———‘ \ ANAL-4“ ‘11..- u“ M .14 1.1L _ L—‘x ”—M,“," 'Lll ll ‘1' " ”m. JJJJJJJJJWJ MJJJJ" JJJJ JVJJ‘I'JJ’ JEJ‘JEWS” JJJJJ Jim-"3" ' * “first ‘I. 13"“ JEN? ~. 3: as JJJJSJS {*Jér. 3.15:. J. v E we; T'Jk f iiifififiéi‘; 317F311? JEJWSI‘EV ngfi 5-,! 7 1M ESIS LJBRARI s ' “ til-”r ' ‘ ' . ,0. .. Mlcmga’l . .\ gr .. -1. . , "-~ ‘x‘t‘T. . " ,flm ‘ I. Am [I [I'll I‘IIIII‘IIIII ABSTRACT THE ARCHI-LITURGICAL MOVEMENT AND THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH by Robert C. Carr The primary purpose of this study is (l) to determine the process by which the average Seventh-day Adventist church body builds its church environment and to research the criteria followed in building church structures; (2) to determine criteria, if lacking, by which a Seventh-day Adventist church should be built, and to aid in formulating said criteria, (3) to compare it with current solutions in ecclesiastical architecture by leading architects and theologians. The selected bibliography is by leading architects and theologians who have studied church architecture. Further research expresses the viewpoint taken by Ellen G. White and other church leaders in guiding the Adventist people on important factors when designing a house of worship. These issues are summarized into nine concise criteria. Out of the nine criteria, the factors of prime importance for Adventists consist of a room for sacred services, a central desk for the spoken Word of God, a prominent communion table, and a baptistry designed in such a way that it remains a visible symbol at all times. Instruments and choir should not gain more attention than the prime factors. The church structure should be simple, well—constructed and Robert C. Carr within the economical strata of its environment. Secondary rooms should be provided for functions of a more secular nature. The structure should incorporate attractive functional materials, but beauty should be second to functionality. Three churches built by Adventists in Michigan are selected as case study churches. These structures, rich in Adventist history, are studied from the viewpoint of the building committee minutes. The designs which resulted from the respective committees are then critiqued in view of the nine guidelines formulated to determine the effectiveness of the design in meeting the theological and aesthetic needs of these Adventist congregations. The comparison of the three churches indicates a significant change from characteristics of simplicity and singularity of purpose, seen in the early church, to a display of strength, dignity, and wealth in the second. The third church reveals a return to strict economy and simplicity, but it is not in keeping with Ellen White's advice that members build churches of moderate size throughout the city rather than build one large structure for all members. Churches at institutions are the exception to this suggestion because of vast needs. The summary points out the problems that confront building committees as well as the responsibility that rests on the shoulder of the church in developing representative structures. The study reveals that structures built as memorials to God can witness in a non-verbal way to the beliefs of the members. The design of the Robert C. Carr structure and the interior can convey important factors about the theology, and the selection of materials can communicate, in a non- verbal way, the priorities of the people. Great care should go into the building of a structure for the house of God. For this structure, to be representative of people's aspirations to glorify God, must be conceived to be practical and inspirational simultaneously. This is no mean task, and should not be dealt with lightly by peOple not fully knowledgeable of the particular doctrine. Future study can compare the regional differences that might exist in the country. Factors such as available materials, climate, and accepted theology might project a different light on design solutions. THE ARCHI-LITURGICAL MOVEMENT AND THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH By Robert C. Carr A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS College of Human Ecology 1975 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Without a doubt, a thesis is not the product of its writer alone. As a seed is planted and watered over a period of time, so suggestions from many people have nurtured this study. These pages are dedicated to the following people who have enthusiastically de- voted their expertise and time: To Doctor Mary L. Shipley, major professor and committee chairman, whose dependability and keen insight assisted in the development of criteria based on the writings of Ellen White. To Richard L. Graham, graduate committee member, who has promoted confidence in me and my ability to critique architecture. To Doctor Sadayoshi Omoto, graduate committee member whose insight led me to the study of three Adventist structures. To the dedicated people at Andrews University whose help has been so very much appreciated: Mrs. Hedwig Jemison, Secretary Ellen G. White Research Center. Doctor Sakae Kubo, Seminary Librarian. Mrs. Raoul Dederen, Curator, Heritage Room. To my wife, Linda, whose confidence and sincere interest in this study have been a great help. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . ii LIST OF PLATES .'. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Chapter I. THE PROTESTANT ARCHI-LITURGICAL MOVEMENT: A REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 II. THE ALLEGAN SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH IN ALLEGAN , MICHIGAN O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C O 26 III. THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST TABERNACLE IN BATTLE CREEK, MICHIGAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 IV. THE PIONEER MEMORIAL SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH IN BERRIEN SPRINGS, MICHIGAN . . . . . . . . 55 V. SUMMARY AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE STUDY . . . . . . . 74 SELECTED BIBL IOGRAPIIIY O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 85 iii Plate 10. ll. 12. 13. LIST OF PLATES Allegan, Michigan Seventh-day Adventist Church . . . Allegan Church Interior . . . . . . . . . Early Seventh-day Adventist Churches Built in Battle Creek . . . . . . Battle Creek, Michigan Seventh-day Adventist "Dime Tabernacle" The Seventh-day Adventist Tabernacle . Tabernacle Interior Balcony . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tabernacle Interior . . . . . . . . . Tabernacle Interior . . . . . . . . . PrOposed Pioneer Memorial Church . . . Pioneer Memorial Church Pulpit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pioneer Memorial Church Lancet Window . . . . . . . . . . . Pioneer Memorial Seventh-day Adventist Pioneer Memorial Church Central Aisle . . . . . . . . . . . iv Church Page 28 31 36 38 48 SO 52 53 58 64 66 68 72 INTRODUCTION This thesis for the Seventh-day Adventist Church was inspired primarily by a deep appreciation of architectural history, and a strong interest in ecclesiastical structures, and secondarily by the statement Kenneth Clark made that what a person, institution, or society builds or creates is a far better index of real beliefs, attitudes, and aspirations than his utterances in speech or print.1 The purpose of this study is threefold: (l) to determine the extent the Seventh-day Adventist Church has progressed in building to meet its theological needs; (2) to point out current trends in ecclesiastical architecture developed by the architect and theologian; and (3) to determine the criteria by which a Seventh-day Adventist church should be built. The first chapter consists of a review of literature. Selected bibliography will point out current trends in Protestant church architecture which have some degree of relevancy, either positive or negative, tothe Seventh-day Adventist Church. Statements relevant to these issues by leading Seventh-day Adventists are discussed. This information concerning Seventh-day Adventists has been researched from the Ellen G. White Research Center located in the Theological Seminary at Andrews University, Berrien Springs, Michigan. 1Kenneth Clark, Civilization (New York: Harper and Row, 1970), p0 10 The research center is a satellite vault of the Ellen G. White Estate in Washington, D.C., containing documents, rare manuscripts, and books. The Seventh—day Adventist Church places a high value on the guidance from the pen of Ellen White. Rene Noorbergen, in Prophet of Destiny, tells of Ellen White as follows: Since girlhood, she had more than 2,000 visions, revealing truths of religion, history, medicine and nutrition, often fore- shadowing scientific discoveries yet to be made. Inspired by these visions and by her sense of the presence of God, Ellen G. White worked throughout her life, first to help found the Seventh- day Adventist Church, then to spread its word around the world. She lived to see it become one of the major religious forces of our time; and during her lifetime, wrote more than fifty books which have been translated into one hundred languages and sold in the millions of copies. . . .1 The credibility of the guidance penned by Ellen White and re- ferred to as the "Spirit of Prophecy," and the weight that it bears on church doctrine is explained as follows: The Spirit of Prophecy, as manifest in the life and work of Ellen G. Harmon White, profoundly influenced the early develop— ment of the Seventh-day Adventist movement. This was notably true of that decade from 1844 to 1855, during which the essentials of doctrine and practice had their establishment. Assuming and receiving its rightful place in guarding, correcting, and leading the developing movement, the instruction through this gift was never a substitute for Bible study. Though its presence was foretold in Scripture, its appearance was unlocked for, as the pioneers of the message were not at the outset prepared to evaluate fully their own position or to discern the vast work which was before them.2 The doctrines held by Seventh-day Adventists did not come to us initially through the Spirit of Prophecy in the remnant church, as some apparently have supposed, but rather by earnest individual lRene Noorbergen, Ellen G. White, Prophet of Destiny (New Canaan, Conn.: Keats Publishing, Inc., 1972), back cover. 2Arthur L. White, Ellen G. White, Messenger to the Remnant (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1969), p. 27. and group Bible study. The Spirit of Prophecy had a vital place in bringing light when difficulties confronted pioneers, and the conclusions reached by earnest study were sometimes later confirmed by revelation.l In addition to statements made by Mrs. White, other comments have been researched from leading writers and theologians in the church. Upon the compilation of these positions, criteria will be drawn out in order to judge Adventist Church structures. These criteria are referred to in examining the deficiencies and errors, if any, in actual structures. The three structures chosen for study represent approximately one hundred years of Adventist Church architecture in Michigan. The early structure was built in Allegan, Michigan in 1863. The second structure,built in l926,is located in Battle Creek, Michigan and the third is located on the campus of Andrews University in Berrien Springs, built in 1958. Each structure is described, and then analyzed in light of the architectural criteria. It is not the desire of the researCher to devise stock plans ' or to furnish specific designs for the church, but instead, to draw out guidelines around which every church can be creatively designed within the framework of church doctrine. If adequate, the guidelines will apply to all Seventh-day Adventist Church structures. Liturgy and architecture have found a more functional relation- ship in recent years. This is completely the reverse from nineteenth century thinking when art and style in architecture reigned paramount. 