“Once the students graduate and start working as architects their designs will include a greater awareness of the poor and the natural environment. The result will be a better-designed city, where informed design will create an environment that influences human morality for the good and brings people closer to God through creative and responsible design.”If he had ended that quote with the word ‘good’ - I’d have thought “Sounds a bit optimistic, but then I don’t know much about this urban design business.” (However, I would found it slightly more convincing if Mr. Robinson had written “an environment that influences human behaviour for the good.”)
But when I am told that a better designed city brings people closer to God, I am utterly baffled. Really? Where in the Bible does he get that? And what does he mean by “closer to God”?
And if a better designed city brings people closer to God, then surely how much more can a centrally planned state? Great utopian visions float before my eyes. It’s amazing what Christian socialists think that they can achieve.
Frankly, I just don’t believe it.
Posts
16 comments:
But when I am told that a better designed city brings people closer to God, I am utterly baffled. Really? Where in the Bible does he get that?
It seemed to work for the Psalmist: e.g. 48, 102, 122. Good architecture always moves me contemplate God, e.g. Ps.96. Ghastly architecture, (e.g. Stalinist etc.) conveys atheism.
Not in my reading of the Psalmist, Albert.
It seems to me that the Psalmist is not celebrating the design of a building or the city, but is rejoicing in the fact that Jerusalem was the city which God chose (I Kings 11:36, II Kings 23:27, Psalm 78:68) to make his earthly dwelling place - i.e. the location for the Ark of the Covenant and the Temple - and therefore the place which spoke of God's presence.
"Good architecture always moves me contemplate God"
Albert, if I may respond to you on a different level, your comment seems to me to be about your own personal response. Good architecture may move you to contemplate God, but it may not have the same effect on me. Or on Richard Dawkins, for that matter.
Mr. Robinson is teaching in Phnomh Penh, where, one presumes, the vast majority of the students will be Buddhist. Since Buddhists don't actually believe in a god (much less in God), I suspect that their response to good architecture is likely to be similar to that of Professor Dawkins.
the Psalmist is not celebrating the design of a building or the city, but is rejoicing in the fact that Jerusalem was the city which God chose
Yes, but it is not just that. It is also the buildings themselves (Psalm 48 is explicit here, I think). The buildings also inspire fear in Israel's enemies. Similarly, think of the extraordinary details of building the Temple.
therefore the place which spoke of God's presence.
Exactly, the buildings are sacramental in some OT sense.
your comment seems to me to be about your own personal response
Certainly. What other way of getting nearer to God is there, except by way of personal response? It is no different with the Bible. The Bible doesn't bring Dawkins nearer to God, but that does not show that the Bible, is unable to bring people closer to God. As with the Bible, so with good buildings: they can bring us closer to God, if we respond appropriately, but they do not guarantee that effect because our response is freely given - or not.
"Yes, but it is not just that. It is also the buildings themselves (Psalm 48 is explicit here, I think)."
The whole point of Psalm 48 is that it is not about any city - it is about a particular city which the Bible tells us is the place that God chose to make his dwelling place. What is true of Jerusalem in Old Testament times cannot be applied to cities in modern Cambodia - or anywhere else. Or so it seems to me.
"The buildings also inspire fear in Israel's enemies."
On the occasion that the Psalm is speaking of, this is true. But I have no reason to believe that it was true on every occasion when Jerusalem was attacked in Old Testament times. I have every reason to believe that when the Babylonians attacked and destroyed Jerusalem, they did not react like the Kings described in Psalm 48.
"It is no different with the Bible. The Bible doesn't bring Dawkins nearer to God, but that does not show that the Bible, is unable to bring people closer to God."
But there is a difference with the Bible. The Bible at least makes Dawkins think about God. He knows that the Bible is about God. He can understand what the Bible is saying about God - and respond as he chooses.
Good buildings, however are, for all intents and purposes, totally mute in terms of speaking about God to Dawkins.
The whole point of Psalm 48 is that it is not about any city - it is about a particular city which the Bible tells us is the place that God chose to make his dwelling place.
Of course it is that, but it doesn't just talk about Jerusalem being a special city because God has his tabernacle there, it talks about all the things that go with that: "Walk round about Sion...and tell the towers thereof. Mark well her bulwarks, set up her houses" etc. Again, in Ps.96.8-9 we find "Ascribe to the LORD the glory due his name; bring an offering, and come into his courts! Worship the LORD in beauty of holiness; tremble before him, all the earth! Say among the nations, 'The LORD reigns! Yea, the world is established, it shall never be moved; he will judge the peoples with equity.'"
Again in Psalm 122 we read: "Jerusalem is built as a city: that is at unity in itself. For thither the tribes go up the tribes of the Lord" - the unity of the city expresses the unity of God's people, which expresses the unity of God.
Similarly, the enemies in Ps.48 are impressed by the buildings and see them as indicating the presence of God or ("a god" to follow their reasoning, cf. 1 Sam.4.7).
Now the point I am trying to make is that architecture can be expressive of God, and therefore bring people closer to God. The fact that there are exceptions does not disprove that point.
Similarly, the point cannot be restricted only to Jerusalem, on the grounds that God chose to make his dwelling place there, because "The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in shrines made by man," (Acts 17.24) accordingly, God can be made manifest in anything, "For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made" (Rom.1.19-20). Hence Paul is able to find something of God even among the pagan shrines "as I passed along, and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, `To an unknown god.' What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you" (Acts. 17.23).
But there is a difference with the Bible.
All I meant by saying there was no difference is that like architecture, the Bible taken by itself, does not guarantee the right response in the reader.
Good buildings, however are, for all intents and purposes, totally mute in terms of speaking about God to Dawkins.
