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 I welcome you to yet another episode in the worship series. Today I'm going to be talking about sacred space again, and this time I'm going to be doing it from the construct of actual church history.
Now, of course, I do like to focus on biblical theology, and I try to keep the podcast mostly centered on biblical theology. But as I think you've noticed by now, I don't stay there entirely, because I don't think it's healthy to try and do only one type of theology. I think we need to be able to examine church history and our current contexts as well in light of biblical theology.
So we can't [00:01:00] Divorce those things entirely. And so what I'm doing today is going beyond the biblical context, but I want to bring back those things into the biblical context and compare and contrast those things so that we can see where they're coming from. Because if we don't understand the biblical context of these things, if we don't understand what sacred space even is in the construct of the Bible, then we're not going to really be able to understand the concept from our daily lives today.
Now that being said, today is going to be an episode where I really kind of stretch that into history and our modern context. And also I will announce that I am going to be doing a new YouTube show. This won't be on my Genesis Marks the Spot YouTube channel. It will be on a different channel. Because I have partnered with the YouTube channel Faith Unaltered, and they will be hosting my show on their channel.
And I [00:02:00] kind of decided to do this because what I'm doing there is slightly different than what I'm doing on my podcast. But it definitely stems from what I'm doing on Genesis Marks This Spot. In my podcast, I am trying to look at biblical theology and use it in A practical way. And I'm trying to look at the Bible with critical thinking and trying to open our minds to various types of perspectives that are valid options, right?
And in my new show on YouTube, I am going to be trying to focus a little bit more on church history and on our current church contexts, so I'm going to be using the same type of approach that I use in my podcast and applying it to historical theology, systematic theology, and through our practical lives as Christian believers.
The show is going to be called Pilgrims in a Holy Land. I've named it that way because we should be seeking out knowledge. [00:03:00] Because I think that as Christians, we are all pilgrims in a sense. While we already have a core truth in our belief, there is so much to learn about the Bible and about our faith.
And because the Kingdom of God has expanded throughout the globe, the Holy Land is now where we are. I'm not trying to discount the original Promised Land. But there is a sense for the Christian that where we are is God's kingdom. It is God's place. And so I'm taking the idea of the cosmic geography of the Holy Land, and I'm saying we can apply this to where we are today.
And we can each be explorers in searching out God wherever we are. So that's the concept of the show. If you have anything that you want me to address there specifically, I'm happy to hear those ideas. I would love to get some input about this. So what I'm doing today in this podcast episode is going to [00:04:00] be quite similar to some of the things I will be doing on that show. If you follow me in my Facebook group, and if you get my newsletters, I will be putting out more about the show and about my appearances on Faith Unaltered. So I'll try to make it super easy for everyone to find all of that content.
Today, I'm going to be talking about a book called Sacred Power, Sacred Architecture, An Introduction to Christian Architecture and Worship.
The author is Jean Halgren Kilde, and apologies if I mispronounced the name. I really am not sure how exactly you're supposed to pronounce that. But this is a fun little book that talks about Christian architecture throughout time. It starts in the early church, and it goes all the way up till modern days.
And it talks about the structure of the architecture of Christian worship spaces. And it gives us some information as to why they changed. Why did they [00:05:00] do what they did at the time? And that's super interesting. There's also going to be a few points that I think are going to be useful for us to think about that the author has brought up in this book.
Now I might actually do multiple episodes about this book because there's simply no way that I can even begin to cover the material that this book covers. Although, it's not a long book. And it's very readable. It is just an introduction, so it gives a lot of details, but the chapters are fairly short. So if you are interested in the topic of Christian architectural spaces, this is a pretty good place to start, I think.
I actually got the title of this episode from this book. The first thing that we're going to talk about in this episode is something that this book has highlighted in the beginning. And the way that I might frame it is in the question of is there a difference between religious [00:06:00] space and sacred space?
Of course, the book's author lands on one side of that question, and I won't say that she ignores the other side. She gives it some credit, but it's kind of discounted as, oh, that's an old idea and we don't need to think about it anymore. But really, I need to set the stage for this question for you to really probably understand what I'm even asking here.
So a religious space is a space that's used for religious purposes, right? It's used for ritual, and the space contributes to the meaning of the ritual. Usually there's a focus on the divine or the transcendent.
And the space forms or maintains internal relationships within the structure of the religion. So there's hierarchy, there's community, there's objectives and things like that that are involved in the space. So sacred space is going to be, at [00:07:00] minimum, a subset of religious space. Kilde suggests that space is connected to power and authority.
The power of authorities is basically made manifest in religious spaces. Now, there's gonna be a lot that we're gonna say about that, so just hold your horses with that. But she says that there's three categories of power. There's divine power, there's social power, and then there's personal power. And all of those things are usually involved in the concept of religion and the way that their religious space is designed and set up.
Basically, the structure of the space is going to have a whole lot to do with much of your religion and your faith practices and your relationship with the divine. And how you live out your life of faith, how it impacts you personally. In a way, when I say [00:08:00] that, it seems obvious to us, right? Each of us is in a particular tradition or situation, and the way we interact with religious space... The way our religious space is set up, if we have one, it's really very integrally connected to how our religious faith is, in general, and why it's different than other religious faiths.
