[Hat tip: T19]
I am so not surprised.
The findings come from a recent survey conducted by LifeWay Research for the Cornerstone Knowledge Network (CKN), a group of church-focused facilities development firms. The online survey included 1,684 unchurched adults – defined as those who had not attended a church, mosque or synagogue in the past six months except for religious holidays or special events.
“Despite billions being spent on church buildings, there was an overall decline in church attendance in the 1990s,” according to Jim Couchenour, director of marketing and ministry services for Cogun, Inc., a founding member of CKN. “This led CKN to ask, ‘As church builders what can we do to help church leaders be more intentional about reaching people who don’t go to church?’”
When given an assortment of four photos of church exteriors and given 100 “preference points” to allocate between them, the unchurched used an average of 47.7 points on the most traditional and Gothic options. The three other options ranged from an average of 18.5 points to 15.9 points.
“We may have been designing buildings based on what we think the unchurched would prefer,” Couchenour concluded. “While multi-use space is the most efficient, we need to ask, ‘Are there ways to dress up that big rectangular box in ways that would be more appealing to the unchurched?’”
“Quite honestly, this research surprised us,” said Ed Stetzer, director of LifeWay Research and LifeWay Christian Resource’s missiologist in residence. “We expected they’d choose the more contemporary options, but they were clearly more drawn to the aesthetics of the Gothic building than the run-of-the-mill, modern church building.”
Stetzer suggested that the unchurched may prefer the more aesthetically pleasing look of the Gothic cathedral because it speaks to a connectedness to the past. Young unchurched people were particularly drawn to the Gothic look. Those between the ages of 25 to 34 used an average of 58.9 of their preference points on the more ornate church exterior. Those over the age of 70 only used an average of 32.9 of their 100 preference points on that particular church exterior.
I am not surprised either. Gothic churches ask us to look to something beyond us and greater than us, they ask us to aspire and hope.
On T19 I noted a ‘duh…but as I re-read the article, this jumped out at me:
Those over the age of 70 only used an average of 32.9 of their 100 preference points on that particular church exterior.
16 years ago (the early 1990’s) this age group was controling the decision making on how to build a new church. I’ll bet they didn’t like the Gothic look then either.
Well this is the same group that in the Roman Catholic church is pushing Gregorian music over the ‘happy clappy’ music favoured by their elders.
Speaking as one of those worshipping in a contemporary space it would be helpful to add a bit to the study ... really, how many of these people will actually show up at a building to worship anytime soon no matter how it looks? And if they have tied worship, religion, Jesus, and all the rest to a building, aren’t they missing something here? The study would tell me something useful if it asked people who had not been attending for a long time but just started to attend a church what it was that attracted them to it. Otherwise what is this study actually telling us?
I don’t think anyone comes to my church because of how it looks ... they come because in this place people’s lives are changed and they hear good news and they find a way to serve and look beyond themselves. Must be working ... over the last ten years since we started we have lead the Diocese of Virginia in adult baptisms more years than not. When we invite people to join us for worship maybe they come not because they’re looking for a building in a particular style but they’re longing for a relationship with someone bigger than themselves.
Having served for years before now in a couple of those big, fancy, national register of historic places kinds of buildings, it’s actually refreshing to be in a place where people don’t come so much to be seen as to find what they’ve been looking for ... Jesus. Seems to me the proof is in the goal of bringing people into that relationship, and that’s not something the study speaks to in any real way.
It certainly doesn’t surprise me that the unchurched would react instinctively to the intrinsic beauty of Gothic architecture as compared to the bland, contemporary, cost-driven designs that are common with modern churches.
However, one could easily draw the wrong conclusion from this article. There is no denying that many, perhaps most, of the churches that are most successful in bringing the unchurched into the Christian community are doing so in relatively cheaply built contemporary facilities with coffee, donuts and bagels served in the morning outside the sanctuary, and exposed speakers in an auditorium style sanctuary. I attended one a few weeks ago while traveling, and was amazed at what I saw. Located in a sophisticated, liberal City known for abysmal church attendance, this Church was being used by God in a mighty way to bring in people I would have never expected to see in church. The message was solidly orthodox, just delivered in a much more contemporary and multi-media way. If I lived in that town, I would probably join that Church, because my personal music and architectural preferences are subordinate to my desire to be part of a parish that is helping to bring new souls to Christ.
