Architectural Designs - What role does architecture play in religion?

What role does architecture play in religion?

I have often heard the theory that the domination of landscape by the imposing figure of church, mosque, or temple, solidifies the foundation of a religion; as a symbol of the concrete, an impressive structure fixes in the minds of the populace the displayed authority of religion. It is worth considering what form established religions might have taken if they were denied these structural bases. I am often reminded of those famous words that the Russian emissaries conveyed back to Moscow upon seeing Hagia Sophia in Constantinople: "We knew not whether we were in heaven or on earth, for there is no such place on earth, and we do not know how to describe it. We can only say that there, God dwells among men." A rather impressive appraisal, that. Religious structures, impressive in architectural design and rich in ornamentation, apparently fulfill a very human need when one considers the presence of an invisible being: they provide a tangible link with the unknowable, an idea that here is a holy place, a place distinct from every other place attended in a person's life, a place where one might feel a little closer to deity. This is an unusual thing, particularly when one considers Jesus's statement there would come the day when no one worshipped in any temple, but in their heart....perhaps Jesus did not reckon with the strong need people have to venerate, through architecture and ornamentation, the objects of their worship. At any rate, the architectural monuments of religion are an established, everyday fact for nearly every culture. What are your thoughts on the usefulness of such architecture in relation to religion? Are they truly necessary? Would religion survive without them, and, if so, in what form? What about those nature religions that do not worship in anything save the natural world? Do they hold equal place in the general esteem of mankind? Is the cathedral of nature every bit as impressive and sanctified as St. Peter's? Thank you for your thoughts on all of this.

Public Comments

they have some.
Astronomy compels the soul to look upwards and leads us from this world to another. Plato, The Republic (as quoted in Civilization IV) And so does architecture. I like this question. I think it's impossible to look at the Sagrada Familia in Barcelona and not turn slightly catholic.
I think you already covered pretty much every base there, and it made for damn good reading. Well said. I personally think great religious architecture is the result of strong belief, not the cause of it. After all, the Christopher Wren must have had his motivation beforehand. In turn, these great pieces of work inspire others to commit great acts- Whether for god or mankind. And as for the esteem of mankind, that's pretty damn misguided. I trust my own esteem far more than any democracy- You only gotta look at the stats of what American Teenagers believe to get that. -Shrikey
Paul says to think on whatever is good, true and beautiful..and Architecture is the queen of the arts. We have no choice in the matter, none at all. Either our buildings will enrich us or they will burden our souls. This is touched on in Plato's Republic. Religion is a response of people who are physical and spiritual. So a beautiful building that leaks is no good, And a sturdy but ugly building is even worse. For the poor and the sick and the afflicted I think a beautiful sumptuous ennobling Church (even expensive) is a work of charity. And I think Mexico bears me out. Those who want to scrimp on houses of worship seem no different than Judas : This perfume could have been sold for a high price, and the money could have been given to the poor." The poor will soon need more money and we should help as we can, but they really need hope and that's what a magnificent Cathedral is, hope of a better world and God's sustaining us in this world.
Well, when I first became born-again, I wasn't going to church but still growing and learning from God in many ways. I think alot of people would be disappointed without the formality, and might be depressed without the company (God created us for fellowship). But I think without the buildings, we'd know who's for real and who's not. To me, the buildings hold nothing, even the formality doesn't hold much. It could be in someone's house studying, or in the middle of a field. I'll worship God however and whatever it takes. I was never attracted to any aspect of the physical building of the church. In short, religion would not only survive without them (as I know I'm not the only one who feels this way), but I think we might be able to get a clearer picture of who really knows God and who is just blowing smoke. After all, in the 1st century, such church buildings weren't part of worship at all. They took Jesus pretty seriously...
Architects gotta get paid too. Why do bank robbers rob banks? That's where the money is.
Great Point! And, I would go as far as saying, I personally would rethink my belief (or lack of) if I saw a church that looked like a shack, yet had withstood destruction from countless winters and storms! That could at least be some impressive metaphoric evidence to support God! (“Surviving all storms . . . !”) But then, where would God have all his followers park their FINE, EXPENSIVE Cars on Sunday . . . in front of a SHACK? It wouldn’t work!
Physical structures, temples, mosques, cathedrals, whatever, are the superfluous ornate physical embodiment of religious seats of power intended to glean awe in a demonstration of might by the religious elite over the pitiful masses. Such "magnificent" buildings were necessary awe inspiring symbols of mankind's (*cough*) "god-given" strength: their gilded ornate details a reminder of vanity driven worship in a time when bland short-lived human existence prevailed. Given a choice between the Cistene Chapel, St. Peter's, St. Paul's, or the Köln cathedrals and a foggy fen in the early hours of the morning where the rising sun lulls the noisy crickets to sleep while waking the ravenous dragon fly, I know what my choice of spiritual setting will be.
It is not a phenomenon unique to religion. Architecture, especially the tallest, has been used as an expression of power. Many structures were aout both religion and state, including the pyramids, the Parthenon, and the Pantheon. Many buildings from early palaces to the Sears Tower are expressions of secular power.
The idea of the Mass is that it is to be a representation of heaven on Earth, and if we familiarize ourselves with the Book of Revelation before attending one, we can understand that better. The main idea of Christian worship (at least how it's taught in my denomination) is that we are to glorify God for what He has given us by offering up praise and thanksgiving etc during a service (which, of course, translates in daily life as living in the way we are commanded to live). That idea is present in every single ritual. We believe that God has given us the power to get wealth, so we are to give to His cause and make offerings, to help the poor, the sick. One idea behind the liturgy (which is mostly composed of various Psalms, Old and New Testament canticles, and other bits of Scripture) is that God gave us His Word out of love, and we are to echo it back to Him out of love. When a priest or pastor is facing the congregation, it's symbolic of what God has given us. When he turns his back and faces the altar, it's symbolic of what we are to offer back to God. So if the idea of being given and giving back is present everywhere else, it soon follows that it would have an effect on the architecture of a parish. But Christianity can survive without elaborate art and architecture, of course, because Christian worship revolves around the idea of showing gratitude by giving back, rather than revolving around ornamentation and high ceilings. The latter is a result of the former. Art and architecture adds to the experience and serves a purpose, but if Christianity can flourish in dark and dingy catacombs, it can flourish anywhere. As for nature, I feel closest to God when I'm in one of two places. I just described one, and the other is in nature, when I'm out trekking through the woods somewhere. Of course nature may be equally impressive, but to compare it to a cathedral is like comparing apples and oranges. One reminds me of what God has given to us, and the other reminds me of what we are to give back to God. One reminds me of the beauty of the present physical world, the other reminds me of the beauty of the world to come. If you click the link below, you'll find the general layout that's supposed to be followed by liturgical churches (the choir's section is here, the narthex is there, the altar is such and such distance from the candles, etc). I'm having trouble finding it, but I know it's on the site somewhere. http://www.llpb.us/
It is a way to say that by "The power of God" we were able to build such great glorious monuments to reveal the glory of God.