I saw this on a Facebook page entitle “I’m fed up with ugly churches”. This is a Lutheran Church in North Carolina.
I can see how it would be off-putting for many people, especially the outside.
But I like it especially the pulpit and altar railing and altar. I do think it is problematic, though, to have the railing surrounding the altar and many steps up from where the congregation is. I can see older people and some younger ones having a hard time with the stairs and the potential for falls is great.
But I like it, I really do!
Like the church, the pulpit is quirky, but I love it; I really do!
22 comments:
About the only kind thing I can say about this design is that it does offer a nice bit of color. However the communion rail around the altar makes it look a bit more like some sort of pagan monolith that fell from the sky (think Kubrick). Further, there needs to a a tabernacle at the back center and there is none--of course there isn't, because it's a Lutheran church! And no statues or other art? Just another existential prayer box that allows the mind to drift away, because it's a LUTHERAN church. Sadly, a LOT of Catholic "liturgical consultants" (read "HUSTLERS") would LOVE a church building like this. A lot of unquestioning, low-information, postconciliar Catholic laity (read "LEMMINGS") would also agree, ("Isn't it beeyootiful?"). Yes, it's beautiful. It's about a beautiful as a shoe box filled with PVC fittings.
I know it well! That is the Church of the Holy Comforter in Belmont, NC! We passed it hundreds of times on our way into "downtown" - mind you, downtown Belmont was about 6 blocks long - Belmont from Belmont Abbey College, my alma mater, about a mile away.
I've always liked it. The lead architect was Charles Lyman Bates in the A. G. Odell firm. "The small but imposing church of rectilinear forms with walls of grids of light and color was a powerful statement of modernism for its time and place, as it is today. Contrasting with the seeming severity of the exterior, the tall interior glows with warm light coming through translucent panels and colored glass accents. The church received an award of merit from the North Carolina chapter of the AIA."
I can see the ‘appeal of the different’ in it. It reminds me of converted loft apartments in urban post industrial renovations or like Carnegie Mellon Mill 19. I suppose it causes you to ‘think differently’ about a subject starting in your current place. It is also a cool place that helps new thoughts, but also places restrictions on developing those thoughts. https://engineering.cmu.edu/mfi/mill19/index.html
Jerome doesn't like it. Others do. Therein lies the conundrum.
Some people, Jerome included, think that "beautiful" equates to, "What I like and what I think is beautiful." Anyone who disagrees is ignorant, malicious, "Modernist," or belongs to some other category of silly persons who should be relegated to the deepest pits of hell.
Although Jerome likes to slam the "elites," he counts himself among them in his post at 5:30. Those who like the Lutheran Church of the Holy Comforter are part of the "low-information lemming" crowd. He, since he detests the design, is part of the well-educated, sophisticated, scholarly crowd who know better than the benighted hoi-polloi. Interesting.
There is no single definition or expression of beauty - not in fashion, not in church architecture or decoration, not in music, not in flower arranging, not in literature. Standards for what people, whether the artistically erudite or the ordinary Joes and Josephines, consider beautiful have changed, sometimes dramatically, from age to age. And they have always varied greatly in specific eras in history.
Fr K Orwell,
And some say abortion is “healthcare!” See how this works!
Boy, Father, that’ quite a presumptive mind-reading attempt. To be more accurate, I would say that those who disagree with me have different tastes.
Now take a deep breath.
Perhaps to the chagrin of others, I'll be in the "I like it" category on this one. It's modern, yet balanced and not abstract. Enough traditional elements that resonate with me are there so as not to leave me either being distracted or disappointed. Obviously, it's not Catholic, but could easily be made so. I don't mind it's exterior either. Buildings like this tend to be really warm or cold depending upon the season. That can be managed, however.
This type of design, to me, is stronger than the theater in the round that has become so prevalent. I would caution against writing this style off in favor of American Gothic style only. This could be developed into modern yet traditional beauty. My humble $0.02.