1A. L. White, Ellen G. White, p. 34. However, with the advent of the modern movement in architecture in the late nineteenth century, we see buildings that fulfill the practical and symbolic function in the life of a community. And with more advanced understanding on the part of the architect and theologian, we are witnessing an "intimate connection," a marriage between theological concepts and architectural skill. Consequently, as a result of Christian people rediscovering the essential creative significance of their liturgy, the architect can produce structures that best fit the wOrship needs of each church organization.1 This significant joint effort of liturgist and architect is not unlike the working relationship between designer and client. It is for this reason that it seems only appropriate to combine the words architecture and liturgy by referring to this unique movement as the archi-liturgical movement. The succeeding chapter deals with the issues that make up the archi-liturgical movement as expressed by various authorities and then presents the stand on these issues by leading Adventist writers. 1Robert Maguire and Keith Murray, Modern Churches of the World (New York: E. P. Button and Company, Inc., 1965), p. 14. CHAPTER I THE PROTESTANT ARCHI-LITURGICAL MOVEMENT: A REVIEW OF LITERATURE The architectural-liturgical movement taking place on various continents is unfortunately not realized by the bulk of Christian people. The archi-liturgical movement or ecclesiastical-architectural thrust is understood primarily by those who study the church, religious phenomena, or architectural designs for churches. This group, made up of clergy, architects, designers, building committee members and others, though aware of current trends in architecture and even aware of good designs, are often unwilling to let go of traditional plans and thought processes. As a result, masses of Christian peOple, both on this continent and abroad, are worshiping in buildings made of contemporary materials, constructed by con- temporary methods but lacking effective solutions to meet their liturgical (worship) needs. Donald Bruggink and Carl Droppers state in their book Christ and Architecture that architectural solutions portrayed in glass, concrete and steel proclaim a message that either illuminates the Word of God or is in direct opposition to it.1 1Donald Bruggink and Carl Droppers, Christ and Architecture (Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1965), p. l. If the gospel of Christ is worthy of accurate verbal proclamation week by week, it is also worthy of faithful architectural proclamation, where its message speaks year after year.1 Peter Hammond states that a living architecture needs to be more theological than architectural, and that the church has not thought of a fresh new approach considering its own function. Most planning in the past has been of a romantic and nostalgic nature. He also points out that this functional plan must be brought about by communication between the theologian and the liturgist.2 Additional light is shed on this topic by Jeannette Mirsky who states that two separate, complex modern movements produce the Houses of God, the one being architecture, and the other liturgy. The re- sult is a dialogue between the architect and the theologian.3 A modern building is conceived of as the integument sur- rounding the space required for a specific purpose whether for working or living. The success or failure of a particular structure is determined first by how well it serves its function, and only secondarily by its aesthetic arrangement.4 She continues by expressing that the modern liturgical move- ment of the twentieth century is primarily conveyed in concepts of faith and religious practice, no less different than during the 1Bruggink and Droppers, Christ and Architecture, p. l. 2Peter Hammond, Liturgy and Architecture (New York: Columbia University Press, 1961), p. 13. 3Jeannette Mirsky, Houses of God (New York: The Viking Press, 1965). Pp. 144-45. 4Ibid. Gothic period,which reflected the aims and needs of the way of life in the society at that time.1 James White points out that to many Protestants, worship is primarily a matter of feelings, whereas to others it is work done in service to God. He goes on to say that we have a better approach to architecture when we analyze the elements of the building which affect the feelings and emotive factors, and then analyze the parts used in per— forming the work of worship, the liturgical factors.2 White also found that too much attention is given to the appearance of the building, and that it is difficult to erect a building that all worshippers will consider worshipful. Therefore, it is suggested that a building be designed to function like a machine, to be efficient and economical without the superfluous attention to elegant facades.3 The term "worshipful atmosphere" is constantly found in recent discussions of church designs. It has been found that a worshipful atmosphere (environment) is produced by manipulating the emotional content of the service through appeal to the senses.4 White continues: The emotive factors play a very important role in arousing the feelings often associated with personal devotions. It is for this reason that concern with regard to the emotive factors is justified. A sense of beauty, whether man-made or natural, 11bid. 2James White, Protestant WOrship and Church Architecture (New York: Oxford University Press, 1964), p. 3. 31bid., p. 30. 41b1d., p. 29. can greatly contribute to personal devotions by stimulating the feelings. The reaction of the twelfth-century Abbot Suger to the great gothic church of St. Denis and its ornaments is illustrative. "When out of my delight in the beauty of the house of God . . . worthy meditation has induced me to reflect, transferring that which is material to that which is immaterial . . . it seems to me . . . that, by the grace of God, I can be transported from this inferior to that higher world in an anagogical manner."l ' White points out that even though emotive factors (aesthetic needs) may be important in church building, they present the problem of mutual agreement on the part of the members as to which emotive factors are necessary. And beyond this lies the problem that a con- centration too heavily in the emotive factors can obscure the liturgical factors (worship needs). It has been found that in churches where careful attention has been given to solutions for the liturgical factors, the emotive factors were successful also, although they were given less attention.2 This has been pointed out in a statement by Robert Maguire and Keith Murray from their book Modern Churches of the World that once a building is set apart for the House of God, it acquires meanings. If these inherent meanings are not manifest in the architecture, then the building is not "speaking" affirmatively. No one need explain architecture. It is understood at a simple, fundamental level of consciousness. The effect can be either negative or positive.3 lIbid., pp. 29-30. 21bid., pp. 30-31. 3Maguire and Murray, p. 10. When looking around the community at the wide diversity of church designs, one can justifiably question the validity of some in representing the simple, pure Word of God. Ellen G. White, a pioneer member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, conveys that the design for the house of God should be thoroughly planned until a humble house of worship "stands as a sign, a memorial of God's Sabbath."1 These buildings, however humble in appearance,wi11 witness for truth; therefore they should be in many localities.2 Be- cause of the various regions of the country, Ellen White promotes the idea of building in various styles of architecture to fit the location.3 At this time we shall look at the issues that make up the current archi-liturgical movement beginning with the rationale be- hind the discontent with traditional forms, and continuing with a dis- course on various experiments which make up solutions for today's congregations. According to Allan Bouley in his article "Buildings For People," the present problem in church buildings is this: . . . [they] reflect the ferment of contemporary theology and re- lated disciplines and are caused by that ferment. We seem to be in a transitional stage in which old ideas and models no longer serve while new or rediscovered ideas do not yet command 1Ellen G. White, Testimonies, 9 vols. (Mountain View, Calif.: Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1948), 7:105. 2Ellen G. White, Gospel Workers (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1915), p. 431. 3Ellen G. White, Evangelism (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1946), p. 379. lO sufficient adherence for them to provide a rationale of church architecture which will be commonly accepted.1 Reverend Edwin C. Lynn states that churches of the 19503 did little more than add elaborate roofs to the turn-of-the-century worship rooms. The architecture was formal, and eclectic, and strove for a sense of grandeur even in the smallest of chapels. He ex- presses that the interiors with their rows of rigid pews facing forward allowing only a view of the backs of other people, and coupled with powerful organ music, ponderous hymns, and black-robed ministers speaking "down to their flock," created a mood of sobriety.2 The solemn mood and impersonal approach to worship is,accord- ing to Reverend Lynn, a result of our work-a—day world. Sprawling suburbs, large corporations and bureaucracies, and machines replacing peOple are all contributing to the impersonal daily contact. Various religious leaders have seen this growing impersonality within the secular elements of the community and are attempting to modify their worship services and even the architecture to emphasize greater worth to the individual.3 The changes that are being made have to do With creating a friendly, informal environment in which worship becomes a joyful celebration with active participation from each member. It is felt that the architectural plans must be different in order to evoke this 1Allan Bouley, "Buildings For People," Your Church (October 1974) 3 p0 230 2Edwin C. Lynn, "Shaker Spaces: The Psychology of Simplicity in Religious Architecture," Your Church (October 1974), pp. 16-17. 31bid., p. 17. 11 active participation. In this participation peOple are seeking a more basic relationship with one another and with their God, and as a result are pulling themselves out of the complexity and impersonality of our commercial and technical culture.1 Ellen White,in writing to Adventists, states that "it is not the largeness or the grandeur of an edifice that impresses hearts." She continues by conveying the thought that the people, by their principles of righteousness, justice, equity and Christlike spirit, will witness equally with the institution.2 She also states that: Ten churches each of 100 members scattered over a large city, is far better than one church of 1,000 members in one location.3 In none of our buildings should we seek to make a display.4 Some wonder why Mrs. White always uses the words, plain, neat and substantial, when speaking of buildings. "It is because I wish our buildings to represent the per- fection God requires of His people."5 The diversity of plans resulting from the current liturgical movement is quite obviously an outcome of the way various people look at the acts of worship and the needs of the community. Architects are designing versatile plans to meet not only the needs of the 'worshipping body of people, but community needs at large. Various scholars have expressed the polemics of the topic as follows: 11bid., p. 18. 2E. G. White, "Lessons from the Life of Solomon," Review and Herald, 4 January 1906, p. 7. 3Kenneth H. Wood, "The Danger of an Edifice Complex," Review and Herald, 27 July 1972, p. 2. 4E. G. White, Testimonies to Ministers (Mountain View, Calif.: Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1923), p. 424. 5E. G. White, Evangelism, p. 378. 