It is with gratitude and thanks to Philip Bess for the submission of his article and life-long work to champion the intentional retrieval of a seemingly lost theoretical foundation for an architecture and urbanism which produces flourishing. The succinct analytical critique put forth in his essay simultaneously gives reflective pause to daily creative acts while enlivening the felt essential purposes of a Christian pursuing the craft of architecture for the glory of the Lord.
Following, in response, I offer a series of reflections which intend to augment Bess’s thoughts all while providing an augmenting perspective. I acknowledge that Bess is writing from within a Catholic institution which has either directly or indirectly informed the thinking presented. As a faith ally, yet with notable differences in theological emphasis, I write from the Christian tradition identified as Evangelical Protestantism, serving in a Baptist institution. The difference in institutional (if not personal) Christian emphasis, I sense, has shaped a potential variance in thinking.
Thus, with an offering of thoughts from a different faith vantage, below, I offer two couplets of affirmations and critical reflections. The affirmations serve to highlight shared foundations that appear to exist in both perspectives as detailed above; and the critical reflections do not intent to critique, but to offer an additional set of questions which may augment thinking on the intersection of architecture, Christianity, and our world.
To that end, I now turn.
Couplet 1: Affirmation
The Necessity of Aspiration to a Legitimate Authority in Architecture
I appreciate Bess’s courage to ‘rashly’ identify a ‘First Law of Architecture and Urbanism’ which states, “All architecture represents the power of its makers and their aspirations to legitimate authority.” This acknowledgement that architecture is not merely brick laid upon brick, but rather a ‘willful act of symbolic import’ I deeply appreciate.
Yet it is the nuance of how Bess describes a willful act for which I am most thankful to read. Observing contemporary practice, it is easy to see that a ‘willful act of symbolic import’ could easily be understood within the contemporary ethic of authenticity, or via the lens of expressive individualism, where we employ symbolic means as a mode to achieve a materialized manifestation of our authentic selves. However, the formulation of Bess’s ‘First Law’ guards against such contemporary impulses by identifying the necessity of a ‘legitimate authority’ which is ‘more than’ humans and their capacity. The ‘legitimate authority’ serves as an external authority by which human yield their self-referential desires and find direction to their powers.
As a Christian architect, the proposed ‘First Law’ grounds the unwieldy and chaotic practice of generating form from conceptual whim. The telos of a Christian architect thus mirrors the telos of a Christian life – both submitting to an external ‘legitimate authority’. We are called to pursue shalom, act as agents of reconciliation, serve as sub-creators mirroring God’s beautiful creation, re-establish connections between humans and God, reform relationship between humans, care for creation, and ultimately point to God’s special and general revelation so that all may come to know the Lord.
I trust that both a Catholic and Protestant perspective would affirm that such ‘legitimate authority’ is most fully found in God and the participation in His commands.
Couplet 1: Critical Reflection
Architecture as reflection; Architecture as a reconciler
However, there is an observable difference in emphasis in how one sees architectural design emerging from the shared foundation of a ‘legitimate authority’. Although not explicitly stated, Bess’s critical review of modernism is formulated to observe how the ideals of modernism became the symbolic import of architecture; or how the architecture reflects the broader rise of modernity. He points to the rise of technology production and bureaucratic organization that changed human desire and imagination. Thus, as philosophical foundations shifted, so then did the intention and manifestation of built form. In the same approach Bess identifies shifts in hyper-modernism, identifying correlations with contemporary architectural practices.
Let me pause here and note that I am in agreement that architecture serves as a reflection of socio-cultural-philosophical realities. There is no intent to disagree with such historical analysis or approach. What I do want to observe is Bess’s implied prescription for the observed ailment.
As Bess moves to the second part of the essay, he offers two case studies, which read as an implied prescription for the observed ills of contemporary practice. In this section he offers us two case studies where classical humanism’s ideals are employed in the creation of architecture and urban design. I freely acknowledge the beauty of the results but want to take a moment to observe the theory of approach (not the theory itself).
In response to the contemporary condition, Bess’s approach is to identify an architectural theory with an appropriate grounding, tradition, and legitimate authority – i.e. classical humanism – and work to create architecture which manifests the theory despite the differing physical or philosophical context. Or in other words, the in this approach, architecture is arguably understood as a reflection of an objective good.
