posted
All I know is that the same people that built the theaters in Branson, turing Branson into the show capitol of the world by seat count, were the same people who built a lot of the churches in the area. There are a few that you can't tell if you are going in to see Yakov Smirnoff in Coocert, or going into a church.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really like the interior of the new Los Angeles cathedral. But then, I like Shakespeare rendered in hip-hop too, so I am aparently not this author's target audience.
Edit to note: I like it from visiting it, not from the picture, which really didn't do it justice.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pfft. Talk about going in with preconceived notions. Aren't journalists not supposed to do that? Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oddly enough, the author seems to be completely ignoring the scholarship surrounding megachurches -- which, despite his claim, is not a "disdainful put-down", but scholarly shorthand for a complex, modern phenomenon.
Facilities such as the LDS church erects would not be considered very good examples of megachurches by scholars; they are far more in the line of traditional large churches than what is considered (due to research) the typical megachurch.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thing is, I tend to agree with him. I don't like big churches. And modern church architecture usually ranges from uninspiring to donwright hideous, whether they're big or small.
Posts: 109 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
My little brother is the member of a Baptist church all the locals refer to as "Six Flags over Jesus." It's parking lot is so big they have trams to bring people to the building. Like at amusement parks.
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
The author of this article sure does come into it liking the classically styled church (it's "Shakespeare" compared to our bland modern stuff.).
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Pfft. Talk about going in with preconceived notions. Aren't journalists not supposed to do that?
See, you're confusing the job with the specific product. A "journalist" writes for a newspaper or magazine. The essense of the word implies timely writing, not impartiality. Some journalists are impartial reporters. Some, as in this case, are critics who's writing by it's very nature isn't impartial. A critic who approaches a subject with no preconceived notions isn't really prepared to criticize at all, since criticism is descibing a thing in comparison to what it could or should be or in comparison to other things of its type.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am definitely anti-big church. There are many around here that use trams in the parking lots, it's not unusual at all.
I don't mean to disparage the people who attend big churches, because I have family members and friends who I consider committed Christians that attend them, but I find something very disconcerting about them.
For example, the church I used to go to is trying to emulate the big churches in order to "bring in seekers" and they asked the congregation to donate money to buy a video system and new sound board. With all the missionaries and charities needing money, I have a real problem with telling your congregation you need $8,000 so your services can be more entertaining. Last I heard the word of God didn't need to be displayed on big screens to be effective.
That was the last straw, and the service when they announced it was the last time I've set foot in that church.
We're now planning on becoming members at a small presbyterian church where the pastor actually said to us "If you're looking to be entertained on a Sunday morning I'll give you the names of a bunch of places with their own bands and $10,000 video systems. That's not us. We are here on Sunday morning to worship God."
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gah. First Baptist of Woodstock. I went there for a Christmas program and had a panic attack from the crowdedness. Or something. Maybe I'm just allergic to church.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I read the Slate article, and noticed that it failed to mention that the conference center does not function just as a church. It's at the headquarters - it was built for general conference. It's not like 21,000 people go there every week for sacrament meeting.
Since it got that major detail so wrong, I didn't really take seriously what it said about the other churches.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: It was built to accommodate 21,000 people for the Semiannual General Conference of church members, but it also houses the Mormon Tabernacle Choir and is used for church pageants.
quote:The arena seating, the mainstream decor, the profusion of lighting and television broadcasting equipment, as well as the surrounding lobbies and vestibules, are distinctly secular. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.
Wow, is that snippy. I'm not impressed. He was hoping for a 14th century cathedral style?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: I'm not impressed. He was hoping for a 14th century cathedral style?
I think he may prefer quiet reverence and classical, inspiring architecture to gadgetry. I know I do, which is actually something that bothers me about a lot of modern services. Heck, Quaker services are about the only ones I can stand nowadays.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's an organ and plants in the foyer. It's not a Depeche Mode concert.
If he's talking about the panel of sound booths where the translators sit so people around the world can get conference in their own language, then he'll have to live with his dissapointment. I think that's wonderful.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I kept being annoyed by his insisting that all religious buildings should have "religious icons." Aren't most protestant churches relatively icon-free? Is he expecting all non-Catholic churches to have a statue of Mary and maybe pictures of the Passion inside?
Posts: 1903 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
*nod* I'm sure it's a matter of personal taste. Consider it like web design: some people might like having a lot of links and functional forms on the very first page of a site, whereas other people might believe this makes the page look cluttered and inelegant. There are people who could conceivably hold both opinions at the same time.
This reporter's an architecture critic. I can certainly understand his concerns; a lot of modern churches are designed like stadiums or convention centers, and I think there's a sense of scale that's actually lost when attention is directed en masse to a pulpit or stage. The idea that each and every hand-carved doorframe, for example, is a tribute to God -- which is the attitude which led to truly stunning design in most of our great churches and places of worship, from the Baha'i Temple in Chicago to Notre Dame -- is absent in a lot of modern church design. It's a door, the logic goes. We'll buy one from Home Depot and stick it in the wall somewhere.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: For example, the church I used to go to is trying to emulate the big churches in order to "bring in seekers" and they asked the congregation to donate money to buy a video system and new sound board.
The pastor's name wasn't "Foster" by any chance? Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't mind video systems and sound boards. Our old church uses them to significant effectiveness, and it's nice to have the overhead projection since there are times we short people get stuck sitting behind a tall person and thus cannot see the pastor speaking. Not that you *need* to see him to get the message, but it's nice to be able to look up at the big screen instead of the back of someone's head. Sure, when they built the sanctuary, they could have sloped the floor to make it easier to see, but that would have ruined the multipurpose utility of the room. We stack the chairs and bring in tables to have dinners and that sort of thing in there too. We've had Sunday afternoon Family Movie events too, where they clear the chairs and project a movie up on the screen and families can come in and see it for free, have some lunch and popcorn and just enjoy each other.
