And I totally agree about the architecture. It is certainly possible to have a vibrant, spiritual community in any structure, but that doesn’t mean that our worship space is unimportant, or should be “cheap.” Our little church in Wheaton, AllSouls, is in a little, unispiring “Baptist box,” (all we can afford in the crazy real estate market here) but our community, under our pastor’s leadership, has done a lot to transform that space, by carefully designing the space to integrate with worship, and through art (we have a 4′ wide crown of thorns that hovers over the altar, stations of the cross, and a contemporary painting by my friend Joel Sheesley in the narthex).

I realized on my own, introvert that I used to be, the seeming contradiction between spirituality and the incarnation (though I wouldn’t have used the word incarnation at the time) in high school as I struggled to decide on a major. Architecture was a very worldly pursuit it seemed. Maybe I should just work in youth ministry or at a Bible camp.

And even though we’re not shy to hire an architect to design our Christian places of assembly, we don’t do those spaces justice (either the architects or the building committees) when we create cheap, ugly, unenduring buildings that look like the mutant child of a warehouse and an office building.

I find it hard to decide what to believe when I know more than a few sides to many issues! Of course, some ideas are just plain creepy and I can easily, but mindfully, dismiss themt. Art has done so many things throughout history, from simply documenting history, to subverting it, to communicating physical and psychological and spiritual features of a time, to expressing the angst (or lack thereof) of an era, to simply conveying a personal message, to pushing technology out of laboratories… Too often the artists intent is attacked by an irrelevant critic – religion attacking secular art (like the whole book banning era), or the attacks on publicly funded art, generally from religious angles.

I think the dichotomy in art/faith is illustrated best by dualistic societies – usually the ‘west’. The segregation of the spiritual from our daily life is a bit bizarre as it creates the righteous entity that is religion and pits it against the quotidian, which includes art. We put aside Sunday to be absolved… well – some people do – and we pay and support churches to come across as good people, but during the week we’re free to rob banks and cheat people…

OK – my initial plan was to keep this short… but it’s very difficult as I enjoy so much this thought process and conversation – or, maybe I am self absorbed and just like to see my own words!! ? Take it easy!
Andrew

I also agree that transcendence can be achieved through an examination of our pain and anguish, or “brokenness” as I find it often referred to in theological circles. Image journal had an issue devoted to this last year (I think last year) that was pretty good.

One of those dichotomies you have pointed to (rightly) as physical (science) v metaphysical (shall we say, spiritual? religious?). This is certainly a dichotomy that it supported in Western culture–(I recognize the limitations of using such a sweeping term)–today, and probably tracks back to the Enlightenment, but I think it is a false dichotomy (another both/and statement, I suppose). Here I would agree with you that both sides are both “right” and “wrong.” I would like to think, as you do, that equilibrium will balance these sides. I think it would on its own, but I’m concerned with our meddling (myself included).

I love this statement you made: “Interestingly (to me) sometimes in art, imbalance (visual) is often more balanced than symmetry and it’s usual corresponding balance… that’s why ugliness can be so beautiful and beauty so ugly or tragic.” Man, I think you hit that right on the head. Even in design theory, asymmetrical balance is generally held in higher regard than symmetrical balance. You need the tension.