What is the most important symbol?

[pmcleanj]

We've mentioned symbols a couple of times. Two that I remember are Chalice_Thunder's comments that "The moment one has to start explaining symbols and symbolism, the liturgy begins to lose its power"and the comment that "vestments are symbols themselves, so why cover them up". (Now that I've looked it up, I see that that's Chalice_Thunder's post too -- maybe he and I are the only ones who care about symbology)

So many things about our churches are, or could be, symbols. But, as I mentioned in my response to the thread above, twenty-first century liturgists struggle with symbols that will communicate viscerally with twenty-first century people. And many of our symbols are superficial or adiaphoric. So ...

If you were building a new church, and could choose one symbol to incorporate in its construction or furnishings -- just one! -- what would it be. Assume you're going to use the liturgy straight out of the BCP, so the language of the liturgy isn't part of the question; and the table, chalice, platen, fair linen cloth and elements can be taken as given (but in a plain, undecorated form). But everything else, from the location and orientation of the church to the colour of the carpet is up for grabs: what one symbological element would you insist upon?

[TomUK]

Hhmmm, perhaps the monstrance. After all, what could be important than an opportunity to adore the Real Presence of our Lord. Some of the more historic monstrances (is that correct grammer:scratch) are also so highly steeped in symbolism that in some cases you get the entire theology, doctrine and history of the church displayed. Is that the sort of thing you were after?

[pmcleanj]

Is that the sort of thing you were after?
Well, yes and no.

A monstrance, in and of itself, is a symbol. It could be said to represent explicitely the tension between the availability of Christ's sacrifice -- on display, available to all for contemplation or adoration -- and the inaccessability of Christ's Holiness. A monstrance demonstrates these tensions (to me) even if completely undecorated. To my mind, alas, it also symbolizes the tensions between (ongoing) reformation and (small-t) tradition that characterize Anglican life: we have these beautiful relics of pre-reformation practices that can only be used in contradiction to the beautiful honesty of our BCP's Articles and Rubrics. If a monstrance, in and of itself, is the one additional symbol you simply must have :-) then can you expand on what it symbolizes to you?

On the other hand, the decorations applied on the monstrance may be symbols. In this case, they'd probably mean the same thing if they decorated an altar frontal, or a stained-glass window, or a chancel-screen. If it is these decorative symbols -- iconic decorations, if you will -- that you simply must have, then what symbol is most critical? Is it the Agnus Dei, the Chi-rho, a realistic depiction of the Nativity, or some other symbol? And what does that symbol mean to you?

[The Lord is my banner]

I'm not quite sure what you're asking, but hope this is on track:

I think the cross must be the most universally recognised symbol of Christ, therefore the most likely to announce to people that this building is the place where His followers can be found.

Externally, Church towers and steeples are also a great testimony to the presence and importance of Jesus as they tower above surrounding buildings and countryside. Centuries of proclamation of the Lord's presence and availability to all who seek.

The best of both - a high steeple with a cross on top!

Blessings, Susana

[pmcleanj]

I think the cross must be the most universally recognised symbol of Christ, therefore the most likely to announce to people that this building is the place where His followers can be found.

Externally, Church towers and steeples are also a great testimony to the presence and importance of Jesus as they tower above surrounding buildings and countryside. Centuries of proclamation of the Lord's presence and availability to all who seek.

The best of both - a high steeple with a cross on top!

Yes! This is exactly the kind of thing I was inviting everyone to speculate about.

In my mind, I had a picture of the community centre in the neighbourhood where I grew up (as much as I grew up anywhere! ;) ) Just a single room with vinyl-ashphalt floor tiles and white-painted cinder-block walls, with a cloakroom and a washroom and a couple cinder-block shelters where you could lace your skates tacked on to the outside. Nothing *stops* you from worshipping in such a space. But it's truly devoid of symbol, devoid even of the symbolic lack-of-symbology that you find in Puritan church buildings.

So what does it need. I think you're right on track with the steeple-and-cross. The cross is the entirety of the Christian message tied up in two lines: sacrifice and a willingness to follow the path of sacrifice, the humility to receive the benefit of Another's sacrifice, the vertical dimension that ties us to God and the horizontal dimension that ties us to one another in the Church. (Of course, that begs the question of "what kind of Cross", but we'll save that for a later thread, shall we? :) Or not, if you want to go there!)

