Twenty-First Century Cathedral Evangelicals

As an all too often solitary dissenting voice in the "church buildings are just rain shelters" evangelical wilderness (for a while I once described my religious affiliation on Facebook as "Cathedral Calvinist"!) I found the following video inspiring (HT: the Internet Monk). In an era when evangelical Christianity is just about synonymous with megachurch-inspired "worshiptainment" here is a group of 21st Century evangelical Christians (in Nashville of all places which would have a good claim to being the spiritual home of evangelical worshiptainment!) building a great cathedral-like structure for worship to the glory of God -- an act so outré as to be be a near heresy in today's evangelicalism.

A common catch-cry among many evangelicals, including those in my own denomination of Anglicanism -- particularly those from my home Diocese of Sydney, not least of whom the current Dean Phillip Jensen -- is that "church buildings are just rain shelters" (or words to that effect). Now Phillip Jensen has his detractors but as someone who has benefited immensely from his ministry I certainly wouldn't want to class myself as one. The man is a very gifted evangelist, preacher and expounder of the Word and his ministry proved immensely influential in my undergraduate student days when I was a young Christian. I thank God for the work of Phillip Jensen and feel privileged to count him as a brother in Christ. And, moreover, I am in many respects deeply grateful that a man of his spiritual gifting has been appointed Dean of an influential cathedral in world Anglicanism (much like John Donne was of St Paul's in London from 1621 to 1631). Would that more cathedrals across the Anglican Communion had faithful evangelists and preachers of this calibre in their pulpits (and available to evangelise and disciple the myriads of spiritually blind or confused tourists who pass through their doors). But although no detractor of the man, I am certainly no "fanboy" either (although to put this in context I wouldn't really consider myself a "fanboy" of any particular preacher, church leader etc -- cf 1 Corinthians 3:1-9). I have my points of disagreement with Phillip Jensen and his stated views on church buildings being nothing more than "rain shelters" is one of them.

Of course no doubt arguments could be made about what exactly he and others like him mean by such a statement and that's certainly a fair point to raise. A statement like that can certainly be seen as a kind of "shorthand" for a broader, more nuanced view. And I would certainly agree with many of the sentiments behind such a statement. The New Testament does not have anything to say on church buildings (although that in itself doesn't settle the matter; a full theological response would also need to consider what the Old Testament has said on the matter). In the greater scheme of things I think it is fairly safe for us to conclude that church buildings are not what is important. Good Protestants will know that theologically speaking "the church" is not a building but the people. It's quite clear that a nice building (or even any building) is neither necessary nor sufficient for true worship to take place. False worship can take place in a grand building and true worship can take place in a humble building, a tent or even in the open air. Moreover, after his resurrection and before his ascension, Jesus explicitly gave the following command to his disciples:

All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age. (Matthew 28:18-20)

I think the clear implication from this passage is that priority should clearly be given to evangelism and discipleship. Again, the church is not "about" buildings but evangelism and discipleship. But it is a mistake to take the reductionist path and conclude from this that all the church is to do is evangelise and disciple. Important as these tasks are, that's not all we are to do. Priority? Yes. Sufficiency? No. I would hate to think that a group of Christians' commitment to building a new cathedral-like structure complete with pipe organ and interior decoration would come at the expense of discipleship and evangelism. Building these kinds of structures is not (ultimately) what the church is "about". And indeed such a criticism would be a typical response from many evangelicals: "Think of how all that money could be spent on Bibles and missions" &c. Agreed. But while you're at it think about how all that money you spend on modern auditoriums complete with child care centres, coffee shops, bookshops (if people still read books in this "visual" age as we are so often told -- they probably prefer to buy CDs and DVDs), professional sound and lighting system, digital projection, expensive musical instruments such as keyboards, electric guitars, drum kits etc etc could be spent on "Bibles and missions". Physician, heal thyself! For the most part evangelical arguments against cathedral-like trappings because the money could be "better spent" elsewhere are pure cant. I've heard them all before. For instance when asking the rector and parish council at my home church (an Anglican church which runs a range of Sunday services from traditional "robes and prayer book" with organ and occasional volunteer choir in a 19th century traditional sandstone church building to "contemporary" services with LCD projection, band and "worship song leader" meeting in a decidedly modern "ministry centre") whether it would be possible to replace our rather humble electric organ in the church building with a proper pipe organ I was given exactly this kind of response -- which on one level is fair enough. I agree that in the greater scheme of things evangelism and discipleship are more important than pipe organs and nice proper choir robes etc. And yet the same people seem to have no pangs of conscience spending money on laptops and LCD projectors, (because liturgy and hymns from a book are so passé daahlings), electronic keyboards (you know, because an electric organ manual is unfit for modern fingers), microphones (choirs, the unamplified human voice or even the congregation singing without prompting from people who refuse to sing in anything but chest voice are so outmoded that we now need a wannabe Australian Idol "leading the worship singing"), amps (so that the instruments and the "worship song leader" can drown out the congregation's worship singing), mixing desks (do I have to give a reason? I'm sure you get the idea by now) and all the other paraphernalia of modern day worshiptainment evangelicalism. Again, I say, Physician, heal thyself. Modern day Western evangelicals should be the last of all people to point the finger at Christians of a prior age or those more traditionally minded Christians today who would spend money on things like cathedrals, organs, and choirs when they themselves have no compunction about spending it on a whole host of more modern (and arguably less beautiful -- although I realise this a point of contention) equivalents.

