“Christianity and sacred space” – this is a concept that is difficult to clearly define so as to embrace the broad diversity of the Christian faith. Ask an Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic and the answer will be very different from that of a Quaker or a Pentecostal. The primary reason for this is the Christian biblical texts say next to nothing about space and the role it plays in the life of the faith tradition. Consequently, many Christians would profess there is nothing intrinsically sacred about a particular place or building. On the other hand, there are a large number of Christians who hold certain spaces to be quite holy and treat them with a great deal of reverence. So the challenge is – can we find the “common denominator” that bridges this ambivalence and allows the conversation to continue.
I suggest that rather than beginning the discussion by talking about “sacred space” per se, it is more appropriate to begin by talking about “sacred person.” This is because at its core, “sacred person” is the most significant aspect of Christianity. And the particular sacred person who draws the majority of attention is Jesus of Nazareth, whom Christians regard as the “Christ,” the Messiah, the Anointed One of God. For Christians, the person of Jesus is primary and all things “sacred” are defined through him. The reason for this is that Christians believe that through Jesus the Christ, one is reconciled and reunited with the God of the Judeo-Christian Bible.
To summarize Christianity in 100 words or less, the Biblical tradition teaches that because of disobedience in Paradise – the Garden of Eden, humankind distorted its relationship with God and as a result lives in a dysfunctional state of separation from God. For Christians, Jesus is the one – because of who he is and what he did – who redeems humankind and restores the fractured relationship it had with God. As a result, it is important for Christians to know Jesus the Christ and through him come to know God.
Well, the logical question following such a statement is – “how does one come to know God through Jesus the Christ?” The Christian tradition teaches five ways:
- By reading and engaging Holy Scripture, which is believed to be the Word of God.
- For some Christians, receiving the Sacraments, which include Baptism and Communion and are believed to be the material means of God’s favor for humankind.
- By participating in prayer and worship, which is one’s conscious response to God.
- By joining in a gathered community of believers, because Jesus is attributed to have said in the Gospel of Matthew that “where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them” [Matt. 18:20].
- And also by giving alms and serving those who are less fortunate, because the Christian biblical texts teach that in serving these folks, one also serves the Christ.
So, in order to accommodate and facilitate these spiritual practices, and by extension encourage the Divine experience, Christians found it necessary to design and build places of worship. As a result, Christians have come to equate sacred space to places where they have experienced communion with God.
For example, an elderly gentleman once told me of a profound spiritual experience he had back in the 1940s in the days following the Second World War. While in France, he had the opportunity to visit and worship in Chartres Cathedral. When he entered the nave, he said he was brought to tears by the quality of light as it poured through the stained glass windows and filled the space. He said he felt as though the light was entering his body and passing completely through, purifying him of his past failures, illuminating his mind and warming his soul. Never in his life had he had such a profound experience of God, nor since. And since that time, whenever he is confronted by pain and suffering, he remembers the light of Chartres and an incredible sense of peace returns, allowing him to regain hope and continue with life.
Throughout the centuries, as Christians built places of worship, the shape they gave to their worship space was influenced by their notions of God. Historically, the expression of two Divine characteristics exerted considerable influence on Christian architecture in all its diversity. These two characteristics are – that Christians believe God to be both transcendent and immanent.
By transcendent, I mean the God who is responsible for all creation, who existed prior to and is distinct and apart from creation and therefore not constrained by its physicality. This God transcends the grasp of human intelligence and is ineffable. Its essence is purity and perfection. Yet despite such magnificence, the transcendent God calls creation to itself and Christians believe calls them to become different people, transformed people. That life is to be a journey, represented by stages of spiritual growth, where death is not the conclusion, but a point of transfiguration, when one transcends this material world and is reunited with the Godhead in heavenly bliss for eternity. This is the God of Salvation and one to be pursued.
By immanent, I mean the God who is present in creation and active in human history. Christians understand the immanent God as one who makes the Divine Self known in the common, imperfect activities of everyday life. A God who is humble, approachable and unavoidable. This is the God of the Incarnation, who is available and accessible in the present moment by all who seek to know it better.
Architecturally, these two attributes of God are represented by two geometric forms: the line and the circle.
The line gives shape to and reinforces the experience of a transcendent God. One end, which is the starting point, represents the beginning of the spiritual journey, when one recognizes that he or she is living in a state of separation from God and then wants to move closer. This point is symbolized by the exterior entrance or portal one must pass through to enter the worship space. The other end of the line represents the conclusion, the culmination of the spiritual journey when one is reunited with God and is symbolized by the altar, the place where communion is celebrated. Along the line, certain elements are strategically placed to represent progressive stages of spiritual growth:
- The baptismal font typically is positioned near the entrance, representing one’s acceptance of the faith and initiation into the community.