12 Albert Christ-Janer and Mary Foley have made this statement in their book on modern church architecture: The reason why the typical medieval plan, with its elongated nave and chancel . . . is being so widely abandoned on the Continent today is the fact it expresses an entirely different understanding of the liturgy, and of the function of the church building, from that now current in Liturgical Movement circles . . . a new kind of church has begun to appear: a church which reflects a new theological outlook, a deepened understanding of the liturgy which gives the building its raison d'etre. The church is seen first and foremost as the place where the local Christian community gathers for the Eucharist. This is its essential function, to which everything else is subordinate. The liturgy itself is regarded not as something performed by the clergy alone but as a corporate action in which everyone has an active part to play. Hence the current experiments with novel types of church plans based on the square, the circle, the ellipse, the trapezoid. Such plans are not primarily the result of the freedom conferred by modern methods of construction. They are the outcome of the Church's new under- standing of itself, and of the liturgy in which its essential character should be most fully realized and made manifest.1 Christ-Janer and Foley go on to say that this movement is not confined to any one denomination or country. However, it has been most felt among Roman Catholics. In Western EurOpe, this liturgical movement in architecture is said to be emerging from the "depths of sterility and irrelevance into which it had fallen."2 Andre Bieler suggests that in the new type of church sanctuary, the architecture should lend to the outward expression of the con- vergent gathering, a circular plan. In this plan peOple are on an equal with each other, gathered around God's table or Word. The 1Albert Christ-Janer and Mary M. Foley, Modern Church Architecture (New York: McGraw—Hill Publishing Company, 1959), p. 61. 21bid. 13 harmonious enclosure of that which gathers the people is the Word of God and the visible sign of the sacrament of the Eucharist.1 Bieler states: It is, therefore, the Christian community, gathered to- gether by the Word of God and in the brotherly communion of the Lord's Supper, full of the joy of the resurrection in ex- pectation of the Christ's return, that constitutes the true temple of God unique and real to the exclusion of all others.2 Bruggink and Droppers state that beyond the concern for active participation in the worship service there is concern for the needs of the community and a desire to use the sanctuary-meeting room space for activities beyond those ecclesiastical. Thus the purpose for the space is twofold: (1) a place in which God is worshiped and (2) a place for congregational and community affairs of many types. This is achieved by using flexible seating (adjoining chairs) instead of fixed rows of pews. These chairs can be arranged in many different ways for various worship groups or completely removed for other activities that do not require seating, such as basketball or shuffleboard.3 The pastor of a church designed with moveable seating explains the reason for the design as follows: A . . . since we do not know fifty years from now whether the preaching service as we presently conduct it is going to be the main bill of fare in the worship pattern of the Christian 1Andre Bieler, Architecture in Worship (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1965), p. 80. 21bid., p. 15. 3Donald J. Bruggink and Carl Droppers, "Architecture For Total Ministry," Your Church 20 (Nov.-Dec. 1974): 1-4. 14 congregation. A design such as ours allows for that possibility, but it allows maximum flexibility that if worship patterns are markedly different from what they are today, the congregation will have freedom in other directions as well. Are we truly concerned if our church facilities today meet the needs of those members of our congregation fifty years from now? Is it not our responsibility, as stewards of Christ, to meet the needs of our people today? The flexible plans do this for many denominations who have both formal and informal services as well as secular activities. This variance in usage justifies the wor- ship space seven days of the week. The seating may be arranged in- timately in a corner, for a small worship or prayer group, or it may be arranged in straight rows facing the altar for formal services in- volving large groups. It may be arranged in a circular manner for those informal folk masses, or services allowing the participants Space in the middle where they can move freely as part of the congre- gation rather than appear as actors on a stage. Kenneth Wood, editor of a Seventh-day Adventist Church paper, advises that: New buildings for all types of church work may deceive us into thinking that we are functioning more efficiently. Let us not think for even one moment that eXpensive modern buildings will necessarily increase efficiency, win more souls, or hasten the coming of the Lord. Inefficient workers may continue to be inefficient. Visionless men may continue to be Visionless. The only change may be that they do their work in greater com- fort and with increased overhead. And the heavier financial baggage that the church is required to carry to have these 1Jay R. Weener, "Architecture For Total Ministry," Your Church 20 (Nov.-Dec. 1974): 5. 15 facilities may actually delay the coming of Jesus by making it more difficult for the church to complete its task.1 Bruggink and Droppers point out the importance of rostrums, or liturgical platforms as they are called by some, being made up of many sections so that they can be removed or rearranged. One side is carpeted, the other of smooth wood. The carpeted side is used when noise should be kept at a minimum, and the wood side is used for plays, drama or dance.2 By having flexible space, suggests Bruggink and Droppers, the baptismal font can be placed at the entrance or in the center of the congregation depending on the type of baptism that takes place. The communion service is now often portrayed as a meal around God's table. Chairs are removed and the congregation gathers around banquet tables for the sacramental meal. Also, Sunday evening meals are now being served in the sanctuary just before an informal worship service where members may sit on the floor around the rostrum, if they wish. The piano and organ present no problems to this flex— ibility since even large instruments are designed with casters so they can be moved.3 Flexibility is not easily appreciated by many church members because they have spent much of their worship time in fixed static architectural situations. But when given a chance to witness different kinds of worship experiences, they begin to see its purpose and beauty.4 1Wood, p. 2. 2Bruggink and Dropper,"Architecture," pp. 1-4. 31b1d. 41b1d. 16 The archi-liturgical movement has also witnessed its impact in the designs and placement of pulpits and choir. According to Reverend Edwin C. Lynn in his article titled "The Psychology of Simplicity in Religious Architecture, the pulpit no longer needs to be attached to the building's interior, but can be mounted on wheels allowing placement in any part of the sanctuary.1 James White expresses the importance of the pulpit as the main liturgical center of Protestant churches. He states that it is not just a stand for oratory, but is veritably the throne for the Word of God.2 He continues: The design of the pulpit can give a sense of the divine- human encounter possible in preaching. This is especially true when the pulpit is solid and substantial enough to suggest authority far higher than the preacher's personality.3 White explains that the position of the pulpit can create special problems in that the preacher should be able to see every- one with a slight turn of the head, because eye contact is an important means of communication. It is very difficult for a preacher to communicate effectively through eye contact from a pulpit placed in the center of round churches, a popular church shape today.4 An effective circular plan places the pulpit and other liturgical centers in one segment of the circle, allowing visibility to lLynn, p. 3. 2James White, pp. 34-36. 31bid., p. 46. 4Ibid., p. 48. 17 everyone; therefore the congregation and clergy are arranged in wedge shapes like pieces of a pie. This effective arrangement emphasizes the brotherhood of believers. Reverend Lynn points out that choirs are being removed from their lofts and placed on the same level‘with the congregation. Instead of performing for the congregation as the loft suggests, they will lead in the singing and become a part in the total act of worship. He suggests that small instruments, folk or classical, be included to augment the larger instruments.1 During the last fifty years congregations have so arranged themselves to suggest spectatorship, in watching the clergy and choir perform the acts of worship. The opposite should be the case, for in common worship, the worshippers are the actors.2 The only course we have for solving the current dissatisfaction with traditional plans is to take a serious look at the particular theological requirements, and clearly present these to an architectural specialist. White bears out the importance of the congregation presenting the architect with a well-thought-out statement of the nature of the church, and a detailed explanation of every act of worship incorporated. Statements will differ from congregation to congregation even within the same denomination.3 1Lynn, p. 3. 2James White, p. 48. 31bid., p. 34. 18 Dahinden states that: A liturgical place can by itself indicate a religious reality. Thus a place first establishes its significance by its archi- tectural design: if the space for the altar is specifically con- ceived and incorporated into the architectural system, this place . . . according to the successfulness or failure of the design . . . gains or loses importance; but significance de- mands explanation or specificity of the real facts.1 The Seventh-day Adventist viewpoint of temperance is expressed by Ellen White who points out that temperance should be practiced in all aspects of life. In architecture, it is not the expensive building that gives character to the work of the church, but it is the c00perative spirit manifested by the members.2 In designing "a house for God," priority should be given to order, functionality, neatness and "plain beauty." \Expenditures of large sums of money do not necessarily produce a church which is beautiful and functional.3 Church members are "to be temperate in all things," including diet, dress, and economy.4 Mrs. White gives further explanation by saying: Outward show and a large outlay of means are not necessary in order to gain the blessing of God. Human taste, human devising, human inclination to ornament, are not to be encouraged. An un— necessary expenditure of money means that there will be less to invest in the work in other places.5 1Justus Dahinden, New Trends in Church Architecture (New York: Universe Books, Incorporated, 1967), p. 105. 2Ellen G. White, "Christ's Mission," Review and Herald, 15 August 1899, p. 2. 3E. G. White, Testimonies, 2:257. 4E. G. White, "Honor the Lord With Thy Substance," Youth's Instructor, 26 August 1897, p. 266. 5E. G. White, "Work in Christ's Lines," Review and Herald, 24 June 1902, p. 8. 