The steeple, too, is a strong symbol. It forms part of the physical body of the church building at a structural level. Building symbology right into the stones of the building's construction is like an architectural denial of gnosticism. The matter itself becomes part of the spiritual dimension of worship; worship takes on a material solidity of undeniable proportion. It's obviousness is a symbol of our call to outreach, its height symbolizes, as you say, the immeasurable glory of the Lord.

The only problem is that in modern cities, it's pretty hard to build a steeple that towers above everything secular. Maybe we need to consider building our churches on the penthouse floors of modern office towers?

Yup, a steeple with a cross on it. I can accept that :) !

[TomUK]

The only problem is that in modern cities, it's pretty hard to build a steeple that towers above everything secular.

Well simple solution to that- just build a steeple that is higher than any other building in the land (though it probably would be best to stop it a few feet shy of the tower of babylon :P )

[JVAC]

The only problem is that in modern cities, it's pretty hard to build a steeple that towers above everything secular.Not in Fresno :D.

-James

[pmcleanj]

Fresno counts as a modern city? ;)

:sorry: Okay, cheap shot, I'm sorry :sorry: . I've never even been there but -- don't tell my husband -- you do have the cutest Mayor of any city, at least until Sean Connery decides to run for Mayor somewhere.

[rooster]

That most important symbol is our lives.

I mean this in all seriousness.
With our lives we can place the cross higher then what any steeple can.

So pertaining to the OP, the hardware does not matter at all, its the software that counts.

[pmcleanj]

That most important symbol is our lives.

I mean this in all seriousness.
With our lives we can place the cross higher then what any steeple can.
Well, certainly our lives have power that a steeple doesn't have. Certainly they are a more appropriate sacrifice to God than are church architecture and furnishings, no matter how beautiful or grand.

But I would expect our lives to be understood in the context of substance, not symbol; and I would expect our lives to play a different role from the role played by symbols.

Symbols are "things regarded as representing or recalling something else; conventional signs for some idea or process". An Anglican church building is rich in symbol: the green of the paraments symbolizes the growth of the church; the Presence Lamp in the sanctuary symbolizes the perpetual presence of God; the cruciform floor-plan symbolizes that we are founded on Christ's sacrifice on the cross; and so on. Such symbols are instructional aids. We steep our lives in these symbolic forms in Church, so that conformed by those symbols and by the truths they symbolize, our lives can be spent in doing God's work.

Your vision, of lives lived in such a way as to "place the cross higher then what any steeple can", has a noble beauty. How would you go about encouraging Christians to aspire to that vision? How would you empower them to live up to it?

[rooster]

Well, certainly our lives have power that a steeple doesn't have. Certainly they are a more appropriate sacrifice to God than are church architecture and furnishings, no matter how beautiful or grand.

But I would expect our lives to be understood in the context of substance, not symbol; and I would expect our lives to play a different role from the role played by symbols.

Symbols are "things regarded as representing or recalling something else; conventional signs for some idea or process". An Anglican church building is rich in symbol: the green of the paraments symbolizes the growth of the church; the Presence Lamp in the sanctuary symbolizes the perpetual presence of God; the cruciform floor-plan symbolizes that we are founded on Christ's sacrifice on the cross; and so on. Such symbols are instructional aids. We steep our lives in these symbolic forms in Church, so that conformed by those symbols and by the truths they symbolize, our lives can be spent in doing God's work.

My church (St Andrew's Cathedral, Singapore) is pretty much laden with traditional articles of symbolism, we even have menorahs.
Of late our church had undertaken a project to build a multimillion dollar extention and like always, church buildings are designed to have symbolic "messages" imbedded in its design and styling.
But the most important thing as our clergy had noted was the "software". Why the hardware if the software does not match up?
Why the overt christian symbols if the congregation is not "christlike"?

I have often noted tourist coming into our compounds to take pictures and sit around in our courtyards, attracted by the grandeur of the building, having their senses overloaded by christian symbols, when by themselves they all mean nothing.


Your vision, of lives lived in such a way as to "place the cross higher then what any steeple can", has a noble beauty. How would you go about encouraging Christians to aspire to that vision? How would you empower them to live up to it?

