George W.
Reid, Former Director
Biblical Research Institute
This
paper reviews a document titled "Church Steeple Study," dated June 10,
1986, and presented to the Mount Vernon, Ohio, City Seventh-day Adventist
Church. Although the document of 54 pages bears no author's name, auxiliary
information suggests it to be the work of Mike Hodges, sometime pastor
in the Illinois Conference.
The
Document and Its Arguments
"Church
Steeple Study" opposes the use of steeples in connection with Christian
churches on the grounds that incorporating a steeple into a church building
plan compromises the proper Christian rejection of paganism and permits
the encroachment of apostate attitudes and practices.
Its principal argument rests on the following series of major points:
1. A steeple
or tower in association with a place of worship was a feature of ancient
paganism, oriented to sun worship and fertility cultus. A common form,
especially in Egypt, followed the geometric figure known as obelisk, which
in places served also as a phallic symbol. Such pagan symbols are inappropriate
in Christian churches.
2. The Bible
presents in much detail the struggle of Israel to preserve the place of
traditional worship of Yahweh in face of the influence coming from surrounding
pagan religions. Many biblical passages warn of the danger that these
elements posed to the faith of Israel. These warnings are applicable today
as churches are tempted to use symbols, the steeple being one of them,
whose origins are pagan.
3. Ellen White's
testimony in favor of simplicity of church buildings should be interpreted
to suggest she would be opposed to the use of steeples.
4. Principles
of Christian stewardship should govern construction of church buildings
and preclude investing funds in a steeple.
5. The Battle
Creek Dime Tabernacle, with its steeple 110 feet in height serves as an
example of what to avoid. Its construction drew the criticism of Ellen
White,
6. Those who
made decisions about steeples on churches need to consider the sensitivities
of others who have conscientious objection to them. This is in harmony
with Paul's counsel on how to deal with sincere discenters.
Examination
of the Arguments
Although
several of these arguments contain elements that are factual, each has
weaknesses to be taken into account as the evidence is weighed.
1. Towers were
a feature of places of ancient pagan worship. This observation must be
accepted as correct, for there are records of numerous examples in ancient
temples and the open sacred places of certain ancient cults. Careful examination
of their function, however, often reveals no evidence of involvement in
either sun worship or fertility rites. In many cases they seem to have
served simply as attention-getting architectural devices to mark special
buildings. Although it is possible pillars were used for sacral purposes
in some places, to treat them widely as sun-worship or phallic symbols
is unwarranted. Reliable evidence of such use is sparse.
But a greater problem lies in logic
of this argument. If one grants such pillars to be symbols significant
to ancient pagan rites, the question then must be addressed, Did such
use in antiquity mark them forever as evil, a continuing residue of paganism?
This is the major contention of "Church Steeple Study."
Such reasoning is unsound on several
counts.
a. It is widely
recognized that in the teaching of the Bible, particularly Jesus' interpretation
of the law, the essence of worship is to be found in inward acceptance
and commitment, of which outward manifestations are reflective (1 Sam
16:7, Matt 5:20-37; 12:34-35; Mark 7:21-23). This principle appears in
many different biblical settings addressing different issues. To recognize
this is not to depreciate the importance of correct worship practices,
but to establish biblical priorities.
b. Does an
element once applied to pagan purposes stand henceforth marked by its
pagan meaning? Clearly any form used to represent God is prohibited by
the second commandment, ruling out the use of images of God. This principle
extends beyond sculptural three-dimensional forms because to reduce God
to any visible form both limits our concept of Him and misrepresents His
nature. Artistic representations of angels and other creatures have biblical
precedent, but never as objects of adoration.
Aside from second commandments prohibitions,
the key question is what an object means within a given culture. Clearly,
condemning modern practice on the basis of former pagan use is untenable.
To do so would disqualify virtually every object and practice in current
use, for almost everything in worship today once was used in some ancient
pagan religion. Examples come to mind easily. Most modern church buildings
borrow architectural features refined in antiquity for pagan temples,
including colonnades, pilasters, the arch, and even the pitched roof.