TJM - I know how it works. You're the one in the dark. I don't think abortion is healthcare, but you suppoort the sexual harassment and abuse of women. Your vote proves it beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Jerome - No, when you call the people with "different tastes" "hustlers," "lemmings," "low information, post-Conciliar" Catholics, you are doing far more than just saying their tastes are different from yours.
My point about “low information “ or “lemming” types has a lot more to do with human nature than taste. Read The Emperor’s New Clothes and you might see what I mean.
This church raises a point of history that is relevant here.
There was a very interesting trend in church design in the years just before the Second Vatican Council. You will find examples of Catholic churches reflecting some Beaux Art and Art Deco influences, and you will also find some moves toward greater simplicity and abstraction -- which is how I might describe this -- that, nevertheless, maintained certain other traditions and norms of sacred architecture: the emphasis on balance and verticality, for example.
But then came Vatican II.
This is not to fault Vatican II; but it is unavoidable that if you have such a seismic event, it's going to knock things about, even if that wasn't intentional.
So, it's worth wondering how things might have played out, had there not been a Vatican II. I think a lot of folks might have responded more favorably to "modern" developments in sacred architecture, had it come more incrementally and with more apparent continuity. What did happen, however, was that in too many places, Vatican II was believed -- or proposed -- to be about rupture. That mistaken or deliberate pursuit of rupture is what alienated so many Catholics, and made them very resistant to anything "new."
For what it's worth, in the case of architecture, I would argue that Vatican II proposed very little change; what was proposed for the liturgy might imply greater architectural shifts than intially expected, but I am not persuaded. Vatican II, nor the post-conciliar documents, said anything about the manner of receiving Holy Communion (thus raising no issues about an altar rail); nor did they invent the proclamation of the Word toward the people; that was already an option in the solemn Mass. The one change arising from post-Vatican II documents was a free-standing altar, which also wasn't entirely new in any case.
Jerome - "My point about “low information “ or “lemming” types has a lot more to do with human nature than taste."
I don't think so.
There's nothing in human nature that has anything to do with "low information." Your first comment makes it clear - it's the "low information" folks who agree that the Lutheran Church of the Holy Comforter is beautiful. It's people like you, the high information people (aka, the Elite), who think the Church is unattractive, even resembling, in your mind, a "pagan monolith."
As for lemminghood, there's a smidgen of truth in that, inasmuch as our evolutionary path has left us with a bit of anxiety about being in the open - there might be predators - so we exhibit thigmotaxis (a specific behavior of animals, i.e., to stay close to walls when exploring an open space).
The Lutheran congregation that chose the design for the Church of the Holy Comforter, the architect who drew the plans, and the people who agree that it is attractive, even quite beautuful, are, however, the ones who have broken free from the ordinary. They were not and are not followers, needing to be with the herd, to fit in, to be typical. They don't need to be, as it were, near the wall.
Built in 1959, the church is decidedly modern, and was, I suspect, the target of lots of sideling glances from the good people of Belmont, formerly known as Garibaldi Station, North Carolina.
Fr K Orwell,
When you vote Democratic you vote for abortion as healthcare whether you intend it or not and the sexual grooming of children. You obviously love perverts since you voted for Bill “Horndog” Clintoon and his “wife” who worked to destroy women (all Democrats) whom he victimized. The Church will be a better place when you are no longer “ministering.” Move to NY City or San Fran so you can enjoy the benefits of a Dem “paradise.” Evil and delusional is no way to go through life.
Father Kavanaugh,
Thank you...you have helped point out one of my weaknesses, which is thinking that I am surely right and all other opposing voices are wrong (I can only speculate as to why this is so irritating to YOU of all people). It is true, sometimes I fall into that mode of thinking. I can sure use some more humility. I appreciate your input. However, again, I would caution you against presuming to know exactly what other people are thinking, then proclaiming it for all to see. You can do it to ME all you like. I can take it. But as for others, well, it's not very nice.
