as far as those of [00:02:00] us in the West, in America, in Europe, and places affected by those traditions, this book is really, really cool to look at, to see the development. And I find it super fascinating to see the different kind of meanings and how it's changed over time.
Okay, so this book, again, it's called Sacred Power, Sacred Space. An Introduction to Christian Architecture and Worship. This is by Jean Halgren Kilde, and she is not approaching this from the perspective of a confessional scholar, at least that I can see.
She's trying to be very neutral as to what she's saying and how she's saying it, and I think she does a pretty good job of that. In the introduction of her book, she talks about two different perspectives. The perspective of a scholar named Elida, who brought forth the idea that sacred space is defined by the intersection of the divine with humanity on earth.
So sacred space is sacred [00:03:00] because of an interaction with the deity. That is why it is sacred. The other perspective is from Jonathan Z. Smith, who says that it's societies which create sacred space and describe the meaning to that space. So, I guess, basically, he's rejecting the idea that the divinity is the one that is making it sacred.
Now, my perspective and suggestion is that, as Christians, we can look at this in both ways, because as the body of Christ active in the world, we are creating our own meaning and our own societies. We are the ones who are acting in order to create. our own sacred worship spaces. That doesn't negate the participation with God, though, right?
So it's a both and kind of a thing, in my opinion. So I think we can learn from both of those scholars and both of their ideas. I think they are both applicable. One [00:04:00] of them seems to be much more non confessional than the other, of course. You know, it doesn't matter where the ideas are coming from. It just matters how do these ideas align with the truth that we see revealed in Scripture and happening in the Christian church.
So that's my thinking about that. And the other thing that this book brings up is the idea of power categories. Depending upon how we're thinking about the concept of power, those can kind of sound scary and bad. But I don't think they are. The point is that worship should involve three types of power.
For one thing, it should be the manifestation of the power of the divine. For another thing, it should be the manifestation of the power of the religious group. So there's society, hierarchy, and community involved, and that should be an expression of [00:05:00] power in some sense. And then the last category is the expression of personal power.
And so the individual who is worshiping ought to be empowered by that action of worship. So power isn't a dirty word. It's not a bad thing. It's something that we really want to be able to see. And we want to see all three of those things. And so the way that that book parsed that out and explained it, I feel like that's really helpful to us in how we can understand and see our worship practices.
If we're not seeing all three of those things happening, then there's something wrong with our worship. There's something that's not quite right. If we do see all three of those things working in tandem with our worship practices, Then we can ask ourselves, how are they working together? Are these good ways that they're working together? Are there better ways that we can do it or see it and find the meaning there, right? So I feel like [00:06:00] these are really good concepts for us to be studying and thinking about when we're talking about the concept of worship.
So all of those things are good things to have in mind as we continue through this book and look at the history of Christian architecture, because it really plays a part in how people participate in worship, and what that means. And you'll see that, I think, especially when we get into the medieval church.
Looking at it from the perspective of the architecture and the actual worship space, it's such a cool way to see it, I think. It gives kind of a framework of meaning, and we can see the continuities and also the ways that people have been struggling through time To try and reconcile their situations and the things that they're trying to do with what they're seeing in scripture as well.
I also think it's kind of a cool way to see how Christians interact with one another and [00:07:00] respond to one another as well. Like, they'll build a kind of worship space in a certain way, and then something will happen, and other people will have other ideas, and they'll be like, well, how do we kind of do this, and how do we make our space functional, but also connected to the previous space that we're used to having, and things like that.
It's like, there's times where things have been very disconnected and very Innovative, and then times where people want to go back and try and get back to previous ideas that people have had. So I think in this we see a lot of that interaction of the body of Christ and back and forth of how do we find the best way and what do we do with ways that we want to do it in a new way because we see reasons that we want to do it in a new way.
And to be honest, from our various traditions, sometimes we will look at the other ways that people do it and we'll be super [00:08:00] critical of it. And I think that a lot of that is because we don't understand their intent. We don't understand the meaning and thing that they're focused on, that they are trying to do in particular.
So appreciating Christian architecture and the way we have worshipped through time, I think that's a really interesting and cool thing. But that's just my perspective. And I would love to hear what you guys think about the changes of worship space and the changes that people have gone through in worship.
What do you find to be most meaningful in your particular tradition and in your particular worship practices?
At any rate, let's get back into the content of this book. I do want to go back a little bit in time again to talk about the history prior to Constantine. We tend to think of Christians being under persecution for most of its early centuries, but really, that's not [00:09:00] actually true.
Through a lot of Christian history, they were kind of left alone. The main times of persecution were fairly early on, during the lifetimes of the apostles. and perhaps just after, but the biggest time of persecution was just before Constantine during the reign of Diocletian. Previously, most persecution had been pretty local, and there was empire wide persecution, but it was fairly easy for people to escape it, and it wasn't this kind of dictate of get rid of all of the Christians or else.
Remember that converted house that became a formal Christian worship center? I didn't get into much of that last time, but I did mention it might have been incomplete. And that means it was destroyed. And that's why we have it in place to study. The idea is, oh, they came and ransacked a Christian worship center. It was destroyed because of [00:10:00] a raid on it. And really, that's actually not the case at all. It was not destroyed because of Christian persecution. The whole city was besieged and captured by Persians. The entire city was abandoned, so this really has nothing to do with Christian specific persecution. And I just say that because I think we need to regulate our ideas of what persecution in the early church was.
I don't want to downgrade that it was happening. People were killed, people were chased out of their local places, and things like that. But history is a messy thing, and it's not the case that there was just decade after decade after decade of persecution. At least really heavy persecution. But the time of Diocletian really was very heavy in the persecution.
And I actually want to read a little bit about it from this book I have, and it's kind of a funny book. I don't know if you remember, [00:11:00] if you're a certain age or not, The time life books that you would see commercials for? Well, not too long ago I found a set of time life books that go under the name of Time Frame.
And what it is, is each book has a different period of history that it talks about, and I think it sums up things fairly well. So, as I found a set of these books in my local thrift store, I figured I would read a portion of this about Diocletian's reign. Of course, the book presents the history up to Diocletian, and the Roman Empire at the time was really, it was, was not doing well, so he was trying to save it, and he ended up splitting the Empire up and doing all of these other things to try and get the Empire back on its feet and back to full power.