Ancient writings describe the use of books, music, lamps, water, tables,
chairs, wine, and bread in heathen rites prior to their mention in Hebrew
practice. Yet wine and bread were selected by Jesus Himself as symbols
to represent His blood and body, despite a history of their ritual use
in pagan temples for thousands of years beforehand. To apply today the
standard of whether an object or practice had pagan uses in antiquity
is to establish a standard not demonstrated in the Scriptures themselves.
Readers of the Old Testament Scriptures
will recall that the temple of Solomon was flanked by two tall pillars
set in the porch at the front of the temple (1 Kings 7:21-22). Crowning
these pillars was lily work, which recalls the style of certain Egyptian
pillar motifs. If pillars are evil in themselves, we are confronted with
the irony of seeing them incorporated into the design of the temple of
the Lord as constructed by Solomon. Nor should we forget God's acceptance
of that temple (with its pillars) by setting His Shekinah presence in
it.
As a matter of historical fact the
temple of the Lord in Jerusalem was far from unique when compared with
other religious buildings of the time. Numerous architectural parallels
are described in Lawrence T. Geraty's essay, "The Jerusalem Temple of
the Hebrew Bible in Its Ancient Near Eastern Context" (in The Sanctuary
and the Atonement, ed. A. V. Wallenkampf and W. Richard Lesher. Washington,
DC: General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, 1981. Available from
the Biblical Research Institute). Multiple architectural parallels between
the temple in Jerusalem and other contemporaneous religious structures
support the idea that it was not the physical structure that determined
acceptability or lack of the same, but the purpose to which the structures
or features were put.
The relevant question today is how
something is perceived in its contemporary culture. If it has lost the
suggestion of pagan affinity there is no sound reason to disqualify it
with resurrected pagan associations. The crucial questions must be: Is
it now viewed as in some way dishonorable toward God? Is its effect compatible
with the goals of the gospel of Christ? and Is it helpful? These norms
must be applied to decisions relating to steeples as well, regardless
of their similarity or dissimilarity to towers or monuments used for entirely
different purposes by some in ancient times.
2. The proximity
of pagan religions constituted a continuing threat to the purity of Israelite
worship. Repeatedly the Hebrews lapsed into pagan worship, yielding to
influence from contemporary neighboring religions. The records, both written
and archaeological, paint a doleful picture of capitulation. The constant
threat of syncretism and outright apostasy contributed to the later Pharisaic
mentality so well known from the New Testament. Pharasaism is remembered
for its fierce determination not to compromise in the least detail.
"Church Steeple Study" occupies several
pages citing God's warnings to Israel against adopting elements from surrounding
pagan cults. The document contends that these warnings apply against use
of steeples today which are treated as modern adaptations of the ancient
pagan worship aids. Behind this position lies the presupposition that
despite a radical change in cultures, a tower remains today in and of
itself pagan, hence forever under the condemnation of God's ancient warnings.
The weakness of treating towers as perpetually pagan was addressed in
section 1.
If a steeple today stands for pagan
concepts before the community, then all would agree that it is inappropriate
for Christian usage. If such connotations are absent today, the paganism
argument loses its force. Few today would contend that a steeple conjures
up in the modern mind a picture of paganism. In contrast, to most people
now it is interpreted as a Christian symbol. Although a steeple is not
an obligatory architectural feature to express Christian presence, with
some types of contemporary architecture it may be the only exterior architectural
signal to distinguish the church from a warehouse, a general-purpose auditorium,
or even an amusement hall.
3. Mrs. White
was an advocate of church buildings that were simple in structure (in
contrast to the Victorian inclinations to ornament), in order to bear
witness to the pilgrim character of a people whose values are controlled
by the anticipation of Christ's return. For such needless display is denial
of the message. But when read in full, she calls for substantial houses
of worship that testify to the measured reasonableness of the faith, what
she describes as the God-fearing character or the Advent movement. By
this she means substantial but not ostentatious, structure that is neat,
orderly, and attractive. Nowhere does she criticize employment of a steeple
in pursuing these goals.