So Kilde mentions the History of Religions scholar, and again, apologies if I don't pronounce this name correctly, but I think it's Mircea Eliade. He's a Romanian scholar, and he wrote a book called The Sacred and the Profane. And in reference to his work, Kilde says, Quote, cultures sense and respond to the presence of divine power within certain spaces. She later says, places are deemed sacred precisely because a divine or supernatural power dwells in them. End [00:09:00] quote.
Eliade talks about the world center, or the axis mundi. This is the physical space that centers the community, orienting them and giving a difference between sacred and profane or sacred and common. This connects with the idea that the temple is a place that houses a deity, and that's the main point of the temple.
So then, because the sacred space is connected to the presence of the deity, that's what makes it sacred, right? If the deity didn't choose to enter into the sacred space, then it would not be a sacred space. So in this formulation, it's the deity who's choosing the space and making it sacred. And obviously, this is what we see quite frequently in Genesis.
If the cosmos is a temple, well, God made that, so therefore he designated it as the temple. God is the temple builder, and then Eden is designated [00:10:00] again by God, because he places his image in the center of the garden. So that creates the sacred temple garden. And why do we see Abraham building altars? It's because he had an interaction with the divine. Why is Bethel called the house of God? It's because there was an encounter with the divine. Jacob didn't choose that spot in order to have the encounter. God chose that spot. So it is the presence of God that is creating the sacredness of that space.
We might say that the opposite of that was the Tower of Babel. God didn't tell them to build the tower. They were choosing to build it themselves. They were like, here's where our spot is going to be, where we're going to worship. And they were trying to force God into that. So the Tower of Babel was certainly a religious space, but was it technically a sacred space?
No, because it [00:11:00] didn't have any reason for being sacred. Now, there are also some other places that we see in Genesis, in particular, that we can't really tell if it's a sacred place because there was an encounter with God previously, or if it was set up in some other way. I'm thinking of the time with Melchizedek. There was worship going on there. It feels like it was a sacred place, but nobody explains how or why that was a sacred space before we get to the story of Melchizedek. So there's a question there. It's not really spelled out. Quite likely, however, we can probably assume that there was an encounter with God in that spot at some point. The text just doesn't explain the entire history of the area. I do think, in general, it's safe to say that sacred spaces in the Bible are places where God has appeared and shown up. His presence has been there [00:12:00] in some way that is experiential.
However, after talking about Eliade and his ideas, Kilde goes into an alternative idea. This idea is promoted by Jonathan Z. Smith in a book called To Take Place. And Smith is an expert on ancient Jewish and early Christian religion. And it's interesting because he talks about how various types of sacred space had various meanings. And Smith's idea is that sacred space is socially created.
That societies create the meaning that is ascribed to sacred space. Of course, as Christians, we tend to look at these ideas and we go, that's silly. That's not what the Bible says at all. But hang with me here, because there's some reasons we might want to explore this idea, and to good purpose, I think.
Part of this is going to connect to the question I asked earlier, as to if [00:13:00] religious space and sacred space are one in the same every time. Or if there could be a distinction between those two things, or it could be that we just need to nuance our thoughts about what sacred space is, what it does, how it's established, and there's also the fact that things do tend to work a little bit differently on this side of the cross.
Okay, so let's take this idea of social power and structure influencing sacred space and even possibly creating it. Now, I don't know what your reaction is to the use of the word power in this book and as I'm presenting this. For a lot of us, that word is going to have some negative associations, like, oh, power is a bad thing.
We don't want people to have power. Power is a negative thing because we're associating [00:14:00] the word power with an idea that it's involved with control and tyranny. So if you're thinking of power as something that is often misused, that is used poorly, that often stems from bad motivations, then you're going to read this book or you're going to hear what I'm talking about and you're going to think, That's not a good thing. We don't like that. And for all I know, the author of this book might have those associations in mind as well. This idea that religion is something to control the masses with, right? Well, we don't have to take it that way, though. Power doesn't have to be a negative thing. In fact, I would say it's kind of necessary to human existence.
Power can be associated with right management. with the authority to make things correct in your zone of influence. If you didn't have power, you wouldn't be able to [00:15:00] do things, right? So power is kind of a necessary thing. It's just the manifestation of creating order or being able to do something. The abuse of power is a bad thing. But power used correctly is a good thing.
This book gives three categories of power, as I said before. You have divine power, and that's the manifestation of God's power in the world. We have social power, and social power is what creates organization of a society. This is why we have hierarchies. We have authorities over us for various purposes. Either leaders or teachers who know something that can be taught to other people. And then you also have personal power, which is the feeling of spiritual empowerment that a believer can get with the intersection of the divine with the believer's life. From the perspective of somebody within a faith community, you want [00:16:00] all three of those things going on. You want all three of those to be able to manifest their power.
So Smith's idea is that Instead of divine power being the determining force of a sacred space, it is instead the social power that is creating the sacred space. And again, a lot of us will hear that and we'll go, that's not what the Bible says. That's not what's going on here. But I would offer up the framework that God works with humanity. And in the construct of sacred spaces within the church, it is most definitely the social power that is having an influence. That doesn't negate the divine power, however, because the divine power is supposed to be working in the body of Christ, right?
