I'm still reading this...
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
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.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
You all just wanted to check out Robert Shuller's giant organ. Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
Cranky and slightly huffy.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
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.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Cranky and slightly huffy.
From Slate?!?!?
edit: I can't spell.
[ October 16, 2005, 10:35 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Pfft. Talk about going in with preconceived notions. Aren't journalists not supposed to do that? Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
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.
Posted by digging_hoIes (Member # 6963) on :
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.
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
Did you guys read the newsweek article? It's actually rather....good. Amazing.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
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.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
:lol:
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
quote:It's actually rather....good. Amazing.
The author's a BYU grad.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
And he can write good? Amazing.
<--- BYU grad
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
Wasn't Mr Card a BYU grad too? (says a U of U grad)
Posted by Jacob Porter (Member # 31) on :
Maybe this was part of the joke...
It's "he can write well." mr head.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
That was the entire joke, actually.
The author of this article sure does come into it liking the classically styled church (it's "Shakespeare" compared to our bland modern stuff.).
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
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.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
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."
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
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.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
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.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
It did mention that detail...
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.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It also says
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?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
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.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
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.
Posted by Brinestone (Member # 5755) on :
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?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*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.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Don't answer my joke with facts, dude. Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
lol Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Is there a text version of that article? I'd like to read it, but my monitor doesn't like their slideshow. At least I think it's my monitor.
Do they mention Willow Creek and Saddleback?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
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? Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
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.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
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.
Posted by Brinestone (Member # 5755) on :
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.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
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.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
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.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
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!"
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
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?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
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.
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
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.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
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.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Narnia, that makes sense.
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.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
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.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
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.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
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?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
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.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
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 Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
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.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Yeah, I was more surprised than anything that the Conference Center was included in this list. It definitely doesn't dominate the discussion.
Perhaps the more general theme of "churches" is why Slate and Newsweek both have church-related articles.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:something whipped up to disguise an anti-Mormon crusade
I never said this. No wonder you think I'm coming out of left field.
I don't think there is an anti-Mormon crusade. I think news cycles go with themes, and I think the article itself was surprisingly positive, while the author of the slideshow was surprisingly snarky. I also think people are petty. None of that equals a crusade, but does suggest some correlation.
[ October 17, 2005, 05:20 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
I'm jealous! All we have is an espresso cart.
I'm wary of megachurches too. I've visited many churches, of many different types, but the one time I felt creeped out was when I visited the local megachurch. The pastor has two congregation s and is coptered between them so he can preach at both. When there are kids in our county going to bed on an empty stomach, I have a real problem with that.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Not fair. When I was preaching at two churches I had to drive.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
You sure? Maybe you had to walk.
Through the snow. Uphill. Both ways . . .
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Oh yeah, I forgot. And the snow was 3 feet deep. All year.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
And people wonder why I don't want to live in the Midwest. Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
Dana, if you just used large buckets instead of offering plates, you could go between churches in Casey Treat style.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
Dana, if you just used large buckets instead of offering plates, you could go between churches in Casey Treat style.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Many jatraqueros are really paranoid and overly picky when it comes to your religious articles. Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
Ah! No!
Actually, I'm so overly picky I saw a picture of Joseph Smith in the local paper and I didn't like it (it didn't look like him) so I didn't read the article...
[ October 18, 2005, 02:35 AM: Message edited by: human_2.0 ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Heh, heh. Well, that's understandable. I sometimes have a hard time finding out what authors look like. It often ruins the voice that I have in my head for things that they wrote. I would guess that something along the same lines is happening here.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Man, there aren't any megachurches in the Sault. All we have is the tallest free standing illuminated cross in the world.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
quote:romanylass: The pastor has two congregation s and is coptered between them so he can preach at both. When there are kids in our county going to bed on an empty stomach, I have a real problem with that.
*blink* Yeah, that's pretty bad. The pastor of our former church in B'ham performs the message for more than one congregation, but the second congregation gets him on DVD recorded from an earlier service. It allows them to have services in the heart of a very needy neighborhood...and to tell the truth, I loved going to those services more than at the big church live. People are more real and we get a five *minute* meet-and-greet time.
***
mph, regarding video systems, I found it creepy that the main reason they wanted a video system was on the manipulative end of things rather than the helpful end. I wish I could remember *exactly* what Pastor Charles said, but the way he worded it, I was left with the impression that his focus was more on marketing than it was on the message and the purpose of the church. It's fine to have all those elements that make up a good marketing plan, but the focus always needs to remain on serving the purpose of the church. When you put up video screens just because bigger churches do, and that's the best reason you can come up with, then maybe you've forgotten about your mission.
That said, I see significant value in video screens for worship services now. Our new church is fairly small...it's only a year old. When they started up, they had video equipment donated from another church that was upgrading. It's been cool because we've gotten to see video clips of what other ministries in the church are doing. It's easy to miss what is going on throughout the church, and nothing communicates it quite as well as video. The pastor shares his notes in power points on the screen. It's helpful.
But that's not what Solid Rock (that was the church in Denver) had in mind, or at least, that's not how they presented it, when they considering it. It really struck me as manipulative, which I do find repugnant. Jesus wasn't manipulative, and neither should we be in representing him.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Aren't journalists not supposed to do that? ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
They really have nothing to do with one another.![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)