It was a time of heavy taxes, and those kind of really didn't work, because they never really do. But he put in really strong measures of power. [00:12:00] So, this book says, quote, True power, of course, stemmed from the top, where the emperor was advised by the sacred consistory, composed of such officials as the Count of Sacred Gifts, who was, in effect, the empire's treasurer.
The Master of Offices, who presided over the Secretariat, and not least, the Supervisor of the Sacred Bedchamber, a eunuch who managed the Imperial Living Quarters and was widely considered to be an official of great and sinister influence. Even more menacing was an army of functionaries, who kept an eye on the affairs of citizens in addition to performing their regular duties.
Diocletian's measures were strong medicine, and they provided at least a temporary remedy for the economic and military afflictions that had befallen the empire. To achieve success, he had placed great stress on imperial unity and conformity under the law among all [00:13:00] factions and citizens. Thus it was that in the waning years of his reign, the normally tolerant Diocletian came into terrible conflict with the Christian Church and its doctrines.
Diocletian's religion was the ancient pagan cult, with its pantheon of divinities and rituals that were inextricably intertwined with the Roman state. The emperor came to regard the Christians, not as an invigorating new force within the empire, but as divisive traitors to Rome. The blow fell without warning on the morning of February 23rd, 303.
When imperial soldiers in Nicomedia swooped down on a Christian church within clear view of Diocletian's palace, putting it to the torch and feeding its holy scriptures to the flames. The first edict, dated that very day, Ordered the closing of all churches throughout the Empire. Their scriptures would be turned over to the state for burning.
A second edict commanded Christian clergy to make sacrifices to pagan [00:14:00] gods on pain of death. An order that was soon extended to all Christians, including Diocletian's own wife and daughter. Diocletian clearly meant business, and when an outraged Christian in Nicodemia tore down an official proclamation, he was, according to a Christian chronicler, duly roasted, exhibiting marvelous endurance throughout, and finally burnt to ashes.
So began a savage persecution against the practitioners of a religion that had made notable advances in the Roman Empire. Viewed in its early days as a mutation of Judaism, Christianity had been generally tolerated except for a few instances of persecutions that, while ugly enough, were local in nature and of relatively brief duration.
. Okay, let's stop there for now. It does talk about the persecution under Decius. That was an empire wide anti Christian campaign. But, you see, it wasn't this kind of Edicts of everyone's got to [00:15:00] go, you all have to renounce Christianity, and that kind of thing. Christianity, at the time of Decius, was a kind of scapegoat.
Because things weren't going well in their reigns, so they were like, who can we blame? Let's blame the Christians. But again, it was in this time of Diocletian where the persecution was just ramped up. And this was right before the time of Constantine. So, part of why I bring all of that up is to show that it really wasn't the case that people were still just meeting home to home, because they had Christian worship centers, they had churches.
They had high prominent leaders who were in the crosshairs of the government at times. So Christianity up to the point of Constantine wasn't some undercover, underground, entirely 100 percent persecuted thing. We need to realize that history is a little [00:16:00] bit more fair to Christians at the time, that people were recognizing their contributions to society on some level at least.
But they became pawns of the emperors at certain times. But otherwise, it was a growing faith, and they were developing in the way that faiths tend to develop. When you get larger congregations, you get more money, you get bigger buildings, you get more clergy. All of these kinds of things were already going on before the time of Constantine.
So it's not like you had this really small, entirely persecuted house church movement. Until Constantine decided, Hey, we're going to create massive church buildings now, I mean, he did do that, but it's not as much of a disconnect as some people will have You believe It was, however, a massive change because when you're going from the ability of a minority group of people in the Roman [00:17:00] Empire, to suddenly the emperor is showering money on you and building these grand buildings well that is a pretty big change. So, I'm not saying it's not a big change. But, some people will have you believe that we went from house church movement to Basilica, and that that's just silly. So, we all know, eventually, the Roman Empire collapses, and political and religious power is fractured over the space of the entire Empire.
This was the time that the Abbey and the Monastery became prominent. They were small, they were able to be kind of protected, maybe ignored if they were lucky, and there was a real tension, because of those kinds of spaces, between individualistic worship and communal and social worship. But again, they were both in play.
The growth of monasticism, which began in the 3rd century, [00:18:00] and it has a history in other religious practices as well, it really became more of a thing in about the 6th century. And during that time, there were roving bands of ruffians, and so a lot of the monasteries, they looked like forts from the outside.
And even though the monastery was very communal, there was a lot of individual kind of worship practice that was developed there. The monastery was not supported by rulers, usually, and part of the problem with them, a lot of times, was that their isolation led to localized forms of practice that were led by people who didn't really necessarily know what they were doing.
However, once things started settling down a little bit more, there was social stability in the society, there was more wealth, and things like that. It was the monasteries that started the cathedral schools and universities. It took a while, but eventually, by the 16th century, there was [00:19:00] mandated seminary training, so that we could all get on the same page here as to what we're teaching.
But, it's the 11th century that was a very interesting time and turn to different kinds of architecture, at least as far as public worship. And this is where we get to the Gothic church. The book makes a point to call them medieval great churches, not cathedrals, like we tend to lump them all into cathedrals.
But a cathedral was specifically where the throne of a bishop was. So, not all of the great churches were cathedrals. I think more than a few of us would consider the Gothic church kind of the thing that we might think of when we think of a Christian church. Or at least these are the places that we find super awe inspiring when we think of like the most beautiful and amazing type of [00:20:00] Christian church.
We might be thinking about this Gothic church that began in the 11th century. But I think also it's the case that we don't understand the specificity of the Gothic Church. Because a lot of times we'll see, like, a Baroque Church, or something that harkens back to the Gothic Era, and we just kind of think these are all the same thing.
But in fact, there was quite a bit of change during the time period that you might think of as the Gothic Church Era, or whatever. I really wish I had more time and ability in a podcast to describe more of the differences of these churches. Because a basilica is not a gothic church, a gothic church is not a basilica, but they are related in a lot of ways.