Reading this as an Evangelical Protestant, Bess’s approach to reflect strikes me as curious since it differs from the instinctual approach found in the Evangelical tradition. I would like to suggest, for further conversation, that the difference in faith emphasis is perhaps at play here in the differences. Bess’s instinct to reflect perhaps emerges from the great Catholic tradition whereby the church and her actions stand as an outpost, or earthly example, of God’s kingdom. As such, the aim for the church is to be God’s kingdom on earth, reflecting Christ, for all to see, come, and participate in (speaking loosely and not in technical theological terms due to length). Bess’s approach of creating pockets of the good (architecture and urbanism) carries on this great tradition. The act of creating a classical humanist development surrounded by a vastly different socio-cultural-philosophical context mirrors this theological emphasis to be an earthly outpost of God’s kingdom for people to witness.
In contrast, in the Evangelical Protestant tradition, the impulse is not to reflect, but to reconcile the world to God throughthe spreading of His Word; it is not a come and see, but a go and save. Thus, the architectural impulse is not to build outposts of good, standing as representative of wholistic flourishing within itself. Rather the impulse is to recognize the sinful state of the world and contextually intervene with a specific manifestation of goodness or beauty, such that people are moved in their native ‘heart languages’ to seek God in their existing context. In other words, the process is one whereby you ‘go’ and ‘intervene’ inviting those to God and to a continual sanctification process starting from existing conditions to a slow reconciliation towards shalom. This approach stands in contrast to the building of an outpost calling others to come and participate. This Evangelical Protestant emphasis is grounded in the calling to the Great Commission over a manifested and cross-applied ecclesiology found in Bess’s approach.
Observing this faith emphasis difference then leads to the second set of observations regarding the proper place of architecture’s internal objectives.
Couplet 2: Critical Reflection
Architectural Telos
By observing the difference in faith emphasis above, we can continue the extrapolate the thinking to consider Bess’s discussion of the authority of architecture.
Bess aptly notes that political meanings of buildings are ‘neither inherent nor unimportant’. Further, if one sets the question of political meanings aside, there can be a discussion of architectural authority ‘based on architecture’s internal objectives, i.e., the goods it seeks in terms of its own understanding.’ Following, Bess recalls that such internal objectives of ‘classical humanist architecture’s complex telos’ are defined best by ideas which bring buildings into right relationship with its internal aims such as the Vitruvian triad of durability, usefulness, and beauty.
This emphasis on internal goods as architectural telos aligns well with the previously observed instinct to create a representation of the good. Yet from an Evangelical Protestant perspective, which places an emphasis on contextualized reconciliation via the Great Commission, it is not obvious to locate the telos within internal goods. Rather, the instinct is to align the telos to the God’s redemptive mission such that the purpose of architecture is to catalyze relationship with God or create encounters of reconciliation. The purpose of architecture is not merely the alignment of internal goods, but the alignment with God’s evangelistic call.
By focusing on the alignment of internal goods, two main concerns arise. First, there is a fear that by setting aside broader external telos of architecture for an examination of internal self-referential aims, architecture begins to succumb to the temptation of which modernism fell; the temptation to see the world as immanent vs transcendent. Secondly, there is fear that through an inward focus on a building’s right relationship to its own parts, there is a downplaying of its fittedness to its context. By this I do not mean contextual considerations of materials, site location, or economics. Rather, I’m illuding to the fear of downplaying the consideration of how the physical creation is contextualized to an understanding of the local socio-cultural-philosophical surroundings in such a way that it participates in the telos of God’s redemptive mission.
Let me take a few lines to expand upon this line of thinking with a contemporary example. In my reading of contemporary culture, I find Charles Taylor’s observations in A Secular Age to be most instructive. In short, Taylor makes the observation that 500 years ago it was nearly impossible to not believe in God, where as now, it is nearly impossible to believe in God. He traces historical reasons for this shift, ultimately concluding that our secular age is a cross-pressure of belief and unbelief resulting from a process whereby the world was disenchanted. He also notes that when we consider the realities of a secular age, we much recognize that our secular age has not replaced believe with unbelief in God, but is a culture that simultaneously believes and disbelieves. Thus, in such a disenchanted age, believers believe while doubting, and non-believers are haunted by the transcendence.
With this understanding, if we were to ask what the manifestation of a Great Commission purpose for architecture is, we first look to understand the culture such that an intervention can be designed to resonate or create opportunities for gospel encounter. Again, observing Taylor, if we live in an age were understanding the world as immanent and disenchanted is a barrier to belief in God, architectural works must seek to ‘haunt’ non-believers with the transcendence which reenchant our world. To do so, creates contextualized architectural works aligned with the Great Commission telos. I fear that Bess’s focus on internal goods would not allow for a contextualized reading of the opportunities and barriers to the gospel, and thus would pursue a conversation about style, human scale, or sense of place. All of these conversations are important, but perhaps not primary in the current context to spur on making Christ’s name known to a disenchanted culture.
