 |
| Inside the Medieval mind. Cathédrale Notre-Dame de Chartres, France, completed in 1250AD. |
 |
| Inside the Modern mind. Lakewood Church and zombie thunderdome, Houston, TX. Completed... who cares. |
On a personal level, I love the era because I *get* their thinking better than 21st century thinking. I did a bit of reading today in Religious art in France, XIII century: a study in mediaeval iconography and its Sources of Inspiration by Émile Mâle (Which you can read online for free btw). It is a fascinating peek into the medieval mind, to whom, to sum up the intro to the book, the whole world is a symbol. Here is a excerpt with my bolded emphasis:
The author of the Bestiary, whoever he may have been, must have drawn largely on his imagination. The traditional symbolism founded on the Bible gave him little help, for the animals of the Physiologus are fabulous monsters like the griffin, the phoenix and the unicorn, or animals of India unknown to the Old Testament, and he had of necessity to invent most of the moral interpretations accompanying his descriptions of animals. His symbolism was accounted none the less excellent, and was accepted without criticism through the Middle Ages. It occurred to no one, moreover, to verify the accuracy of stories in the bestiary. In the Middle Ages the idea of a thing which a man framed for himself was always more real to him than the actual thing itself, and we see why these mystical centuries had no conception of what men now call science. The study of things for their own sake held no meaning for the thoughtful man. How could it be otherwise when the universe was conceived as an utterance of the Word of which every created thing was a single word? The task of the student of nature was to discern the eternal truth that God would have each thing to express, and to find in each creature an adumbration of the drama of the Fall and the Redemption. Even Roger Bacon, the most scientific spirit of the thirteenth century, after describing the seven coverings of the eye, concluded that by such means God had willed to express in our bodies an image of the seven gifts of the spirit.
I think there is profound wisdom here that has been lost. We sure don't see the world this way anymore. If there is anything our age will be known for once it has passed from the earth, it will not be our search for meaning in the universe. Oh sure, we might be able to describe (to some degree) how the physics how light is both particle and wave, or how Kryptonite has so many and such electrons in its valence field, but who cares? What we as humans long to know is why. And we long to know what the creator is telling us through His creation. And that longing is something modern "science" laughs to scorn.
At the foot of one of the side altars at the front of my Church is a pelican tearing at its chest so as to feed its blood to its brood gathered around. Something like this:
The modern mind looks at this and laughs, because of course we now know pelicans don't actually do this in the wild, like the silly medievals thought, so we have really advanced from the old superstitions they were beholden to.
But the medieval mind doesn't care if the fable is true or not, -the modern mind has missed the entire point- and in their "wisdom" has become as fools. Because the whole world is a symbol, we should see the pelicans action pointing us to Christ, who feeds us with his blood, which he says is real drink indeed (Jn. 6:55). Does it matter that a phoenix may not have existed? If you think it does, then you are a fool. You have missed a beautiful lesson about the Resurrection. And what I find ironic is that modern science has found these animals*, yet modern man ignores their significance.
The difference is not one of scientific ability, as modern men might think, but it is one of philosophy, and specifically teleology (purpose). If medeival people had cared to know for sure if gryphons or unicorns or the pelican story were real, they could have easily examined the question. But for them it would be a worthless question. Because whether the pelican feeds its young of its own blood or not is not what matters. What maters is that Christ feeds us, and that the creation itself speaks of this feeding if we would just pay attention. What a wonderful world God has placed us in if we would only humbly look.
*Off the top of my head, I think of frogs who bury themselves in mud and are dead in a kind of hybernation, then when rain comes they come alive ala the phoenix. Or the many animals who sacrifice their life for their young, often even giving their own body as food, as Christ does for us.
http://copiosa.org/images/papal-mass-yankee-stadium.jpg
ReplyDeleteI understand, but of course disagree with your premise.
I suspect that the creation of these structures has less to do with the spiritual disposition of the architect, and more to do with their function.
Back in the 1300's, travel was much more difficult. The process of assembling 1000's of people together on a given day didn't happen every week. The grander the cathedral, the more people who would show up on pilgrimages or attend on a regular basis.