So this book is presenting it as an either or, like either the divinity is producing the sacred space and choosing it and all of that, [00:17:00] or the social organization of the believers are choosing and creating that sacred space. I think this is a false dichotomy within the Christian Church. It's not an either or, it's a both and.
So I would say that both Eliade and Smith have something to inform us with how we can view our use of sacred space and our production of sacred space and how we create sacred space. So I just don't think we need to be offended or appalled at the idea that social constructs can create religious space or sacred space.
We don't have to think of our churches as non sacred space or they're just religious spaces because our church didn't happen to be formed due to a theophany that happened there, like an appearance of God or a direct encounter with God, just because our church may not have been formed like that. [00:18:00] Does not mean that we cannot see it as sacred space with God choosing to dwell in our midst in that particular space Because that's that's exactly how the church is described in the New Testament, right?
We are the temple built up. So if the body of Christ the church The people are the temple of God, and we choose to meet in a particular area, then it's okay to ascribe the purpose and intent of sacred space and all that, that that means into our worship spaces. And I do think it's helpful to understand that we play that real role as part of the church. That it's not a negative thing that the social construct of the church informs and establishes our current sacred spaces.
So one thing I did like about this book is that it presents this three fold structure of power that should be connected to sacred [00:19:00] space and the life of the believer. When we worship, all three of those things should be going on because obviously we're worshiping God. But we're worshiping God as a community, so that's the social aspect, and we should be getting something out of it ourselves, and that's the personal power. We should be empowered as individuals. We should be empowered as a group. And as we're worshiping God, we're manifesting that power to other people around us. That's God's glory. As representatives of God, because we are His imagers, that's very much a part of God's power in the world. So I really like thinking about it from the perspective of these three categories.
Okay, so because we're talking about the architecture of sacred space here, we're primarily going to be talking about this social aspect. Because here's another thing that I find really fascinating, and it seems super [00:20:00] obvious once you think about it, but it's not really something that's at the forefront of our minds, and that is that our social hierarchy is And our architecture is linked. It's connected very intimately. And because it's linked, that is why we see so many differences in types of architecture.
Kilde says, quote, how people organize themselves and behave within specific places imbue those places with sacred importance. And then she says, space is sacralized by human action and behavior. And certain spaces become sacred because people treat them differently from ordinary spaces. End quote.
And again, I don't think we need to get all up in arms as if this means necessarily that there is no presence of God. Because it is absolutely true that the state of the architecture is situational. [00:21:00] And in the context of Christian history, it is defined by people. We don't have anything in the New Testament like we have in the Old Testament, where there is a pattern of sacred space that is now going to be used for Christian churches.
Now, of course, we can take the pattern that we have in the Old Testament and then apply it to our spaces now. And there are many, many similarities, and that's part of what we'll get into as we talk about the architecture of sacred space. But there are also many differences. And there are many different ways that Christian spaces have been in time and space.
What is really interesting is that we can track that change through time of the architecture of sacred space, and we can use that to see how Christian worship and church structure have changed through time as well. And by doing that analysis, we can decide, okay. Our church space today that I have, that I actually worship in, [00:22:00] this is okay, or this is not okay. Maybe we need to do some changes here, or maybe I need to think about it differently. Maybe it is my spiritual power, my personal empowerment, that needs to be affected by the space that I'm in. Maybe there's nothing wrong with my social construct in my particular church, but I'm just not accessing that spiritual power the way that I should be.
That's another option. I think that's part of the danger of some of our more casual worship spaces, is that we don't understand that meaning that I think is still actually inherently there in the space. It just might not be obvious to the casual observer or even somebody who's been there for a long time.
We might not have these meanings ascribed to these places. And when I say that, I'm not saying that there's no reality there too. Because I think that there is. But in order [00:23:00] to recognize the reality, we have to understand the meaning. Like, it's two sides of the same coin. Just because a reality is there doesn't mean that you're going to understand that reality. Right? So you have to have the meaning there. If you don't, if it's not living in your mind, you're not really going to be accessing that reality. It might still apply to your life and influence you. It's going to be a whole lot better if you understand what's going on, though.
Okay, so let's think about the different kinds of spaces that we use for worship as Christians. We're probably all going to be familiar with the differences between a high liturgical church and a low liturgical church. I don't personally like to use the word liturgical in reference to only certain types of churches, because I think even your most casual evangelical non denominational church, they're going to have ritual of sorts.
[00:24:00] Now, is it the same as the divine liturgy in a high liturgical church? We can argue the differences there and what kind of similarities there might be, but nonetheless, I prefer the term high liturgical and lower liturgical. And by examining these two kinds of categories, we're going to sense a difference in the architecture and the social hierarchy of the church. And that is going to impact or perhaps reflect some of the theology in those churches.
While there can be differences in this, within specific examples, a higher liturgical church is going to have a more formal structure to their building. They might have a little more decoration to the building. They might have a greater hierarchy for the church leadership, and they're going to be more likely to see the real presence within the Eucharist or Lord's [00:25:00] supper or communion. And that's another difference that we'll see... what you call that sacrament, the the sharing of the bread. Do you call it the Eucharist? That tends to be what the higher liturgical churches call it. Do you call it communion? That's what a mid liturgical church might call it. Do you call it the Lord's table? That might be the term that a lower liturgical church uses. And we can see those changes in church history as well, as we see the architecture change through time. As buildings get more formal, the institutions get more formal, they get more structured, they get more ritualized in a formal manner.