19 An appearance of wealth or position, expensive architecture or furnishings, are not essential to the advancement of the work of God, neither are achievements that win applause from men and administer to vanity.1 Justus Dahinden speaks of a new, more difficult task placed upon the church building of today, that of a restrained, refined and yet strongly expressed religiousness. He compares this with the pretentious confusing sacrality of past cultures.2 Frederick Debuyst relates a statement of Bishop Beekers: he considers a church as essentially a place where the people come to gather as in a great living room. Debuyst goes on to say that architecture should have no sacral character, except that it must be simple, functional, and make people feel at home.3 Allan Bouley has this point of view: . . . for Christians either the sacred and the secular are co—extensive in view of the incarnation of a transcendent Christ or everything is secular, and we have been radically liberated from religious sacrality since God is totally in the world. In either case, tenaciously clinging to the idea that there are specially sacred places, objects and persons is dangerously misleading. This conviction is largely a throwback to primitive religious thought. In the past it has spawned superstition. In the present it gives aid and comfort to those who place a barrier between faith and life and who seek to placate God by scrupulously using sacred places, things and persons as substitutes for the gift of themselves.4 Reverend Lynn explains that "people and buildings are inevitably related. Religious structures reflect religious values; religious 1E. G. White, Testimonies, 7:143. 2Dahinden, p. 74. 3Frederick Debuyst, Modern Architecture and Christian Celebration (Richmond, Va.: John Knox Press, 1968), p. 9. ABouley, p. 2. 20 attitudes are shaped by the environment." Lynn quotes Joseph Sittler: "'No place is holy, but the presentation of the holy never occurs without a place.'"1 Many people today seem to be extremely concerned that the church structure is not meeting the needs of the community since it is used only a few hours of the week. There is fear that if we build sacred churches as we have been building, they will be thought of as Houses of God, "and inevitably God's presence will become tied to the structure and its furnishings." As a result we are seeing the other extreme where buildings are erected to meet the worship needs and secular community needs as well in the same space.2 Ellen White suggests that: There should be a sacred spot, like the sanctuary of old, where God is to meet with His people. That place should not be used as a lunch room or as a business room, but simply for the worship of God. When children attend day school in the same place where they assemble to worship on Sabbath, they cannot be made to feel the sacredness of the place and that they must enter with feelings of reverence. The sacred and the common are so blended that it is difficult to distinguish them. It is for this reason that the house or sanctuary dedicated to God should not be made a common place. Its sacredness should not be confused or mingled with common everyday feelings or business life. There should be a solemn awe upon the worshippers as they enter the sanctuary, and they should leave behind all common worldly thoughts, for it is the audience chamber of the great and eternal God; therefore, pride and passion, dissension and self-esteem, selfishness, and covetousness, which God pro- nounces idolatry, are inappropriate for such a place.3 1Lynn, p. 18. 2Gus Kopka and Karen Bockelman, "Church Building Must Serve Several Needs," Towne Courier, 21 August 1974. 3Ellen G. White, "Building a House for God," Manuscript 23, 1886, Ellen G. White Research Center, Andrews University, Berrien Springs, Michigan. 21 There is concern for people who neatly divide the sacred from the secular. By labeling the structure "The House of God" this desig— nates it as a sacred place for those church folk who seem to belong there. This viewpoint is looked upon by some as card-carrying religious- ness. And we have those who feel that we should not build any more churches because they display the difference between sacred and secular.1 Ellen G. White conveys the thought: There is no part in a Seventh-day Adventist Church which is more sacred than another part. The rostrum is no more holy than the sanctuary itself, and the pulpit is not a more holy piece of furniture than other pieces of furniture in the church.2 Seventh-day Adventists do not hold the position of a sacred altar in the church. As Protestants, we keep far away from ceremonialism and ritual forms. Our worship is from the heart, and the Protestant minister stands in the pulpit, opening to the flock the word of God. He becomes the central figure as God's spokesman, His ambassador, His representative on earth. He stands in the central position in the church, that of the sacred desk, the center of the platform. He does not move off to one side to give place to some table or stand upon which some picture book or the Word of God may be placed with candles and so forth, as we have seen in some countries.3 The baptistry and communion table are excellent reminders of the atonement of Christ. Therefore these prime liturgical centers should be placed where people can see them. "No other function of the church, not even the preaching of the word, is so effective in 4 bringing God's grace to sin-burdened man." 1KOpka and Bockelman. 2Arthur L. White to W. W. Menshausen, 10 April 1964. Q and A File 16-0-1, Ellen G. White Research Center, Andrews University, Berrien Springs, Michigan. 31bid. 4Webb B. Garrison, "Wesley's View of Baptism and the Lord's Supper," Ministrngagazine 28 (April 1955), p. 36. 22 Liturgical centers of secondary importance include the instruments and designated choir area. Many arrangements have been used either eliminating the choir altogether or placing it in extreme prominence. It is suggested that since Adventists incorporate a "pulpit-centered worship,‘ they allow the choir and instruments to be of lesser importance.1 Mrs. White further explains that the sanétuary in the church is not the only place where God reveals His presence. Neither is His presence always to be found there. What is implied here is that in the sanctuary, given prOper preparation on the part of the wor- shipper, there is a special mode of theophany, because it is the chosen place of God. There is a similar concept in that of the Sabbath. We can experience God's presence on any other day, but we can experience it in an unusual manner and to an unusual degree on God's chosen day. 'Mrs. White does not portray a picture of the church building as a shrine of some_localized Deity, but rather as a place of specified appointment with transcendent Deity.2 To further clarify proper usage of an Adventist church building, Arthur L. White points out: In connection with our church program, we usually have two types of facilities. There is the main church sanctuary which is dedicated to the worship of God and all services in this sanctuary must be in keeping with this dedication which sets it apart in a very special way as a place of worship. Then we usually have Sabbath School rooms, sometimes recreational rooms, 1Ray Santini, "The Choir Loft," Ministry Magazine 26 (January 1953), p. 40. 2E. G. White, "Building a House for God." 23 a kitchen and fellowship hall, and so forth. While in the overall program, this too, is dedicated to God's service, these facilities are used for secular purposes. There may be in the church building itself rooms devoted to church- related activities, which are of a character different than the worship service, but more of a secular type of gathering. Ellen White conveys in a summary statement: If the buildings erected correspond to the truth that we are proclaiming, a telling influence will be exerted on minds. Actions speak louder than words. Say frankly, God has charged us not to invest a large amount of means in one place, and He has charged us also not to invest means in gratifying the desire for display. The principles that we are to follow in our work are exemplified in the life of Christ. He was the Majesty of heaven, and yet He worked at a carpenter's bench. And however lowly His task, it was done with the utmost exactitude.2 Significance in design might be achieved in each Protestant church even though the differences in some denominations be small. Perhaps it is the differences of each theology and mode of worship that will make the unique difference in the design and construction for the structure in which it is housed. Various differences exist between those ideas being currently accepted by Protestants and those guidelines suggested by Seventh-day Adventist church leaders. It is only logical to point out that since the beliefs and the needs of Seventh-day Adventists are decidedly different from current trends, then the designs for this denomination will also be decidedly different. While many are getting on the 1A. L. White to Richard Hawley, 20 October 1971, Q and A File 16-0-2, Ellen G. White Research Center, Andrews University, Berrien Springs, Michigan. 2Ellen G. White, Manuscript Release 398 (November 1974), p. 4. 24 archi-liturgical band wagon, the Seventh-day Adventist church must be careful not to accept change for the sake of change. In many denominations change has taken and is taking place in the architectural representation of their theology. However, this is where the problem exists, as it appears that few structures are highly representative of the theology they represent. Existing designs express man's ability to create structures which fulfill the aesthetic and functional needs but with considerable variation from one structure to the next, lacking strong theological implications. There should be rigid factors in each theology that can be represented by the church's design. The principles set forth in the review of literature by Ellen White and other church leaders should produce archi-liturgical unity within the denomination, but should not stifle creativity. The following guidelines condensed from the foregoing review of literature can be used as criteria for judging each Seventh—day Adventist Church in terms of its theology. 1. Because of the sacredness of the sanctuary, it should be designed for worship services only.1 2. The pulpit is the most important part of a Seventh-day Adventist church interior, and should be centrally located.2 3. The communion table, secondary to the pulpit, should be in a prominent place as an important reminder of Christ our intercessor.3 13. G. White, "Building." 2A. L. White to W. W. Menshausen, 10 April 1964. 3Garrison, p. 36. 25 4. The baptistry should be revealed at all times as an important reminder of one's entering the faith.1 5. Instruments and choir should be placed so that they are not in any way centers of attraction, for they augment the worship service.2 6. The structure should be economical in relation to the socio-economic strata of its environment.3 7. The structure should be designed to represent the life of Christ by simplicity, solidness and perfection of construction without extravagant ornamentation.4 8. Secondary rooms should be provided for classwork, social gatherings, and functions of a more secular nature.5 9. Beauty should be second to the functionality of the design and should be an integral part of an effective design and choice of materials.6 lIbid. 2Santini, p. 40. 3E. G. White, "Christ's Mission." 4E. G. White, Manuscript Release 398, p. 4. 5A. L. White to Richard Hawley, (October 1971). 