There were a lot of different architectural advancements that happened in order to create the gothic church. And so if you see [00:21:00] some of those same architectural structures in later times, you might think that's the same as a Gothic church and, you know, these kinds of conflations, because we look back at history and we truncate it.
We forget that there are very distinctive things that are going on and that there were more changes than we realize. So I really wish I could get into a lot more of that detail. the book does get into it, but I think that you'll probably also want to find other material to read about cathedrals and Gothic church buildings as well, if you're interested in the time period and understanding the Gothic church.
A couple of weeks ago, Cindy Beaver and I were talking about Christian fiction, right, and how that can be in the service of our study. So I wanted to mention a novel by Ken Follett called The Pillars of the Earth. This was also made into a miniseries, so maybe you've also seen that, [00:22:00] but the novel is set in the 12th century in England, and it traces the development of Gothic architecture from Romanesque architecture.
Actually, I think it's a series of novels, but I've only read this one, and it's a, it's a really cool book, and he does give sources for where he's getting his information. So, again, the question of if we can trust historical fiction or not. Look into the sources that the author has used and if he's up front and offering those as proof of, look, I, I know what I'm talking about here.
It's a really cool book for the time. I understand that there are anachronisms, which are just as interesting to note as the accuracies, really. For instance, there is the name Francis of one of the characters. And that's probably not a name that was actually in use, because the name Francis came from Francis of Assisi, and that was a nickname.
And [00:23:00] also in the novel, there's a little bit of variance on the actual social class and interaction and marriage practices, things like that. Geography could be a little bit off. And some other things, like they didn't have sugar at the time in England, they didn't use hops. And there's a question on whether or not they ate breakfast.
And that's a really interesting question, because a lot of scholars today are saying that they didn't eat breakfast, and the church at the time seemed to be saying that you shouldn't eat breakfast because of the concern of gluttony. So the idea was, don't eat until you absolutely had to, so that you couldn't be accused of gluttony.
However, there are medieval stories of people who were actually eating breakfast. So, it's an interesting question. Anyway, historical novels and getting into the questions of what was accurate or not, you can actually find information on that these days, and you can find discussions around that. At any rate, if you're interested in the building of [00:24:00] cathedrals and the lives of people at the time, that's a really great book.
So back to the Gothic Great Church, they were an analog to the Heavenly City. And there were passages in Revelation that were used for church dedication because they were seen as this metaphor for the heavenly city. Light was key to the Gothic Church. They were finally able to build such that they could have a massive building and still have big windows of light that were shining in.
And, of course, you had stained glass, which made the light all the more beautiful. And very striking for people who had never seen light like that. Revelation 21, verse 2 and verse 11 say, And I saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband, having [00:25:00] the glory of God, its radiance like a most rare jewel, like jasper, clear as crystal.
The Gothic Great Church had an orientation where the liturgical progression would go east towards the rising sun. And this was also to be seen as the direction towards Jerusalem. They also started using more Christian symbols. It's not the case that the cross was an early symbol of Christianity that was used very frequently.
But by this time, with the long, longitudinal orientation of the church, they started putting a transept that bisected the nave to create that cruciform footprint of the church. Now, they did have that earlier, but it's not really certain that it was intentional. And here, now in the medieval period, it was very intentional. The cross was seen as a sign of suffering and [00:26:00] death and resurrection.
In the Gothic Great Church, the high altar covered the east wall. And this is what housed the host for the Eucharist. And this is also where they would put the cathedra. That's where we get the word cathedral. The cathedral was the bishop's chair.
It also had plenty of space for officials who would visit. They added a new space called the choir. Now this isn't really about singing like we think of today as a choir, but probably our word comes from this. The choir was an area of narrow seats that faced each other across the main aisle and religious people would be sitting there, monks, nuns, and perhaps lower officials.
And this made the chancel necessary for the clergy and the religious people. They were separated from the lay people. So we're having even more hierarchy and separation here. [00:27:00] And around that, they might have had an ambulatory. around the perimeter of the chancel. That is where lay people could go. And off of the ambulatory, they would have small chapels that would be devoted to individual saints.
And they did this because people couldn't go up to the high altar, but they could go to these smaller chapels. to venerate the Saints. Of course, in the audio podcast all of this is a little bit hard to picture in your mind if you're not already kind of familiar with the layout of a church and the various terminologies of the spaces in the church.
So I apologize. I can't really show you any visuals. If you come on to my Facebook group, I will probably have some there, though, so there you go. And if you want to contact me, I can email them to you if you want, or you can just go on to YouTube and watch some videos yourself, or [00:28:00] read some more things about it.
It's not really hard to find pictures of it. You can just Google it and find some. And for those of us from churches that are not high liturgical churches, some of these words like the chancel and the nave, it's hard for us to understand what those are. The nave is just the main part of the worship space that people would be going into.
A transept is a space that bisects it so that it looks like a cross if you're looking down on it. And the ambulatory, that's where we get our word, ambulance, and it's the idea of walking around. So, apologies if all of these words are kind of a bit overwhelming if you don't understand them, but it's pretty easy to find some sources that will help you picture it in your mind. And of course, you can always go find videos and pictures of a Gothic great church.
But I mentioned these chapels that would be around the ambulatory. So that people could go and worship, or [00:29:00] venerate, I should say, individual saints. And so, I want to say something about this. Not that I understand it very well myself, because I'm not coming from a perspective of a tradition that does veneration.
However, I want to mention it, and maybe I can find somebody sometime to come on and talk more about it, so that we can understand it because, as Protestants, or Evangelicals, or if we're not of the high liturgy traditions, we may have some ideas that are not the same as the way people actually think about this.
And I can at least give a little bit of clarification here from the little bit that I do understand. A Protestant or an Evangelical will look at this practice and we will assume and conflate it with active worship. But when somebody from a liturgical tradition [00:30:00] comes along and tries to correct that, We should probably listen to them and see it from their perspective instead of imposing our understanding on what they're saying.
So, that's why I really want to bring this out and mention it here. Because I think there's a lot of that kind of thing going on where we're like, Oh, you're worshipping people, and they're like, no we're not, and we just want to butt heads and not actually connect together as to the real meaning and intent and purpose and thinking surrounding what's going on.
