Affirming the sacred or emphasising the secular?
Just caught a LeadershipJournal article in my feedreader – What the Unchurched See in a Building:
Does "sacred" space appeal to or repel the
unchurched? A recent survey probed 1,700 unchurched American adults,
putting photos of four different church exteriors in front of them.
Respondents indicated their preferences by allocating 100 points across
the four images, based on the appeal of the appearance.
The Gothic look averaged 48 points, more than double
the next-highest finisher, a white-steeple-and-pillar exterior that
averaged about 19 points. The other two churches, with more
contemporary looks, averaged 18 points and 16 points, according to the
study, commissioned by Cornerstone Knowledge Network and conducted by
LifeWay Research.
So should churches opt for the cathedral look as a way to attract the unchurched?
- Matt Branagh, Leadership Journal: http://www.christianitytoday.com/le/2008/003/8.67.html
Obviously this is USAmerican research, but seems to agree with a general trend – especially with young people (with younger people in the research, the tend towards traditional Gothic architecture was even higher). This is true of my limited experience as well, that "unchurched" people (I love the way the article refers to "the unchurched" – it's like the new PC term for "the lost") are searching for a spirituality with truly emphasises and provides space for the sacred. Missional and emerging church leaders have been reporting this for the last five or ten years.
If young people are going to get inside a church building, they at least want it to be a spiritual experience.
The interesting irony is that there is a trend amongst the "churched" to want to de-emphasise the sacred within their own spirituality. Hence the change from church building which look like churches towards ones which look like theatres or gig venues.
Alan Hirsch reckons that the modern seeker-sensitive church only attracts or connects with between 10-20% of unchurched people. I know we're only talking architecture here, but the parallel to this research is interesting.
Closing this gap between these two polarising viewpoints will be an interesting one. It is made a little easier, I think, by an increased in "de-churched" people and a new emerging generation (the beginnings of which I am seeing in students I work with) of Post-Charismatic young people who are coming out of churches which are heavily invested in the charismatic movement – not necessarily closed off to the gifts of the Holy Spirit, but very aware of it's drawbacks and failings in recent times.
Especially in the area of whole-life discipleship and incarnational living (you know what I'm hinting at).
I think that it is a dialogue between these two groups which will hold the key to the direction of the Church over the next ten-twenty years.
Finally, it's interesting in the article that the one person interviewed – who obviously has a personal investment and bias – straight away attempted to de-bunk the research, and question its relevance.