Jerome - I do not have to read your mind when you call those who do not share your views on the beauty of a church's design and decoration as being of "low information," of being "hustlers," and of being "lemmings."
You plainly said it.
I don't have to read your mind when you say that the altar area in the Lutheran church looks like a "pagan monolith," whatever that is.
You want to be "surely right?" Then stick to facts. When it comes to defining and/or recognizing what is and is not beautiful, you have left the land of facts far, far behind. Just because there are folks who don't agree with you doesn't make them "low information" Catholics, "hustlers," or "lemmings."
I appreciate your expertise. Thanks again.
Cyril C a certain old Etonian literary critic who actually knew Eric B aka George O quite well...
Anyway good old Cyril C once said of DH L and his old Etonian pal Eric Blair aka George O....:
They were both men whose personalities shone clearly out of almost every sentence they ever wrote...
I suppose the same can be said of lesser men...
I'll be in vino veritas here-
Marky T comes across to me like an AI cyber created robot...
TJM abrasive - but honest and almost always effective in a taciturn and or laconic style..
Jerome - articulate, occasionally eloquent, and achingly sincere...
RCG - super smart and often subtly very funny - a man who probably could have easily earned three times more in any private sector than serving in the military..
Fr K - seek help - I'm sure your diocese funds a good psychotherapist...occasionally while in sober and sane moments you write something interesting...but other times your style and TONE shouts out loud....x, y and z..in my humble who am I to judge profiling..
I'm quite late to this, while I don't care for the Star Trek command center altar rail over all it's a design of it's time. The trouble started when zealous a--hats tried to make a beautiful old church look like this. The best analogy I can find is to try and make a dowdy old grandmother look good in mini skirt and hooker boots, DON'T WORK
Paul
I'm in part relieved I didn't make your list.
Agree with most of your thoughts, particularly the AI one that I wish we could unplug.
TJM reminds me of a neighbor I talk to over the fence. Occasionally, we have a beer as well.
Fr. MJK can be tough, but I would have a ball grilling steaks and sparing with him/Fr. AJM while we drink Fr. AJM's liquor. I do appreciate his insights which at times keep my own more centered.
https://www.alicevonhildebrand.org/wrong-approaches-to-art
I skimmed quickly through the article. The following, from the article itself, describes much of modern day society and, in part, why the church is shrinking:
"But someone who is "used" to ugliness and has been entertained by tasteless television shows will protest vigorously when such memories are aesthetically condemned. For him, they are associated with fun, entertainment, and excitement. Habit has a blinding effect on our minds and our intellectual and artistic judgments."
I've thought this for a long time. People are so tuned to harsh/dark/ugly lyrics in music, the same in movies which glorify gratuitous sex and violence, on the streets, driving one's car, basic interactions with others, how possibly can they see the beauty the Church has to offer.
Bys - I, too, skimmed the article. von Hildebrand seems to know what, across cultures and times, what is universally ugly and what is universally tasteless, what is a "right" approach to art and what is a "wrong" approach as the title says.
I would gladly allow that she knows what she likes. But I would challenge the notion that her preferences in art must, or even should, be shared by all. To me that is akin to telling someone that "this" bottle of wine is better than "that" bottle.
Maybe I missed, it, but where does the subjective taste and preference of the individual enter into the equation?
Fr. MJK,
You rightly note that it does not.
I was about wholly focused on the lines that I cited to the detriment of the remainder of the peace.
You've many times argued that the changes to the liturgy did not effect attendance. I've several times over agreed with your argument, in part. While I personally believe, based upon personal experience that I am old enough to have had that the change in missal contributed, societal change played an equal of not greater part. I've had the discussion more than once based upon local news that folks living lives of the extremes that I described are not likely to warm a pew. Their personal lives are too disparate from the spiritual life such that to me, there's no way for either to find common ground.
Post a Comment