I agree 100% (and more if that were possible!) with the view that the church should prioritise evangelism and discipleship over buildings, organs, choirs etc. I'm a committed evangelical on this basic point. Forced to make a choice, I'll take a church that faithfully evangelises and disciples and yet worships in a tent with God's people singing God's praises to a single strummed unamplified guitar (or for that matter a church that does so in a modern auditorium, with LCD projector, amplified electric music "led" by a I-don't-know-what-head-voice-is Australian Idol wannabe) over beautifully ornate and moving liturgical cathedral worship with a professional director of music, professional organists and professional choristers but which doesn't take evangelism and discipleship seriously, thank you very much. But I hope you see that such a dichotomy is not -- inherently at least -- necessary. To insist that such a choice is inherently necessary is to engage in a false dichotomy -- and a flaw of much modern day evangelicalism (particularly of the Western Anglican variety given its wonderful liturgical and musical heritage and the utter disdain in which it is held by most modern Anglican evangelicals). Sadly, however, for most modern evangelicals the dichotomy is all too real. Far too many evangelicals adopt a mantra akin to the bastardised version of Animalism: "four legs good, two legs bad". Translated into modern day evangelicalese we get "non-churchy auditorium, amplified band and soloist "worship leader", LCD projector, minister wearing casual clothes etc": good; "traditional church building, organ/ensemble and choir, printed liturgy and hymn books, robed minister etc": bad.

And another thing on which I agree 100% (or more if that were again possible) is that there are plenty of people in churches (especially in Anglican churches) whose thinking is in need of some serious correction about the priority of evangelism and discipleship over cathedrals, organs and choirs etc. As a professional church musician (of the traditional Anglican choral kind -- as both an evangelical Anglican and a traditional church musician I inhabit two very different Anglican worlds) I know plenty of people like this. Many of these people are dedicated churchgoers but a good number of them probably are not even converted (although ultimately that kind of judgement is not for me to make). So yes, there are many people in Anglican churches who idolise church architecture, organs, choirs etc and also for whom evangelism and discipleship are not a priority. This needs to change. And to such people I might provocatively say something like a church building is a "rain shelter". Why? Because (a) it is (first and foremost church buildings are functional and let us never forget that important truth) and (b) they probably need to hear this message. In their love of traditional church architecture and choral music they have lost sight of what the church is about (or at least a VERY important and substantial part of what it's about).

But a "rain shelter" (I would submit) is not all a church building is. This kind of reductionism does a great disservice to our God who is to be glorified in all that we do. While church buildings are primarily functional, that is not all they are (or can be). Granted, there is nothing in the Bible that requires us to own or even use a church building. We are free to proclaim the word, administer the sacraments and sing God's praises etc in the open air (in fact I have done so -- and joyfully so -- both with my current church in Oxford which every year conducts an open air baptism service in/by the River Thames and also with one of the chapel choirs I have sung with in Oxford which every Ascension Day takes part in an open air service of worship) or in rented premises such as a school hall or gymnasium. When done in spirit and truth such worship is pleasing to God. Whether or not we meet in a building, or if we do what kind of building we meet in (eg a "dedicated" church building or another kind of building such as a school hall), is not ultimately what counts. But -- and this is a big but -- it is a mistake to take the reductionist path and then say that Christians shouldn't build grand cathedrals or beautiful church buildings etc. Scripture plainly tells us "So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God" (1 Corinthians 10:31). I take it that that applies to the act of building church buildings as well. So Christians, if you are going to build a church building (and you don't have to) then make sure you do so to the glory of God (or clory of Cod to amateur choristers :-Þ ).