Next to our church is the tallest hotel in the world(still is i think). to another side is our version of the sydney opera house. An extravagant building for the arts and culture. Next to them our, our cathedral looks quite simple. What gives it difference is the people who comes out of it with a joy on their face that neither michaelangelo nor Norman Foster could design.
How would i do it? to me its quite simple, it lies within the words of the great commission"to make disciples ......" Meaning that we have to have strong bible teachings, strong outreach programs and strong programs to help the sick and needy.

Empowerment comes from the holy spirit driving us towards truth and obedience.

P.S Anyway, i think my post had derailed your OP a little bit. i apologise.
Thus, here i offer a more appropriate response to your OP.
I think the buidling has to give some semblance of peace, of otherworldyl-ness. Thus it has to be a sanctuary where one can retreat to it and pray and comtemplate. So thick stone walls is my suggestion.

[pmcleanj]

My church (St Andrew's Cathedral, Singapore) is pretty much laden with traditional articles of symbolism, we even have menorahs.
Of late our church had undertaken a project to build a multimillion dollar extention and like always, church buildings are designed to have symbolic "messages" imbedded in its design and styling

After I read your previous post, I went to the Saint Andrew's Cathedral website. It is a beautiful place. The "Quiet Places Project" stood out, in part because the site doesn't give any explanation of why it's called that! But I thought of it at once when you recommended thick stone walls. Stone construction also recalls to mind "Jesus Christ, the chief cornerstone". And from that of course it calls to mind the utter permanence of the Church He founded.

You point out the importance of strong Bible teaching. One of thingss we're discussing in another thread, is that Christian teaching can never be merely head-learning. One of the best teaching tools we have is the liturgy itself. The majority of the Book of Common Prayer is taken directly out of Scripture. As we recite it again and again in worship, the words of Scripture become written in our hearts. The symbology surrounding our worship, if it is effective, prepares our hearts and creates a setting for the jewel that is Scripture. Of course, the other virtue of symbology, is that it speaks constantly, not just when a service is going on. And if the symbols are valid in the culture we are ministering too, they speak to the tourists and other unchurched users of the space with an evangelical message that is sometimes more easily accepted than a more overt verbal message might be.

At the same time, our buildings need to meet practical needs and fit within practical constraints -- and those constraints are different in a 21st-century inner city than in a 16th-century village. It's interesting to me, that the symbols that "work", and the constraints of the inner city seem to be at odds. As I mentioned, steeples just don't "tower" when placed beside skyscrapers. And stone-insulated contemplative silence is extremely expensive given the cost of inner-city land and the need to surround even a thick-walled building with enough of a church-yard to give it the sense of calm to the eyes and kinesthesia, as well as to the ears. We do have a couple churches here -- not Anglican ones -- that have worship-space in office towers. They don't have much "curbside appeal", of course. And I've found worshipping in them to be an odd experience. Even though they are many stories above the street and so "tower above", and even though their height insulates them from the street noise, they do not convey either the grandeur that alludes to, nor the peace that you allude to.

[Plan 9]

That most important symbol is our lives.

I mean this in all seriousness.
With our lives we can place the cross higher then what any steeple can.

So pertaining to the OP, the hardware does not matter at all, its the software that counts.


I cannot stand back from my own life to view it as God does, and our lives are not symbolic; I know of no Christian I deeply admire who would wish his or her life to be regarded in that manner by me. It would upset them, I think.

When I look to the lives of others, they are fictional people, created to be somewhat symbolic in nature: Frodo Baggins, Samwise Gamgee, Seven of Nine, Father Brown, etc, and I would not be a Christian today if I hadn't had Frodo, Sam, and Father Brown to show me the way. Seven of Nine's example helps me work out the salvation which I have received.

Personally, I am sensitive to symbols; symbols have real meaning to me. I would be one of those tourists taking photos of your church, and I am not ashamed to be one, nor am I ashamed to have fictional mentors.

When I am ashamed of my own failure to progress, and of the random cruelties inflicted upon me by fellow believers I believed I could trust, my fictional mentors never desert me.

