A beautiful church is not something that is only reserved for centuries-old mainline denominations, or congregations with resources to spare. Instead, a beautiful church can be a powerful witness to the community, connect us with the traditions of our ancient and sufficient faith, remind us of the beauty of God and his provision, and shape our spiritual formation week-in and week-out. Beauty in the church should not be an afterthought, but instead a key consideration as we design the spaces we worship our magnificent and glorious God in.

In the last few decades, American churches have gotten a new look—but don’t call it a facelift. Instead, think of it more as a toning-down, as church exteriors have ridden themselves of their steeples and other religious symbols, while their interiors can look more at home as a warehouse-turned-music-venue than a sacred space. American evangelical churches are increasingly taking on a more bare-bones and utilitarian look, often in order to save resources and better attract the unchurched. But is this bare-bones look really what churches should be aiming for? The history of church architecture, research, and our faith suggest otherwise, as beautiful sacred spaces provide powerful opportunities for witness and worship.
The History Of Church Architecture
The history of church architecture doesn’t quite align with Christian history, as churches got their start in homes, thanks to it being largely illegal or unpopular for much of its first few centuries. But once Emperor Theodosius made Christianity the state religion in 381, church architecture took off. Early churches took inspiration from Jewish and Roman architecture, though not their temples—neither Roman nor Jewish temples contained space for a gathering of people to worship, instead allowing only one or two people at a time to petition or offer up sacrifices. Instead, Christian churches mimicked Roman basilicas, which were large public spaces featuring aisles and halls that could fit a crowd.
As the centuries marched on, Christianity spread and had resources to spare, and its architecture became more cutting-edge and meticulously crafted. Churches were soon showing off building techniques that existed nowhere else, like adding a dome on top of a polygonal structure.
The Gothic architecture of the early second millennia continued this trend, as clergy, patrons and builders built taller and taller churches that seemed to reach towards the heavens. Gothic churches often featured cross-shaped floor plans and used lines of windows along the top of their walls to bounce light around and create a sense of mysticism and the Divine.
But with this greater architectural complexity also came greater separation of the public from the sacraments and the word of God. Later churches of the Middle Ages were sometimes made up of two rooms—one space would be for the public to sit in and engage in private devotion, while the other space would be for the clergy and the choir to recite Mass and partake in the sacraments. Often, the two rooms were separated by a screen, severely limiting the congregation’s ability to engage with and see the worship service.
These excesses, among other things, brought along the Reformation, which fundamentally reshaped church architecture. Protestant worship spaces were marked with an absence of saints, screens and iconography, instead preferring to minimize excess ornamentation and the distance between the clergy and their people. (Meanwhile, as a reaction to this split, Baroque-era Catholic churches only increased in decadence, at least for a time.)
Church Architecture in America
As Christianity entered the New World, its churches began to follow the architectural trends of its era, soon taking on the rational and restrained Neoclassical style in the age of Enlightenment. This eventually gave way to the Gothic Revival style, which celebrated the ‘high-church’ look as the Second Great Awakening was taking over the nation and seeding small country churches.
The 20th-century brought with it Victorian churches, Craftsman churches, and even Modernist churches, each demonstrating the architectural preferences of its time. But throughout each of these movements and trends, many things remained the same about American churches—almost all featured steeples, sloped roofs, exterior ornamentation and an overall attention to beauty, even if the buildings now look dated to our 21st-century eyes. But as the midcentury came and went, church architecture underwent a massive shift—suddenly, it was no longer in vogue to look like a church anymore.
Architectural Evangelism
American Christianity in the mid 20th-century was marked by revivalists like Billy Graham and Oral Roberts, bringing people to Christ one soul at a time. But in the ‘70s and ‘80s, the mainstream approach to evangelism changed, as church leaders wanted people to not only be saved, but to enter church life too. Thus the church-growth movement began, which focused more on drawing people into a church and focused less on going out into the community and holding large evangelistic events. And one of the ways churches sought to attract people into them was through architecture—or rather, a lack of it.
The theory was that a church building that looked more like it belonged in a strip mall or shopping center would be more accessible to those from unchurched backgrounds and it wouldn’t carry any of the visual baggage a traditional-looking church might. This approach is called ‘architectural evangelism.’ These types of ‘seeker-friendly’ churches are a dime-a-dozen now, but they can be defined by their use of low-cost materials, their repurposing or repetition of secular spaces, like theaters, warehouses, or storefronts, their boxy shapes, and their use of few or no ecclesiological markers, such a steeple, stained glass, or a cross. (It’s also interesting to note that churches started to act more business-like throughout the 20th-century and needed office spaces for additional staff—perhaps another reason for the move towards strip-mall and office-park-esque churches.)
Read More
Related Posts:

The lie of “born this way” has been used to justify exposing children to sexual material and teaching them about gender ideology at ever-younger ages. Coaston handwaves away these influences, even as she writes about the increase in LGBTQ identification that shows that they are succeeding in recruiting children into rainbow identities.

The LGBTQ movement was built on a lie, and New York Times writer Jane Coaston is irate that people are noticing. She professes to be concerned by a “very strange complaint from some critics. L.G.B.T.Q. people are OK in theory, they seem to argue, but there are simply too many of them.”
Of course, the point is that the sudden exponential increase in self-proclaimed rainbow identities shows that the mantra of “born this way” is a lie. It is now obvious that LGBTQ identities are being spread by social contagion, which means they are not all innate, immutable, and essential aspects of a person’s authentic self.
Though it was not widely publicized, the search for a “gay gene” ended in failure a few years ago. Rather than crude genetic determinism, the development of our sexual desires is complex and often fluid, with environmental and social factors playing crucial roles. The reality of human sexuality is far more complicated than “born this way.”
There is no objective test to determine whether someone is transgender.
Read More
Related Posts:

All people—regardless of gender, ethnicity, culture, or time—are part of the “culture of humanity.” We all share similar physiological, biological, and emotional characteristics such that when music expresses emotion on that level, its meaning is universal. Christians must not fall into the trap of ignoring or even denying universal meaning in music because there are many different kinds of emotion, and not all of them are appropriate for expressing biblical truth or worshiping God.

Meaning in music is a tricky thing.
Most people think it’s tricky because music is so abstract and lacks specificity such that describing its meaning with words is nearly impossible. On the contrary, meaning in music is tricky for exactly the opposite reason.
As Felix Mendelssohn once noted, “What music expresses its not too indefinite to put into words; on the contrary, it is too definite.” In other words, we often have difficulty describing what music means with words because words lack the specificity that music has. Let me explain further.
Most people acknowledge that music, at its most basic level, expresses emotional content. However, articulating what that emotional content is can often be a challenge. Yet as Mendelssohn correctly observed, this is due to the fact that words often lack the nuance to accurately identify a particular emotion.
We often use single words to describe very different kinds of emotions. Let’s use “joy” as an example. We use that one word to describe what a sports fan feels when his team wins the game, what a father experiences while playing with his children, and what a cancer patient feels when he learns that his cancer is gone. Yet these “feelings” are each quite different from each other internally, and they express themselves externally in often very different ways as well.
A sport’s fan’s “joy” usually expresses itself with exuberance, wild gestures, and yelling. A father’s “joy” is warm and peaceful. The cancer patient’s “joy” often results in tears. Each of these may rightly be called “joy,” but that word doesn’t quite capture the nuance of difference between them. Music doesn’t have that problem.
Unlike words, music is able to express nuanced emotional content. We think music is abstract because we can’t put it into words, but that’s not the fault of the music; it’s the words that are lacking.
Read More

Related Posts:

.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{align-content:start;}:where(.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap) > .wp-block-kadence-column{justify-content:start;}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{column-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-md, 2rem);row-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-md, 2rem);padding-top:var(–global-kb-spacing-sm, 1.5rem);padding-bottom:var(–global-kb-spacing-sm, 1.5rem);grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd{background-color:#dddddd;}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-layout-overlay{opacity:0.30;}@media all and (max-width: 1024px){.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}}@media all and (max-width: 767px){.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}}
.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col,.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col:before{border-top-left-radius:0px;border-top-right-radius:0px;border-bottom-right-radius:0px;border-bottom-left-radius:0px;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{column-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-sm, 1rem);}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col > .aligncenter{width:100%;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col:before{opacity:0.3;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18{position:relative;}@media all and (max-width: 1024px){.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}}@media all and (max-width: 767px){.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}}

Subscribe to Free “Top 10 Stories” Email
Get the top 10 stories from The Aquila Report in your inbox every Tuesday morning.