Thus, if we align architecture telos with God’s aims and apply it in a contextualized way, the architectural conversation moves away from alignment of internal goods, as proposed by Bess, to a focus on how and what sorts of architecture speaks to broader culture so that Christ may be known. Thus the conversation isn’t about Vitruvian triads (although I’d agree all good architecture should pursue these ideals) but how to best understand the opportunities and barriers for the gospel in contemporary culture – leading us to ask how architecture can provide transcendent experiences in sacred, and arguably more important, in non-sacred spaces as a means to re-enchantment.
The above is but one broad stroke example highlighting the need for contextualization of architectural works in order to achieve a telos which aligns with God’s desire for all to know His name, but the principles apply broadly.
Couplet 2: Affirmation
The Role of Beauty
Even though above I have made a few observations of the variance between Bess’s approach and my instincts – arguably influenced by our different faith emphasis – I end my thoughts in agreement with Bess, and many of the other responders, namely in the importance of beauty in architectural design. I am in agreement that beauty must not be subjective, nihilistic, or narcissistic in understanding, but must be seen as objective, rooted in observable principles, and worthy of all architectural aims. As many commentors have noted, our contemporary world appreciates and needs beauty beyond affect, and therefore the time is right to recapture a grounded architectural practice in objective beauty.
As a designer, I am motivated by this moment where a Christian telos and observation of our cultural need coalesce into the call to create encounters with beautiful artifacts that lead to encounters with the real source of beauty – namely God. May we all learn to understand beauty in its proper way, and design with such ends in mind.
Concluding Thoughts
In conclusion, I want to thank Philip Bess for spurring me on with his essay towards deeper foundations and higher aims, recognizing contemporary practice for what it is, and recharging my longing for architecture worthy of God’s aims whether we see that as The New Jerusalem, or a manifestation of the Great Commission.
Matthew Niermann is Associate Professor of Architecture and Creativity at California Baptist University.
It is with gratitude and thanks to Philip Bess for the submission of his article and life-long work to champion the intentional retrieval of a seemingly lost theoretical foundation for an architecture and urbanism which produces flourishing. The succinct analytical critique put forth in his essay simultaneously gives reflective pause to daily creative acts while enlivening the felt essential purposes of a Christian pursuing the craft of architecture for the glory of the Lord.
Following, in response, I offer a series of reflections which intend to augment Bess’s thoughts all while providing an augmenting perspective. I acknowledge that Bess is writing from within a Catholic institution which has either directly or indirectly informed the thinking presented. As a faith ally, yet with notable differences in theological emphasis, I write from the Christian tradition identified as Evangelical Protestantism, serving in a Baptist institution. The difference in institutional (if not personal) Christian emphasis, I sense, has shaped a potential variance in thinking.
Thus, with an offering of thoughts from a different faith vantage, below, I offer two couplets of affirmations and critical reflections. The affirmations serve to highlight shared foundations that appear to exist in both perspectives as detailed above; and the critical reflections do not intent to critique, but to offer an additional set of questions which may augment thinking on the intersection of architecture, Christianity, and our world.
To that end, I now turn.
Couplet 1: Affirmation
The Necessity of Aspiration to a Legitimate Authority in Architecture
I appreciate Bess’s courage to ‘rashly’ identify a ‘First Law of Architecture and Urbanism’ which states, “All architecture represents the power of its makers and their aspirations to legitimate authority.” This acknowledgement that architecture is not merely brick laid upon brick, but rather a ‘willful act of symbolic import’ I deeply appreciate.
Yet it is the nuance of how Bess describes a willful act for which I am most thankful to read. Observing contemporary practice, it is easy to see that a ‘willful act of symbolic import’ could easily be understood within the contemporary ethic of authenticity, or via the lens of expressive individualism, where we employ symbolic means as a mode to achieve a materialized manifestation of our authentic selves. However, the formulation of Bess’s ‘First Law’ guards against such contemporary impulses by identifying the necessity of a ‘legitimate authority’ which is ‘more than’ humans and their capacity. The ‘legitimate authority’ serves as an external authority by which human yield their self-referential desires and find direction to their powers.