[pmcleanj]

When I look to the lives of others, they are fictional people, created to be somewhat symbolic in nature: Frodo Baggins, Samwise Gamgee, Seven of Nine, Father Brown, etc, and I would not be a Christian today if I hadn't had Frodo, Sam, and Father Brown to show me the way.

Many years ago I heard Orson Scott Card give a wonderful lecture on what he called "true stories". By this, he didn't mean stories that literally recount historical events; but stories that speak of deep inner and spiritual truths. He claimed that there are only five "true" stories and that all great literature is a retelling of one or more of these stories. Then he went on to use the Lord of the Rings to illustrate all of them.

It's a great tale in many ways. I certainly know it helped shape my spirituality.

[rooster]

After I read your previous post, I went to the Saint Andrew's Cathedral website. It is a beautiful place. The "Quiet Places Project" stood out, in part because the site doesn't give any explanation of why it's called that! But I thought of it at once when you recommended thick stone walls. Stone construction also recalls to mind "Jesus Christ, the chief cornerstone". And from that of course it calls to mind the utter permanence of the Church He founded.

You point out the importance of strong Bible teaching. One of thingss we're discussing in another thread, is that Christian teaching can never be merely head-learning. One of the best teaching tools we have is the liturgy itself. The majority of the Book of Common Prayer is taken directly out of Scripture. As we recite it again and again in worship, the words of Scripture become written in our hearts. The symbology surrounding our worship, if it is effective, prepares our hearts and creates a setting for the jewel that is Scripture. Of course, the other virtue of symbology, is that it speaks constantly, not just when a service is going on. And if the symbols are valid in the culture we are ministering too, they speak to the tourists and other unchurched users of the space with an evangelical message that is sometimes more easily accepted than a more overt verbal message might be.



Our grounds are located right in the middle of the CBD
(Central Business District). Pretty prime real estate, so luckly it had been named a "heritage site" by the local government.
So being in the middle of the CBD, the hustle and bustle that goes on around the grounds of the cathedral is considerable, thus the name "Quiet place project". That in the midst of all the tumult from traffic, bot human and vehicular. That secular noise in the head of every pedestrian is also tremondous. So the name QPP, was meant for the finished building to be just that, to contrast the noise of the self-seeking world with that of simple peace, that of a quiet place. Thereafter, it would hopefully draw in the "weary and heavy laden".
This is at least why i think it was thus named, i hope i had not misrepresented the church.


Now to the point of of bible study and liturgy.
I realised i was being too general and even careless in detailing the "how" to the creating of the "software".
I am a fervant believer in bible study, not only in its self evident truths but also of the inner restructuring it can prompt. I myself was lead to this anglican church of mine because of its emphasis on preaching and teaching from the bible (on top of their serious stance against secular issues). Prior to that i was part of the charismatic movement for a couple of years.

My view defers from yours a little bit. My view is that the totality and the wholeness of the scripture gives liturgy its meaning, not the other way round, liturgy facillitates worship in large congregations, but for the personal developement of congruents, Liturgy could be a little vague at times(or perhaps i am too simple of mind to appreciate it fully).

Making of disciples is not an easy activity to define, for the most important work belongs to our Lord and sometimes encompasses change that we might find difficult to describe. But Christ did command us to go forth and make disciples and thus we undoubtedly have a part ot play.
My personal definition of bible teaching is not just head learning ;)
It is the consumption of it and incorporating the values, morals ethics and truths into our lives. To turn mere words into "Springs of living water" is of course the domain of our Lord. Bible teaching has to be an activity that prompts action, both inward and outward.

I read the other thread concerning liturgy and was reminded of the original meaning of liturgy. Like you mentioned, liturgy is loosely translated as "public service", and it existed as an important mechanism within the classic roman state for both encouraging it's more prominant citizens to engage in civic "duty" whether voluntary or otherwise, and also to squeeze service and labour from the "proletariates"(to borrow a word from a different era) of the state.

So perhaps liturgy could be reintroduce in the original sense of the word(Please do not stone me here, i am just playing with an idea). That congregants have to submit to an extraction of civic service(liturgy) for the church in terms of fufilling some work or labour for the weak and the destitute, for the orphans and the widows.
Of course it is better for us to perform such deeds out of brotherly love, but even if that has not been shaped yet in our hearts, let our obligation to those with needs be not forgotten, meanwhile.