But while I don't mind video systems when they are effectively put to use, I do mind when the main purpose is manipulative. I left a church in Denver because they wanted to install video screens they really didn't need, because studies had shown that people tend to pay more attention when they are watching something on video than live. I found that a rather repugnant motivation. If the message isn't good enough, showing it on video screens might make it better? Blech. I continued to work in that church's children's program but never went to another service again.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just read the Newsweek article. It is astonishingly positive. I'm floored it made its way into print, and I wonder if the snarkiness of the Slate slideshow is a backlash against that.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, and yet, it's not so "Rah, rah, Mormons rule" that it's sickening either. I felt it was unbiased and interesting. But then, I'm Mormon. I'm not the most unbiased (or interesting) person about this.
Posts: 1903 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I left a church in Denver because they wanted to install video screens they really didn't need, because studies had shown that people tend to pay more attention when they are watching something on video than live. I found that a rather repugnant motivation. If the message isn't good enough, showing it on video screens might make it better? Blech.
Why is it repugnant to help people pay more attention? If the message is worth hearing , it's worth trying to help people pay attention to it.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see why the slate article would have anything to do with the Newsweek article. The LDS conference center is not the focus of the Slate piece, just one of the buildings mentioned.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
mph, I've listened to that argument from the people in my former church, who just don't get why I have a problem with the video system and new soundboard.
I think it's an area where people are just going to disagree.
Personally, it's repugnant to think that the Word of the Living God has to be "dressed up" so that more people will pay attention to it. I think a church should have appropriate worship music and good expository preaching. I am not there to be entertained, I am there to worship and learn.
The idea that we should entertain people bothers me - if they want to be entertained they should stay home and watch television or go to a movie. It's not supposed to be about them, it's supposed to be about worshipping their Creator. I think too many churches move away from a proper focus - "What should we be doing to glorify God and carry out His commandments?" and instead move toward the focus of "What cool video and sound effects can we install that will get more people in here on Sunday mornings?"
I've had it argued that no matter what it takes to get them in there, it's worth it because at least they're in church not sitting at home watching football. Myself, I'd rather be in a sanctuary with 20 people who were focused on worshipping God that 2000 people whose focus is "Entertain me!"
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: I am not there to be entertained, I am there to worship and learn.
But if the video screens help others learn better, why would you begrudge them that even though it does nothing for you?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
News articles often affect each other. A feature subject in the Atlantic Monthly will be on the front page of Newsweek a month later. The people writing them are human - it's not surprising stories ideas are sparked by something else in the media.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
dkw, they actually had the slate article and the newsweek article together on the front page of MSN yesterday (with a picture of the LDS conference center.) That's why they're linked together in my brain. They really have nothing to do with one another.
edit: from what I saw, it looked like the Newsweek article actually sparked the Slate slideshow, but that's neither here nor there.
Posts: 6415 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:What distinguishes the current crop of megachurches is not so much their size—none rivals St. Peter's—but their different sense of architectural style.
I think that the author needs to check his facts. From the Catholic Encyclopedia, St. Peter's Basillica is 163,182.2 sq. feet. The LDS conference center is 1,400,000 sq. feet. I think it more than rivals St. Peter's in size.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
kat, I realize that articles effect each other. I just think that drawing a causual relationship between a postive article on LDS history and a negative article about church architecture (which features several protestant churches, a Catholic cathedral, and the LDS conference center) is a bit of a stretch.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:(The largest church in the world is an overscaled replica of St. Peter's in Côte d'Ivoire, of all places.
The Cathedral of Our Lady of Peace in Côte d'Ivoire, which is listed by the Guiness Book of World Records, has ~300,000 sq feet. It can seat 7000 people and has standing room for an additional 11,000.
The LDS conference center can seat 21,000.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Specifically, I meant the snarky, throwaway comment at the end of the summary for the conference center. It's bizarre on every level - "if you can't beat em, join em"? What, exactly, is being joined? It was built to handle large crowds, and almost no LDS churches have the kind of iconography the lack of which he is decrying. Lobbies and lights are an admission of defeat to the secular?
But it is certainly possible that the writer decided to be negative on his own without it being a backlash.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's weird that they'd include the Conference Center, because (1) it isn't a "church" in the traditional sense, and (2) it belongs to a branch of Christianity that has such a distinct and separate culture from other denominations that judging it by the same standards is just weird. ALL Mormon churches are modern and utilitarian and devoid of iconography. That's part of Mormon culture, not some kind of submission to secularism. What makes a lobby particularly "secular", anyway?
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's why I think the slideshow was inspired by the newsweek article. The conference center is a really humongous building, and I can see how putting it in context with other churches would be appealling. That's why I think it was included - because the the LDS church was on their minds, they created the category of architecture of churches around it. It isn't that the conference center doesn't fit the category, but that there isn't really a category it belongs to.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here in northern VA, we have a church called the McClean Bible Church link
This place is huge...it has a parking garage, a cafe, a Starbucks inside it...and can seat 2,500 people Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I could believe that the LDS Conference Center was only included because of the Newsweek article, but they didn't "create the category of architecture of churches around it." The discussion about megachurches and whether or not it's a good thing that they don't look like traditional churches has been going on for years. It is a real issue and a real discussion -- not something whipped up to disguise an anti-Mormon crusade.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Aren't journalists not supposed to do that? ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
They really have nothing to do with one another.