6E. G. White, Testimonies, 2:257. CHAPTER II THE ALLEGAN SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH IN ALLEGAN, MICHIGAN The three chapters which follow are devoted to three churches built by Seventh—day Adventists in Michigan. The three structures, representing more than one hundred years of church growth, are described and critiqued architecturally. The nine criteria on pages 24 and 25 will be used to judge the churches to determine how well the theological needs are met. Of course, it must not be forgotten that this is a small sampling out of the many church structures in Michigan. Since Michigan is only one small section of the country it is likely that there could be regional differences in architecture regarding the selection of style, materials, and depiction of theological concepts in the arrangements of design. The state of Michigan has numerous places of historical interest to Seventh-day Adventists, including educational and medical institutions, homes of early church pioneers as well as the early church homes that served these people for many years. The church in Allegan is one which holds significant interest not only for its architecture, but for the lives of members who were church founders. Among these were Ellen G. White, Joseph Bates and J. N. Loughborough, who by their diligent Bible study and hard labor formed a group 26 27 of believers who were to become known as Seventh-day Adventists during the same decade that the Allegan church was built.1 The church at Allegan was organized on December 7, 1861 following a series of meetings conducted by Moses Hull at the old county court house. Joseph Bates was one of about thirty who signed the original charter for the church, and his home still stands in nearby South Monterey.2 The present building, started in the spring of 1863, was dedi- cated in 1864.3 The photograph on the next page reveals a small, modest wooden two-story structure with a square cupola on the roof. The structure appears to be a combination of a few popular styles of the Victorian Age. 'At first one might mistake it as early Victorian Gothic, a popular style for such simple churches of the mid nineteenth century. However, the Gothic arch is replaced with the rounded arch of the Romanesque Revival period, also prevalent in the nineteenth century. These arches are seen in the window over the entrance door, and in the ventilation louvers of the cupola on the roof. Early Victorian Gothic tracery (band saw Gothic) is sparingly used on the cupola. However, the decorative brackets seen under the eaves of the cupola are used in the Victorian Italianate Revival. However, the dominant influence here is the use of classic moldings 1Seventh—day Adventist; Michigan Conference, Worker and Church Office Directory (Lansing: Michigan Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, 1967. ZIbid. 3Ibid. ALLEGAN, MICHIGAN SEVENTH—DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH PLATE 1 28 29 which frame the building, the triangular pediments of the cupola, the doorway and windows. This unifies and adds style to the structure much in the same way that classic motifs,tnnxithroughout most of the revival periods of the eclectic nineteenth century, added unity to most buildings. Because the recordings of important data are limited, it is not possible to relate any of the decision making involved in building the structure or to relate anything about the peOple. The minutes of the church board meetings are recorded beginning December 7, 1861 and were taken for several years. However, only a few brief comments pertain to the structure. Most of the information recorded deals with the spiritual affairs of the church." In the meeting of December 7, 1861, the twenty-four original members voted to complete the structure they had begun to build. It was completed and dedicated free of debt in the Spring of 1864. And on June 4, 1864, they voted to collect money from members in order to put up venetian blinds on the windows, which appear to be the most decorative elements of the interior. The sanctuary contains three clear glass windows on each side, four lights wide and six lights high. Blinds have been used to this day on these windows.1 On January 1, 1865, the board voted to spend an extra $7.25 for paint to complete the interior decorating. By 1871 the membership had grown to fifty-three. And the last pertinent data were recorded 1Allegan Seventh—day Adventist Church, "Minutes of the Church Board," 4 June 1864. 30 on May 5, 1876,vflmn1the board voted to insure the "meeting house," as it was called, for one thousand dollars.1 The interior consists of a small vestibule, coat room and the main sanctuary which seats approximately one hundred people (see Plate 2, next page). It is believed by present members that there were no changes made in the appearance of the structure internally or externally in the past one hundred years except for the addition of a full basement which is used today for Sabbath School rooms for children, and does not in any way change the appearance of the structure. Before this addition, the children met in a room that runs across the front of the church above the vestibule.2 The interior of this church sanctuary is so simple that the only attention-demanding item is the pulpit, and in light of Protestant theory, this is good. Ellen G. White designed the pulpit in this church. By its size and design it commands attention. It is unique in that the entire center portion of the piece can be raised or lowered by turning a wheel inside to adjust to various speakers' heights. The walls and ceiling of the meeting house are of smooth plaster. The pews are painted white with dark wood trim. The pews allow a central aisle and side aisles by the windows. About three- fourths of the way toward the windows from the center aisle, the pews 11bid., 5 May 1876. 2Interview with Mrs. Marshall Harvey, Member of Allegan Seventh-day Adventist Church, 9 March 1975. v-o-~ ALLEGAN CHURCH INTERIOR PLATE 2 31 32 curve, permitting people who sit near the side walls to face directly toward the pulpit. In view of the criteria cited in the previous chapter, the following observations and judgments can be made: the age of the structure must be taken into account, and the size and simple needs of the congregation kept in mind. The minutes of the early board meetings indicate that these Christian people were more concerned with their spiritual lives than they were in building a magnificent edifice. It met their needs for a meeting house, and by the fact that it took board action to approve of a $7.25 expenditure for paint, it would seem that the members were of either limited means or that they were concerned about economy, probably the former.1 The structure, for the time in which it was built, basically fulfills the critical needs for a Seventh-day Adventist Church. The sanctuary was used only for sacred meetings. The central pulpit automatically conveys the importance of the spoken word of God. The structure was simply and economically built, fits well in its environ— ment, is well maintained, and stands strong to this day, attesting to its solidness of construction. The secondary facilities minimally meet the needs of a small congregation. However, today the congre- gation uses its own school building for secular activities.2 Provisions for a communion table, choir, and baptistry facilities have not been met. These elements of the interior are of 1Allegan Seventh-day Adventist Church, 5 May 1876. 2Interview with Harvey. 33 utmost importance in the Seventh-day Adventist theology. The small table that stands before the pulpit, though properly placed, appears inadequate in stability and size to be used as a communion table even for a small congregation. In view of the importance of baptism, the complete lack of baptistry facilities is inexcusable for the congregation that uses the church building today. It must be understood that when the church was built it was customary to baptize new converts almost any time of the year in a river or stream, following the example of Christ. Church builders began designing baptistries for the sanctuary permitting a more comfortable setting for members to witness the happy occasion and allowing the pastor and new member protection from inclement conditions. The chancel area of this church allows space for a piano and organ, but there is a lack of space for a choir. Due to the lack of information on this particular church, it is not known if a choir for special musical selections was important to the service at that time. If a choir were to perform they would have to be seated as part of the congregation, which is a trend that some of the churches are following today. Regardless of its age, this quaint, well preserved church is a structure which anyone would be proud to call his ancestral church home. Adventists can be proud that it stands unadorned of super- fluous ornamentation and stands in simple dignity to witness the simple forthright truth of Jesus Christ. CHAPTER III THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST TABERNACLE IN BATTLE CREEK, MICHIGAN Battle Creek is a well known name in Seventh—day Adventist history. In 1863 the General Conference was organized here to be the administrative force of this new denomination, and it remained in Battle Creek until 1903 when it moved to Washington, D.C. It was here that the first church was built and owned by the early members in 1855, the first Sanitarium in 1866, the first school in 1872, and the first college in 1874 known as Battle Creek College which was relocated in Berrien Springs in 1901, later to be renamed Emmanuel Missionary College, and in 1960 became Andrews University.1 Many people important to the early work of the denomination were members at the Battle Creek Church. Among these were John Byington, first General Conference president; Sidney Brownsberger, first president of Battle Creek College; Uriah Smith, a leading church writer and editor; and W. W. Prescott, a Battle Creek resident, whose 1Seventh-day Adventist Historical Landmarks in Battle Creek, Michigan ([Washington, D.C.]: Review and Herald Publishing Association, n.d.). 34 35 policies and leadership in educational work helped establish the school system of the church. Ellen G. White and her husband, a minister, were involved with writing, publishing, and leadership in Battle Creek.1 Also significant in the history of the church organization in Battle Creek was Dr. John Harvey Kellogg, brother to W. K. Kellogg of the world famous cereal industry. Dr. Kellogg who supervised the medical work at the sanitarium, developed nutritious health foods made from grains and nuts. Concepts in healthful living were studied and planned early in the history of the denomination.2 It appears that advanced policies in building church structures were not the case in those early years of the denomination. This is evident in the photographs of the two structures first built in Battle Creek (See Plate 3, next page). However, by 1870 the growth of the church necessitated the building of a large structure that would house the fast growing congregation as well as become the cardinal meeting place of the entire church organization. It is not this structure that is the concern of this study, but the one which was built in 1926 to replace this larger structure which eventually burned. However, it is necessary to understand the importance of the older structure in order to appreciate the effort that went into the church structure that stands in its place today. lIbid. 21bid. 36 .' x‘ “3‘. r.'.u| ‘ n ..—'T' —" \' ., 92:? .. O I' ' 'I C O V -0 o 0 ) L44 . ' . I J .4- .4 1 0 rd - _‘ . . - > ‘, -"a',',",".l..,‘ ‘, ‘: . .‘ In .- ‘ _ -. ‘_..c.- ' ‘ i it .1 fl I. fil‘d'l' I.M .vr-vw‘ .2..." g-n-‘n\s Is“, :45?! ~ '4’! ‘ ‘VW- - _ EARLY SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHURCHES BUILT IN BATTLE CREEK PLATE 3 37 The large church built in 1879 was known as the ”Dime Tabernacle" because children saved dimes to help in the building. It was an immense building with a seating capacity of over three thousand, filled an entire city block and had an entrance on each of the four corners (Plate 4).1 On January 8, 1922, from a cause not known, the church caught fire and burned to its foundatiOn, and regardless of this great loss and disappointment to the Adventist people of Battle Creek, they immediately called together a meeting of the "Financial and School Board" on the night of the great fire.2 It is intended that this study seek out the prime sections in the minutes of the Tabernacle Board dealing with the decision making that influenced the design for the new structure. It will prove interesting to determine if any guidelines were followed, or exactly what influenced the final product, and eventually to recall the criteria of Chapter I to ascertain the consistency of church beliefs in constructing the building. The committee that met the night of the fire was composed of four ministers and fourteen church laymen. However, as many as twenty laymen attended the various meetings that took place between the dates January 8, 1922 and October 9, 1926 when the dedication date was decided.3 1Ibid. 2The Battle Creek Seventh-day Adventist Tabernacle, "Minutes of Meetings of the Financial and School Board," 8 January 1922. (Type- written.) 