Now, I'm not saying that there is no ritual in the earliest instances of the church. What I am saying is that it definitely took time to get that ritual into firm place. And the further along the line of history we go, the more ritual there is, [00:26:00] the more formalized it becomes, and this is reflected in the spaces in which Christians worship.
And I don't know if this is a chicken and the egg question, which came first, the space or the theology, but either way, they are very much connected. They kind of run in parallel with one another. And this is actually really fascinating to me. Having a lot of friends who move from a lower liturgical church situation to the higher liturgical church situation, I've seen a real draw to that formalization of the structure. And that's really interesting to me. And I can see the appeal. Because, if you're going from a building which hardly has any decoration at all, if any, there's no real style to your worship, and you move into a place that is just filled with beauty and art, then that kind of a move can help you see this deeper meaning to what you're doing.
And [00:27:00] I find that fascinating. It's like, you really see that connection between the social power and the personal power. Right? I think that for many, that increased social structure that is evident in the social power of the space translates directly to their personal power. Like they're experiencing a greater edification in that space. And I find that just so fascinating.
Okay, so there's several other points that I would really like to bring out from that first chapter of the book, because there's a lot of really interesting things in here to think about, especially in this first chapter. But we're going to move on, and we're going to get into the content of the actual structure of the early church, as far as their worship spaces.
Probably most of us have heard the idea of the early house churches. What we might not understand about this, though, is that houses in the Roman era were very different from our [00:28:00] houses today. Much of the structure of the Roman house was actually more of a public space than our homes are today. And, of course, I'm speaking from a Western construct. People in America do not just go and barge into other people's houses. You have to knock. You have to be invited in. Even vampires need to be invited in.
Roman houses did have personal spaces, but there was a large portion of the house that was actually considered to be public space. And when you consider the idea that hospitality was super important to the people at the time, this makes a little more sense. If we can understand that people were expected to take others in, and that this was just part of their culture, then we can see how their houses We're actually not the private spaces that we might see them as today.
So, because a house was a public space, it was actually not uncommon for [00:29:00] Romans to have religious time within their homes. This wasn't a uniquely Christian thing. For the Romans, there were many areas and situations of worship. Of course, you had the temples, and that was a higher form of worship. And the closer you were to the idol in the temple, or the venerated artifact in the temple, the stronger your connection to the divine would be there. So that's very similar to the Jewish temple. But there were also smaller areas of worship around. There were chapels and sanctuaries. You could rent rooms. In some places there would be Jewish synagogues and prayer halls as well. Sometimes they would take a private home that was no longer in use and they would renovate it.
And at other times, they would meet in the private home of a patron. There would be shared meals, there would be veneration of images or statues, there would be prayer, and they also had [00:30:00] open air worship. And the idea of a shared meal as a center part of worship service was very common at the time, especially with the idea of hospitality.
So here we have the agape meal, or the love feast. Again, this wasn't a strictly Christian activity, but the Christians replaced the carousing and wild drinking with teaching and worship. These were often potlucks where people would bring food to share with others. And interestingly, later, when the shared meal kind of dropped out of the picture in the more formal spaces of worship, instead of people bringing food as an offering, This is when they would bring alms.
They would bring the money that they would have spent on the food as an offering to the poor. So if we're wondering, man, in our churches, should we be doing a shared meal? Is it a real problem that we're not? Well, I personally think a shared meal [00:31:00] is one of the best ways you can fellowship with one another. But it's also a really good idea to take what you would have spent on a shared meal and offer that to the poor. I find that a pretty neat way of doing the same thing, but differently, right?
So eventually that shared meal was transformed into just the ritual of the Eucharist, as well as the giving of offerings financially, or perhaps even in the form of clothing and other donated items.
In some of the earliest formal structures of Christian worship, there are actually storerooms of clothing and food. So this indicates that they served as a kind of distribution center, perhaps, so that poor people could come and get food and clothing. That reminds me a bit of what Cindy was talking about a couple weeks ago, with that food packing plant seeming like a sacred place to her. That's very much like what was going on [00:32:00] in the early church.
Around the middle of the second century, which is about 150 A. D., Justin Martyr wrote what we now call the First Apology of Justin Martyr. And this is a document that he wrote to the Roman Emperor. And it's very interesting because in it, he explains some of the worship practices of Christians. So this was a little bit over a hundred years after Jesus lived.
I'm going to read chapter 67 of this. Justin uses the word president to refer to the person presiding over the worship practice of the Christian. Today we would call that the priest or the pastor.
Justin says, quote, And we afterwards continually remind each other of these things. And the wealthy among us help the needy. And we always keep together. And for all things wherewith we are supplied, we bless the Maker of all through his [00:33:00] Son, Jesus Christ, and through the Holy Ghost. And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits. Then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought. And the president, in like manner, offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability. And the people assent, saying Amen. And there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given. And to those who are absent, a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit. And what is collected is deposited with the President, who suckers the orphans and [00:34:00] widows, and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds, and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word, takes care of all who are in need.