We don't deal with those issues. On any given day, upwards of 15000 people will get together all over america for one of our favorite past-times (sports). Those kinds of gatherings were a pipe dream to the architects of the 1300's - they didn't happen. Therefore, they didn't build thier structures with that in mind. I imagine that if they had to deal with the kinds of crowds that modern man typically assembles into, their structures would resemble our structures a lot more. I think you are mis-interpreting our ability to gather into large groups (and our capacity to build structures for those groups) as a lack of spirituality and focus in the minds of the architects and church members.
Why are you quite happy to judge the mega-church, but don't apply that standard to the throngs of people who stand in St.Peter's square to see the pope, or line the streets when his pope-mobile drives by, or crowd the stadiums and churches where he preaches? I've got nothing against his success, but I don't hear you saying that people are focusing on the wrong thing in those instances. Is this a double standard, or am I missing something?
+1 to resurrecting frogs though :). God's creation does indeed scream his name.
"I suspect that the creation of these structures has less to do with the spiritual disposition of the architect, and more to do with their function."
ReplyDeleteThat is my entire point. The modern man sees a Church building in terms of what they misinterpret as functionality. The better way is to see it as a spaceship to heaven. In general, the "functional" mentality is what is used nowadays, and it results (in general) in ugly, depressingly "functional" building. I put functional in quotes because if one of the "functions" of a church building is to bring people closer to God by showing them His beauty, the modern ones (in general) arent functional. And as far as size, again, I think you are going by impressions rather than the facts. Have you been to the cathedral of St. Paul?
The mega-church above seats 16,800. Amiens Cathedral could fit the whole medieval town of 10,000 in it. Gothic cathedrals could fit thousands, so your point about capacity is way off from reality. But I am sure your answer felt right.
"We don't deal with those issues. On any given day, upwards of 15000 people will get together all over america for one of our favorite past-times (sports). Those kinds of gatherings were a pipe dream to the architects of the 1300's - they didn't happen."
If we still had the values and the mindset they had in 1250AD, then we would still be building cathedrals like Chartres and Amiens. We would just have many, many more of them. The human body is still the same size it was in 1250, so I see no reason we are forced to have large ugly buildings to fit more people rather than just more beautiful buildings. If anything, with our technology we have now, we should be outdoing Chartres. Yet we have not even tried to. And we have not tried to because we do not WANT to try, not because we are forced into making crappy buildings. We easily could do it. And we could do it much easier than they did it in 1250. But our minds are weaker than theirs were, and we are less wise.
"Why are you quite happy to judge the mega-church, but don't apply that standard to the throngs of people who stand in St.Peter's square to see the pope..."
ReplyDeleteWhat I judged (correctly) is crappy modern architecture, which I thought would be axiomatic as an area which modern man has regressed in since the 13th century.
Nothing you have said makes me question that even a little.
If you would like to point out a modern church building that is superior IN ANY WAY to a gothic cathedral, I would be interested.
By the way Bob, I am criticizing modern thinking here, and defending medieval thinking. I am not defending Catholicism per se.
ReplyDeleteThere are some awful Catholic Church designs out there. I dislike them just as much as the awful mega-churches. Evangelicals don't corner the market on bad taste, they just seem to have perfected it.
Also, please lets judge a group by its best, not its weakest examples. The pope's best is St. Peters basilica. What is the best art from Evangelical mega-church types? In my experience, they are proud to NOT have good art.
http://www.boredpanda.com/50-most-extraordinary-churches-of-the-world/
ReplyDeleteA good chunk of these were built in the past 100 years.
"Also, please lets judge a group by its best, not its weakest examples. The pope's best is St. Peters basilica. What is the best art from Evangelical mega-church types? In my experience, they are proud to NOT have good art."
You seem to be judging evangelical churches by thier 'worst' - the mega churches. I imagine that most evangelical people don't meat in a mega church, and in fact use quite normal looking church buildings.
A proper Cathedral requires an immense amount of money to build (especially if using quarried stone instead of concrete). Evangelical churches typically get their money from the congregants - there is no substantial hierarchy of churches to pitch in. There are no indulgences to fund it, no church-tax, no pilgrims visiting shrines. It is an unfair comparison to pit the income sources of modern evangelicals against the centuries of combined income it took to build these structures.
"If you would like to point out a modern church building that is superior IN ANY WAY to a gothic cathedral, I would be interested."
More seating space per dollar. It might not be high on your priority list, but it is 'superior' in that regard. Oh, they also take a heck of a lot less time to build. To reiterate, this isn't an apples to apples comparison. Due to changes in technology (and countless other factors) building cathedrals is not usually the best choice anymore. We don't build pyramids over our dead presidents either. That shouldn't speak to the spirituality of the people of the day.
"But our minds are weaker than theirs were, and we are less wise." Are you speaking specifically of architecture, or is this a general statement? If just architecture, I've given several reasons as to 'why' building looks have changed, and none of them are based on a lack of spirituality in modern man. That could be the cause, but I find it unlikely and I think the evidence speaks otherwise.
If you are saying that our minds are overall weaker and we are less wise - in all areas - I think there is plenty of evidence against that as well, but perhaps it deserves its own post. If anything I think that both medieval thinking and modern thinking are a product of society. I don't think one can be labeled inferior without understanding the culture that formed the mindset. I'm more than willing to discuss which culture was better, and surely there were flaws in both - but even there you need to pick a specific medieval culture to compare with a specific modern culture.
I had said:
ReplyDelete"If you would like to point out a modern church building that is superior IN ANY WAY to a gothic cathedral, I would be interested."
You said:
"More seating space per dollar. It might not be high on your priority list, but it is 'superior' in that regard."
First, it is not my priority list. Objectively, it is a stupid criteria, and should be low on the list of priorities. And again, this isnt about evangelicals only. Catholic buildings can be just as lame.
And yes it is "superior in that regard". Just like modern buildings are superior in the "looks like a Soviet era gulag" regard. So I am glad we agree that modern architecture is superior in some ways.
Your other points are obviously wrong. Modern people have way more resourses, ability, and technology to make beautiful things. Americans are the riches people that have ever lived, with the highest level of technology, so to set them next to the 13th century French and say the French have some supposed advantages that enabled them to build Cathedrals... is laughable.
Modern people can build a Saint Peters Basilica in every suburb if they want. They just choose not to because it is unimportant to them. Which is the point of my post.
"Modern people can build a Saint Peters Basilica in every suburb if they want. They just choose not to because it is unimportant to them. Which is the point of my post."
ReplyDeleteI thought the point of your post was:
1. to lambaste evangelical Christianity for their architectural choices (something you appear to have stepped away from by saying the RC is guilty of the same thing)
2. to lambaste the modern spirituality in contrast to medieval spirituality - and using architectural choices as the evidence
3. insinuate that modern mind is inferior as evidenced by their architectural choices
I think it is right and proper to have a preference in cathedrals over mega-churches. My entire point has been that just because architecture has changed, it doesn't 'have' to reflect negatively on society. I won't say that modern society has 'lost wisdom' because we prefer sewer pipes to roman aqueducts (an apt analogy if there ever was one - seriously, spend a minute and think about it).
Rather, what I think is going on here is your hatred of modern society intersecting with your love of your church - and the conclusion is that the best time was when the church was 'most' influential - the medieval period. As a result, anything they did well is better than whatever our society does (Cathedrals) - and if it wasn't for those dang Evangelicals dragging us down we would have a Cathedral in every suburb.
Maybe I'm being uncharitable, but that seems to be what you are saying between the lines. Is that the message you are trying to portray?
Wow thanks for the free session doc. Actually, nothing I said in this article is any different that what I would have said a decade ago when I was Reformed. And none of it is different than what Lewis or Chesterton and many others would have said as non-Catholics. Ask James Jordan, RC Sproul Jr., or Doug Wilson what they think on this topic. I can tell you they dont agree with me because of their love of Catholicism.
ReplyDeleteI am starting to wonder if you even read the post.