3Ibid. BATTLE CREEK, MICHIGAN SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST "DIME TABERNACLE" PLATE 4 38 39 During the first meeting on January 8, 1922, questions were raised which pertained to retaining the same location, choosing the architect, and selecting the size of the building. It was voted to invite Pastor Daniels of the General Conference located in Washington at this time, to come workfwith them on rebuilding problems. It was decided that the new building be dedicated solely for the "propagation of the Third Angel's Message, [communicating the message of Christ's second coming] and not for common use," and that the church be built on the old site. Just prior to adjourn- ment, Dr. Heald promoted the idea of building a modern church edifice. The idea was carried and they adjourned.1 Deciding on the capacity of 2,500 seats and the desire for good accoustics for the new building was the agenda on January 9, and it passed with a unanimous vote. The building was to have a high basement to permit plenty of light through basement windows to the Sabbath School rooms, offices and committee rooms to be placed there.2 Edward Benjamin, an architect from Grand Rapids, was selected on January 11, and on January 14 the committee voted to have Mr. Benjamin draw preliminary plans for a church to seat 1,250 with good acoustics. It was felt by some members that this size was suffi‘ cient because their membership was 1,037 at this time and many people had moved to Washington when the General Conference and Review and Herald Publishing Association moved there llbid. 2Ibid., 9 January 1922. 40 several years earlier. This new seating capacity was favored by all except two who were not clear on the decision. The meeting ended with the decision to ask the General Conference to appoint a few men to act as advisory committee to the board.1 On January 15, the committee voted for a plans committee of five members and a committee of three businessmen to do the pur- chasing of all materials for the construction of the new temple. During this meeting a report was presented by the city fathers of Battle Creek with the recommendations to build a church building to accommodate 1,500 peOple and in "an institutional temple style."2 A considerable amount of discussion transpired in the next meeting on January 18 considering the character and style of the building. Pastor Serns stated his desires as follows: . . . not to build up a great monument to satisfy pride, selfish ambition and desires of man, but with the sole purpose of honoring and glorifying God. A temple devoid of the show of extravagance, but one that is substantial, commodious, well arranged and in keeping with our profession in which our Divine Maker will be pleased to meet with and bless His people.3 Some weeks passed before any important issues were discussed, except that it was decided to permit other architectural firms to submit plans in order to make a comparison with architect Benjamin's plans. And on February 7, the firm of Colton and Knecht of Grand Rapids presented plans for a building that would cost approximately 11bid., 14-15 January 1922. 2Ibid., 15 January 1922. 31bid., 18 January 1922. 41 $121,000.00. The committee members liked it very much.1 However, a letter was received by the Tabernacle Board of Finance from the Chamber of Commerce suggesting that a mistake would be made if a structure seating only 1,500 people was built. The letter also advised that it would be wiser to build a structure that was not fireproof in order to spend the money on a larger building, possibly on the remaining foundations of the old tabernacle.2 After much discussion in the meeting of March 9 about the cost, it was voted to spend approximately $90,000 on the structure and $10,000 on the furnishings. Pastors Daniels and Serns were both convinced of the $100,000 figure for the structure because of their understanding of the financial needs of peOple in other states and countries who needed their support. Therefore the committee decided to contact Mr. Benjamin so he could have the opportunity to design a structure with these stipulations.3 A suggestion came in to contact a man in Berrien Springs by the name of Wood. As a result of the March 9 meeting, he was advised to submit plans to the committee for a structure to be built over the old tabernacle foundations. The committee wanted to compare this plan to that of Mr. Benjamin. However, on March 13, Mr. Wood expressed that he would not be able to use the old foundation. Some committee 1Ibid., 7 February 1922. 2J. 1. Gibson, Secretary of the Battle Creek Chamber of Commerce to Tabernacle Board of Finance, 10 February 1922. 31bid., 9 March 1922. 42 members were inclined to try to work with Mr. Wood in deriving a new plan, but some were in favor of finding an architect to draw alto- gether different plans not to exceed $90,000 with a maximum seating capacity of 1,500, provided the architect's fees were no more than four per cent. The committee favored the latter issue and the vote was carried.1 One week later the committee proposed to turn the job of designing the tabernacle over to Mr. Chanel, and on April 20, the committee asked Mr. Chanel to add side galleries to the balcony area, but to keep the cost under $90,000. On April 24, it was voted to have the ceilings in the basement thirteen feet high.2 In the meeting of July 25, it was learned that a member of the board exceeded his authority in engaging Mr. Bumps to design the church and present plans, but the latter was soon released from the commission. However, the chairman asked that plans by both Mr. Bumps and Mr. Chanel be brought in for review by the committee. After reviewing the actions the board had taken since the fire, he discovered that Mr. Bumps had been released from the commission and perhaps it would be best not to re-negotiate by soliciting his plans at this time. Following this decision it was suggested that the seating capacity be 1,500 or large enough to accommodate large city functions,because it was felt that the city would then donate twice as much money toward the new structure as had been planned. Mr. Sooy interjected that he had canvassed some of the most influential 11bid., 13 March 1922. Zlbid., 20, 24 April 1922. 43 businessmen of the city who donated from $500 to $5,000 each, and that it was the counsel of these men that the church "should by no means build to accommodate the city, but to build to suit our needs." He finished by reporting that the donations would be no less because of this decision. The meeting concluded with a vote to examine the plans of Mr. Bumps at nine o'clock the following Wednesday, and to look also at the plans of Mr. Chanel at one-thirty that same day.1 Finally on July 26, after seeing the plans of both men and after much discussion by the members of three committees comprising the Lake Union Conference Committee, the West Michigan Conference, adn the Battle Creek Church Board, it was voted by 24 to 13 in favor of Mr. Chanel's plans. Before the large committee adjourned, a committee was formed to study the possibilities of a semi-fireproof structure and it was voted to place the building on one side of the lot along Van Buren Street.2 In the meetings that followed on August 21, the committee reviewed bids from contractors, electricians, plumbers, and heating installers, and decided to take the low bids of all three. Some re- visions were made such as removing one bathroom, and deleting some stone trim on the sides and back of the structure in order to have the contractor re-submit an even lower bid. This would bring the cost down to approximately $90,000, the sum for which they had originally planned.3 The revised bids were received, but the committee felt 1Ibid., 25 January 1922. 2Ibid., 26 January 1922. 31bid., 14 September 1922. 44 it would be wise to wait until spring when, perhaps, the cost of materials would be lower.1 During this time, Mr. Guthrie of the Lake Union Conference wrote to suggest they build a temporary meeting place called a "Billy Sunday Tabernacle." This proposal was turned down, but the idea of completing the basement rooms as temporary meeting places was given serious consideration with no final decision.2 The committee meeting on October 16, 1922 brought surprising reactions on the part of the members when Mr. Judd and Pastor Guthrie both promoted the idea of splitting the congregation of the large church and constructing two or more smaller buildings. These smaller structures could be in Urbandale and Washington Heights since some of the congregation came from those areas.3 However, by February 12, 1923, the committee was again in favor of a plain, neat and sub- stantial building to be placed on the valuable site of the old tabernacle, not a cheap building but one which would "meet the approval of God." Mr. Chanel was again asked to revise his plans in order to save money.4 Mr. Chanel's plans were brought in and reviewed by the committee on March 5 and they voted to finish the basement according to Mr. Chanel's plans. The committee also voted to sell part of the lot 11bid., 16 October 1922. 2Ibid., 14 September 1922. 31bid., 16 October 1922. 4Ibid., 12 February 1923. 45 which faced Main Street, a piece of land approximately 100 feet by 195 feet, and not for less than $40,000.1 One year elapsed with very little accomplished toward the construction and no final decision to go ahead. A letter was received from Pastor Guthrie of the Lake‘Union Conference urging the congregation to proceed by April 14 and this they did.2 Another year passed as construction went on in a normal to slow manner, and it is recorded in the minutes that various members were given duties for finishing the interior. These jobs included finishing the choir rail, the cutting down of the concrete slab in the narthex to provide room for red quarry tile, and the purchasing of a clock for the front of the church as well as a bell that would be regulated by the clock.3 The topics discussed in meetings from October 19, 1925 to January 25, 1926 dealt with ordering an automatic light switch for the outdoor clock which had a translucent face and could be read at night. Then a decision was made to place the bell on the roof with the possibility of casting it with material from the old bell salvaged from the Dime Tabernacle.4 The few remaining items in the minutes before the dedication of the church concern us from the design standpoint. The first was 11bid., 5 March 1923. 2William Guthrie, President of Lake Union Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, to George E. Judd, Chairman of the Building Committee, 29 March 1924. 3The Battle Creek Seventh-day Adventist Tabernacle, 5 October 1925. 41bid., 19 October 1925 - 25 January 1926. 46 the ordering of fabric from the Battle Creek Tent and Awning Company which would be placed behind the grilles to the organ pipes. Pro- fessor Phipps announced that he would have the manual training students at his school make the hymn signs that would be placed in the front of the sanctuary. And finally, a large announcement board was requested for the front lawn.1 There is no mention of the selection of pews for the sanctuary. However on July 19, 1926, the orchestra committee of the church requested that the front pew be removed to allow more space for the orchestra. The pew was removed and stored temporarily.2 Considerable time went by. The congregation moved into their modern new place of worship and on Sabbath, October 9, they voted to have the dedicatory services during the Autumn Council, the important yearly meetings of the General Conference.3 It is unfortunate that in the keeping of minutes, the secretary did not describe the stylistic changes that were taking place from meeting to meeting as the committee placed restrictions on the design. The city suggested an "institutional temple style" for the church. How does one determine the characteristics of such a style? We can only assume that the men following the suggestion of one member to have a modern structure knew what they were after. They apparently knew their financial limitations and with a smaller congregation could build only a smaller structure of simple design. 