But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world. And Jesus Christ, our Savior, on the same day rose from the dead, for he was crucified on the day before that of Saturn, Saturday. And on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the sun, having appeared to his apostles and disciples, he taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration. End quote.
So, there you go. Anyone who tries to say that Constantine is the one who created Sunday as the worship day, they haven't read enough of the Church Fathers, obviously. So let's just take note together of what exactly he's [00:35:00] describing that the Christians did on Sunday. They all came together into one place. He doesn't describe what that place is. But they are all in one place. And the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read. So that probably means either the New Testament or the Old Testament. And he says, as long as time permits. That means that there's more than just a teeny tiny section that they're probably reading.
So it's not like, let's read it and get that out of the way so we can move on to the sermon, but it seems to be a really solid part of their worship practice. Then the president of the assembly gives what is effectively a sermon. Everyone prays, and they bring out the bread and wine and water. Giving thanks, and everyone agrees, saying Amen. There is distribution, and that is even taken out to people who are not there. There is an offering taken, so that those who are in need can be [00:36:00] taken care of, from that central offering.
So, reading this, what can we say about the topic of sacred space? Maybe not very much, but the idea that the Eucharist, the bread and wine, can be taken to other places, Because other people are not there, suggests that you don't have to take it within a certain area, right? This kind of makes sense because at this period of time, there's still really no dedicated church buildings.
The earliest dedicated Christian space that we know of is known as the Dura Europos Church. This is in Syria. And what it was was a house that was renovated to be a church. So it was no longer functioning as just a residence, but it was functioning specifically as a Christian meeting house. And this was about 80 years after Justin Martyr was writing his first apology. [00:37:00] And interestingly, this is also the time when the presider, or the president, is now called the overseer, or the bishop, or the priest. So again, we're seeing this confluence of space and clergy. They kind of go hand in hand with the way that they are developing.
I'm not saying that the terms priest and bishop weren't used previously to this. But it's interesting to me that Justin Martyr has a particular term for the one who is conducting the worship. And, of course, he's writing to the Roman Emperor, so maybe he's watering the term down? Using a term that the Emperor might understand better? That's entirely possible.
Anyway, if you want to read a little bit more about the Roman house and how it was designed, This book does give some information about the dining rooms that were probably the space that were the center of worship in the [00:38:00] Roman house church and all of the connections that that has to hospitality and also the fact that women would have had a lot of power in these spaces. So that's pretty interesting. When things did move to more formal structures, it seems like some of that was lost for a time.
The book has quite a lot of interesting things to say about the transition from house churches to more formal spaces, which again were those renovated homes. Usually there would be a more rectangular space for people, so there would be no space for dining in the way that they were used to dining in, and they started including a platform at one end.
And this would be where the bishop or the priest or the presider would stand in the assembly. Kilde says, quote, The separation the platform created between the clergy and the ordinary worshipers [00:39:00] indicate that Christianity was becoming increasingly institutionalized, end quote.
Now, I recognize that those from more formal traditions don't really like the suggestion that it did take time for church practices to become more formalized, and this includes not only the spaces, but the ritual and the religious personnel.
But, as far as I can personally tell, there was development into those formal institutions. And I really have to say, it seems like there is a break between the formal practices and the context of the New Testament. And I want to point that out for people because I think we need to understand that there is a reason for some Christians today to suspect that these formal things and the institutions and the rituals that we have today, maybe they're not inspired or prescriptive for every Christian.
We can say that it's natural that things [00:40:00] changed and okay, and there's some other ways we can look at it, but I really want to bring out this idea that for some people, it's really fair to look at this like Maybe the high liturgy isn't that prescriptive thing for the entire church, for all of time. I think that's a very valid way to look at things, because as much as church history is very, very, extremely, exceptionally, did I say very? Very important for Christians today, and we cannot and should not discount it. And we need to take it very, very seriously. There are ways to look at it where we're asking, what is prescriptive and what is not prescriptive? And remember, prescriptive is something that is laid down as law, right? This is what we have to do. If you're a Christian, and if you're going to worship with [00:41:00] Christians, and if you're worshiping correctly like a Christian should, then you've got to do it this way, and this way, and this way. Well, if the high liturgy didn't develop for a little bit of time... Then it really is fair for people to say, I don't know if that's something that is inspired.
I think that's fair. I really do. And I'm not trying to discount the people who are all in on the idea of the Divine Liturgy. I'm just trying to show that there are multiple sides here, and I think that they are valid si It's just, how are you looking at what is prescriptive? And again, I'm going to say very, very strongly, Christian history is vital to us. We cannot ignore it. We need to take it seriously, but there are various ways that we can see what is prescriptive here. I [00:42:00] would definitely say that the elements of the early church in the first few centuries and the way that they developed, I would say that they're biblical ways of worship. I would say that they grew out of the New Testament practices, and we might say that they're a natural extension of them.
But I think it's just as fair to say that they aren't necessarily the same as the New Testament practices. And the context changed. It changed pretty quickly, honestly. They were no longer in the biblical context. They just weren't. And you can see that it didn't take long for this to happen, for the church to suddenly start prescribing things in different ways.