Now that doesn't mean that you have to say that veneration in the end is perfectly okay. Maybe you'll come to the conclusion after understanding their perspective that it's still not the thing to be doing. But, it's not fair to critique it if you don't actively understand it from that other perspective.
So, just want to kind of bring that out here and say a few things about it. [00:31:00] So, here's the thing with venerating saints, at least as far as I can understand it. There is definitely a way to look at this where it is distinct from the act of worship. As I said, I can't suggest that I understand it fully, but I have come to appreciate the distinction between worship and veneration, and I would like to respect that distinction when people have that in their theology.
The way I've seen veneration described is, it's connected to the discussion on the image of God, really. Like, if we are God's imagers, then we are reflecting His glory that He has given us. And if we're reflecting God's glory, well, God's glory is something that requires and ought to have a response of honor and, well, veneration.
Like you're showing love to God by showing a deep level of respect to his imagers. [00:32:00] And when it comes to saints who have passed on, in particular, the idea is that they are now part of God's divine council. And so, because they are part of God's council, It makes sense to give them particular types of honor and even possibly petition them for things in ways because of that.
Now, again, this is only my simple understanding of it. There's probably many more layers and better ways to explain that. But I definitely want to make the point that veneration is supposed to be different and separate and distinct from worship of God.
Okay, so, at the same time, however, it's also not fair to cast off the concerns of evangelicals who see veneration as problematic.
We need to understand that perspective too, and I think that these medieval buildings that we're discussing in the show today [00:33:00] show off a primary reason why there might be a concern. I mean, of course, there are also reasons and ways you can argue against it from Scripture. For instance, the idea that Moses's body was taken to prevent it from becoming a relic.
But speaking from the context we have here today, Note that the high altar is off limits, but these smaller altars that are centered on the saints, they are approachable. They are the way that common laypeople can encounter the divine, but they're doing so through interaction with the saints, and possibly with relics.
And it's interesting to me that high liturgical traditions today place a great emphasis on the partaking of the Eucharist as a way of interacting with the divine. But in the time of the Gothic Church, laypeople did not take the Eucharist more than [00:34:00] maybe once or twice a year, possibly even less than that.
And, again, I'm talking from the perspective of the Western Church. I'm not exactly sure if that's the case in the Eastern Church at the same period of time. So it ends up that the way most people are spending their time in direct interaction, we might say, ritualistically. It's not through what many today would call right worship, so I think it's fair to question whether or not the intercession of the saints, at least at times, truly constituted only veneration, or whether it really might have constituted actual worship.
And let's also be honest, when you have two concepts that are so closely related, like veneration and worship, well Is your average person well enough equipped to understand and appreciate the distinction and nuance? I'd suggest the likelihood of [00:35:00] misunderstanding it at times, at least, is extraordinarily high.
So, I find it very fair that many people are cautious and insecure in the whole idea of veneration. But, let's talk again about the defense for the idea. We might call it, of course, a type of mediation, and that is certainly a very Old Testament idea, and probably also a very New Testament idea for that matter as well.
We might even think of Moses doing something like lifting up the bronze serpent for the people. We might think of Abraham giving tithes to Melchizedek. We might think of Joseph or the patriarchs being honored. We might think of the many biblical instances of humans giving honor to other humans with a kiss or a bow or a gift, or an offering.
These actions weren't all ways of interacting with the devine. And, I do think there's that element going on in [00:36:00] veneration. How these may or may not actually parallel veneration of icons and relics is a matter of conversation and opinion, of course. But we should keep in mind that space and architecture can provide meaning.
So one side could say that the saints are not central to the space, and also that the off limits nature of the Eucharist Might provide a more particular level or degree of holiness and sanctity and meaning. So the people who are doing the veneration of the saints would note that distinction and realize that the Eucharist and the worship of God is a kind of higher level of thing, right?
But the other side could say. that the saints and relics are kind of central, especially in churches that are built or named after a saint or a relic. That does [00:37:00] seem opposed to Old Testament practices, to be frank. You don't even need to get into the Ten Commandment prescription against images to see that. But, I encourage you to try to see both sides.
So, I want to make an interesting point here, too, a point that this book makes, that the people were still attending Mass with the Eucharist, and they often couldn't even understand what was said, the liturgy being in Latin, of course. And so, because they couldn't partake or understand the words, they were encouraged to participate in private devotions at the time.
So you had the liturgy going on and the people were supposed to be worshiping privately within the congregation. The book says, quote, theological arguments of the period suggested that reciting private devotions during services was as effective a means toward union with God as was [00:38:00] partaking of the bread and wine during communion.
So it seems quite interesting to me, because we often accuse the medieval Catholic Church as being very centered on legalistic ritual and separation of the laity from God and things like that. But in fact, perhaps there was much, much more a focus on personal worship and connection with God than we might at first see.
If personal devotion was actually, in fact, the way people worshipped and interacted with God, well, that's not all that different from the way many of us approach things today. And so you see that this separation of the Eucharist and the clergy and all of that, it didn't stop access to the dimension of personal power in the worship practice.
It's hard to say how much of that kind of, we might call it meditative practice, is seen in the Bible. I don't believe it was absent. That's kind of a whole other topic. But I want to mention that [00:39:00] in all of these things I'm talking about here, The point is to ask ourselves how these historical practices connect back to the context of the Bible, as well as how these things have brought us to where we are today.
And this is how it gets conflicting, because sometimes the meaning of what's going on in worship or practice can make complete sense to someone on the inside. They've done the thinking and the working out of how something works and what it means. But someone from the outside, so to speak, might see it quite a bit differently.
And then you've got to work out who's right, or really even first ask the question of, is either side even wrong to begin with? Like, is it even worth arguing over? I mean, let's be honest, we do like to argue over a lot of things, don't we? So anyway, back to the architecture. The area with the Eucharist was actually even screened off.
[00:40:00] So, that's interesting. On the one hand, especially because the people usually couldn't take it, that's quite the level of distancing going on. In a sense, however, that does magnify the power of what's going on. Cloaking it in a mystery causes the imagination to work a little bit harder. There seems to have been an accompanying change in theology here as well, with less focus on shared community, and perhaps more focus on the mystery and sacrifice of Jesus.
