Jubilee Church- Ugly? Basic? YES!

  • Thread starter Thread starter 031064
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
it’s an arrogant building, because it detaches itself from from the past rather than being in organic continuity with it, as though it had nothing to learn from the past.
Click to expand...
Perhaps the building needs to go confess its arrogence? 😃

Bad jokes aside, I don’t care how a church building looks. Yes I’ll be a little ticked by a modernist chuch, because I know that a church building should reflect the Church in heaven (read it in the Catechism), but again, I also know that the Lord dosen’t care for the beautiful of buildings; what he cares about is the hearts of the believers. We believers are the spiritual blocks of the Church - not the buildings in which we gather to celebrate the sacraments.
 
The inside of the Jubilee Church says one thing to me, blah. I don’t think they could have gone any more generic than they did. If there is one thing God is not, it’s generic. So why make a house for him that is generic?

In regards to the comments made in the article about the importance of light in the building, if your going to make light that important than you should do something with it. Play with it, make it shatter, let it shine though a stain glass window, manipulate it. Let it tell a story, preferably a biblical one.

I don’t remember which pope it was but one of the past popes made the comment that in artwork the illiterate read. How are the illiterate, especially children, supposed to read in there? They can’t! There is nothing in there for them to read.

On the other hand, that Orthodox Church is a sumptuous feast! That is exactly what a church should look like both inside and out. The whole building should tell a story, the story of the history of Salvation.
 
031064 said:
As I previously stated, I beleive that the Church should at least have a few indicators it’s a church. The jubilee church has no statues, lights, or anything very Catholic. Look inside an orthodox chruch- they have strands of oil lamps and censers, beautiful icons, etc. We should glorify God with the best of the best- nothing in and around these churches suggests we’re doing that. Also, considering that most people do not study theology, the building itself and the things in it should be a lesson in Christian theology- neither of these are.
Click to expand...
I think it is actually more in teaching with God’s word that these places of worship are built with the light in mind. Christ is the worlds light, he and none other… so surely to allow God to illuminate this spiritual place, is the finest light the architect can offer the worshipers who will come here to be near to God. Moreover, why concern yourself with icons for worship. Magnificent as they may be, I think there is a danger of them becoming false idols. The imagery you need to inspire prayer is outside… yet it is also inside your heart.

Now I have said I don’t object to this building, however I am moved to explain that, I worship in several buildings, including a Saxon Church, from 675AD… and you can feel in the aura of the building the prayerfulness within it. But then again, every church/cathedral has to be new at some point doesn’t it?

Peace x
 
Sabda said:
The inside of the Jubilee Church says one thing to me, blah. I don’t think they could have gone any more generic than they did. If there is one thing God is not, it’s generic. So why make a house for him that is generic? .
Click to expand...
Because God is not generic, so shall no building which serves him be.
 
No offense, but that chapel looks like a run down barn (outside at least).

On the same note, why do both the Junileee church and the lebonese church use only a cross and not a crucifix outside? Shouldn’t we be honoring the man ON the cross, not the cross itself?
 
031064 said:
No offense, but that chapel looks like a run down barn (outside at least).

On the same note, why do both the Junileee church and the lebonese church use only a cross and not a crucifix outside? Shouldn’t we be honoring the man ON the cross, not the cross itself?
Click to expand...
Yeah, it does look like a run down barn, that’s kinda the point. It’s the Spirit that makes it Holy, not the architecture. 🙂

None taken, by the way… I haven’t been to this place, although I intend to… but it was rather ironic I came across it.

I must admit I don’t own a crucifix, but I do have crosses. Then again, the crucifix has become more symbolic of the Catholic church, I don’t see many in Anglican churches.
 
Rita88 said:
I think it is actually more in teaching with God’s word that these places of worship are built with the light in mind. Christ is the worlds light, he and none other… so surely to allow God to illuminate this spiritual place, is the finest light the architect can offer the worshipers who will come here to be near to God. Moreover, why concern yourself with icons for worship. Magnificent as they may be, I think there is a danger of them becoming false idols. The imagery you need to inspire prayer is outside… yet it is also inside your heart.