So it was not a very long break, if at all. So when I say there was a break, I don't mean that there was some massive change. I'm not saying that this disconnect means that we can just ignore it or say that [00:43:00] they were making things up. That's an exceptionally bad idea to go that far. I know that some like to toss out the idea of tradition, and I don't just follow tradition, I follow what the scripture says.
But tossing out tradition as something that's unimportant is a horrible, horrible idea. The early church formulated our canon. They gave us our doctrine. They helped protect the church against heresy. And they grew the kingdom of God in so many great ways. So we can't just ignore the tradition or the historical church. We need it.
The good thing about biblical theology is that it allows us to regain the context of the biblical authors so that we can analyze the practices and theology that developed. But even with doing that, there remain several ways that we can go from there. Especially because there are things that only have [00:44:00] tentative roots in Scripture, or which won't be agreed upon to even have those roots.
For some, the development of the Church's practices are trustworthy. And I don't know if I'd say inspired, but maybe the next thing to it? And before you knee jerk react to that, think about how many Christians insist that you must believe in the doctrine of the Trinity to be a Christian. Well, yes, I'd say that the Bible teaches what the doctrine teaches, but still...
We say outright that people have to believe in the Trinity. This is something I disagree with because I think you can just use Biblical language and never touch the word Trinity or formal doctrine of the Trinity, and you can still be a Christian. Now, I don't think you should teach against the Trinity. I think that it's a heresy to not believe in the Trinity. So don't get me wrong there. I think [00:45:00] this is a problem with epistemology and teaching people about church history in the right way and teaching people enough about church history. That is a really big discrepancy in our church today. But at any case, if we are comfortable having or requiring belief in the Trinity, then it's really not much of a stretch to also say that the early church got a lot of other things correct too, right?
So, one way of looking at this might be similar to how we can have so much confidence in the Canon or in the Trinity. Because so many of these early practices lasted so long through time, we might be able to have confidence that they would have been stamped out, or forgotten, at least, in the first thousand years, if they hadn't been prescriptive for the Church at large. So, that's another way of thinking about it.
Some people want to divorce themselves from things like the Roman Catholic Church, [00:46:00] but the fact is, much of what is objected to lasted for centuries. Now, that's not a green light to say that some things weren't out of line, but I think those on the evangelical side need to be aware that there really might be some cherry picking going on when deciding what doctrine is kosher and what isn't.
Because a lot of ideas that evangelicals or Protestants don't like were established quite early. And a lot of the outrages that Luther had against the Catholic Church were very specific to the time that he was in. Nobody's saying that indulgences were developed in the early church.
So anyway, one way of looking at things might be to say that the things that are part of the historical church ought to be continued today because the historical church gave us small o Orthodox Christianity.
But another way of looking at it [00:47:00] is to decide to stick with what is seen in the New Testament to the point that we can. That only that which is in the Bible is truly prescriptive for the church. And we are otherwise free to do things the way we choose, so long as it seems those things are in line with what we see in the New Testament, and do not violate biblical principles.
Both sides can argue till they're blue in the face as to who is right and who is wrong, but the disagreement isn't really in trying to prove correctness, I think. The disagreement is in what's chosen as necessarily foundational. And as much as I want to trust historical Christianity, especially in those early centuries, not everyone agreed.
So we do have to make choices. And personally, I see both sides. And I also see how both sides can very easily overstate their case. [00:48:00] Ultimately, I'm of the opinion that most systems and institutions are for our benefit, not God's. So my concern is that we all do our best to find what seems truthful. And hopefully we're doing this together, because it's never a good idea to lone wolf theology.
And I'm convinced the answer is almost always somewhere in the middle. It seems to me that things did get institutionalized because that's what people do. And we need that kind of organization as things grow. And yeah, the church has been led by the Spirit as well. But it's not like he's dictating things. So I think there's a lot of freedom there.
To get back to the point of the book we're talking about, I don't see how it can't be both the case that sacred things are given by God and that we sacralize things ourselves. [00:49:00] But in conjunction with the fact that creation was made to be sacred and we are the image of God. That's something that this book absolutely is missing out on. So it's not like we're a bunch of rebels here. So long as we're working within the guidelines and restraint of Scripture as a guide.
All of this kind of goes into a difficult conversation. A conversation that I think is more difficult than many Protestant believers might believe or assume. And that is the question of what is inspired. I'll probably have that conversation at some point, especially on this new YouTube show that I'm going to be doing. The conversations got to involve the question of what is the Word of God. But in either case, to some degree, we need to trust the historical church, which is the body of Christ, through time, just as we need to trust the body of Christ that we find ourselves in today.
And so I think that means inspiration is [00:50:00] happening in a process through time as we work with one another and with our situations. We might have things wrong and those need to be worked out. But unfortunately, what we have in the New Testament isn't as clear as what we have in Exodus, with so much of our process spelled out via clear, divine decree.
It makes things a bit messy for how we are going to figure out how to do church. Here's two things to think about. Do you agree that historical Christianity developed something that we should all participate with in the same way as they did, like there's this idea that when we are in our worship places doing the same thing that they did, that it's not just us in our worship place, but it's also believers throughout time.
So if we change our worship practices and meanings through time, then is it the case that we are no longer participating in that long history of [00:51:00] worship with other Christians?
