The future of OCA architecture!

[Justin Kissel]

I only have a minor problem with it, and that problem has nothing to do with Orthodoxy or what I think Churches should look like. My problem is that each side isn't a mirror image of each other. I guess that's the look they were going for. Personally, I like things to be uniform. I don't have anything against architects designing "American-looking" Churches anymore than I have anything against hiring a couple mathematicians to design your Church (in the latter case, you might get a Hagia Sophia ). Countless Churches in Byzantine history were architecturally boring, with a capital B (though the insides were almost always beautiful); the ones that weren't boring were the ones who had architects (and benefactors) who were willing to take risks.

[尼古拉前执事]

A bit ugly for my taste but we're in America so I see nothing wrong with American looking churches. As long as it has a full iconostasis inside, what's the problem?

anastasios

Isn't that the argument the GOA uses for using an organ and having pews too? It is not Americanizing, it is Protestantizing. There is a theology in even the shape of a church building.

An Orthodox Church Building - External Arrangement

Orthodox churches generally take one of several shapes that have a particular mystical significance. The most common shape is an oblong or rectangular shape, imitating the form of a ship. As a ship, under the guidance of a master helmsman conveys people through the stormy seas to a calm harbor, so the Church, guided by Christ, carries us unharmed across the stormy seas of sin and strife to the peaceful haven of the Kingdom of Heaven. Churches are also frequently built in the form of a Cross to proclaim that we are saved through faith in the Crucified Christ, for Whom Christians are prepared to suffer all things.

Almost always Orthodox churches are oriented East--West, with the main entrance of the building at the west end. This symbolizes the entrance of the worshipper from the darkness of sin (the west) into the light of truth (the east).

On the roof of Orthodox churches are usually found one or more cupolas (domes with rounded or pointed roofs). A peculiar feature of Russian Orthodox churches is the presence of onion-shaped domes on top of the cupolas. This shape reminds believers of the flame of a candle, burning upward to heaven. Every cupola is crowned with a Cross, the instrument of our salvation. In the Russian Church, the most common form is the so-called three-bar Cross, consisting of the usual crossbeam, a shorter crossbeam above that and another, slanted, crossbeam below. Symbolically, the three bars represent, from the top, the signboard on which was written, in Hebrew, Latin and Greek, Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews (John 19:19); the main crossbeam, to which the hands of Jesus were nailed; the lower portion, to which His feet were nailed.

The three-bar representation existed in Christian art from the very early times in Byzantium, although usually without the bottom bar slanted, which is particularly Russian. The origin of this slanted footboard is not known, but in the symbolism of the Russian Church, the most common explanation is that it is pointing upward to Paradise for the Good Thief on Jesus right and downward to Hades for the thief on His left (Luke 23).

[Justin Kissel]

Nicholas,

There is a theology behind just about everything the Orthodox do. That doesn't mean we don't change just because we have theological reasons for doing what we do. Things like music and architecture are obvious examples that show that Orthodoxy is not stagnant, but varies through the centuries, and according to the differing cultures. This change doesn't make the theology behind the thing irrelevant; but the theology does not and cannot hold the spirit within a grip of steel that allows no movement whatsoever. Not every Church must be a Box/Cross shape with a Cupola and three bar cross on top to be Orthodox.

PS. The reasoning for the introduction of organs, and so forth, is very different than what (I, at least) am talking about here. Unless you are ready to call me a modernist who is trying to Protestantise the Church?

[尼古拉前执事]

Okay I guess the question becomes do we change for the sake of change or if we make a change do we do it for a good reason? I cannot see a good orthodox reason to make a church temple look like that. Does it give greater glory to God by doing it? Does it show our steadfastness to tradition? I can understand if you ned a different shape as you buy a building that your parish can afford and it does not fit the traditional look, but to purposely make something so far and away different from any other Orthodox Church design? Why? What positive comes from it? I am just not seeing any such thing. But maybe this is a shortcoming of mine?

[bogoliubtsy]

Okay I guess the question becomes do we change for the sake of change or if we make a change do we do it for a good reason? I cannot see a good orthodox reason to make a church temple look like that. Does it give greater glory to God by doing it? Does it show our steadfastness to tradition? I can understand if you ned a different shape as you buy a building that your parish can afford and it does not fit the traditional look, but to purposely make something so far and away different from any other Orthodox Church design? Why? What positive comes from it? I am just not seeing any such thing.

The motives of the Church's designers may very well be to create an Orthodox Church which will appear more accesible to average Americans. If you have gold cupolas people may think - "Oh, a Russian Orthodox Church...I'm not Russian, so why go." Or, if you create a more characteristically Greek looking Church, average people might think the same thing and feel a bit nervous about entering. The problem is, and it seems to be a growing problem in America's jurisdictions, when you start stripping away some of what may be considered "ethnic externals" of the faith, there is a kind of cultural gap created. You take out the "Russian" and "Greek", creating room for "American", and more often than not this newly entered "American" element is tainted with Protestantism. I agree with Nicholas to a point- we have theology in all of our externals. In our art, our music, our vestments- and there is even theology bound up with our architecture. Everything we create in the Church is created to lift our minds towards heaven, even (or maybe especially) our temple. The design of this new church, or it least is seems to me, does not lift the mind to heaven. Like the Protestant temples it seems to be modeled after, this church is not a testament to the fact that there is theology in aesthetics. It seems to me, however good intentioned the design, that this church is another testament to American Orthodox minimalism- a minimalism that lacks an understanding, like Dostoevsky said, that beauty will (help) save the world.

[Daniel]

The motives of the Church's designers may very well be to create an Orthodox Church which will appear more accesible to average Americans. If you have gold cupolas people may think - "Oh, a Russian Orthodox Church...I'm not Russian, so why go." Or, if you create a more characteristically Greek looking Church, average people might think the same thing and feel a bit nervous about entering. The problem is, and it seems to be a growing problem in America's jurisdictions, when you start stripping away some of what may be considered "ethnic externals" of the faith, there is a kind of cultural gap created. You take out the "Russian" and "Greek", creating room for "American", and more often than not this newly entered "American" element is tainted with Protestantism. I agree with Nicholas to a point- we have theology in all of our externals. In our art, our music, our vestments- and there is even theology bound up with our architecture. Everything we create in the Church is created to lift our minds towards heaven, even (or maybe especially) our temple. The design of this new church, or it least is seems to me, does not lift the mind to heaven. Like the Protestant temples it seems to be modeled after, this church is not a testament to the fact that there is theology in aesthetics. It seems to me, however good intentioned the design, that this church is another testament to American Orthodox minimalism- a minimalism that lacks an understanding, like Dostoevsky said, that beauty will (help) save the world.

That is a very good point, Peter!

[Joseph D]

Architecture is important. It has a very, very powerful effect on the human mind and on the ebb and flow of emotion. Of course the faithful can meet in a prefab, corrigated metal building with a cement floor; or in a tool shed, or in the dining hall of another church. Not to get into an exessively detailed discussion about asthetics, but those at high risk for assuming or, in the case of converts, retaining any of the various Protestantisms that will plague American Orthodoxy in the future ought not have their inner dispositions guided further in the way of Protestantism through the potent influence of architecture.

My view of the above model is that it has a certain cheap, industrial ambiance, not to mention a reflective embracement of asthetic modernism. But what do I know.

Sincerely:
Joseph