I came across an article today highlighting some of the most creative buildings in the world…
There was a gas station covered with crochet, an office building that used light reflection to make it appear confetti was flying out of the window, and a building that had huge tentacles coming out of the windows. You couldn’t have missed any of these buildings because of their profound creativity…and you wouldn’t have wanted to.
I remember coming across an NT Wright article some time ago in which he was lamenting the lack of creativity in our church buildings. His case was that the older generations of building were intended to, and largely accomplished an almost worshipful presentation to God by displaying creativity and art from the church. He felt (as I do) that the church was to be a leader in the arts, and that our buildings were to clearly express our intent to offer God (and the surrounding community) our very best artistic effort. (in this case through architecture)
The counter argument is obviously that the church is not brick and mortar, but flesh and blood. Investing in and creating an ediface of beauty and value may communicate, albeit inadvertantly, a “come to us”, “come to church” inward focus. It would obviously take a great deal of effort and money, all of which could be used to serve and reach your context and community.
What do you think?
Should the church work to present more creativity and beauty in its architecture?
Or should we opt of of the building projects, simply find a suitable space, and use the remaining assets to serve and reach?