Now of course what exactly a church building that is built "to the glory of God" (and public worship that is conducted to the glory of God) will look like will depend on a lot of factors. You can't take a one size fits all approach here. In some circumstances meeting in someone's house with music sung to a single strummed guitar will be the most glorifying option. In another it may be building a cathedral and conducting public worship with all the attendant trappings. And again I think most modern day evangelicals err here by taking a one-size-fits-all approach in suggesting that the auditorium/amplified band/"worship leader" model of church is the way to do it. At the very least I think building church buildings and conducting public worship to the glory of God certainly can include a cathedral-like structure and cathedral-style worship -- so modern evangelicals are wrong to criticise Christians (whether of the past or the present) for building them and engaging in this style of public worship. But I would be inclined to go a step further and argue that it can also do so to the exclusion of other kinds of buildings (and styles of public worship). Given that our God is a God of majesty, awe, beauty etc I think that has something to say about the kinds of church buildings we are to build (assuming of course we do choose to build them -- and before you ask: no, I don't believe that God "lives" in our church buildings) and the style of public worship we conduct. Other things being equal I think that a grand cathedral filled with dulcet polyphonous tones is a better testament to the character of our God than a bland megachurch auditorium filled with amplified monophony. In saying this am I implying that it's somehow "wrong" for Christians to build a megachurch auditorium and conduct public worship in the manner I have just described? No, not really. Not "wrong" per se. But not necessarily "right" either.

Now at this point I can imagine a lot of people reading this blog thinking something along the lines of "well he would say that, wouldn't he? He's just some high-falutin' liturgy-loving chorister stuck in a modern-day evangelical shell." Well, that's inescapably true. There is a degree of personal taste in all of this and that's inescapable. No-one comes to this topic as a purely neutral participant. We all have tastes and preferences and I would be the first to admit that. But if you're going to make this kind of criticism of me then again I would remind people of the proverb "Physician heal thyself". You should equally admit that it applies to you just as much as it does to me. Your desire for "informal" mini megachurch style worship is just as much (if not more so) a matter of personal taste and not necessarily the missiologically-driven (or even driven out of a concern for God's greater glory) thing you claim it to be.

For all the "natural critics" of "cathedral evangelicalism" out there I would encourage you to ponder the words of the Internet Monk. He is very much one of you (his background is classic American evangelicalism -- from the revivalist strand of the Southern Baptists) and yet on reflection thinks there is a place for this. He doesn't see it as by any means normative (and nor do I really -- most churches probably don't have the gifting or financial resources to make this kind of undertaking work; if you're going to do it then be sure to do it well -- unison congregational singing to a single strummed guitar done well is far better than polyphonic "cathedral music" done poorly) but nevertheless sees it as appropriate in certain circumstances. Listen to what he says:

Covenant Presbyterian Church in Nashville is a new church (1990) with an incredible worship center [sic].

Jesus didn’t build cathedrals – or impressive temples – on earth. The New Covenant is explicit: the old temple worship and ALL its externals are gone.

I don’t believe God wants most churches to build cathedrals to worship in. Most churches, as I see the cross cultural church planting task, should consider whether they even need a building, at least for a very long time. There’s a lot of reasons not to do this.

The resources spent on a Gothic Cathedral like this are mind-boggling. The economics of Jesus seem plain enough. The commitment to upkeep is massive. Such expenditures could fund missionary church planting efforts of monumental significance, print millions of Bibles, eradicate vast hordes of poverty and revolutionize the mission of the church in many places. (I have no idea what CPC’s resulting commitment to missions is, by the way, and I’d like to know. [Ed: To which I, Apodeictic, would add a hearty 'Amen'.])

But I have changed my mind a bit on this subject, so stand by and take notes if you are tracking my inconsistencies.

I think some churches – and CPC Nashville seems to be one of them – should build beautiful gothic cathedrals if they can.

You see, God gifts us creatively and artistically. He gives some people the means and the gifts to express art to the glory of God in ways few others can.

In music. In stained glass. In architecture. In construction. In design and in the resulting worship and liturgy.

Some churches need to release those gifts into the culture, so that a city can see a gothic cathedral and experience worship sacramentally (aha!) [Ed: for the background on this see the following two posts] in the glory of a physical worship center [sic] and all that can happen there. Some churches. Not all.