[rooster]

I cannot stand back from my own life to view it as God does, and our lives are not symbolic; I know of no Christian I deeply admire who would wish his or her life to be regarded in that manner by me. It would upset them, I think.

When I look to the lives of others, they are fictional people, created to be somewhat symbolic in nature: Frodo Baggins, Samwise Gamgee, Seven of Nine, Father Brown, etc, and I would not be a Christian today if I hadn't had Frodo, Sam, and Father Brown to show me the way. Seven of Nine's example helps me work out the salvation which I have received.

Personally, I am sensitive to symbols; symbols have real meaning to me. I would be one of those tourists taking photos of your church, and I am not ashamed to be one, nor am I ashamed to have fictional mentors.

When I am ashamed of my own failure to progress, and of the random cruelties inflicted upon me by fellow believers I believed I could trust, my fictional mentors never desert me.

I totally agree Plan. Humans would never be enough to be a symbol.
Please allow me to clarify, what i meant was not the humans to be symbols but the lifes they lead. We are called to be different from the world, uncompromised and Christ-like, so the sybmol lies more in the difference of us to the "world" then in the us. That the difference of the Christian activity should differ from the activity of the unbeliever enough for the difference to be a "symbol"
And the lifes are not symbolic because they seem perfect and unblemish(for that could never be) but because it has joy even with tribulation, even if it falls, it gets up to continue the race. But above all, a life that gives Glory to God and is constantly trying to emulate Christ.
A life that had recognize its depravity and falls at the feet of a Lord and saviour in surrender.
In the context that we are to be the "salt of the earth", "the city that cannot be hidden" and that even when "the Lord taketh away" that life would still cry "Blessed be the name of the Lord".
This life is not symbolic not because it already is, but because it is trying.

I must admit i am speaking in rather idealistic terms. Reality is for more... Real

[Plan 9]

I totally agree Plan. Humans would never be enough to be a symbol.
Please allow me to clarify, what i meant was not the humans to be symbols but the lifes they lead. We are called to be different from the world, uncompromised and Christ-like, so the sybmol lies more in the difference of us to the "world" then in the us. That the difference of the Christian activity should differ from the activity of the unbeliever enough for the difference to be a "symbol"
And the lifes are not symbolic because they seem perfect and unblemish(for that could never be) but because it has joy even with tribulation, even if it falls, it gets up to continue the race. But above all, a life that gives Glory to God and is constantly trying to emulate Christ.
A life that had recognize its depravity and falls at the feet of a Lord and saviour in surrender.
In the context that we are to be the "salt of the earth", "the city that cannot be hidden" and that even when "the Lord taketh away" that life would still cry "Blessed be the name of the Lord".
This life is not symbolic not because it already is, but because it is trying.

I must admit i am speaking in rather idealistic terms. Reality is for more... Real


I don't entirely disagree with you here, but who views my life in its reality, except for God? No one else knows my inner throughts; at the times when I may appear to be behaving in the most unChristian way possible, I may actually be trying my very best to do God's will, and may even be succeeding. If my life is symbolic, it's a symbolism which no one perceives.
Even my fictional mentors don't perceive themselves as anyone's mentors; they're just trying to do the right thing, and often when they feel there is little or no hope of success, and their efforts are sometimes futile. What they never do is give up when they fail.

[Plan 9]

Many years ago I heard Orson Scott Card give a wonderful lecture on what he called "true stories". By this, he didn't mean stories that literally recount historical events; but stories that speak of deep inner and spiritual truths. He claimed that there are only five "true" stories and that all great literature is a retelling of one or more of these stories. Then he went on to use the Lord of the Rings to illustrate all of them.

I would have loved to have heard this lecture. Mr. Card is no slouch at this himself. ;)
It is his books, and Stephen Kings's, I now eagerly await to tell me the "true" stories in a new form.

It's a great tale in many ways. I certainly know it helped shape my spirituality.

LOTR made all the difference to me. I first read it at thirteen or fourteen.

[chalice_thunder]

But everything else, from the location and orientation of the church to the colour of the carpet is up for grabs: what one symbological element would you insist upon?

