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:

Newton genuinely loved his people. And they knew that he loved them. He wouldn’t use the pulpit to clobber them, to share their secrets, or anything of the sort. But he was often among the people and heard their hearts. This would inform his preaching. When he picked a text he likely had a conversation in mind. He always aimed to help his congregation. His passion for Christ and his congregation bled out into the pulpit. He spoke their language.

John Newton was not that great of a preacher. Newton preached during the time of great orators like Whitefield, Wesley, Davies, Tennent, and many more. Those who heard Newton were sometimes surprised that he had such a full congregation. He was sincere, orthodox, pious, but he was not “graceful in delivery”. Richard Cecil, a fellow Anglican clergyman, said this:
With respect to his ministry, he appeared, perhaps, to least advantage in the pulpit; as he did not generally aim at accuracy in the composition of his sermons, nor at any address in the delivery of them. His utterance was far from clear, and his attitudes ungraceful.
So why, in an age when preaching was at a premium, was a middling orator like Newton pastoring a congregation filled with people? Cecil gives the answer:
He possessed, however, so much affection for his people, and zeal for their best interests, that the defect of his manner was of littler consideration with his constant hearers: at the same time, his capacity, and habit of entering into their trials and experience, gave the highest interest to his ministry among them.
Newton genuinely loved his people. And they knew that he loved them. He wouldn’t use the pulpit to clobber them, to share their secrets, or anything of the sort. But he was often among the people and heard their hearts. This would inform his preaching.
Read More

For numerous reasons it is my belief that now is not the time to leave the PCA, and I would encourage churches and teaching elders contemplating such action to stay and “fight the good fight.”  I would encourage more churches to become actively involved in both their presbyteries and at the General Assembly level. The ruling elders of our denomination have recently risen up and enabled us to have a greater voice for our conservative beliefs, and we must not retreat. 

Probably no one is more disappointed in the failure of Overture 15 than I am. Overture 15 would have codified the position that Side B homosexuals will not be allowed to be ordained as officers in the PCA. Last year, I predicted it would not pass the two-thirds threshold vote required of presbyteries, but until recently, I still maintained a small amount of hope.
How a statement so straight-forward and plain could fail is incomprehensible.  In days when perversion is becoming rampant in our society, we did not make a clear and unequivocal stand on this important issue. We failed to bear a good testimony to a generation living in darkness.
Like many of my brethren in the PCA, I must not only deal with disappointment but also with fatigue.  After fighting this battle for several years, I am tired and weary. Something in me just wants to give up, transfer to another denomination, or just become part of a local independent church. Some PCA churches undoubtedly will withdraw into their own local shell and isolate themselves, ignoring what goes on in the broader church.
I know that those who voted against the Overture will have well-developed and refined theological arguments for their vote.  I suspect that their consciences are clear.
However, one of my major concerns is perception. For example, I have heard others outside of the PCA interpret our action as opening the floodgate for homosexual preachers.  I do not think they understand all the nuances of the action, but regardless, this is how the PCA is now perceived in reformed and evangelical circles. At times, perception is everything.  This may not be everything in this case, but it is a major consideration.
I have dedicated much of my life to the PCA.  I am hurt because her character has been tarnished. It is akin to someone impugning the reputation of my own wife.
Yet, I am reminded of a few biblical passages that give me some encouragement.  “And let us not grow weary in well-doing, for we shall reap if we faint not” (Gal. 6:9).  For we have “not resisted to the point of shedding blood (Heb. 14:4).” Weariness is never a reason to give up the fight.  Weariness produces a temptation that must be resisted.
I am encouraged by several of things in the PCA.  First, it was heartening to me that even though the majority report of the Committee of Commissioners at the 49th General Assembly voted against the Overture, a minority report supporting the Overture was adopted by the Court.  According to the latest report at www.pcapolity.com, 45 presbyteries have now cast a positive vote for Overture 15, a majority of the total of 88 presbyteries, with 12 more still to vote.  I am also encouraged that a number of other overtures on this same issue will be forthcoming at the 50th General Assembly in Memphis. Greg Johnson and the Memorial Church have left the PCA.  This has promoted the peace and purity of our denomination.  There is an awareness among conservative presbyteries that we need to put more of our men on the GA Nominating Committee.  Thus, even with this defeat, overall, there are positive signs of hope.
Then too, I can always come home to my own Presbytery (Westminster) where we have already taken our stand on this issue. Only a judicial case against us could possibly change our minds, and I do not see that happening. In a document adopted by our Presbytery, (a document that does not rise to the level of our confessional standards), we have stated clearly that “men who identify as homosexual, even those who identify as homosexual and claim to practice celibacy in that self-identification, are disqualified from holding office in Westminster Presbytery of the Presbyterian Church in America.”  Any man who seeks to become a part of this Presbytery will be sent a document containing this statement, and told if he does not agree with it, then he need not apply for membership. He will not pass our examination. I would encourage other presbyteries to follow our example.
For numerous reasons it is my belief that now is not the time to leave the PCA, and I would encourage churches and teaching elders contemplating such action to stay and “fight the good fight.”  I would encourage more churches to become actively involved in both their presbyteries and at the General Assembly level. The ruling elders of our denomination have recently risen up and enabled us to have a greater voice for our conservative beliefs, and we must not retreat.
We are Presbyterians and we do believe that the church is connected by way of graded courts. We are not Congregationalists. We believe that our system of government is biblical, or so at least we took a vow declaring it to be so.  Every elder in the PCA has an obligation to participate in the work of the church at both the Presbytery and General Assembly level. To fail to do so, apart from providential reasons, is to fall short of our calling by God.
It is my personal conviction that Presbyterianism in America reflects modern consumerism more than it does the Bible or even the examples of our heroes of the past.  We are raised in a culture of a multitude of choices evident every time we go shopping.  We can buy a Chevrolet or a Ford. We are free to move from one state to another at our own discretion.  Sadly, this consumerism mentality has negated a right reading of the Scriptures and carried over into our “religious” choices.  American religiosity now allows us to move with ease from one church to another, and from one denomination to another any time we like. This is not to say that it may be necessary in some cases, but the choice is just too easy.
We recently celebrated the life of J. Gresham Machen, 100 years after he penned his landmark book “Christianity and Liberalism” in 1923.   However, little attention was given to the fact that he was suspended from the ministry by a Permanent Judicial Commission of New Brunswick Presbytery. He then appealed the matter to the Permanent Judicial Commission of the General Assembly and lost the appeal.  When under duress, he did not immediately transfer to another denomination, or walk down the street to form a “Continuing Presbyterian Church,” never to be heard from again.  He used every avenue available to him in the Church.  He stayed in his church for the duration of the fight.  Not only should he be a model for us theologically, but also ecclesiastically.
Machen’s day was a different era. Thoughts of transfer, starting a new denomination, or even quitting was never the first thing on their minds.  His fame was greatly enhanced because of his courage before the church courts, and thus he became the hero that he is today. Heroes are not created by disappearing into a fog of obscurity, but by being suspended from the ministry (defrocked) by your own Presbytery for unjust cause. Heroes are made by those who endure to the end.
So, how do we overcome our discouragement.  We rise to the occasion and fight on.  We do not succumb to temptation and flee when the opposition appears strong, but rather we choose the pathway of endurance, while praying for victory.
Larry E. Ball is a retired minister in the Presbyterian Church in America and is now a CPA. He lives in Kingsport, Tenn.
Related Posts: