Chrysostomos Sacred Architecture

8/13/2019 Chrysostomos Sacred Architecture

1/6

+ Dr.Chrysostomos, Arhiepiscop de Etna, California

Visiting Profesor, UAUIM Bcre!ti

"#ME $E%&EC'I#(" #( C)U$C) A$C)I'EC'U$E

Let me emphasize, at the beginning of my remarks, that I am not an architect and am certainlynot an expert in the field of Church architecture. I am by training a psychologist and an historian.

However, as an rthodox clergyman, my theological background has obviously involved the study of

issues that touch on matters related to Church architecture, the adornment of Churches, and thesignificance of places of worship in the liturgical life of the rthodox Church. !rom that standpoint, I

can perhaps provide you with a few comments from a professional "outsider,# as it were, that may help

you in your own formation of ideas and thoughts about what it is that you will be doing, at the end ofyour studies, as professional "insiders.#

$y specific comments today are drawn from an article that I wrote in %&'( for the Sacred Art

Journal,a rather popular )ournal for Church art and architecture in the *nited +tates. $y article was

written in response to an article by obert Latsko, an -merican with deep interest in and knowledge ofrthodox Church architecture, entitled, "rthodox Church -rchitecture in -merica and the eed to

/uild in Harmony with our 0heology,# which appeared earlier in %&'( in the same )ournal. $y response

to this article was not in the form of a rebuttal of $r. Latsko1s presuppositions and ideas or of his articleper se, in which he raises some very important 2uestions. Indeed, his conclusions are generally

consistent with the 3atristic literature and with much of what our more traditional and learned rthodox

theologians have observed with regard to Church architecture. ather, in my response I took umbragewith a few conceptual ambiguities in his conclusions and assumptions, and it is these which I would like

to address today in my remarks, since the misunderstandings that can rise out of these ambiguities are

misunderstandings that touch on a variety of areas in Church art and architecture. 4xamining these andanalyzing them provides us with an opportunity to glimpse into some unclear areas of thought that

abound in the rthodox world today. In my comments, I will follow the flow of $r. Latsko5s article,

rather than create a response scheme of my own. +ince you probably have not read this article, it may

seem that you are at some disadvantage in this sense. However, I will summarize his ideas and attemptas much as possible fairly to present them. *ltimately, moreover, it is not his specific theme that

concerns us, except in the sense that it provides a spring6board for talking about some fascinating

concepts in Church art and architecture which we do not always properly approach and articulate. I willalso make my comments informally and in the context of personal observations gleaned from my

readings. 0here is, in other words, nothing so technical, here, that we need more than a general statement

about $r. Latsko1s various points.-t the beginning of his article, $r. Latsko points out that it is incorrect to imagine that Church

architecture must conform only to that which is "old world,# tried, tested, and indisputably rthodox. In

spirit, I agree with the thinking behind this statement. However, its formulation, as a confrontational

idea, is to my mind wrong. In an historical sense, it is clear that such an attitude is foreign to rthodoxy,since the Church has engendered and embraced many divergent architectural forms over the centuries,

many of which, while indisputably rthodox, are only half as old as the ancient /yzantine structures

which served as the initial paradigms for rthodox Church buildings. It is, in short, wrong to perceiverthodox architecture as a single thing66at least in form66, or as something that is monolithic and

historically or artistically uni6dimensional. 0his error is often made by non6rthodox and rthodox

themselves. $r. Latsko5s observation must be approached with great caution. 0he idea of an "oldworld,# in the first place, is a distinctly -merican idea, and not a very sophisticated one at that. It is a

naive historiographical artifact. If, on one of the Latinized 7reek islands, one were to build a replica of

%


2/6

the famed otunda Church of +t. 7eorge in 0hessaloniki66a Church probably originally used as a pagan

temple66, there would be an immediate reaction to this strange structure. /ut this reaction would not beto call the building "old world# or anti2uated, simply because of its ancient origins. $ore than likely,

even the most naive and unlettered peasant would ask what paradigm the Church was built after. He

would not retreat into an historical myth. 8hat we seek from older architecture in the rthodox Church

is, in fact, not a structural model or blueprint to which we must blindly adhere, but a paradigm66a modelof what it is that has housed the living 0radition of the past and that has brought it safely and

authentically into the present. In this sense, though I have addressed a distinctly -merican phenomenon

here, the thinking behind that phenomenon impinges on a misunderstanding that generalizes wellbeyond the experience of rthodox in -merica.

8hat we must understand is that while a single example or piece of architecture in the Church

may not represent a completeness of development, there are most certainly various paradigms that do,indeed, represent such completeness9 the "best# of the sixth6century /yzantine Churches, the "best# of

the Churches of the +lavic traditions, the "best# of the magnificent Churches of omania, or the "best,#

too, of more modern rthodox Church buildings. 8hile there are those who would argue that such

paradigms do not exist, they make this argument in opposition to the aesthetic consensus of therthodox Church as it is understood both by the Church !athers and our better theologians. 0here is a

criterion of )udgment, based on an analysis and careful consideration of the paradigms offered by each

national rthodox tradition, that has been formulated and utilized by students of rthodox aestheticsand which reached ascendancy during the /yzantine era. 0his criterion can help us in developing a new

tradition :$r. Latsko5s notion of an "-merican# tradition is, of course, too limited, and we should speak

more generally of a contemporary rthodox style; that draws, perhaps, on all of these paradigms, )ust asthese traditions66as it can be easily demonstrated historically66drew on one another. 8e should not

ignore this criterion, which expressed itself theologically in a synthesis of 7reek classical and Christian

thought and which was brought so clearly into focus by brilliant /yzantine thinkers and spiritualtheorists. 0o dispute this point and to imagine that the /yzantines were limited, therefore, by culture or

by an idiosyncratic outlook in their observations is to miss the catholicity of their contributions to

theology on the whole and to aesthetics in particular. +uch an argument is tantamount to claiming that

the principles of 4uclidian geometry do not apply to modern times, but are appropriate to their own age.0rue it is, and properly so, that we have developed 4uclidian geometry into new and very sophisticated

mathematical models< but this is because 4uclidian geometry was a building block on which these new

structures were built. 0hese new structures did not discard the old assumptions, but developed fromthem logically. 0he idea that the past is an impediment to development derives from a mistaken

understanding of the nature of discovery. -nd the criterion by which we )udge rthodox Church

architectural paradigms comes forth, not from creative imagination, but from discovery and revelation.=0hose wishing to study further the nature of this criterion should consult Constantine Cavarnos5

essential and penetrating volume,Byzantine Thought and Art:/elmont, $-9 Institute for /yzantine and

$odern 7reek +tudies, %&>';.?

It is also true, as $r. Latsko says, that Holy 0radition is "living,# and that Church architecture isnot, by virtue of being traditional, fixed in the past. 0his principle is, as such, absolutely accurate. /ut

the 3atristic witness identifies the vivifying nature of 0radition with the action of the Holy +pirit and

with the consensual unity of mind, belief, and even aesthetic perception that the Holy +pirit assuresamong rthodox Christians. 8e do not go beyond the past, again, by re)ecting it, but by building on it,

incorporating it into our present6day experience, communing with its vital force, understanding the

dynamic within it, and growing new branches on this essential trunk of past experience. Living 0raditionis not "alive,# I should stress, by virtue of its being uni2ue to the moment, but lives within the wholeness

of experience that links all of the past to the present, bringing together the past and present in something

@


3/6

which is integrated and whole. It is like a person, there being no essential discontinuity between the

present and past, except in the sense of evolution and growth according to a pre6determined pattern.8hile $r. Latsko, in his article, seems to agree with many of these ideas, he rather too hastily dismisses

the role of the "old world# in shaping and forming new expressions of Christian architecture that do not

rupture the harmony of past and future and the consensual aesthetic bond which rises out of transfigured

Christian perception. 0his haste of his is, unfortunately, too often a trait of modern Church architectsand, for that matter, iconographers. It goes unnoticed and thus does essential harm to the ethos of the

rthodox Church.

-nd here is the point9 perception must be transfigured, if it is to be loyal to the past and authenticin the present. Let us return, for example, to the 7reek island with the newly6built model of the otunda

Church of +t. 7eorge. In asking about the paradigm upon which the Church is built, the simple island

believer is asking, more precisely9 "8hat +aints worshipped thereA# "8hat instances of Bivineintervention characterize the history of this ChurchA# "8hat is thespiritualhistory of this ChurchA# In

other words, living 0radition reaches precisely into the heart of the Church, touching on the Church5s

responsibility and purpose of transforming human beings into holy creatures, into "gods# within 7od.

8ithout the function of bringing us into communion directly with 7od, Christianity becomes effete andloses any ontological dimension. 0his is why rthodoxy exists9 to divinize man, to bring him to theosis.

-nd it is, at one and the same time, the association of +aints with a certain Church paradigm, as well as

their transfigured vision, that sanctifies that building. Holy men and women of pure vision saw 7od insuch places, as they saw 7od in no other place, and both their vision and their sanctification, the latter

verifying and actualizing the holiness of a place of worship, commend a certain paradigmatic Church to

the !aithful. 0his commendation transcends personal taste, time, or the caprice of fashion. It touches onthe catholic.

It is apparent, from what he writes in his article, that $r. Latsko would agree with much of what

I have written on this point, too. He also admits that we must go back and study what he calls thedesigners of "old world# Churches66and let us at this point dispense with this inaccurate terminology and

speak of "traditional# Churches66and what it is that they intended to capture universally in each Church

building. I would simply warn the naive observer that this desire to capture what is "universal from the

past# is not sufficient. 8hat is universal is transformed, rising out of time and space and away from thepersonal. 0o seek what is old is not enough. It is essentially to holy men and women, to Churches

associated with such holy persons, and to holy events that we must appeal to understand the Church5s

past. 0hey are the "stuff# of spiritual authenticity and the content of living 0radition. -nd if anyoneshould think that I am saying, by way of this statement, that Icons, for example, are more authentic when

painted by a holy man or woman, this is 2uite true. I do not hesitate to state it. 0hose who wish to build

Churches, paint Icons, and capture the holy in a physical dimension must besensitizedto holy thingsthemselves. -ny architect can learn to plan a building. -ny architect can execute that plan. -ny painter

or artist can paint an Icon. 0his is inevitably true. /ut for a Church building to be what it should be, for

an Icon to express and reify the world of transfigured vision66which is best and most authentically

captured by those who are holy66, the architect or iconographer must contact this holiness, immersehimself in it, and draw from it. 8e can see clearly here, for example, why the iconographic canons

prescribe prayer and fasting as practices necessary for the execution of Holy Icons. 0his applies

especially to architecture, where it thus behooves us to concentrate our vision on the holy andtransfigured, since a building, a physical structure, is in some ways more difficult to define, within the

dimensions of human psychology, than an Icon or painting. 0he latter has, to some extent, living

counterparts. 0o find "living# buildings to serve as models66this takes tremendous insight, searching, andvision. 0o bring a building to life is a far greater feat than bringing a painting to life.


4/6

ow, further to 2ualify $r. Latsko5s understanding of the "old world,# let me say that to the

extent that we are drawn to the architectural paradigms of the past, we should not be drawn simplybecause of some national or even spiritual nostalgia< rather, our affinity for such things should come, to

reiterate what I have been saying, from our sharing in the transformed aesthetic sense of the holy ones

before us, the +aints. 0his is 2uite essential. If an architect gives spiritual life to a Church, not only must

he know the meaning of that life, but he must put some of his own spiritual vision and experience intothe Church. 0hat is what we see in the most compelling of Church architecture. It is this relationship

which is the basis of our actions and movements within the Church and all things thereto related. -nd

what does this relationship assume practicallyA It assumes a connection, a catholic continuity, betweenourselves and those of the past. 0he paradigmatic importance of traditional rthodox architecture is

known to us because we have not only immersed ourselves in holiness, as I said previously, but because

we havesharedin the holiness of these past masters. Indeed, to some extent we must ourselves becomeholy in such sharing, for such communication to take place. -nd here is the crux of my expansion of $r.

Latsko5s comments. If we are to develop a new and inspired form of architecture in modern times, we

must do so first by throwing ourselves into the life of the Holy 0raditions of the Church, producing

+aints and transforming the very air, soil, and milieu of a place with the fragrance of rthodox holiness.I do not believe that we have reached such a point in most rthodox countries, as we emerge

from the terrible ravages of history9 from the ttoman yoke, the 8estern yoke, the fascist Communist

yoke, and the menacing yoke of witless modernism. 0hose who see spirituality in a superficial way maythink that we have emerged from the influence of these forces. 0hose who wish to interpret the inspired

aesthetics of the past with the fallen aesthetics of their own imperfection may, indeed, see something in

rthodoxy that I do not. /ut I do not think that any sober spiritual !ather would attribute to thecontemporary rthodox Church anything but a fighting chance for survival, let alone for the

achievement of holiness on a massive scale. or, indeed, would it even be healthy for us to imagine that

a "theological# rebirth should improve these prospects, for it is, above all, this very separation anddiversity in theological traditions which should not exist in rthodoxy. Bifferences in customs are

possible only because of the essential unity afforded by theological uniformity. /ut more to the point,

when it is possible for me to lecture in rthodox Churches where young people must ask66with wide6

eyed curiosity at discovering an ob)ect in the Church wholly unknown to them66what a komboschoini,orprayer rope, is, it is 2uite obvious that spiritual maturity is a long way off. 8hen the clergy have become

more professional than they have become spiritual, lacking knowledge of basic ideas of pastoral

psychology and theology, it is obvious, too, that we have much distance to cover, if we are to salvageour !aith :putting aside here, of course, the spiritual element and 7od5s power in the preservation of

rthodoxy;. 0hese shortcomings are not the faults of those who do not know, but this lack of knowledge

must lead us to be realistic about where rthodoxy is today.It is perhaps most important that, in his article, $r. Latsko concentrates his understanding of the

Church building on the Liturgy. /y so doing, he focuses on the very holiness which I have established as

a prere2uisite for the development of a contemporary Church architectural tradition. It is, to be sure,

within the Liturgy that the ascent towards holiness takes form. /ut here, too, we must be circumspect.$any of the popular liturgical commentators in our Church today66in fact, many of the more popular

theologians in general66come from among clergy who have been ill6trained and, in -merica, from

communities which were )ust a few generations ago 7reek Catholic, bringing with them, as I haveargued in numerous scholarly papers, an understanding of the Liturgy which is 2uite foreign to

rthodoxy. -s the late Harvard and 3rinceton 3rofessor, !ather 7eorges !lorovsky, once commented,

with regard to the tragic situation in -merica, these converts brought with them into rthodoxy "...theirbeloved /yzantine masses.# -nd they had no difficulty in doing so, since the rthodox whom they

)oined had very little knowledge of their own genuine traditions. 4specially disturbing to many of

D


5/6

today5s theologians, and some right here in the theological school in /ucharest, I must say, are those

/yzantine liturgical commentaries which concentrate on the mystical aspects of the Liturgy, wholly atodds with the typological, dramatic reenactment which is the Liturgypar excellencefor contemporary

rthodox theologians, influenced as they are by the 8est, focusing, rather, on the Liturgy as a holy work

that manifests itself in the world of time and space transfigured within the Church. 0hus, when $r.

Latsko speaks of the Church being appropriate to the Liturgy because it is the placewhere creation issymbolized and where we create a vision of the Bivine, we can be easily led away from a purely

authentic rthodox view of the lex orandito the innovative liturgical theology of modern rthodox

liturgical commentators.0o some extent, the Bivine 4conomy and Christian salvation history are symbolized in the

Liturgy. 0o some extent, there is, in liturgical worship, a created vision of the Bivine. However, more

accurately, the Liturgy focuses on the Bivine Liturgy in Heaven :and this without the dualisticimplications that simplistic reflection might evoke from some observers;, the service on earth

paralleling, in an hierarchical way, as +t. Bionysios the -reopagite :"3seudo6Bionysios# according to

many Latinized rthodox innovators; characterizes it, the Heavenly service. Bivine 4conomy is

fulfilled, actualized, and timelessly placed forth in the liturgical services. Heaven, as it were, reachesdown and touches earth, the Bivine indwelling, in its 4nergy, the material world, physical substance, and

humankind. 0he Church is, then, not so much a place to act out the Liturgy, or for the worship of the

Bivine, as it is a place where the Bivine, worthy of worship, is contained, held, and accommodated. 8eencounter the Bivine in the Church building. Indeed, it is not )ust rhetoric when we implore, during the

Liturgy, that Heaven and earth be )oined< nor is it simply poetic imagery when the /ishop or 3riest asks

that Holy -ngels accompany the clergy into the -ltar during the +mall 4ntrance. 0hese are true events66events true above time and so genuine as to be encompassed only by symbol66, bringing the "now# into

the timeless realm of "now,# "then,# and hereafter,# and space into an encounter with that which exists

beyond its own boundaries. It is this Liturgy which we must accommodate in our architecture,containing within it the "*ncontained,# receiving 3resence, not creating it. ealizing this, we must

approach the Church as an "Ouranos polyphotos,# as one of the Church5s tropariastates it< that is, as a

"splendorously shining Heaven,# demanding of us continuously a vision far greater than that which

simple architectural genius can provide.$r. Latsko is certainly correct when, at the end of his article, he 2uotes -ndrew Clements5 rather

8estern vision of the Church, to the effect that a building which pushes aside the meaning of symbol is

"architectural garbage#66though I am compelled to say that this statement is perhaps unnecessarilyextreme in reference to houses of worship. I would add, as I have argued above, that one must

concentrate on the 2uestion of the transmission and understanding of symbol itself, if we are to apply

such statements to genuine rthodox architecture. !irst, it takes holy men and women, individualsendowed with a transfigured aesthetic sense, to speak of what it is in the past that is relevant and

authentic :or catholic; and what it is that is part of that Christian experience which is everywhere and

always present, in the words of +t. Eincent of LFrins. -nd secondly, it is incumbent upon us to

acknowledge that the notion of "symbol# in rthodox theological terminology does not refer to whatindirectly represents or expresses a Bivine 0ruth in image, but to things that actually contain a Bivine

0ruth, the symbol itself being caught up in the energies of that 0ruth, participating in the holiness which

it attempts to grasp and accommodate. 0o paraphrase one great Church !ather, the symbol, paradoxicallyenough, contains in an uncontained way that which is ultimately uncontainable.

*ntil we understand the Liturgy, holiness, symbol, and aesthetics with the deep profundity

appropriate to rthodox theological thought, it is premature to speak of new rthodox traditions,whether they be theological :and this inappropriately so, as we have noted;, liturgical, or even

architectural. - mature spirituality is a prere2uisite for the recognition, and indeed the establishment, of

G


6/6

authentic rthodox paradigms, and66however much the admission may pain us66contemporary

rthodoxy is too young in its struggle for survival, too close to the age of captivity, too limited, and tooimmature for such. In a time when monasticism, the barometer of spiritual life, is unhealthy< when

/ishops eat meat< when fasting is thought to be a matter of choice and convenience< when rthodox

converts do not even carry the names of rthodox +aints< and when all of these shortcomings in

understanding the way of life and ethos that rthodoxy is are likely to be unwittingly reckoned"externals# or matters of little conse2uence66in such a time, rthodoxy, in its old age, is undoubtedly

once again in its infant stages. +ome day we may speak of Church architecture in a "new# way, as $r.

Latsko has suggested, along lines that encompass the consensual oneness of rthodox theology. /utbefore we engage that cart, we would do well to put the horse of spiritual attainment and transfiguration

at our disposal first. therwise, we shall go nowhere, arrogantly covering our ignorance in an rthodox

theology turned rhetorical and in a spirituality of precise form devoid of any content whatever. othingso destroys true rthodoxy as spiritual delusions, the mental "spaceships# which $r. Latsko so rightly

condemns in some examples of modern rthodox architecture. I believe that we are at a time when

patience and imitation must be our limited goals, waiting for the day when true participation in the

fullness of the !aith66by virtue of our attainment to rthodox holiness66will bring contemporaryrthodoxy to the threshold of that ancient newness which is part of rthodoxy5s timeless witness within

time and space.

>

Chrysostomos Sacred Architecture

Documents

Transcript of Chrysostomos Sacred Architecture