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeek! :eek: Don't say 'carpet' in front of a church musician!!! :wave:

Actually - I think the symbols work best together -

WATER + WORD + TABLE

Those 3 are central for me at least. If I had to pick one over the other, I'd have a hard time.

All other symbols, while they can be good teaching tools if they are clear, are secondary (IMO)

[pmcleanj]

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeek! :eek: Don't say 'carpet' in front of a church musician!!! :wave:

Actually - I think the symbols work best together -

WATER + WORD + TABLE

Those 3 are central for me at least. If I had to pick one over the other, I'd have a hard time.

All other symbols, while they can be good teaching tools if they are clear, are secondary (IMO)
Seems like everyone who posts, I end up nagging them a little further. I hope I'm not annoying people!

So what's up with the carpet? Or is your music unamplified? The problem our band has is that the church building is a bit too accousticly bright. More banners on the wall is the solution there of course, so I'm happy.

The Table is a given: you need it to celebrate the Lord's Supper. Since we just moved into a new church building and haven't finished furnishing it yet, our Table is one of those banquet-tables with the folding legs. Symbologically, that's probable better than a large kidney-shaped altar of red stone, I think! I want the Table to look more like a table than like an altar, in a statement that the age of sacrifice ended with Christ's Sacrifice. It's important, too, that the Table be located "front and centre" -- or at any rate, at least central. In a puritan church, the pulpit is the central architectural feature. In a Baptist church the full-immersion font is the central architectural feature. Each congregation places centrally that which is formative to its communal life. We are a Eucharistic People. I think the location of the Table may well be the symbological element I would choose to answer my own question.

How do you symbolize the Word? Two symbols of the Word are the pulpit and the lectern. Lately -- probably a technological development resulting from the wireless microphone -- most priests seem to prefer preaching from the floor of the chancel rather than from the pulpit. Many recently-built churches don't even have pulpits. Some don't even have lecterns. Indeed, the absence of a lectern forces readers to take the Scriptures into their own hands: itself a symbolic action.

Water is usually symbolized by the font. I love the concept of a true ancient Traditional baptistry: a church built over running water, with the baptistry by the entrance so that everyone who enters must literally enter "by" the waters of baptism. In contrast, a font is a pretty static symbol, although I have seen some beautiful ones. The chapel at the Lutheran university north of here has one built like a broad deep well overflowing with water. The surface of the well is as still as glass, and just slightly domed over by surface tension (people have been known to set things down on it thinking it has a glass top, only to watch in dismay as they plummet to the bottom). I remember one made of hand-thrown pottery by a congregational member in a hand-carved natural wood stand made by another member, that was stunning -- but not feasible for immersion. We need to be careful about making our symbols too subtle. How were you thinking of using Water symbology in our hypothetical church?

[Polycarp1]

The Church is rich with an immense number of symbols. And the ones mentioned above are, to varying degrees, important means of focusing us on the faith of the church.

But in the last analysis there is one symbol that stands above all others:

In the Cross of Christ I glory
Towering over the wrecks of time
Without the Atonement and all that goes with it, none of the rest would mean anything.

[chalice_thunder]

Seems like everyone who posts, I end up nagging them a little further. I hope I'm not annoying people!

So what's up with the carpet? Or is your music unamplified? The problem our band has is that the church building is a bit too accousticly bright. More banners on the wall is the solution there of course, so I'm happy.

The Table is a given: you need it to celebrate the Lord's Supper. Since we just moved into a new church building and haven't finished furnishing it yet, our Table is one of those banquet-tables with the folding legs. Symbologically, that's probable better than a large kidney-shaped altar of red stone, I think! I want the Table to look more like a table than like an altar, in a statement that the age of sacrifice ended with Christ's Sacrifice. It's important, too, that the Table be located "front and centre" -- or at any rate, at least central. In a puritan church, the pulpit is the central architectural feature. In a Baptist church the full-immersion font is the central architectural feature. Each congregation places centrally that which is formative to its communal life. We are a Eucharistic People. I think the location of the Table may well be the symbological element I would choose to answer my own question.