I'm not sure that it does actually: the god that Dawkins thinks he is talking about is not the God of the Bible, but, as I read Dawkins, some kind of additional agent in the physical universe.
But when you say buildings are mute to Dawkins, I can only ask how you know that? Insofar as the Bible does make Dawkins think of God, I see no reason to think a beautiful building - St Peter's in Rome, St Mark's Venice or wherever - will make him think of God also.
Regarding the Psalms, I think we are at an impasse. I said "What is true of Jerusalem in Old Testament times cannot be applied to cities in modern Cambodia - or anywhere else," and I can't see anything that leads me to think otherwise.
But when you say buildings are mute to Dawkins, I can only ask how you know that?
I actually said "Good buildings, however are, for all intents and purposes, totally mute...." They may well speak, in the terms of Romans 1:19-20. But people don't hear.(Romans 1:18) No doubt ecclesiastical buildings do make him think about religion, and hence about God. And "How do I know?" I extrapolate from my own experience and the experience of those that I have spoken to.
However, I suspect that your most important point is this: "Now the point I am trying to make is that architecture can be expressive of God, and therefore bring people closer to God."
My answer to that is: Does the fact that something is, in some way, expressive of God, actually bring people closer to God in any meaningful sense? Ephesians 2:12-13 speaks of the Gentiles as being "without God" and "far off" before coming to faith in Christ. That is basically saying that even with God's creation around them, speaking to them about God (Romans 1:19-20), they were still far away from God - and the implication is surely that no amount of good urban planning would have brought them appreciably nearer.
I think we are at an impasse.
I think you are right and I nearly said as much last time! It is interesting though that it seems obvious to me that the Psalms are also talking about the architecture, to you, it is obvious they are not about this, but only about God's presence in Jerusalem. I wonder if this reflects a difference of mindset between Catholics and Protestants?!
I think the reference to Eph 2 is useful, because there Paul says "You have been brought near in the blood of Christ." Presumably, Paul didn't mean us to understand this being "brought near" was automatic in a way that excluded personal response. Similarly, I doubt that Mr Robinson meant by "brings people closer to God" anything that excludes personal response. If so, the matter rests on whether a building can be expressive of God and that takes us back to the Psalms (I might also add some of the imagery in Rev and Ezek.)
"I wonder if this reflects a difference of mindset between Catholics and Protestants?!"
Interesting question, but I have no idea what the answer is.
"Presumably, Paul didn't mean us to understand this being "brought near" was automatic in a way that excluded personal response. "
You are, I am sure, quite correct, the response clearly being faith (Ephesians 2:8) by which he means faith in the Lord Jesus Christ (1:15).
"Similarly, I doubt that Mr Robinson meant by "brings people closer to God" anything that excludes personal response."
I'm not convinced. Faith in Jesus Christ doesn't come from seeing the grandeur of creation or experiencing good urban design. At least not in my experience, nor according to what I've read in the Bible!
Interesting question, but I have no idea what the answer is.
Is it perhaps to do with how sacramentally one perceives the world?
Faith in Jesus Christ doesn't come from seeing the grandeur of creation or experiencing good urban design.
By itself no, for St Paul says:
For, "every one who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved." But how are men to call upon him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without a preacher?" (Rom.10.13-14).
But I think any kind of art can disclose the presence of God (music is especially powerful), and therefore be part of the person's coming to an encounter with God and hopefully to living faith.
Your thinking and mine are definitely quite different in some respects, Albert, - including the extent to which art can disclose the presence of God, and perceiving the world sacramentally - but in some respects we must be thinking along the same lines, because I very nearly quoted Romans 10:13-14 in my last reply, but then decided to skip it in order to try to keep the reply brief!
Yes, I think that is a key difference. But it can't be so different, after all scripture is explicit on the capacity of created nature to disclose God. There is the passage from Romans 1 already cited and Ps.19 as well as many other passages. Then there is the beautiful way in which Ps.103 sees the world as an image of God's mercy.
Art too has a sacramental element, so for example, Moses is commanded to create a bronze serpant "that if a serpent bit any man, when he looked to the bronze serpent, he lived" (Num.21.9). The point is developed by Our Lord to be a symbol of the power of his cross (Jn.3.14).
C'mon, Albert.
You're not seriously suggesting that looking at Nehushtan would bring Gentiles closer to God? It didn't even do that for people who knew that it was a testimony to God's power! (II Kings 18:4)
;-)
You're not seriously suggesting that looking at Nehushtan would bring Gentiles closer to God?
Not by itself no - as my earlier quotation from Romans indicates. But that God commanded the creation of this piece of art and worked through it is evident from Numbers, and that is all I need for my argument.
II Kings 18.4 is a red herring as it refers to the people worshipping it - thereby indicating they do not see it as a testimony to God's power, as you say, but as the power itself. It seems almost as if you wish to make that passage normative.
What matters is not the misinterpretation of it in II Kings, but the interpretation of Our Lord, who sees it as a type of his saving work on cross.
"Not by itself no - as my earlier quotation from Romans indicates."
Which brings us back to what I originally wrote, referring to Mr. Robinson's comments about urban design in a Buddhist country. I think that the clear implication of what he said was that a better-designed city would, by itself, bring people closer to God.
Anyway, it's been a good and interesting discussion, and I've appreciated your thoughts.
Since I think we've pretty well exhausted it, permit me to invite you to have the last word.
Since I think we've pretty well exhausted it
I agree, so for my last word, I would refer back to that word of St Paul and the comment on I made on it then
"You have been brought near in the blood of Christ." Presumably, Paul didn't mean us to understand this being "brought near" was automatic in a way that excluded personal response. Similarly, I doubt that Mr Robinson meant by "brings people closer to God" anything that excludes personal response.
You're not convinced by this, but if you're right, Mr Robinson is an out and out architectural pelagian!
Post a Comment