The idea of transubstantiation became, I guess maybe you might say formalized? The idea of the real presence had been around, but the terminology and the practice of the priest behind the screen, that was, I think, fairly new. There was a focus on the miracle of the transformation of the bread that I'm not sure was there before, or I [00:41:00] don't know how long it was there for before.
At least not in the same way. The power of what the priest was doing justified the separation from the congregation. And of course, this feels quite parallel to the Old Testament temple system, right? As I said, I do think we can establish that the idea of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist was an early concept.
But I also think that the development of the priest to be like the Old Testament high priest. At least to this degree, I think that only took on these undertones with the development of the corresponding space that was more reminiscent of the Old Testament tabernacle and temple and all of that. Once you get a more formalized space, and you're spending more money on it, it has more decorations, things like that, and it's really designed in this kind of a way where you have the interior space as more [00:42:00] sacred or more holy, then it's quite natural that the priest who is administering things is going to be quite like the Old Testament priest.
Now, to be fair, it's hard to say how much of a superficial change this may have been, perhaps. But, I know of no suggestion of such a design in worship space or practice in the New Testament or the early church, where leaders or pastors or priests, in the Christian church context, are given the status of the high priest in the way we see here.
Yes, there was hierarchy. And yes, the early church was comprised of Jews who would use what they were familiar with in order to structure their religious practices in the Christian church. There was absolutely a hierarchy and a priority and a distinction of leaders. And might we say that this [00:43:00] evolution of the priesthood to the level it attained was a natural progression?
Well, I'll leave that to you to ponder. So, this concept of hiding the Eucharist and the process of transformation behind a screen, where it could only be partially seen, it's an interesting change. And again, it was a development from previous practices. As I said, it increased the mystery of what was going on.
Carey Griffel: I'm going to read another quote from the Sacred Power book. She says, quote, Historian Eamon Duffy has argued that complex notions of seeing and not seeing, of concealing and presenting, hearing and not hearing, distance and proximity, lay at the heart of these services, and the architecture of the large cathedrals both enhanced and naturalized these strategies.
Indeed, the redesigning of [00:44:00] the chancel itself helped to both produce these revealings and concealings and make them seem entirely natural and necessary to the service. End quote There was now a level of voyeurism, enhancing the forbidden nature of what was going on. The architecture of the church also created this atmosphere.
It was a complex space which required, or at least encouraged people, to search and explore and try to see. The worshiper is now meant to be an explorer or a pilgrim. And, of course, we're all aware of the concept of pilgrimage that was all the rage at the time. Some churches were even designed to replicate the pilgrimage experience.
Since, of course, most could not go to the Holy Land. So they would set up the inside of the Gothic Great Church to function in a similar way as a pilgrimage would. There are [00:45:00] even some churches that have actual labyrinths inside of them that people would go through.
Gosh, there's so much more I want to say about this book. So many sidelines that I feel like it's worth taking. I probably could do a whole third episode on this. But, at any rate, I do want to take some time to talk about the section of the book that describes the rise of humanism. Of course, when I say that, you might immediately jump to the idea of secular humanism.
But you see, there can't have been a rise of secular humanism if there first was not the concept of humanism from a religious perspective, I think. You might think of all humanism as being secular. And you probably think of it as part of the Renaissance, if you think about it at all. I think many have confused it as being the same as the Enlightenment.
And it's connected to the Enlightenment, but really the humanism that [00:46:00] arose during the Enlightenment was a resurgence of the earlier concept. Of course, we could go further back in time to see more roots of the concept. It was definitely there in ancient Greece and places like that.
But basically, what we're talking about here is the focus on making things more human, more relatable, more accessible to the common man. So, there arose a focus on the very physical and human suffering of Jesus. This idea that because Jesus could empathize with real human experience. That then translated to a mystical connection with the divine that any human could also experience.
And, of course, when you're looking at history, you say something like, all of a sudden there was a focus on the suffering of Jesus as a human. And that's not to say that there wasn't anything like that [00:47:00] before. That people weren't thinking about it. that it wasn't a concept in people's minds or anything like that.
But it gained a real emphasis here in the medieval church. You see that in the use of the symbolism of the cross, in the idea that you're supposed to be focused on the suffering and death of Jesus. The meaning of the Eucharist at different times in history had different emphasis. Sometimes, the altar was seen as an altar of sacrifice, right?
And the emphasis is on the crucifixion. Sometimes, the altar was seen as a throne. And so, the emphasis was on the ascension of Jesus after his death. And at no point in history was there not both of those concepts at play, but at times, one was emphasized, and at other times, the other was emphasized.
So, I find this interesting on a personal level, [00:48:00] because in my former life in the LDS context, the emphasis was also on the human suffering of Jesus. And there was an idea that Jesus had to have physically suffered in a deeper way than any human ever, and this was almost entirely, for me at the time, what the atonement was about. So, without Jesus suffering, there is no atonement, right? This was in the LDS context, and I think that there are places in Christianity where that is also the case.
I mean, you can listen to the episodes that I've done on sacrifice already, but more specifically, in LDS theology, the atonement began actually in the Garden of Gethsemane. where Jesus prayed and sweated blood. In fact, I remember being told that this, along with the suffering he endured to and at the cross, all of that was the Atonement.
It's like his death was [00:49:00] just an afterthought or something, I don't know. I certainly couldn't understand how his death related to the Atonement if his Atonement was about the suffering that led up to his death This was the reason I was given for the fact that LDS people do not wear or decorate with the cross, because we don't emphasize the death of Jesus, but rather the life and suffering.
Of course, LDS theology takes this idea of a focus on suffering, Way too far, but it does seem like the idea of the atonement for many people does require that extreme level of suffering, which is I think connected to the concept of sacrifice that I've discussed previously. That it's all about victimization and death.
Combine that with the idea of a vengeful God who needs recompense for every wrong, and you get the idea that Jesus had to suffer physically For every single individual [00:50:00] wrong you and I ever commit. This is the idea that for every sin, Jesus takes another blow. And look, of course, I certainly do not want to discount the suffering of Jesus.
I think in any case, we can say that His suffering was, in many ways, something we cannot comprehend. But these days, I no longer think that atonement is some kind of zero sum game where, if Jesus suffered one stripe less, then someone, somewhere isn't getting a sin forgiven .
