Last month I provided lots of meaty facts and figures to support the design of worship space. In many ways, however, I feel that I put the cart before the horse — for the place to begin in this discussion of worship space is not by asking how much, but rather what kind?
We are experiencing a colossal evolution in the interpretation of sacred gathering space, and therefore it is essential to explore the alternatives and how they came to be and acknowledge the gains and losses of each.
Above all, it is a theological question. Do we wish to gather in a formal worship environment — likely a traditional center-aisle space, with fixed pews? Perhaps there are accompanying parallel rows of seating, emulating the pilgrimage of early church-goers. Or even apse areas, resulting in a cruciform plan. Such configurations are not only formalistic but they also typically reinforce the sacred meaning of the space. The focus is on a frontal center axis and the pastor speaks from a fixed location. God’s Word is central, and its teachings flow through an authoritative channel between the pulpit and one’s seat. There are no other distractions, no interaction between fellow worshippers and no movement by the pastor.
The only exception within our Baptist tradition may be a reference to the Catholic response following Vatican II, in which we find a forward thrusting of the chancel. In that case, the pastor and the congregation become somewhat more engaged with one another. So the conclusion here is that this is a rather static, time-worn yet time-proven arrangement. We all grew up in such worship environments and were enveloped by a sense of the sacred.
At the other end of the spectrum is the concept of koinonia, meaning not only fellowship, but an intense form of fellowship. We find, as a conscious theological expression, greater interaction between pastor and congregation, and among the congregation itself. Emphasis is placed upon the concept of gathered community, partially circling the pastor and therefore more connected with one another. New Testament Christianity, solidly built upon the principle of relationships, is lived out. Movement is a key parameter in koinonia-style arrangements. Each occurrence at each place has a worshipful intent. Contemporary is a simple description of this type of arrangement, but that is a rather shallow description for it is much more than that. It is a commitment to actively engage the congregation, to incorporate varying expressions of our faith by creatively weaving the performing arts, etc., into worship, and to sensitively integrate technologies. And the flexibility that is associated with the koinonia model of worship space further contributes to imaginative expressions of worship.
But here is the rub. A formal worship environment preserves the sacred but it does not readily accommodate the needs and desires of 21st century worshiping communities. A koinonia-style worship space on the other hand is highly flexible, even progressive in its accommodations, but it does not preserve the sacred. To substantiate that last claim, let me simply say that there are two significant trends in the delivery of contemporary worship. Either it is orchestrated within space that was built during the 20th century and therefore becomes a rather forced, even seriously compromised delivery, or it occurs within a plain vanilla box.
Neither highly formal nor watered-down neutral space is the answer. We as congregations, and certainly as architects leading congregations in the design of their sacred place, must recognize that the answer is in creating inspiring, reverent places of worship that recall the sacred language of our Christian tradition. At the same time, it is imperative that these new (or modified) places of worship readily enable the contemporary ways that we preach, communicate, sing, perform and relate — all to glorify him in a holy place.
Jim DePasquale is a Richmond, Va., architect and member of Bon Air Baptist Church in Richmond. Questions may be sent to [email protected].