Now I have said I don’t object to this building, however I am moved to explain that, I worship in several buildings, including a Saxon Church, from 675AD… and you can feel in the aura of the building the prayerfulness within it. But then again, every church/cathedral has to be new at some point doesn’t it?

Peace x
Click to expand...
The use of light is good but I would not say that they are in keeping with God’s Word. After all he was very particular about how he wanted his house of worship to look. Check out the book of Exodus. To many people in today’s world that temple would have seemed very garish and too much. But that is how God wanted it. He wanted us to use images and color. The Orthodox and earlier Christians understood this. Too many in today’s world are forgetting this. We don’t want to take this too far and get back into the iconoclastic heresy.

According to the article you linked the Bradwell Chapel was used as a grain barn for many years. Everything that was originally in that chapel has been lost to us. Chances are we also have no idea what the interior originally looked like. The history page is silent, so I would guess they don’t know. I see an awful lot of wall space that would be good for hanging icons. I know from studying early Christian artwork that they had a fondness for using images and color.
 
Irondically I have just discovered that part of the church IS a community centre- how funny- and sad. I just had a thought- I think I might become Byzantine catholic… seriously… they always have nice churches and there is much more symbolism in their churches.
 
Here’s a quote from the architect:

RM: When I began to think about this church, I thought about the churches in which the presence of the sacred could be felt: Alvar Aalto’s churches in Finland, Frank Lloyd Wright’s Wayfairer’s Chapel in the United States, along with the Chapel at Ronchamp and La Tourette by Le Corbusier came to mind. These are contemporary churches that have impressed me most, and I would say that what they all share is the importance of light.
 
031064 said:
As I previously stated, I beleive that the Church should at least have a few indicators it’s a church. The jubilee church has no statues, lights, or anything very Catholic. Look inside an orthodox chruch- they have strands of oil lamps and censers, beautiful icons, etc. We should glorify God with the best of the best- nothing in and around these churches suggests we’re doing that. Also, considering that most people do not study theology, the building itself and the things in it should be a lesson in Christian theology- neither of these are.
Click to expand...
I beg to differ - the Jubilee Church has a huge and very prominent crucifix front and centre - what is more Catholic than that?

And if you think the best hasn’t been used then it’s because you have no idea of the sorts of expensive materials that often go into building modern churches. The Jubliee Church uses travertine marble, which I’m sure ain’t cheap. Even if there aren’t any painted images or obvious gold and glitter, it is still an instance of ‘giving of the best’.
 
Nickkname said:
Perhaps the building needs to go confess its arrogence? 😃

Bad jokes aside, I don’t care how a church building looks. Yes I’ll be a little ticked by a modernist chuch, because I know that a church building should reflect the Church in heaven (read it in the Catechism), but again, I also know that the Lord dosen’t care for the beautiful of buildings; what he cares about is the hearts of the believers. We believers are the spiritual blocks of the Church - not the buildings in which we gather to celebrate the sacraments.
Click to expand...

LOL 🙂​

It’s true that what is in the heart of man is in some sense much more important than exterior beauty (as Isaiah 1 insists; & that we are the “living stones, being built up into” the true Temple of God. And that there is no Temple in the Heavenly City described in Revelation. But if that priority is taken too far, it opens the way to confusing plain worship with slovenly worship.

Why can there not be buildings rich in symbolic language, for use by Christians who are symbols of God’s Presence ? Why should inner subjection to God be opposed to external beauty ? Can, & should, the latter not be a symbol of the former ?

There is a place for unadorned architecture & for lack of display - one of the monastic orders had very plain buildings IIRC: but this building is not plain. It shows, not the “noble simplicity” mentioned by one if the V2 documents, but a lack of nobility; a very definite ugliness.

The difference is not like that between elegant speech & plain speech - it’s more like the difference between elegant speech & mangling the words one utters. Unadorned language has its place too - but who chooses to mangle the words they utter ? That makes communication difficult; & a church architecture that communicates in such a way is not going to be able to proclaim the Presence of Christ as it should 😦
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top