Seventh Tuesday of Pentecost
Thanks to Joe and Vicki for their comments. I'll deal with the article Vicki referred to Friday in the blog. Today I want to deal with Joe's questions about permanent crosses in a larger context of the beginning of a discussion about church architecture. Here are Joe's questions:
"Could you help me understand the different perspectives of having a
permanent cross in our/any sanctuary? Based on previous churches that I
loved and in which I worshiped, I guess I have taken the presence of a
permanent cross as a sort of norm. Is that the norm? That is, do most
churches have a cross permanently displayed in the sanctuary? Is there a
theological explanation at work here?"
The specific church Joe is referring to is University UMC, Chapel Hill. While the readers of this blog are predominantly University UMC members, we now have readers from at least six other churches. Please indulge me in dealing with just UUMC in this blog.
Last question first: Yes, there is a theological explanation at work everywhere, although that explanation may go back beyond the memories of the current members of the church. In the case of UUMC, I don't know a specific explanation, but I can make some generalizations.
Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy tend to think that churches should be beautiful. One of the ways they praise God is in the beauty of their churches. Their particular aesthetics may not strike all observers as beautiful, but the churches are beautiful to their believers.
Protestants have different views. I can separate them into two camps. I will express the views of those camps in several pairs of terms reflecting different prejudices. The left column is one camp. The right column is the other camp.
a. beautiful as opposed to ugly
b. ornate as opposed to plain
c. idolatrous as opposed to true Christian
d. too Catholic as opposed to true Protestant
e. expensive as opposed to cheap
f. lavish as opposed to thrifty
g. praising God and enhancing our worship as opposed to "too fancy for me"
h. praising God and enhancing worship as opposed to "we could have used that money for missions"
i. visual as opposed to auditory
j. permanent cross and other permanent things as opposed to as little permanent as possible
I hope you get the idea. I'm not sure I've made it entirely clear.
I am clearly in the camp of the left hand column. The sanctuary of the particular church in question, University UMC, is in the right hand column. It has no permanent cross. It has a processional cross, which, frankly, looks like the cheapest thing they could find in the Cokesbury catalogue. There are no stained glass windows, no permanent altar but a communion table, no Christian art, hardly any Christian symbols, little to identify it as a Christian Church. The baptismal font is moveable. The organ console is moveable. The organ pipes are hidden (lest someone should think we spent a lot of money on the organ). Even the massive pulpit (biggest I've ever seen) is moveable (I am told). If we ever decided to move the church to a new location, we could sell the church to the university and they could turn the sanctuary into a secular auditorium in a couple of hours and at no expense.
I realize that 99% or so of UUMC members think the sanctuary is beautiful. I think it's beautiful in its own way, in its own particular style. I would be glad to hear responses and disagreements. No hate mail please.
In answer to Joe's question. Yes, a permanent cross is the norm.
Faithfully,
Christian
4 comments:
DearChristian,
thank you for your information about our UUMC lack of a huge beautiful permanent gold cross at our alter. I have been a member for 41 years here in chapel hill and have always wondered why there wasn't a large cross on the back wall of our sanctuary's alter. I must be a little slow because I never ask about it . I always thought when I die, I would dedicate a huge glorious cross to be put on that perfect middle spot section on the wall facing the worshippers in the sanctuary. I guess I will stratch that idea.
Also , I wanted you to know that I really do enjoy reading your blog. I normally don't make comments but you give us so much to think about with each blog. You can't imagine how much we all look forward to your different topics each day. I wish you could continue the blog way past May and Into the summer and beyond.
Thank you for your deep religious information of the bible , it's history and also on our united methodist church with your view points and knowledge on so many topics. Thank you!
I hope you are feeling good and healthy during this isolation time due to corona virus 19. Blessings, Pam Grantham
I believe it also true in ancient churches and cathedrals were decorated in such a grand way because most of the congregation was illiterate. The decorations were meant to impart the glory of God and stained glass windows depicted Bible stories.
I am of the mind that they way a church is decorated inside and out is a kind of marketing, drawing people in. Once inside, the hope is that they would taste and see that the Lord is good.
I echo Pam’s comments. I look forward to each of your installments and hope they would continue. Thank you for sharing yourself.
Pam said: "...I always thought when I die, I would dedicate a huge glorious cross to be put on that perfect middle spot section on the wall facing the worshipers in the sanctuary. I guess I will scratch that idea." Perhaps the answer is obvious. Respectfully, my question is: why?
Thanks to Christian for the commentary about a permanent cross in our UUMC sanctuary and sanctuaries in general. I decided to investigate further and it led me to the following comment and personal testimony Of course, you may want to save time and just stop here. No offense taken.
1. As to a permanent cross in the sanctuary I found this article: see below. Note it does not speak from the United Methodist perspective. In brief, the article seems to say each congregation may reasonably decide whether or not to have a permanent cross and not violate some clear scripture or rule of the denomination. The view against a permanent cross is based in part on the fear worshipers will worship the thing (the cross) rather than God. The cross will be a sort of idol. My personal judgment is that the cross is an aid to worship, and further a permanent cross in the church sanctuary is a public declaration or witness of a Christian place of worship as contrasted with a generic place to gather or undesignated place of worship.
The article: http://simplebiblestudies.com/Qwhynocrosses.htm.
2. Even though I believe a permanent cross is an aid to worship because it reminds us of the ultimate sacrifice, the focus of the article referenced above resonated with me at a certain level. I love the music of Johann Sebastian Bach. He was a gifted composer. His sacred music has moved many worshipers. There is no question.
There is a BBC documentary series that appeals to me. The topic is the evolution of sacred music. The last installment has to do with Martin Luther and Bach. In that episode the host, Simon Beale, interviewed two Lutheran pastors. They were in a church in Germany, but one formerly served a church in Colorado during the Columbine shooting. He related the powerful use of Luther’s “A Mighty Fortress” hymn during one of the services held right after the shooting. Bach had a version of the Luther hymn. The hymn was infinitely powerful. During the interview the pastors related how Bach’s music moves them in worship. They said, likely in a joking fashion, Bach is the “Fifth Evangelist.” That is, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are the first four, and through his music, Bach is the fifth. It is that kind of description of Bach’s role that I appreciate and understand, but warns me. It warns me that aids to worship like Bach’s sacred music can become ends in and of themselves. I need to be careful. We all know, not only Bach’s compositions, sacred music in different forms moves us in worship. Some say even more than a powerful sermon. So, just as music, a cross might be an important aid to worship, a statement of faith, or it could become the object of worship to the detriment of the glory of God. Bach signed his compositions: “to the glory of God alone.” That is our goal. To me a permanent cross in the UUMC sanctuary would further that goal.
Post a Comment