architecture of worship

I’m reading this book on church architecture. It was given to me by a good friend and mentor, named Pr. Sam Platts. It’s a classic book called Architecture for Worship by E.A Sovik

He starts out by suggesting that one of the most important times to analyze in church architecture is the most often over looked: the architecture of the first church. Sovik’s thesis is that “we ought to stop building cultic buildings in favor of better alternatives.”

He states that Jesus didn’t ask his follower to build anything. In fact on the mount of transfiguration he persuaded his disciples to not build shrines that they thought were appropriate. I would argue that what Jesus wanted his followers to build was the kingdom of God here on earth to which, I don’t think Sovik would argue.

Sovik’s principle point is “worship involves persons not places.“ (10) Persons are the new temple Christ came to build. And the universality of the gospel means that the gospel was for all people, jew, gentile, rich, poor, male and female. It was about a faith committed to service not to sacrifice.


Hippolytus wrote in 230 in the Apostolic Tradition: “it is not a place that is called ‘church’ nor a house made of stones and earth…. What then is the church? It is the holy assembly of those who live in righteousness.”

He argues that as Constantine made Christianity the religion of the empire that faith had to accommodate the state. Thus swelling congregations meant that homes and ad hoc locations were no longer adequate.

I love this quote:
“The house of worship is not a shelter for an alter, it is a shelter for people. It is not the table that makes a sacrament; it is the people and what they do. “ Thus church becomes hospital… a concept I really enjoy.


Sovik continues in a vain that I have a bit of an argument with or need some further clarification.

“The place which is ultimately faithful to the Christian vision will be one in which the room is devoid of any explicitly cultic images or furnishings. “ First I am personally leery of anyone who suggest that there is one Christian vision. Second , I would question what he defines as cultic images, does this include crosses, etc. If not why wouldn’t he include those?

He makes the argument the church should be built for use by the community. We are meant to be a people of service so our buildings should be places of service, where our community can use them. I totally agree with this and am often thinking of new ways we can use our space for the benefit of the community.

I think overall this book is a powerful look at how we use the architecture of the church. It reminds us of the intentionality we should have when we think about worship space.

His challenges to connect the community in worship by how we arrange our buildings is a powerful reminder and one I think we often overlook especially in traditional architecture.

On the other hand I think people, The Church, are looking for sanctuary. This can mean a multitude of things but is something that cannot merely be replaced for function. 'Cultic' symbols may actually draw us near to god at times and have a place and purpose. To have our worship spaces look like our living rooms may draw us to worship more as we enter our own living rooms, but it may also do the opposite. I worshiped in places throughout my life that had lost all sense of transcendence. Now that I am in a building that tries to draw people toward transcendence and I see a deep value in the lofty yet simple architecture.

I wonder if there is a balance between the ways of Sovik and the classic church architecture. Is there a third way… A way that embodies usefulness, transcendence, a balance of symbol and service?

I also wonder if he were to write the book today if there would be a section on sustainability. Churches seem to be places of waste when it comes to the electric grid and water. What about the transcendence that nature provides?