As a Christian architect, the proposed ‘First Law’ grounds the unwieldy and chaotic practice of generating form from conceptual whim. The telos of a Christian architect thus mirrors the telos of a Christian life – both submitting to an external ‘legitimate authority’. We are called to pursue shalom, act as agents of reconciliation, serve as sub-creators mirroring God’s beautiful creation, re-establish connections between humans and God, reform relationship between humans, care for creation, and ultimately point to God’s special and general revelation so that all may come to know the Lord.
I trust that both a Catholic and Protestant perspective would affirm that such ‘legitimate authority’ is most fully found in God and the participation in His commands.
Couplet 1: Critical Reflection
Architecture as reflection; Architecture as a reconciler
However, there is an observable difference in emphasis in how one sees architectural design emerging from the shared foundation of a ‘legitimate authority’. Although not explicitly stated, Bess’s critical review of modernism is formulated to observe how the ideals of modernism became the symbolic import of architecture; or how the architecture reflects the broader rise of modernity. He points to the rise of technology production and bureaucratic organization that changed human desire and imagination. Thus, as philosophical foundations shifted, so then did the intention and manifestation of built form. In the same approach Bess identifies shifts in hyper-modernism, identifying correlations with contemporary architectural practices.
Let me pause here and note that I am in agreement that architecture serves as a reflection of socio-cultural-philosophical realities. There is no intent to disagree with such historical analysis or approach. What I do want to observe is Bess’s implied prescription for the observed ailment.
As Bess moves to the second part of the essay, he offers two case studies, which read as an implied prescription for the observed ills of contemporary practice. In this section he offers us two case studies where classical humanism’s ideals are employed in the creation of architecture and urban design. I freely acknowledge the beauty of the results but want to take a moment to observe the theory of approach (not the theory itself).
In response to the contemporary condition, Bess’s approach is to identify an architectural theory with an appropriate grounding, tradition, and legitimate authority – i.e. classical humanism - and work to create architecture which manifests the theory despite the differing physical or philosophical context. Or in other words, the in this approach, architecture is arguably understood as a reflection of an objective good.
Reading this as an Evangelical Protestant, Bess’s approach to reflect strikes me as curious since it differs from the instinctual approach found in the Evangelical tradition. I would like to suggest, for further conversation, that the difference in faith emphasis is perhaps at play here in the differences. Bess’s instinct to reflect perhaps emerges from the great Catholic tradition whereby the church and her actions stand as an outpost, or earthly example, of God’s kingdom. As such, the aim for the church is to be God’s kingdom on earth, reflecting Christ, for all to see, come, and participate in (speaking loosely and not in technical theological terms due to length). Bess’s approach of creating pockets of the good (architecture and urbanism) carries on this great tradition. The act of creating a classical humanist development surrounded by a vastly different socio-cultural-philosophical context mirrors this theological emphasis to be an earthly outpost of God’s kingdom for people to witness.
In contrast, in the Evangelical Protestant tradition, the impulse is not to reflect, but to reconcile the world to God throughthe spreading of His Word; it is not a come and see, but a go and save. Thus, the architectural impulse is not to build outposts of good, standing as representative of wholistic flourishing within itself. Rather the impulse is to recognize the sinful state of the world and contextually intervene with a specific manifestation of goodness or beauty, such that people are moved in their native ‘heart languages’ to seek God in their existing context. In other words, the process is one whereby you ‘go’ and ‘intervene’ inviting those to God and to a continual sanctification process starting from existing conditions to a slow reconciliation towards shalom. This approach stands in contrast to the building of an outpost calling others to come and participate. This Evangelical Protestant emphasis is grounded in the calling to the Great Commission over a manifested and cross-applied ecclesiology found in Bess’s approach.
Observing this faith emphasis difference then leads to the second set of observations regarding the proper place of architecture’s internal objectives.
Couplet 2: Critical Reflection
Architectural Telos
By observing the difference in faith emphasis above, we can continue the extrapolate the thinking to consider Bess’s discussion of the authority of architecture.
Bess aptly notes that political meanings of buildings are ‘neither inherent nor unimportant’. Further, if one sets the question of political meanings aside, there can be a discussion of architectural authority ‘based on architecture’s internal objectives, i.e., the goods it seeks in terms of its own understanding.’ Following, Bess recalls that such internal objectives of ‘classical humanist architecture’s complex telos’ are defined best by ideas which bring buildings into right relationship with its internal aims such as the Vitruvian triad of durability, usefulness, and beauty.