For reasons of cost and size alone,
early Adventist churches followed the simplest lines of architecture,
in common with those of other Christians along the American frontier.
It is a mistake to interpret the simple style of these buildings as a
necessary pattern or invest it with theological orthodoxy. Styles of church
buildings vary significantly among the varied cultures around the world,
each seeking to express Christian principles of the Adventist faith in
a way meaningful to its locale.
4. Principles
of stewardship prohibit building steeples on churches. This argument expresses
a legitimate concern but is subject to extreme expressions based on unclear
norms. Almost any architectural feature can become suspect, including
carpets, organs, padding on pews, heating, air conditioning, and others.
Valid norms could well include (a) faithfulness to the Christian witness,
(b) the impact for witness to the surrounding public, such as the church's
neighbors, (c) compatibility with the overall plan of the church, (d)
usefulness of the feature in promoting more effective worship and physical
comfort, (e) aesthetic considerations, and (f) certainly the capacity
of the congregation to fund the feature.
The spirit of the gospel encourages
frugality and self-restraint, but not stinginess. It is generous to persons
and worthy causes and does not support a severe monastic mind-set. In
fact the concept that God's house should be nicer than our personal residences
is in harmony with biblical precedents. If a steeple could be shown to
represent an inordinate or extravagant proportion of the cost of a house
of worship, the economic argument would have a telling impact and should
be taken seriously. Typically, however, such is not the case, and often
a simple fiberglass spire represents no more than one or two per cent
of the total building cost. In such a case the argument of poor stewardship
bears little weight.
5. The
Battle Creek Tabernacle is a negative example. During the l870s the Adventist
community in Battle Creek increased rapidly, creating pressures for an
enlarged place of worship. A plan was devised, requesting every Adventist
to contribute a dime each month for the period of a year, a total of $1.20
each. The plan was promoted vigorously by James White and led to construction
of a 4,000-seat church with a prominent 110-foot steeple rising above
it, as well as three smaller towers. Its architectural style was typical
of the late Victorian period. The foundation stone was laid on August
19, 1878, and its dedication took place April 20, 1879, less than nine
months later. The Whites were in Texas at the time of dedication, so were
not present for the occasion.
"Church Steeple Study" points out that
earlier church buildings in Battle Creek had been much smaller and of
simple style, suggesting that the Dime Tabernacle was an example of apostasy.
Evidence shows, however, that the new building had vigorous support of
the Whites. A list of contributors published in September 1878, shows
that of the 300 contributors to that point, only six had given more than
$100. Among the six were Mr. and Mrs. W. C. White ($224.50), James White
($205.00), and Ellen G. White (105.00).
But all was not well in Battle Creek.
A serious spiritual problem existed, characterized by much criticism,
gossip, and mistrust. This prompted Mrs. White to send strong testimonies
urging reform (5T, 45-84). "Church Steeple Study" cites passages from
these testimonies that condemn worldliness, a luxury-seeking spirit, and
corrupt and idolatrous practices, using the term "church" as though the
testimonies disapproved of the new Battle Creek church building. In fact,
these testimonies make no reference to the building or its steeples, despite
lively correctives to the congregation for other wrongs. While arguments
from silence have limitations, her failure to cite features of the new
church building as departures from the faith must receive consideration,
especially as she catalogues numbers of other shortcomings.
6. Sensitivity
needs to exist toward the convictions of other Christians. This argument,
with clear biblical precedent, deserves thought. Perhaps the most well-known
example in the New Testament is the difference over circumcision and foods
offered to idols. Paul's position on these questions is enlightening.
Although on a personal basis he acted in a way to avoid giving offence
to believers with convictions contrary to his (Rom 14:1-13; 1 Cor 8:1-13),
the apostle unhesitatingly opposed the rationale behind such convictions,
going so far as instruct believers to eat whatever is sold in the market
without raising questions of conscience, built on the premise that its
prior consecration to an idol is as nothing because the idol itself is
nothing (1 Cor 10:25-27, Rom 12:14, 1 Cor 8:4). If, however, a brother's
personal sensitivities were to be offended, then he would take steps to
avoid raising offense.