1Ibid. 2Ibid., 19 July 1926. 31bid., 9 October 1926. 47 Description and Critique The structure that resulted from years of persistence and regular meetings is a bold, solid appearing building located on a corner of a busy street in the urban area of Battle Creek. Diagonally across from it stands the large multi-storied building of Renaissance Revival style which at one time had housed the medical work for the church. Directly across the street from the main entrance to the church is a city park one block square which lends beauty to this urban setting of buildings and concrete pavement. The land which was sold to the side and facing Main Street eventually became the site of a bank building. The church structure is situated close to the sidewalk bordering Van Buren Street with a small side lawn and hedge on the corner (See Plate 5). The facade is a light colored brick veneer surfacing with a flat roof giving the building a box-like appearance. Stylistically one could place it in the twentieth century neo-classic category. It has a trace of a Greek temple appearance, but different from the Greek Revival of the nineteenth century and strictly manneristic, incorporating a modern steel method of construction. The approach to the triple- doored entrance is by a wide stone staircase, constructed much like those of Roman temples. The raising up of the church in this Roman manner conveys to the visitor the importance of the Deity or that which is shrined within. The pair of columns that stand staunchly in the center of the facade reinforce the feeling of dignity and strength. The simplicity of the sides with brick pilasters framing rectangular 48 [—1] THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST TABERNACLE PLATE 5 49 colored glass windows seem to run parallel with the sides of Greek temples which were rhythmically and evenly designed to complement the more elaborate entrance at the end, the main point of focus. The twin columns of the edifice are framed in Roman style stone arches which slightly protrude frdm the brickwork. These arches continue down to the base in pilasters which frame each of the double entrance doors. Above these arches with key stones, is a wide stone frieze-like section appearing to be one large stone lintel resting atop the large stone pillars. Boldly carved in this stone border is the name of the church. Regardless of the fact that this building is nearly fifty years old, it fits into its urban setting of commercial buildings of many descriptions and ages. And even though this box-like structure is unlike any church the denomination has previously witnessed, it still conveys by its appearance that it is a house of worship. The narthex is narrow and runs the entire width of the church with stairs at each end leading to the balcony. The unique balcony of cantilevered design is "U"-shaped with a deep sloping section in the middle. The two long arms of the side projecting toward the chancel are narrow and only contain two roWs of pews. Any location in the balcony affords the worshipper a good view of the chancel in this sanctuary of auditorium style. The beautiful colored glass windows placed above the balcony give cheerful light to the entire interior (See Plate 6). '.‘7 I TABERNACLE INTERIOR BALCONY PLATE 6 50 51 The interior walls are broken up with simple pilasters of smooth plaster (See Plate 7). The flat ceiling is beamed With large square sections. In the central section and the side section of ceiling over the balcony are glass skylights permitting the sanctuary to be flooded with light. The chancel of the auditorium-like church is a large curving platform with steps on each side much like that of a theatre (See Plate 8). The pulpit is centered with steps directly in front permitting access to the platform for such occasions as weddings. Directly in front of the central steps is a large substantial-appearing communion table in a location of prime importance and view. The curving inclined floor also aids the worshipper in his view of the service. The choir is a raised loft directly behind the pulpit and contains the pipe organ console. The wall directly overhead contains within an arch of moldings a large painting of Christ composed of rich colors and commanding too much attention by its size and location. On each side of this large painting, on separate walls high toward the ceiling, are the organ pipes and chambers. The piano is off to the left side on the same level as the congregation. Above this, to the left of the chancel, recessed in the wall is the baptistry. It is framed with dark wood and draped in red velvet. The feeling produced in this sanctuary is one of unity and serenity which would promote a worshipful attitude on the part of the worshipper. The placement of all parts with the exception of l I ..HII'I'”II"”I II If] "H! TABERNACLE INTERIOR PLATE 7 52 TABERNACLE INTERIOR PLATE 8 ,J \\ \\ \\\\\‘ 1 \ 53 54 the choir loft are in strict accordance with the criteria for Seventh-day Adventists in Chapter I. The choir demands too much attention and should have been designed to be of secondary importance in placement permitting the music to augment rather than dominate the service. Economy, as attested by the minutes, was important to the supporting congregation at the time of construction. This structure when compared to the simple Allegan Church does not convey the concepts of simplidity and economy first set forth, but when these concepts are compared with its environment, it seems to fit. The congregation today can be proud that they don't have an elaborate nineteenth century white elephant on their hands, for the building is easy to maintain. There are ample rooms in the high-ceilinged basement to permit activities of a more secular nature. With the exclusion of the choir, the design is functional and attractive and has every item in its proper place to greatly facilitate the Adventist worship service. This congregation can be proud of its rich heritage and of this well-built structure for its use and in memory of Christ on earth. CHAPTER IV THE PIONEER MEMORIAL SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH IN BERRIEN SPRINGS, MICHIGAN The history behind the building of the large church on the campus of Andrews University in Berrien Springs is long and inter- esting. However, the topic will be dealt with in a concise manner in order to bring out the main points that influenced the design of the church. The first two structures used as churches by the members and friends of the college, then known as Battle Creek College, were located in Battle Creek, the latter structure was the famous "Dime Tabernacle" dedicated in 1870, and the former structure was the small wooden building used just prior to the tabernacle. When the college was moved to Berrien Springs in 1901 and renamed Emmanuel Missionary College, a number of facilities were used for worship including a "tent, vacated courthouse, Birch Hall first-floor dining room, the now-razed Adminis- tration Building chapel room (1903-24), Chapel Building basement and auditorium (l924-59)."1 Emmet K. Vande Vere mentions: When Claude and Clara Striplin joined the staff in 1949, coming from the new La Sierra College Church (Riverside, California), the lack of interest for a new church at Berrien lEnlnet K. Vande Vere, History of the Church as printed in Dedicatory Bulletin at the Dedication of the Pioneer Memorial Church, Berrien Springs, Mich., 21 May 1960. 55 56 appalled them, and they began mildly agitating to at least improve the quarters they had.1 In November, 1949, Arthur and Hazel Skeels visited Takoma -Park, Maryland, and worshipped in the Sligo Seventh-day Adventist Church. It impressed them. Mrs. Skeels gathered several dozen folders picturing it and brought them back. In December she handed them out in a church board meeting, and when Arthur Axelson gave her an opportunity to speak, she urged a campaign to secure a campus church building. Sherman E. Wight, the venerable district pastor and a local resident, concurred, "I like that speech!" he said. "The college has gone too long without a separate church, why not work for one right away?"2 By the summer of 1950, the church building committee proposed a $405,000 structure and had already raised $24,000 in pledges and cash. Some were under the impression that everybody shared too much optimism since the Michigan Conference was heavily involved in erecting a new office building in Lansing. And as is the custom among Adventist organizations, part of the funds would come from the state conference, part from the Lake Union Conference and the last share from the college. The committee conjectured that if the Emmanuel Missionary College Church reached the $90,000 mark, ground- breaking could begin "on the land the college deeded to the Michigan Conference for ninety-nine years."3 Several years passed between the first building committee meetings and the meetings of the second building committee. During this time, the members diligently collected and saved their funds, 1Emmett K. Vande Vere, The Wisdom Seekers (Nashville: The Southern Publishing Association, 1972), p. 225. 2Ibid. 31bid., p. 226. 57 depositing them in small plastic banks, shaped like churches, that they kept in their homes. Furthermore they still contributed heartily to the regular church tithes and offerings. Students worked with great zeal to raise the amount of $7,205, while families were having regular bake sales on U.S. Highway 31 which brought in approximately $6,000. Finally in September of 1957, the faculty finished raising the $90,000 and requested the other supporting organi- zations to donate the shares they had promised.1 Vande Vere continues: 0n Alumni Sunday, April 28, 1957, the groundbreaking ceremonies set aside a plot for the long awaited church. The college plant services--under the management of Jacob Riffel—-contracted the construction of the big structure.2 There were some interesting major decisions made throughout the series of planning sessions that lasted from July of 1956 until the first Sabbath the church was used on February 14, 1959.3 In order to better understand the structure that develOped, it is necessary to know some facts about the people, their desires, and the location of the structure before the issues of the planning sessions are examined. The original architectural rendering developed by architect Williams of Lafayette, Indiana for the committee in 1950, was a large stone structure incorporating some gothic elements (See Plate 9). The tower over the narthex and the transepts were thought to be too elaborate and especially too expensive for a congregation that had 11bid., p. 227. 2Ibid. 31bid., p. 228. 58 23:12.2 3:53 5:33 3330 25.23.} $3.153 1....3 ...=£m%. a: he £2.59 ER MEMORIAL CHURCH PROPOSED PIONE PLATE 9 59 basically only ninety supporting families. Ninety families in a wealthy suburb in any American city could most likely afford a traditional, twentieth century gothic type church. But the ninety families at Emmanuel Missionary College were primarily teachers and perhaps a few local businessmen. Their incomes were very modest, their goals were high and their needs were many; add to this the prerequisite to build a church large enough to accommodate all the students of an ever expanding college.1 This church was planned for a college campus where all the students, faculty, staff and friends could come together as one large family to worship together. The sanctuary was planned to be used at graduation, since this event on Adventist campuses is considered sacred; and for weddings of students who have established many friends and life companions during their years of study at the school. The members were aware that the church had to be large, in fact an early committee meeting specified it to seat 1,800 people, and it was also understood that it would have to be relatively inexpensive. In the first meeting of the new building plans committee held July 9, 1956, one of the first items established was the budget of $405,000. However, the discussion centered around the uncertainty of the character or style of the building. Therefore, architect Williams 1Interviewwith Alice Marsh, original board member, Berrien Springs, Michigan, 18 December 1974. 