Having been involved in building campaigns, I know that the metal framed commercial box architecture you see in many auditorium style churches is generally much less expensive, on a per person basis, than the construction of a gothic revival style building. Classical long rectangular, or cruciform, designs also derive from a period where there was no powered sound, and the acoustics thus differ. The founding pastor of the contemporary church I visited expected a more sophisticated, and expensive sanctuary to be built at a later date. However, this was obviously less important to him than building what he could at this stage to accommodate his growing flock. While the design of his current auditorium may not have reached to the heavens with the magnificence of a medieval cathedral, the Lord was nevertheless glorified in the worship service I attended. I have to believe that God was much more pleased with what is going on at this church than the classically designed, half empty Episcopal Cathedral five miles away.
We need an initiative that melds the best elements of classical church architecture into a model that accommodates a young, growing evangelical church.
I recently accompanied a niece and her best friend on an urban walking tour. Both are from an independent evangelical church with contemporary music and a modern building. The best friend had a particular interest in visiting “a church that really looks like a church.” We found a large Gothic RC church. The friend found it breathtaking and remarked about how wonderful it would be to worship in such a place.
My church in Iowa was admittedly ugly. It was a converted ranch-style home (which thankfully now has an old clapbord chapel added on so that the ugly building is a more fitting education wing). It looked like a rather boring, unattractive 60’s era home with a giant cross tacked onto the street-front.
But I never realized how that effected non-Christians until a friend of mine (both of us being in our early early twenties at the time), not knowing that was my church, made the following comment as we walked by it: “I’m glad that’s not my church. It’s so ugly.”
Has it occurred to folks that if non-Christians find our “old” gothic buildings more attractive, the same might also hold true for our “old” traditional worship??
Given the title of the article, I am not surprised that people who are unchurched prefer buildings that look like what they expect them to look like. Crazy idea, yes, things looking like what they are. What a novel concept.
As one of the founding members of St. Timothy’s Anglican, Tomball, TX, the timing of this could not be better. We’ll be looking to acquire land and bild sometime soon and anyhting we can do (short of adulterating the Message) to attract our lost Brothers is something we will want to consider.
Oh, to be free at last ...
I belong to a traditional parish in every sense including the style of our building which is based on something our rector saw while in England. I take issue with the idea that the style of a church doesnt matter. In my home church, everything is of a piece. Our building speaks the kind of church we are to someone looking at it from the street. The design of the interior is not only rich in symbolism, it is also beautiful, with great big clear windows that lets in the beauty of God’s creation and rich colors for the altar balancing a simple reliance on white paint, wood and stone for all the rest. I have at times simply walked in there and have felt my stress and disquiet melt away in that clean and peaceful space before a single note from the organ or a word from my lips.
I guess because I am a Anglo-Catholic, it makes perfect sense to me that the design of a church would make a difference to some people. I may be wrong about this, but I think that for ACs “matter matters” as my priest likes to say. We have, i think, a special insistence that matter not be relegated to the inconsequential. It might be a strong memory of actually fighting some of the earliest heresies stored in the DNA of our tradition that causes us to be extra vigilant against any kind of Gnostic rejection of matter as unimportant. It is important. All Christians should be wary of dismissing matter in any degree and if they do so they ought to do so carefully and thoughfully so as not to make the same mistake in any degree that the Gnostics made. It is just such a continuing danger and temptation to our faith.
Wilkie, “I feel your pain”. You will soon be facing the reality of current construction costs and design compromises! This is a whole different world than the incremental expansion that most of us addressed when we attended old historic church structures.
There are no easy choices; an dollar spent in one place means a dollar less in another. For example, research shows that children and youth facilities are a huge driver for young people looking for a church. Security is also a much bigger factor than it used to be, and impacts design. On the other end of the spectrum, our aging population requires us to create easy access to worship, seating and classroom environments. Do we take our youth gathering area to create another adult classroom? Do we combine 2nd and 3rd grade SS rooms? Anyone building a church today also needs to build a structure with excellent visual and audio properties and capabilities.
Finally, we want to do all this with classically inspired beautiful architectural design. Tough!
With a blank slate also come opportunities, of course. My best, experience driven advice is to through out pre-conditions at the front end. Sit down and look at the vision that God is giving you for a church 50, 30 and 10 years from now. Start with a master plan that would accommodate the 50 year goal, and work toward the present.
Ironically, there’s this story from France where costs of maintaining old church buildings is forcing communities to tear them down. And note what this mayor thinks the people want:
The crumbling current church “has 1,000 seats. It’s five times too big for the congregation that usually comes,” said the mayor. “People prefer a more modern church, that’s more cheerful and warm, instead of a huge one where they get lost in all the space.”
Not surprising results…gothic cathedrals, with their soaring vaulted ceilings and stuff were supposed to leave folk awed and moved by the power and glory of God…sounds like they might still have that effect.
One other aspect to this is what happens as the buildings age. Gothic style buildings/worship spaces tend to age much more gracefully than do more contemporary ones.