To balance this practice, however,
Paul also writes, "Why should my liberty be determined by another man's
scruples?" (I Cor 10:29). He wants it to be clear that in voluntarily
denying himself something on a personal basis he is not establishing policy
for the church as a whole.
In the spirit of this counsel, then,
if significant discord would be raised in a local congregation today by
a steeple on the building, good judgment and Christian charity might well
lead to its omission. However, this should not encourage steeple opponents
to raise controversy in the congregation over an issue not based on valid
biblical evidence. People with strong convictions against steeples must
have opportunity to express their feelings, but they too are under obligation
to place unity in the church above private convictions and seek for harmony.
Conclusion
The
"Church Steeple Study" document gives evidence of earnest effort to protect
the faith from compromise, especially from ancient errors in modern guise.
This effort deserves to be commended. However, several positions taken
in the document are based on inadequate information, which weakens its
force, no matter how sincere the author.
While recognizing the sincere concern
manifest in the document, other problems lead to reservations about its
conclusions. For convenience these may be listed.
1. The document
is based upon incomplete and inadequate information. Superficial conclusions
prove inaccurate when subjected to the scrutiny of intensive research.
In general, citations of authority in the document rely on a limited number
of publications of a sensational or partisan character. Recognized authorities
in the fields of archaeology, ancient religions, ancient architecture,
and religious development are missing from the list of citations.
Although one may legitimately differ
with interpretations made by recognized authorities, it is not reasonable
to dismiss the facts they have unearthed or their qualifications to come
to conclusions. We must not allow anti-intellectual sentiment to cloud
our access to fact. Nor can we rely on sensational books or articles promoting
partisan views. A number of the books cited in the document are of such
character.
2. By and
large the document's argument turns on the unfortunate presupposition
that something put to wrong use in the past remains objectionable today,
even though it now is in an entirely different setting. This creates a
problem of logic that, while attractive at a surface level to some, simply
is in error when all the facts are considered. Objects are of themselves
morally neutral. It is when put to a wrong use the object must be examined
in light of the message it carries. In modern culture the steeple carries
neither pagan connotation nor phallic significance. It is not reasonable
to create in the modern mind some pagan or obscene meaning in order to
be able to attack use of the object. In both presuppositions and logic
this document needs change.
3. The document's
use of both biblical and Spirit of Prophecy writings is at times unjustified.
Biblical condemnations of pagan practices in their own time were entirely
legitimate, a part of God's inspired message.
The prophets cried against architectural
or natural features as they were misused in the worship of false gods.
The gods of today reflect our more sophisticated age, exhibiting themselves
as secular godlessness, materialism, commercialized sports, and other
activities whose demands for attention displace the claims of the Creator
God. In antiquity paganism challenged the principle of God's sole sovereignty
by setting up competing gods of stone, metal, or wood. Today modern life
challenges that same principle, but in altered ways.
In the document both biblical texts
and statements from the Spirit of Prophecy are taken and used repeatedly
for the wording they contain, without the interpretative matrix of context.
This is an unwarranted use of both sources.
Based on a careful analysis of the
information available from the Bible, Spirit of Prophecy, and ancient
religious history, there is not sound reason today to oppose steeples.
Possibly steeples are offensive to the eye on aesthetic or other grounds.
Church leaders should listen to all points of view prior to making decisions,
and then act only after weighing all the elements. Above all, it is our
Lord's will and prayer that believers be in harmony with one another,
pressing together toward the highest goal set before the church: proclamation
of the final message to the world in preparation for Jesus' return.
the surfaces and corners of every cathedral built in the Holy Roman Empire.
of Wren’s buildings brandished monumental steeples of elaborate construction (see image 14, St. Mary Le Bow, his first to design, and image 15, St. Clement Danes).
churches became immediately apparent.