I don't think that's how we ought to see the Atonement in any way, shape, or form. And again, to get back to our topic, I don't think that means we can't consider the suffering of Jesus or that it was unimportant. This is touching on a very big topic, but part of my interest is in how we went from the Old Testament concept of sacrifice To this idea that sacrifice and the [00:51:00] associated atonement is primarily about suffering.
The idea was very well established by the time of the reformation. Certainly. So it's interesting to me that in this book it's mentioned that there was a greater emphasis on Jesus's humanity and suffering at this time.
Also interesting is how this idea is wrapped up into the phenomenon of humanism, which is, I think, a very complex topic in itself. At any rate, with the rise of humanism, there was a new flavor to the art. There were more real looking, relatable human figures in real life situations rather than everything being idealized and symbolized in the artwork.
Lots and lots of statues, too. And emphasis on saints who were, in case you didn't know, also human. I mean, fundamentally, I don't think there was anything nefarious or wrong about the [00:52:00] stream of humanism that was going on. They were trying to make things relatable to people so that they could understand them in a real world fashion.
And I really think there's a lot to say about the idea that it connects with who we are as the image of God, and who we are as being conformed to the image of Christ as well. Like, there's a real need to understand the biblical story in relation to God and humans. And humans are playing a massive role, and they just do, and they're very important. We are very important and they're trying to emphasize that in the stream of humanism that's going on.
At any rate, here we are now up to about the Renaissance. There's a lot of subtle changes in worship space that go on as history moves along. So far in history, we've got the Old Testament worship system that gets[00:53:00] I don't know, kind of dismantled in the New Testament, so to speak.
And of course, even by then, worship was changing over time. In the early church, it was both Jewish as well as Roman flavored worship. Things get more and more formal, and I'd say quite a bit like the Old Testament again, by the medieval period. And you can decide if you think that's a good, bad, or neutral thing for yourself.
As I said, there was quite a bit of distance and separation going on, but that did not remain static. By the end of the 16th century, sanctuary space had been again reorganized. Of course, before that, there had been the mass decimation from the Black Death and the decline of population that was again being built up over time, and culture and society began to [00:54:00] shift in pretty big ways.
With the massive numbers of death in the 14th century with the Black Plague, there was a big emphasis on things like purgatory. And Masses held on behalf of the dead, and that kind of thing. We've said a lot about how changes in theology can drive changes in space, but we should not ignore that social change also does this just as much.
I mean, we can certainly see that with Constantine, and we see it again during the Black Death and the recapturing of wealth in the Renaissance. People began to be more educated, and there was a shift from The Mystery of the Divine, to the idea that humans were rational and could figure things out, gosh darn it.
With these ideas, there was a return to classical Roman and Greek architecture. This was a period with scholasticism and universities. that [00:55:00] took off, and there was a return to more centrally planned churches rather than the longitudinal forms.
Many changes in the Catholic Church happened in response to the Reformation, of course. The faithful could now view the host of the Eucharist and even partake of the bread, but not the wine, because I guess wine is messier? And, well, come on, the priests wanted the wine, let's be honest. The Mass was no longer hidden, and it turned from mystery into theater. Not that mystery isn't also theater, because it is.
It's just a different flavor. And they still liked their mystery, so they built confessionals so that they could still confess their sins with a screen hiding the priest. They also instructed that Mass would be done more quietly. Because we can't let the people hear it, after all. And more preaching was introduced.[00:56:00]
We started getting Baroque architecture. You know, the kind of decoration that looks like fancy frosting? Art became, once again, a bit more distant and classical. And music began to be a very, very big thing. Whereas previously, it really wasn't. It had been in the form of chants, or even discouraged entirely.
And of course, in comes the concept of indulgences. Indulgences are part of this conversation because the money that was made from indulgences often went to building projects. I'm not going to go into specifics in that, but there are some interesting things that I might share in the Facebook group, as well as my newsletter.
So if you're subscribed there, or if you join me on my Facebook group, I can provide some additional information there for you. A brief quote from the book says, quote, Given the relationship between religious [00:57:00] favors and architecture, the role and function of religious space lay close to the heart of the 16th century Protestant Reformation, end quote.
This is also why there's such a strong reaction against iconography in the Protestant traditions. There was not a small amount of iconoclasm, or religious vandalism, during the Reformation. And of course, along with that, the Reformers by large scaled back the power and the authority of the clergy. They started denying the aspect of transubstantiation.
So, clerical power was reduced, in preference to the concept of the priesthood of all believers. Kilde says, quote, For Protestants, divine power centered on the Word of God as delivered to human society in Scripture. End quote. So for them, the conduit of divine power became [00:58:00] primarily Scripture. And we can note here the elevation of the Bible, even as it is democratized to the people in translations and things like that.
Now this wasn't the first time the Bible was translated into the common tongue of the people so that more people could read it. This was just the first time it had happened in a really long time. And so for the Protestants, worship focus went from the Eucharist to the Sermon, where preaching became the source of authority.
Luther even said, when the preacher speaks, God speaks. And you know, I think there's something to be said for that when we take seriously the idea that we are the body of Christ. And as such, when we are getting together and we are preaching God's Word, then there should be authority behind that.
Okay, so now our big question is, how did worship space change with the Reformers? Because of the lesser emphasis on the Eucharist and the [00:59:00] greater emphasis on preaching the Word, the pulpit became a greater focus. Pulpits were at times very highly decorated. I've seen quite a few from the time that are in the form of like Jonah's fish. For instance, I will definitely have to share some of those in my discussion group. Actually, I think I already have and we've had this discussion a while ago, but we'll definitely share again. And so now in this new context, there was at times a struggle on how to balance the altar and the pulpit. And of course, this depends on the tradition.
The Lutherans really wanted to try having both in the center, while those of the Reformed persuasion definitely focused more on the pulpit, even to the putting away of the table, as the altar was starting to be called, when it was not in use.
For those not aware of the different ways the Eucharist was now seen after the Reformation, the Lutheran tradition took a position [01:00:00] that communion still had a real presence. But it was not in the substance of the bread and wine. There were others, like Zwingli, who argued against the presence entirely, and said the Lord's table was only a symbol. Calvinists took the position that the altar was not about sacrifice at all, but was about communion or fellowship. Which, I find it ironic that this caused many of them to observe the table less over time.