Or the other question to consider is, do you think that Jesus, or Jesus through his disciples in the early church, did not set up a prescriptive practice of a particular organization? And if you like the idea of Christians worshipping together through time, perhaps you think that this can be done in spite of our various practices, like how we don't all need to speak the same language, perhaps? And that the unifying factor in our worship is who we are worshipping. Jesus is the unifying factor, instead of the exact practices of what we're doing.
I'm not here to give you an answer, but I'll say that I think it's a good idea to think about how the body of Christ, the Church, can and is united in space and in time. I just think that's a super neat idea, and it seems like a reasonable reality to me.[00:52:00]
Now, of course, there's more options than the two things that I laid out there, but just some food for thought for you all.
At any rate, I do have a little bit more to say about this book. It does mention how the rise of the bishops and the priest and the deacon in a more formalized atmosphere, in actual constructed buildings for worship, how those kind of cemented those positions of power into being. In addition, having an actual building that is not a home grants more reverence and also a greater level of control over the space.
And there's more distinction of relationships within a space like that. For those who have listened to previous episodes, you might remember Cindy Beaver talking about how the catechumens would be excused before the deliverance of the Eucharist. In addition to that kind of separation, [00:53:00] there was also separation of men and women, and sometimes there was separation by age. The closer you were to the pedestal of the bishop or the priest, the more honor you had in the assembly.
This was also the time when they began to have a special place built for baptisms. And interestingly enough, in the earliest examples we have, it's that space for the baptisms that is much more highly decorated than the sanctuary space.
Now, it could be that they just hadn't gotten around to decorating the sanctuary space before they had to abandon it. But it could also be the case that the baptismal area was the place that was a little bit more personal and a little bit more focused on that personal spiritual power that you were going to be receiving through what was going on there.
It might sound like the divide between the clergy and the laypeople was really, [00:54:00] really wide here. And so there was less spiritual empowerment for the individual. However, personal spiritual power was also very important for the time, and we can see this through other ways. Iconography and the Baptistry are two ways that we can see this.
And we also need to take note that just because there is a distinction between clergy and the laity, We shouldn't put bad motives to that, right, because we do have those distinctions in the New Testament and in the Old Testament. There was definitely a hierarchy, and there always has been throughout Scripture.
So the fact that these faces are designed in a way that it seems like that's being enhanced, that's not necessarily a bad thing, but it's something to think about as far as how much of that distance and separation is good. And how can we see that, you know? Sometimes we get a bit too [00:55:00] nitpicky about other people's traditions and we say, Aha! You have too much of that separation. Or we say, No, you don't have enough. And you know what? There's some sort of middle ground that we all have to find there. No matter what kind of a church you go to, I think.
At any rate, the book goes into the story of Constantine and the growth of Christianity as it becomes a state religion. And this is super interesting, because suddenly, the church now has a whole lot more money in order to build buildings, or to renovate old buildings. It did both at the time, and that makes sense, because at the time of Constantine, there was so much building in places like Rome, that there wasn't a whole lot of space in order to build new churches in central areas.
During the time of Constantine, the church began building what were called [00:56:00] basilicas. And a basilica was a pre existing kind of architecture. The church was building them for worship, but it also demonstrated the power of the emperor and his association with Christianity. So, there were social and political and religious agendas all wrapped up into this building.
Frequently, they were political locations, the churches were in proximity with palaces, and sometimes they were memorials of Christian sites. For instance, there was the Temple of Aphrodite, which they thought was built on the entombment spot of Jesus. They destroyed that in order to build the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.
What's interesting in this book is that it brings up the idea that because Constantine supported the bodily resurrection of Jesus, which was as opposed to the Gnostic and Arian views that were rampant at [00:57:00] the time, Because Constantine supported the bodily resurrection, and he was building these sites on places like the entombment of Jesus, and bringing to light the idea that Jesus was a real human who lived on earth and who died. And was resurrected and confirming that whole reality of the story of Jesus as a real human. The building of sites like the Church of the Holy Sepulcher really instilled in people's minds that, yes, this was a real reality, and that it's not that Jesus was only appearing to be human. Or something of that nature.
But at any rate, a basilica was associated with the emperor court. They have the kind of church structure that we often think of here in the West, where it's longitudinal, you have the narthex to the nave, and perhaps a semicircular area in the front. And part of the design [00:58:00] of this church is that you enter the church, and you journey towards the front of the church.
And this was also connected with the idea of journeying to Jerusalem. So there's a symbolic structure to the church that is, of course, very similar to the tabernacle and temple design of the Jews in the Old Testament.
In her book, Kilde says, quote, The physical emphasis on the approach achieved by the Basilica emerged as the perfect architectural metonyn or metaphor for the Christian life--a long journey towards God. End quote..
Now, you can see how some people do not actually like this symbolism, as we are already united to Christ as Christians. Of course, the awe and beauty of these amazing buildings really do inspire a certain kind of feeling of reverence and also [00:59:00] insignificance and it's very emotional Which I find it's interesting because I've heard some Eastern Orthodox say that Protestant services are too focused on emotion in worship practice But, it's sometimes it's hard to take that seriously as an argument when all of this awe inspiring beauty in architecture and art definitely are designed specifically to pull on one's emotions. That is not necessarily a bad thing, but it should be an obvious thing to us, right? We should be willing participants of that pull.