Several observations:
Clearly, what is cheaper to build is, well, cheaper! I wonder what many of the modern proponents of utilitarianism in church design would have said about the expensive oil poured out on Jesus’s feet. Instead of “This could have been sold and given to the poor”, it might be something like “this could have paid for the new sound system” or perhaps “the youth could have used that for a trip”. I’m also reminded of OT temple construction; Beautiful, filled with only the best jewels and precious materials. God wanted the first and the best, not the last and what will do.
What would happen if the Lord got our first and best? What if our attitude was like that of King David, who was concerned that he lived in a palace while the Lord’s ark was in a tent? (at that time). Do we consider that when we think about that new house or the new car?
It’s not that I’m saying you always have to spend on property rather than ministry, but just that there are two ditches on this road. We need to consider beauty in worship as well as function. Christianity is not a Gnostic faith which denies the importance of the physical.
Another few observations:
Some people say that traditional beauty is not welcoming, that they feel afraid and “put off”. And yet we are drawn to it as well, as this survey suggests. Parallels may be seen not only in our worship spaces, but it also is a factor in our public behavior and our dress.
Consider what happens when a group of young people come into a restaurant after prom, with their lovely dresses and hair done just so. The guys have ditched their T-shirts and are wearing tuxes, just this one night for that special someone. What does everyone in the room do? They all turn around and think how beautiful these people are.
Even though people may not choose to dine at a fine restaurant, they know that McDonalds is second rate.
In the same way, the ideal of marriage to one person for life is often seen as unattainable or quaint, yet God calls us toward this and tells us that it is His standard.
I think one of the reasons why people feel both “put off” and drawn toward the beautiful woman, the gothic cathedral, the traditional worship, is the same reason why we are both attracted to and afraid of God’s holiness. Scripture reminds us that it is God’s very holiness that is His beauty; “Worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness”. Yet the holiness of God is a fearsome thing for us when we fail to remember the radient and winsome smile of Jesus, reflecting the light of God’s grace.
Capn Jack - I may be extrapolating too far from your thoughts, which I think are pithy observationis - but I wonder if building cheap ugly schools is at least a contributing factor to the educational slide. High school students in my hometown in my mother’s day had no doubt the value their community placed on education - it was expressed visually in the brick, columned high school their grandparents had built and their parents maintained.
Traditional churches do not have to be “huge.” Our English style stone church seats only 100, but its stained glass windows and pointed, lofted ceiling lends to the worship of a transcendent and holy God. All who visit, churched and unchurched, RC and Baptist, remark on the beauty of the worship space. They also comment on how “holy” the space feels. Altar facing east, the priest worshiping and praying WITH his congregation rather than looking down at them,traditional hymnody and language .... all part of our worship. And yes, some even come back to worship regularly. Imagine.
If ya’ll like contemporary, multi-purpose space and “modern” worship space, God bless you. Just don’t inflict it on us, thank you.
AP+
I was about to say “I love gothic churches, but they could use some better pews”, then I realized how little time one actually spends sitting in traditional liturgical worship, versus standing in praise or kneeling in prayer.
#18
Where is your church? I’d love to come worship with you if I’m ever in the area.
20
Holy Cross, Warrensburg, New York. Exit 25 on the Northway (I-87) north of Albany. You will be welcome.
AP+
I once attended a Roman Catholic wedding of one of my husband’s co-workers. The interior of the church was brick and had low (maybe 12 ft.) ceilings. It reminded me of being in an office building or shopping mall. (The wedding service was also very “low” church - coulda been high Methodist.) I was very put off by the whole experience.
At a later date, I attended a Mass at a RC church with my RC best friend. When you enter St. Thomas Aquinas in Dallas, you KNOW you’re in a church - beautiful cruciform design with high, soaring ceilings that allow your heart to soar, also.
My own parish was designed by Fr. Homer Rogers (Padre), our rector until his death in 1980. It is a modified A-frame in which the walls reach up and up and the beams on the walls are meant to look like the ribs of a ship (the origin of the word “nave” in which the people do the work - liturgy). The eye is drawn inexorably to the crucifix, surrounding mosaic and stone work, and the stained glass window over the altar. I love how the overall design incorporates so many aspects of Christian history and belief. (Take a look if you like at http://www.stfrancisdallas.org/PhotoTour.htm ).
Seems to me that a case could be made for churches, like Christians, being “in the world but not of the world”.
21
A long way from Kentucky, but if I ever make it up to Saratoga again for the races, I’ll definitely try to come by. Last time we were there, we worshiped at Bethesda Episcopal in Saratoga. A gorgeous church with traditional worship (at least at the early service we attended - had to head to the track afterwards!).