But Calvin himself wanted it to be observed in every gathering. But Zwingli's followers, with his idea that it was only symbolic, they began observing it much, much less frequently. So you can see how the change of theology would change the space, and of course the practice, and it really opened up, well, it opened up options.
And because of this, we now need to start talking about a spectrum of organization and aesthetics. [01:01:00] There are different ways to describe the two ends of the spectrum. Some call them high or low church. Another term is formalism versus anti or non formalism. And it is a real spectrum. You can be on either end or in the middle.
And you can be in the middle in different ways. And this is why the terms liturgical and non liturgical really fall flat, too, because you can have a liturgical service with a formal clergy in a simple place without a whole lot of symbolism in the actual worship space, or you could have a fancy space with less liturgy and You can have any mix of that at all.
Suddenly too, there is great competition! And so, this also promoted a great deal of experimentation. Some traditions went to extremes and others tried finding a good middle ground [01:02:00] or even returning back to some previous practices.
As we move forward in history, we come to the Great Fire of London in 1666, and that caused a slew of reconstruction, and these churches became the prototype for many Protestant churches. Neoclassical design became all the rage again, and many churches also became tourist attractions. Instead of the medieval idea of hiddenness, There was great emphasis on hearing and seeing because of the new prominence of preaching.
Another interesting thing to note was the use of Christian buildings to become a strategy for colonization. In various places, they gave a certain native flair, and syncretism became a part of the iconography of these places.
Over time, the emphasis of the pulpit in some traditions, like Puritanism, became quite extreme. You could not perform private [01:03:00] devotions at such times. Inattention wasn't really tolerated in those kinds of worship spaces at all.
And then, there was the piety trend, from which grew the idea that worship, and salvation for that matter, were based in the emotions. Emotional responses were signs of one's experience with the divine. Here, evangelical preaching became a thing. Revivals occurred, some of them quite massive.
And, okay, so here I will take a moment to talk about this term evangelical. I know a lot of people wonder what it means and how people use it. And that's fair, as it does kind of tend to get tossed around without definition. It is a term that has changed somewhat over time as well.
I use the term primarily because I need to use some term, and I dislike the term Protestant for a [01:04:00] few reasons. For one, I'm not protesting anything, so why would I call myself that? And I think many people are like that, though of course there's still many who do find the term Protestant applicable. And I'm not saying there's anything wrong with calling yourself a Protestant. I just don't find that it describes me as I don't fit into any particular Protestant tradition. And since neither Catholics nor Orthodox would accept me either as one of their own. Well, I need something to say. I do prefer the term historical Christian, but evangelical will do, and it kind of gets the idea across of being in a middle ground where I do not feel the need to distance myself from any particular Christian tradition, but nor do I fit into a single tradition either.
So, it's frankly the best term around for, that kind of thing. But I wouldn't consider it an [01:05:00] identity for myself because it might indicate to some that I can't or don't accept Roman Catholic or Orthodox ideas. But I really think there are ideas in those traditions that are needed for us today and would serve as good correctives to many bad theology and practice.
Okay, so that's why I use it. But how did the term even come to be, and how is it used in general? The most basic definition of it is just kind of the same as calling yourself a Protestant. It means you're not Eastern Orthodox, you're not Roman Catholic, your tradition and practice is more in line with the Protestant Reformation and those traditions.
The term evangelical, of course, comes from the root word gospel. Evangelizing is the act of sharing the gospel. The gospel writers are known as the evangelists, but our current [01:06:00] use of the word today has been colored by a movement that was centered on the revivals of the 17 and 1800s. This did come out of the piety movement and the emphasis on emotion.
Now again, it's really easy for us today, maybe, to look down on that. And, to a point that's fair, when we take it to the extreme that you must feel a certain way in order to experience God, or to worship, or to know that you're saved, if your feelings are a barometer to your relationship with God as a follower of Jesus, then when we take it to that degree, yeah, that's super problematic. Emotion is not a necessity of worship. It's not a barometer of anything. I don't know if you're familiar with the Christian apologist, David Wood. Well, he's a clinical sociopath, and he does great work for Christianity. [01:07:00] And it would be ludicrous to suggest he's not or can't be saved simply on the basis of a lack of emotion or feeling.
So emotion cannot and should not be any kind of a barometer. In addition, we ought to be very, very careful and aware that our emotions are capable of being manipulated, and they absolutely are manipulated by many. So we should be asking, how is that happening? And how are our emotions being used? What are they being manipulated towards?
Is it good? Is it benefiting God and glorifying Him? Or is it for some other purpose? So this doesn't mean emotion cannot or should not be part of our worship. Humans are exceptionally emotional beings, and it makes all the sense in the world that our emotions should be involved in worship practice.
That's not a [01:08:00] negative thing, and I'd even suggest that it's okay that you can worship in a way that feels good to you. Actually, as I've been recording this, I just watched a video of an Orthodox priest denigrating worship in so called megachurches, with the lights and the music and all of that. He said, if you take the sound out and replaced it with any concert music, it would be indistinguishable.
The idea, of course, from his perspective, was that his worship was real, implying that orthodox practice is the way things have always been and any deviation is simply not worship.
Now, I do think it's essential to give credit to some practices that have been long lasting, and Protestant traditions tend to not do that so well. And I think to ill effect to ourselves sometimes. But, to suggest there's no emotional component to Orthodox worship seems quite disingenuous to me as well. It's just a different type and flavor of [01:09:00] emotion. You're pulling on different emotions in a different way. The Orthodox priest was also trying to make the point that he was turned away from the congregation, and so As such, everyone was trying to be focused on God.
And that's a good point. I really like that perspective. That's something important to consider. But, at the same time, we are the body of Christ, right? We are supposed to be worshipping together as one. And so, I don't really see what the problem is with turning towards one another and engaging with one another as we worship.
That seems just as good as the priest's idea of turning away and everyone facing God. It's just a different way to look at it, and I don't see how one of those things is necessarily better. The question is, what meaning do you have, and why are you doing the things you're doing? Do you understand why you're doing it? Because if you don't understand [01:10:00] why And you don't have your core meaning and purpose, you might be deceived into a practice that you're not aware of.