[Emphasis in original]

Personally, I think the Internet Monk has hit the nail right on the head. In modern evangelicalism's one-size-fits-all approach which effectively dictates that in our style of public worship we must all be the teen fellowship group that refuses to grow up and that in our design of church buildings we must all be megachurches (whether actual megachurches or megachurches in miniature) we are not witnessing to the glory of God -- and indeed the gospel -- as much as we could be. Believe it or not, there are plenty of people in this day and age who would never in a million years attend your typical evangelical church service (and I know oodles of them) but who would attend a traditional "cathedral" style of service (done well of course). In saying that I am suggesting that these people are not put off not so much by the message (and of course Scripture teaches us that a non-believing world does take offence at the gospel message) but by the "packaging" of modern day evangelicalism. Many modern day evangelicals are quick to suggest that non-believers don't "connect" with traditional church buildings and forms of Christian worship. Well, guess what? That kind of criticism applies equally to your preferred style of church too! Building a grand cathedral and conducting public worship in a manner befitting that kind of building can be a powerful witness to the glory of God -- and indeed the gospel of salvation -- before an unbelieving world. If God has given the people of Covenant Presbyterian Church in Nashville the gifts and the resources to do this then they should do so gladly and to the glory of the triune God -- all the while evangelising and discipling the people of their community.

Now this of course raises some uncomfortable questions for the rest of us: How are we using the resources and gifts which is God has given us? Is God calling us to something bigger and better than what we are currently doing? In my own church circles I can think of ways in which we could adopt the same kind of attitude as CPC Nashville (although not necessarily leading to the same result) for the better. I'm most certainly not saying that we should bulldoze all the modern auditoriums and replace them with grand cathedrals or get rid of all the "informal" styles of service and go back to everyone doing a very "traditional" form of Anglican worship (which is all too often done very poorly IMHO). What I am saying is that Anglican evangelicals really need to re-examine what they're doing in light of a concern for God's glory in everything we do and the gifts and resources he has so richly bestowed upon us. For the most part, we Anglicans already have the buildings -- unlike CPC in Nashville we don't need to go out and build them from scratch. But how are we using what we already have? Are we really glorifying God by simply running generic megachurch-style services in them? All too often evangelical Anglican churches have either completely abandoned traditional forms of worship or only retain them begrudgingly as a favour to the older generations who can't relate to more "modern" forms and will probably abandon them completely once the older generation is no longer with us. In a lot of modern day evangelical "Anglican" services there is virtually nothing identifiably Anglican at all. I can think of a number of churches (my own included) which should probably be doing a lot more with what they've been given. Every time we want to "plant" a new congregation we automatically assume it has to be of the bland generic modern evangelical style. But why? Why are evangelical Anglican churches trying so hard to be de facto non-conformists (and decidedly modern non-conformists at that) in everything they do? (In saying that I am not disparaging non-conformity; my criticism is against Anglicans who take the name Anglican but then refuse to be Anglican in any meaningful sense of the word; I welcome my non-conformist brothers and sisters as full members of the Church of Christ and as full partners in the gospel; Anglican forms are not by any means essential.) Why can't we be evangelical and Anglican? As a trained chorister and someone committed to evangelism and discipleship one desire of mine would (God willing) be to plant an "evangelistic" service of choral evensong. In many areas there are lots of artsy people -- very much into classical music (and often with children) -- who are not themselves committed Christians but would be attracted to this style of worship if done well and who are not at all attracted to most modern evangelical forms of worship. You could get a professionally trained musician (who is a committed Christian and on board with the mission of the church plant) in to start up a choir with local kids and train them up to sing to a professional standard (this is not your average school or even church choir -- we're talking the standard of the best cathedral and Oxbridge college choirs). With the right people to train and conduct, this can be done. I know -- I experienced it as a boy chorister, albeit in a liberal and largely unbelieving environment. (It is my firm conviction that as evangelical Anglicans we should not be conceding this ground to the liberals and ritualists/tractarians. But sadly that is exactly what we evangelical Anglicans have done and are doing. Sydney aside, hearing a clear exposition of the gospel with a call to exercise faith and repentance is almost unheard of in any major Anglican cathedral in the Western world. Why? Well one reason -- among several no doubt -- is because evangelical Anglicans have retreated from a commitment to this style of Anglicanism. Simply put, they either don't see the value in it or if they do they are unable to engage with it because it is completely foreign to them.) Anyway, once you've got the choir together, get some committed Christians (ideally with kids if you're going to have the kids of non-believers in the choir) to commit to the service as well, and preach the gospel and teach the Scriptures faithfully to the non-believing parents of the children in the choir and other non-believers who come along for the music and /or the atmosphere. It wouldn't have to be a Sunday service; in fact I think a day other than Sunday would be better (perhaps early Saturday evening would be ideal). As an early evening service you could have a regular fellowship meal afterwards. That way friendships would be formed which would of course facilitate the sharing of the gospel. And of course you would also run evangelistic and discipleship courses outside of the regular service (such as Christianity Explored and later on perhaps more detailed courses based on the theology of the liturgy that is being sung) for the congregants as well. Good liturgy and good music can be used in the service of evangelism and discipleship and (it should go without saying) to the glory of God. So why aren't we doing it, people?