So, in the Basilica, the hierarchy was very clear and very strong. There was the procession to worship, and there was a special place for the Emperor if he was in attendance. The catechumens were still withdrawing [01:00:00] at the Liturgy of the Faithful, and it seems like there was a distancing of God as he was being seen like the Imperial Emperor, rather than being a humble, approachable god. The liturgy was exceptionally formal. There were the fancy vestments, there were the particular gestures, and the kissing of the ring, and candles. The bishop had a throne, and all of these things looked very imperial, so we no longer had the symbolism of near equalism that Koinonia Fellowship had in the early church.
And again, we can place value judgments on all of these things if we want. And maybe there's a place for that. But maybe we're sometimes a bit arrogant when we try and say that we're so much better in thinking about it than they were. Because we have to remember the context of [01:01:00] the time and how the placement of Christianity as a state religion grew it by exponential bounds. And again, we might have a conversation about if those followers were true followers, or if they were just going along with the culture. But either way, the gospel was reaching people in ways that it hadn't previously.
I want to read this really good quote from the book. Kilde says, quote, Although some critics of this co mingling of divine and social power have unfavorably compared the Constantinian period of Christianity, To an earlier, pre Constantinian period, assumed to be characterized by social and spiritual equals, we would do well to carefully examine such conclusions. As we have seen, rank and hierarchy were apparent in the early Christian meetings, [01:02:00] though clearly not on this scale. Moreover, personal power plays an important role in Christian basilicas. Lay audiences participated in the procession, entering the church after the dignitaries. Indeed, it was the entrance of the laity that in effect transformed the building into a church, the assembly of the gathered faithful created the symbolic Ecclesia end quote,
so it was very devotional. And all through this conversation, we want to keep in mind that all three types of power ought to be seen commingling. We really cannot remove a single one without creating some sort of real issue. We obviously need divine power at play. We need social power because we are a community, and this does require hierarchy. And, we also need personal power, necessary for the [01:03:00] individual, but it also balances out the social power.
The book gives really interesting descriptions between the longitudinal idea of the church architecture, which is a long rectangle, and the centrally planned buildings. A centrally planned building would be something like the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople. Rather than leading down a long path to the end, The Hagia Sophia leads the eye upwards, and there's a focus on the awe of the divine, and that's kind of like a temple idea. And along with these kinds of building structures, architecture became much more complex and experimental.
But there was a great bit of thought that went into every type of architecture, and how it participated in the idea of worship for the believer. There became a difference in the way Eastern churches and [01:04:00] Western churches were designed. The Orthodox Church today has that Byzantine legacy. And again, that's the idea of the Hagia Sophia, the central planned building where the eye is drawn upwards.
I'm going to give one more quote from this book, because I think this is a fun inclusion, especially since Cindy has been bringing up a lot about Orthodoxy. Kilde says quote. Among the central features of Orthodox worship is the belief in the corporate character of the human relationship with God. Part of the Byzantine world. Focus is less on the individual and more on the church as a community joined in worship. The Orthodox service is fully liturgical, and it is through liturgy that the worshiping community communicates with God. The church building is the site of this meeting, the place where [01:05:00] heaven and earth come together. Indicating this meeting is the dome that commonly tops orthodox sanctuaries, ringed by windows and painted with an image of Christ in glory, the dome is understood to be the locus of the divine within the meeting, the vault of heaven. End quote.
That's a good place to stop when talking about this book. I might have to continue onward with it because it's so interesting to look at this idea of church history through the lens of architecture and what that means to the community at large.
I think it's so easy for us to get locked into the way we do things and say that's the way it has to be. But at the same time, there is a strong pull for that historical reality that has been in place for so long.
There was a super [01:06:00] interesting question in the discussion group this week about what is essential in worship practice. If you could only choose a few things or one thing, would it be more essential to take the Eucharist or communion or the Lord's Table, or is it more essential to read the Bible and do things like that? I honestly don't really have a firm opinion on this, because it's going to depend on how you view that history, how you view how things developed, what you think is prescriptive, and all of that kind of thing.
It's a very complex question, to be honest, but I absolutely love the discussion. And I love seeing people coming together and talking about their various perspectives. It is so needed in today's world. We really, really need this. So [01:07:00] thank you so much to you guys who participate in my discussion group. It's so exciting to me, and I love to see it. And I hope it's edifying to you. I hope you find connections in ways that you didn't before and ideas that you didn't before, and I'm really grateful for the support. So thank you guys so much for listening and sharing my episode so other people can find it.
If you know anybody who might be interested in joining the discussion group on Facebook, please feel free to invite them there and start posts and discussions there. I love to see it. It's awesome. Thank you also to my Patreon and PayPal supporters. You guys are amazing. If you're not signed up for my newsletter, you can do so from my website at GenesisMarksTheSpot. com. I will be having more information out about the new YouTube show I'm going to be doing. And don't forget to [01:08:00] check the blog tab on my website. As I am putting up some blog posts there as well. But thank you for the interesting topic and discussion around this whole idea of worship. You guys are influencing me a lot and giving me a lot to think about in all of this as well.
If you have any questions, let me know. If you have any ideas for further topics for the podcast, also let me know about that. I appreciate you guys and I hope you all have a blessed week and we will see you later.