So I do think it's really important to see all of these perspectives and decide what's going on. What is happening in your worship construct? What is the body of Christ doing there? How are you doing it? And why? What is the meaning there?
So anyway, the evangelical preaching that came out during the time of the revivals was one with very large groups and quite often they had to meet outdoors because of the large amounts of people who were there. And so this kind of took on that theater aspect where you have s that are in theater position and they're listening to the preacher.
A quote from Kilde, quote, As much of the evangelical experience was about the salvation of the individual, evangelical worship was about sharing [01:11:00] that experience with others and watching how others experience the divine. Evengelical worship, in effect, required social interaction and fellowship. End quote
So, again, as much as we might criticize certain aspects here and say that it's not biblical worship, this communal experience of God.... you can see how people will see that as being an aspect of being a member of the body of Christ, right?
So, growing out of this movement, we get the idea of the altar call and the massive power of the congregation.
Now, remember our three aspects of power when we're talking about sacred space. We have the divine power, we have social power, and we have individual power. And here, the social power is in the congregation or the body, whereas in other places of worship in history, , it's really been centered [01:12:00] more on the hierarchy of , the leadership.
Okay, so once all of these kinds of extremes have formulated themselves, and people have seen the entire spectrum of where Christian worship has been. We come to places where we have major clashes between traditionalists and innovators. And some people have started asking what constitutes authentic Christian architecture and space. And of course, that's related to the question of worship.
Kilda says, Modernist churches are, quote, mired in the everyday, in the ordinary, rather than the extraordinary. end quote. But at the same time, shouldn't the universal message of God be reflected in contemporary time, in situations that people actually find themselves in, and in society?
To be quite honest, I think that a lot of our preferences are based much more on what we [01:13:00] prefer in culture, and God didn't give us a divine culture. We're developing culture ourselves now, whether we're doing that in a good way that makes sense and is a beautiful thing or whether we're kind of being lazy and not really thinking it through a whole lot.
Well, that's a, that's a question for another time. I'm not going to draw out too much about this last part of the book here in this episode. But it does go into quite a bit of really interesting stuff about the modern time and how people have been bouncing along in trying to figure out where to land.
Do we go back to historical architectural forms and aspects of worship, or do we just continue building on the ideas we have now and seeing what we can do with that? There was definitely a big gothic revival where there were more gothic type , churches being built because people saw that beauty of the Middle Ages and [01:14:00] said we're missing something.
What are we missing? Maybe that's what we're missing. And so they started going back in time to get ideas. But again, this isn't an abnormal thing in history. As we've seen, for instance, classicalism goes in and out of favor. It always comes back, but it's not always prominent in our minds. And the period of medieval church building is functioning in the same way.
It's like, do we go back to gothic architecture? Do we go back to classical architecture? Do we just try new ideas and build something new and fresh? These are all things that have been ping ponging around in the last little while. It's interesting to me that the new impetus for architecture After a certain point in history, it really wasn't theology, practice, or doctrine, although, of course, those did play major roles at certain points, but rather social [01:15:00] pressure began to have a much bigger impact.
And I wonder if it's because at that point, there is enough diversity, and the spectrum has stretched itself to the point that there is no more need for real innovation. Is it going to change? Is it going to stay the same? Are we going to go back to another time in history? I don't know. I just am tired of all the grey and white and black and lack of detail and color. Like, I used to complain about the colors in the 70s, but I almost want to go back to that period of time because everybody's sense of color right now is, it's just so gray. And I like gray, but it's just too much, people. Come on.
However, I do think we need to give some acknowledgment to the fact that modern architecture as we have it, at least in recent times, it sprang from philosophical ideas. And you can just look at the surface and not [01:16:00] understand any of those philosophical ideas. And you can just say, that's boring and there's no meaning to the space. And I would actually beg to differ. If you read this book and you read the last section of the book, I think you'll see that there really is much more meaning to the space, but it's just not done in a way that is translated very well to people.
That's the problem with it. You can have all of the meaning imbued into a space that you want, but if nobody's understanding your meaning, then what good is it doing you? I think that's probably the core of the problem with a lot of people in the way that they are not appreciating modern worship spaces.
Of course, you also just have bad designers who they think they understand what they're doing and they don't know what they're doing. And so it ends up not being anything like what it should be. At any rate, I have really enjoyed looking [01:17:00] at the different perspectives and seeing that there is a lot more meaning and intention behind certain things than I realized before.
My perspective of modern worship and the way it is done has absolutely been expanded by this book. And I don't know if I can even credit the book. specifically for that, or whether the book is just laying out these facts for me to help give me a different perspective on the way that I see the types of worship that my friends and associates engage in.
What I definitely think now is that we do tend to see it way too black and white, way too either or, And understanding these different perspectives can really help you there. Like, if you don't understand somebody's meaning and intention and purpose in what they're doing, then you can't appreciate what they're doing, and you're going to strawman their position as being something that it's actually not.
So that is my suggestion to you, is [01:18:00] Look at these different ways that people are worshiping and find the meaning there. Maybe it's not this nefarious subversion of the truth that you think it is sometimes. I mean, maybe it is occasionally. We definitely have false teachers. We definitely have people who are out there to fleece people and Give them false Gospels. So I'm not suggesting none of that is going on. But I do think it's quite a bit more nuanced than our black and white, this is bad, this is good, here's what we're supposed to be doing, and anything else other than that is false and is deceptive.
Alright, well that is it for this book and this little mini series inside the series. Although, I don't know, maybe we will revisit some of these ideas and bring out some more of this conversation with other people. Because I do think it's worthwhile to have some more conversations [01:19:00] about some of our ideas and the prevalence of them right now. Because we are in a social construct of conversation, and sometimes we don't realize the impact that certain things and perspectives are having on us.
So. You can definitely look forward to more conversations about that kind of thing. At any rate, I appreciate you guys listening, and I really appreciate my Patreon and PayPal supporters. Thank you guys for all that you do for me, and thank you guys for sharing my episodes and for rating my podcast. You can do that in the places that you listen, or you can do it on my website at GenesisMarksTheSpot.com, where you can also sign up for my newsletter. I hope you all have a blessed week, and we will see you later.