How do you symbolize the Word? Two symbols of the Word are the pulpit and the lectern. Lately -- probably a technological development resulting from the wireless microphone -- most priests seem to prefer preaching from the floor of the chancel rather than from the pulpit. Many recently-built churches don't even have pulpits. Some don't even have lecterns. Indeed, the absence of a lectern forces readers to take the Scriptures into their own hands: itself a symbolic action.

Water is usually symbolized by the font. I love the concept of a true ancient Traditional baptistry: a church built over running water, with the baptistry by the entrance so that everyone who enters must literally enter "by" the waters of baptism. In contrast, a font is a pretty static symbol, although I have seen some beautiful ones. The chapel at the Lutheran university north of here has one built like a broad deep well overflowing with water. The surface of the well is as still as glass, and just slightly domed over by surface tension (people have been known to set things down on it thinking it has a glass top, only to watch in dismay as they plummet to the bottom). I remember one made of hand-thrown pottery by a congregational member in a hand-carved natural wood stand made by another member, that was stunning -- but not feasible for immersion. We need to be careful about making our symbols too subtle. How were you thinking of using Water symbology in our hypothetical church?

Well I am glad you asked those probing questions!

First - carpet is just awful for the singing body - it hampers the congregation's song. That being said, if it's a large cavernous building, the preached word can get lost...so one must weigh these things carefully. But on carpet, I'm a "less is more" guy.

Your Table sounds perfectly wonderful!
While a marble altar looks pretty and all, and certainly calls to mind a priest standing in front of or behind it, elevating a host etc. So the initiated would know what it meant.
The banquet table tells everyone, seekers and long-timers alike, that hospitality is imminent. A powerful, simple symbol. I would place the Table at the center of everything.

WORD is tougher - we now do all scripture and preaching from what was the pulpit - we now call it the ambo. (Except we preach the gospel from the midst of the people) I would PREFER to have a small lectern with a good sized open book upon it. I would place it some distance from the altar, in a position where all people could see and hear and respond to the word.

WATER - ah, to me our central symbol. Ideally I would have a large immersion font built into a huge narthex. Running water would be a feature of this - to constantly remind us that we are dead and buried with Christ and raised in baptism. And since it's in the Narthex - EVERYBODY must pass by it to enter the church. Not bad symbolism at all, IMO.

And to Poly- I agree to a point - the cross stands as the principal symbol of Christianity. And I love it - but the empty tomb speaks more to me. Perhaps this is why water speaks most powerfully to me. Water=Death; Water=NewLife

Bless you all! :hug:

[Flavius]

Personally, I am sensitive to symbols; symbols have real meaning to me. I would be one of those tourists taking photos of your church, and I am not ashamed to be one, nor am I ashamed to have fictional mentors.
I can really relate to this,My hero was Foghorn LegHorn and I gotta tell you that there are alot of chicken hawks out there trying to pull the legg of a big Rooster and sometimes ya jus gotta pet them on the head and smile and say-Don't hurt yourself boy.

[Plan 9]

I can really relate to this,My hero was Foghorn LegHorn and I gotta tell you that there are alot of chicken hawks out there trying to pull the legg of a big Rooster and sometimes ya jus gotta pet them on the head and smile and say-Don't hurt yourself boy.

Yes! Foghorn Leghorn! You can't let those little chicken hawks get to you! What would we have done without Warner Bros. to teach us these things?
We were just taliking in Wesley's Parish about how children get weird ideas from grownup church services: Carly and I both tried to puzzle out the concept of the Holy Ghost as small children; we knew he couldn't be a bad Ghost, but was he like Casper, the Friendly Ghost? That didn't seem right, either.
Wrner Bros., on the other hand, knew how to tell us the good stories, the symbolism of which we could always understand. There are a lot of WB cartoons about large powerful animals being pestered by little ones, and then there's Wile E. Coyote, who never gives up trying to get that Roadrunner, in spite of not being as smart, and being plagued with all that faulty Ace equipment. He's no quitter, is he? He's like Don Quixote, only for kids. :)

Anglican mods: we believe ourselves to be smack on-topic; we can't help it that we think like this. Honest!

[rooster]

Should have watched more warner bros cartoons, all i can remember was bugs bunny being very irritating.

Nowadays i'm more a fan of anime, and in animes the protagonist are more anti-heros then real heros.

Anyway, i'm a Tom Bombadil man.