This emphasis on internal goods as architectural telos aligns well with the previously observed instinct to create a representation of the good. Yet from an Evangelical Protestant perspective, which places an emphasis on contextualized reconciliation via the Great Commission, it is not obvious to locate the telos within internal goods. Rather, the instinct is to align the telos to the God’s redemptive mission such that the purpose of architecture is to catalyze relationship with God or create encounters of reconciliation. The purpose of architecture is not merely the alignment of internal goods, but the alignment with God’s evangelistic call.
By focusing on the alignment of internal goods, two main concerns arise. First, there is a fear that by setting aside broader external telos of architecture for an examination of internal self-referential aims, architecture begins to succumb to the temptation of which modernism fell; the temptation to see the world as immanent vs transcendent. Secondly, there is fear that through an inward focus on a building’s right relationship to its own parts, there is a downplaying of its fittedness to its context. By this I do not mean contextual considerations of materials, site location, or economics. Rather, I’m illuding to the fear of downplaying the consideration of how the physical creation is contextualized to an understanding of the local socio-cultural-philosophical surroundings in such a way that it participates in the telos of God’s redemptive mission.
Let me take a few lines to expand upon this line of thinking with a contemporary example. In my reading of contemporary culture, I find Charles Taylor’s observations in A Secular Age to be most instructive. In short, Taylor makes the observation that 500 years ago it was nearly impossible to not believe in God, where as now, it is nearly impossible to believe in God. He traces historical reasons for this shift, ultimately concluding that our secular age is a cross-pressure of belief and unbelief resulting from a process whereby the world was disenchanted. He also notes that when we consider the realities of a secular age, we much recognize that our secular age has not replaced believe with unbelief in God, but is a culture that simultaneously believes and disbelieves. Thus, in such a disenchanted age, believers believe while doubting, and non-believers are haunted by the transcendence.
With this understanding, if we were to ask what the manifestation of a Great Commission purpose for architecture is, we first look to understand the culture such that an intervention can be designed to resonate or create opportunities for gospel encounter. Again, observing Taylor, if we live in an age were understanding the world as immanent and disenchanted is a barrier to belief in God, architectural works must seek to ‘haunt’ non-believers with the transcendence which reenchant our world. To do so, creates contextualized architectural works aligned with the Great Commission telos. I fear that Bess’s focus on internal goods would not allow for a contextualized reading of the opportunities and barriers to the gospel, and thus would pursue a conversation about style, human scale, or sense of place. All of these conversations are important, but perhaps not primary in the current context to spur on making Christ’s name known to a disenchanted culture.
Thus, if we align architecture telos with God’s aims and apply it in a contextualized way, the architectural conversation moves away from alignment of internal goods, as proposed by Bess, to a focus on how and what sorts of architecture speaks to broader culture so that Christ may be known. Thus the conversation isn’t about Vitruvian triads (although I’d agree all good architecture should pursue these ideals) but how to best understand the opportunities and barriers for the gospel in contemporary culture – leading us to ask how architecture can provide transcendent experiences in sacred, and arguably more important, in non-sacred spaces as a means to re-enchantment.
The above is but one broad stroke example highlighting the need for contextualization of architectural works in order to achieve a telos which aligns with God’s desire for all to know His name, but the principles apply broadly.
Couplet 2: Affirmation
The Role of Beauty
Even though above I have made a few observations of the variance between Bess’s approach and my instincts – arguably influenced by our different faith emphasis - I end my thoughts in agreement with Bess, and many of the other responders, namely in the importance of beauty in architectural design. I am in agreement that beauty must not be subjective, nihilistic, or narcissistic in understanding, but must be seen as objective, rooted in observable principles, and worthy of all architectural aims. As many commentors have noted, our contemporary world appreciates and needs beauty beyond affect, and therefore the time is right to recapture a grounded architectural practice in objective beauty.
As a designer, I am motivated by this moment where a Christian telos and observation of our cultural need coalesce into the call to create encounters with beautiful artifacts that lead to encounters with the real source of beauty – namely God. May we all learn to understand beauty in its proper way, and design with such ends in mind.
Concluding Thoughts
In conclusion, I want to thank Philip Bess for spurring me on with his essay towards deeper foundations and higher aims, recognizing contemporary practice for what it is, and recharging my longing for architecture worthy of God’s aims whether we see that as The New Jerusalem, or a manifestation of the Great Commission.
Matthew Niermann is Associate Professor of Architecture and Creativity at California Baptist University.
-->