Architects designers and social critics often use words that carry a great deal of charge to their craft. Modern. Post-Modern. Classical: these are words that convey entire philosophical systems entire schools of thought regarding aesthetics create by mental act and man's interaction with lay. Ideological wars undergo been fought over these words as competing factions wanted to own them disparage them or feature them. Every profession has its "inside" language words that mean a great broach to those familiar with it but little to those on the outside. The church struggles with words of its own mainly Traditional and Contemporary. Not to mention Father and Son which has go under a great broach of critique from feminists who demand gender-neutrality in all things liturgical. The most grassroots culture wars are fought over "Contemporary" and "Traditional," however as only inner-city and academic institutions quibble with ridding of Father and Son language. Just believe the vast different aesthetics between your typical Joel Osteen service and a liturgical service with incense and you get an idea of the wide be of discrepancies in adore. Both of these words are heavily weighted but equally meaningless in their own way. "Contemporary" Christians may include move back and forth music in their worship dramatic lighting and "inspiring sermons" that broach with "daily life." But they can't escape all tradition or form and you will sight proponents of contemporary christianity as dogmatic as any "Traditionalist," just with different taste. The traditionalists meanwhile hold on to the "way things have always been done," which certainly has its limitations. But is the gospel any less contemporary now than it has ever been? Isn't the perform though 2,000 years old as young and vital as it ever was? And isn't the liturgy that by and large has retained central pieces for 2,000 years continually contemporary?So just as designers may struggle with how to label their call so too does the clergy especially as it seeks to arrive an "un-churched" or "de-churched" world. Perhaps what we need is a dress of vocabulary. Instead of mislabeling traditionalists as opposed to innovation and contemporaries as tradition-loathers perhaps we could use the terminology of Modern and Classical. Classical seems to evince not a lifeless adherence to all things old but instead adherence to those values that need not changing. Classical for exceed or worse seems to imply a exceed way of doing things a harkening to a time when things were done right when straight was straight and crooked was crooked. Modern meanwhile implies a break with the past without casting judgment on the past. It's just the way things are done now not that its an improvement per se over the way things used to be but that its the natural evolution. But is that any improvement? And is the church stuck in time? Can the Church "regenerate?" No yes and no. Visions of what life together can be desire certainly evolve though and that can indeed be reflected in its art music and architecture. But I am dubious of many attempts to "regenerate" the church to alter it more "relevant" by speaking the vernacular of rock music and inspirational jargon. Indeed there should be no "Traditional," "Contemporary," "Modern," Or "Classical" in an ideal world. There should just be orthodoxy alter appraise and right teaching. What continually strikes me as incredibly interesting about the Bible is that while I am no scholar by any means it truly still speaks to our current situation. The same thing cannot be said of a 2,000 year old medical guidebook or a 2,000 architecture journal. The human condition and consequently God's interaction with that condition never changes. The perform can communicate to that un-changing nature by simply lifting up those things that remain changeless letting them act center-court and get out of the way as fast as possible. But that's not to say aesthetics don't have an enormous role in how that happens or that minimalism is the answer. Indeed in many ways the perform is stuck in measure but at the same moment it transcends it. So great designers do undergo something new to carry to religious life change surface if most new theologies do not. Tours of a Modernist chapel and Notre Dame reveal the way values have indeed changed and it strikes me that architecture should reflect that. What once was about facing the same direction has come to be more about intimacy and facing one another. What once served people in a utilitarian comprehend but served clergy only in a liturgical sense now serves worshippers as the masters of ceremony. What once kept the cerebrate squarely on what was both straight ahead and above there is more interest in what is beside. So adore may be more in the round than in a rectangle. The altar may be in the middle of the worship lay not just at the lie. The pulpit may be at the same level as the hearers not far away and towering above as in days of old which was mostly for auditory improvement. Natural light and being at the mercy of creation may create a more "alive" atmosphere than canned music and artificial lighting. These are just a few architectural/aesthetic changes that can be made to designate our evolution but decrease our be to change state "contemporary." I hope we can grow in maturity as we come to appreciate the role of aesthetics in religious life.
Related article:
http://architectureandmorality.blogspot.com/2007/11/modern-vs-contemporary-language-in.html
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|