- Further along is the ambo or the lectern and pulpit – the place where Holy Scripture is read, prayers are offered, and sermons are given, that represent the deepening of one’s spiritual knowledge and experience as one matures in the faith.
In moving along the line through the worship space, one participates both physically and spiritually in this journey of salvation. As a result, it is easy to assume the altar is the most sacred place in the entire worship space because it is where communion with God takes place. Hence, the closer one is to the altar, the greater the degree of sacredness. And over the centuries, this assumption played itself out in a variety of ways:
- Architectural embellishment
- Hierarchical seating
- Burial placement
The other geometric form, the circle, represents and reinforces the notion of an imminent God. Rather than manifesting God as an experience one aspires to in the future tense, this form encourages the experience of God that occurs in midst of the gathered community at any given moment. In other words, the emphasis is less on “doing” and more on “being.” The focal point of a circle is its center and as a result, the center is the place where all the liturgical action happens. The altar is positioned here, along with the ambo – the place where Holy Scripture is proclaimed and often the baptismal font. As a result, the center point becomes the most sacred spot and the community gathers around it in circular fashion, equidistant from the center – representing equality among individuals and unity for the entire congregation.
These two aspects of God, as well as these two building forms, contrast sharply with each other. Yet in looking at most Christian places of worship built throughout the centuries, one finds attempts to incorporate characteristics of each, but in varying degrees of emphasis.
While many Christians proclaim there is no biblical precedence for defining sacred space, this absence has not prevented some from naming and claiming space as sacred.
Jonathan Z. Smith, a historian of religion, argues “the presence of an indwelling divinity is not something we can ascertain, but the very erection of churches, the development of pilgrimages to the sites, and the reverence with which believers treat the sites have in effect sacralized the churches, imbuing them with sacred meaning.”
In other words, Smith argues that it is humans who declare something sacred, who set an object apart as holy, rather than God. And this designation is based upon a shared intention, an action and/or perception.
For example: in the medieval Christian church, theologians viewed creation, in its fundamental state, to be “profane,” which is not to be equated with “dirty, impure, or corrupted,” but meaning “an absence of the divine presence, or common and mundane.” This perception derived from the traditional view of all creation as “fallen,” existing in a state of separation from God. As a result, part of the work of the church was to sanctify the landscape, “to claim it for Christ,” to make the profane world sacred by invoking the Spirit of God to inhabit and consecrate particular areas of it. And by this joint venture with the Divine, the earth gradually would be transformed into a heavenly place. Christians saw themselves as partners with God, assisting God in the completion and sanctification of the world of creation.
This notion helps explain the purpose behind such objects as high crosses on the landscape and walls around the perimeter of cathedral closes, church yards and cemeteries which define the boundaries of sacred precincts and holy ground. These are clear demarcations of what is sacred from what is profane.
This notion also helps explain the tradition of cathedrals and churches as being places of sanctuary and safety, where freedom exists from aggression, violence and evil, apart from the world of the wicked. Think of the image of the accused criminal, fleeing persecution, running to the door of the church, grabbing the handle and claiming sanctuary and protection. Such a place is where the community believed God had jurisdiction above and beyond that of mere mortals.
These medieval distinctions of sacred and profane provided clear and powerful clarifications to the landscape and lives of Europeans whose world was strongly shaped by the Christian church.
But as the Protestant Reformation burst upon the church and challenged many practices of medieval Christianity, notions of what constituted sacred space were broken down, scrutinized, clarified, revised or discarded. The hierarchical structure of the church was transformed by many communities into a more egalitarian one, so no longer is sacred space the privileged domain of a select few, but accessible to all.
An example: in the sacramental Christian traditions, such as the Anglican Church (of which I am a member), the Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Orthodox, to name a few – the area between the communion rail and the altar traditionally is called the “sanctuary” – the holiest part of a sacred space. In the more Protestant traditions, the “sanctuary” refers to the entire worship space, including the area where the congregation sits. For these folks, all of the church is equally holy.
Shifting perceptions of sacred space continue in Christianity, so that today, with heightened awareness of environmental sensibilities and a deepening respect for the natural world, the Christian church gradually is embracing the notion that all of creation is sacred and should be treated as such.
Architecturally, churches are being built that instead of turning the congregations’ attention away from the outside world and focusing inwardly; they now open themselves up to the outside world and invite the beauty of creation to assist in shaping its worship.
Michael Mayne, the former Dean of Westminster Abbey, once wrote, “The sacred has been defined as that to which we have access but which is not at our disposal.” Perhaps, this statement helps explain the rich architectural heritage of the Christian church and its continuing search for sacred space.
Image – “Church of the Minorities II” by Lyonel Feininger, 1926