60 and others were asked to provide seating plans and architectural designs that would remain within the proposed budget.1 The architects were presented with the following additional requirements as planned on December 15, 1956: (l) seating capacity to be approximately 1,800, (2) center aisle and open chancel, (3) single main nave with balcony, (4) floor to be slanting, preferably the back half, (5) that the builders provide some method to close off about one-third of the total seating capacity to adjust to the fluctuating attendance of the college church.2 During the next two months that passed, Mr. Williams was out of town, which impeded the progress of the committee in making any decisions. So upon his arrival, he informed the committee that he did not wish to work on the plans until they dropped the other architects. Consequently, the committee voted against Mr. Williams' plans because of his lack of interest in an economical plan, and voted for McGrath Associates of St. Joseph, Michigan.3 In the meantime, just a few months prior to the action to commission McGrath Associates, Dr. Stecht of Portland, Oregon, wrote and offered.to share his knowledge of church construction as well as the cost of a plane fare for one to Portland. It was decided that Pastor Tucker and V. E. Garber should meet with Dr. Stecht. This trip resulted in a rather firm decision that the 1Emmanuel Missionary College Church, "Minutes of the Church Building Committee," 9 July 1956. 2Ibid., 15 December 1956. 31bid., 4 February 1957. 61 church be of a long nave type versus the auditorium style as used in Battle Creek, and that a basilican plan with a modified gothic style would appear pleasing to most people, as suggested by Dr. Stecht. Due to Dr. Stecht's experience in church building, he de— vised a formula which when coupled with the right materials would produce good acoustics and an aesthetic scale. The formula was this: two-thirds of the width of the building should be the height at its tallest point; and the nave should be at least twice as long as wide.1 From this point onward it appears that the committee made steady progress. The width of the structure was changed from 72 feet to 75 feet, and a couple of months later the length was changed to two hundred and ten feet, allowing seating for 2,106 on the basis of eighteen inches per person and one hundred people in the choir.2 The design of the choir became probably the most controversial of all the decisions made. The plans were made incorporating an Open chancel placed as far forward as possible with a divided choir directly behind. This placement of half the choir on the right and half on the left, facing each other, provided a large open space directly behind the pulpit which led straight back to the baptistry recessed in the chancel wall and surmounted by a tall lancet window. This empty area would provide a space for the communion table just below 1Interview with V. E. Garber, original board member, Berrien Springs, Michigan, 3 March 1957. 2Emmanuel Missionary College Church Minutes, 7.February 1957 62 the baptistry; a place for small chamber orchestras; a place for the pipe organ console during recitals; and the area in which a wedding could take place. However, the whole concept of a divided choir was not acceptable to the choral director.1 The committee, having listened to‘ the viewpoint of various musicians, went ahead with the design because it not only was attractive, but promoted the concept that the worshipping congre- gation's vision would be directed forward and upward by the linear qualities of the tall lancet windows and not interrupted by the choir.2 On March 10, 1957, a committee of five was appointed to study the selection of materials and make a few final decisions on design concepts.3 On April 21, action was taken to construct a roof of 10 x 12 pitch, creating a very wide expansive appearance.4 On April 25, the decision was made to use an open truss and purlin system for the ceiling allowing the exposed framework to be a decorative ele- ment of the interior.5 The committee of five accepted the plans of the architect to use Indiana Limestone for the exterior and contracted wichMr. Rogien to lay the stone. In the same meeting, slate was given 1Ibid., 3 March 1957. 2Interview with Marsh. 3Emmanuel Missionary College Church Minutes, 10 March 1957. 41bid., 21 April 1957. 51bid., 25 April 1957. 63 consideration for roofing material, provided the bid did not exceed $5,000 over the cost of asphalt shingles. Needless to say, asphalt shingles were the final selection.1 Finally on September 20 with the decision to use aluminum doors and door frames for all exterior doors, the exterior design was complete and planned with virtually maintenance-free materials.2 All that remained at this time were a few decisions about interior materials which were to be economical. The most economical material with the right acoustical qualities was a cement block called "Wa-lite." The committee was advised that the acoustics would be too live otherwise, and that this type of cinder block would be a goOd choice. The gray wall would permit the windows to show up and would be maintenance free.3 The decision on August 1 was to use the gray block, but to have it scored thus giving a more irregular pattern similar to the stone exterior (See Plate 10).4 The wooden beams, ceiling and wainscoting had already been finished in a light colored stain, but not mentioned in the minutes, subsequently when the various representatives came to present church furniture, it was the general consensus that the wood should be stained light, for many were tired of dark wood, and it would not be compatible with the church interior. The order was placed for 11bid., 16 May 1957. 2lbid., 20 September 1957. 3Interview with Marsh. 4Emmanuel Missionary College Church Minutes, 1 August 1957. 64 .J [Illlflrlc .W 15.... 5 . n PIONEER MEMORIAL CHURCH PULPIT PLATE 10 65 3,160 running feet of pews with the Ossit Church Furniture Company of Janesville, Wisconsin for the sum of $25,280.1 Last but not least, was the decision to select the windows. The committee on October 10, 1957, decided to ask a representative of a local glass company to give advice. Mr. Walter Pymn from Colonial Art Glass Company in St. Joseph was contacted to do the work with specifications that all windows be double glazed and placed in maintenance—free aluminum frames.2 From time to time Mr. Pymn invited various members to visit his studio so that he could get some input as to the type of subject matter that would be most appropriate for the church.3 The final products were installed; fourteen windows for the sides of the nave and one large lancet WindOW‘With a rose window at the top for the chancel (See Plate 11). Each side window portrays a Biblical symbol while the rose window portrays Christ in the clouds surrounded by a rainbow and holding a sickle in one hand and a king's scepter in the other. In the lancet window below are set four colorful medallions portraying: (1) the ten commandments, (2) an hourglass showing time running out, (3) the white dove of peace, (4) the open tomb representing Christ's resurrection to life. The last recorded session on November 24, 1957 reads as follows: 1Ibid., 10 October 1957. 21bid. 3Interview with Marsh. \ ‘ - I 7 \ I \ \ / J J l /|’ ‘ It .' ¢|\ "\\ L V L A. - PIONEER MEMORIAL CHURCH LANCET WINDOW PLATE 11 66 67 The chairman presented to the combined committee the preposal of dedicating windows to early spiritual leaders of the institution. This presentation by the chairman made possible free and open discussion as to the right and wrong of dedicating windows to individuals. There was no motion to rescind the previous action that we proceed to dedicate the fourteen nave windows to such individuals as the committee would select. Therefore, the chairman proceeded to direct the discussion and list individuals that should be selected and thus recognized.1 ' Out of a list of twenty, fourteen names were chosen and because Dr. Alice Marsh had sometime during the year commented to someone about this church being a church of pioneers, the comment stuck and the new structure that everyone was so proud of, hence- forth, became known as the Pioneer Memorial Church.2 Carved in stone over its doors is the inscription "An House of Prayer for All People." Description and Critique Pioneer Memorial Church located on the circular drive at the main entrance to Andrews University is the hub of this Christian campus. Its large silhouette is not crowded, but surrounded by flat, spacious, manicured lawns and gardens (See Plate 12). Especially picturesque is the evening winter scene with the windows and lamps softly lighted. The accent of pointed arches is architecturally weak if compared with a replica of twelfth century French gothic design, but has merit in its own simplicity when accepted and not compared. Various comments have been made about the fine workmanship 1Emmanuel Missionary College Church Minutes, 24 November 1957. 2Interview with Marsh. PIONEER MEMORIAL SEVENTH—DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH PLATE 12 68 69 of the stone masonry on both the exterior and interior. The quality of design and workmanship here exemplified coincides with Ellen White's suggestions that the house of God be solidly and economically built of good material. The church appears to be an immense version of the early Gothic revival period of the nineteenth century only clad in stone instead of wood, and it has a strong aesthetic appeal to many because of the traditional concept of church design. To many, a church is a church if it has pointed windows. There is nothing at all wrong in preferences of design or pointed windows. However, a critic's viewpoint might be this: if a gothic church is to be built, then build it complete in every detail with every spire, tracery, crocket and trefoil. Lavish huge sums of money on it and make it a work of art in every detail. Of course, the most renowned critic knows that there are limitations placed on a structure, more so today than ever before, by the people themselves, if nothing else. Before making comments about the interior, it seems necessary to point out the peculiarly small out-of-scale carillon on the roof over the chancel (See Plate 12). It might have been a better idea to incorporate this carillon into the structure in some clever way rather than to allow it to appear as a wart on a camel's back. How- ever, when the lovely tones flow from its recesses, one forgets all about its scale and aesthetic value. This Schulmerick Coronation English carillon with harp bells and a westminster calendared clock 70 movement produces chimes on the hour and hymns can be played from its own console located by the organ in the chancel.1 The spacious interior fulfills the needs on Tuesdays when the entire student body assembles for weekly devotions. On the weekend its serene interior serves the community as a spiritual retreat from the mundane cares of life. The doors remain open for students who might wish to worship or pray. The stately lancet window of rich color reinforced by the verticality of the steel gray organ pipes are a fine blend with the gray block walls. The feeling produced promotes meditation and small groups are compelled to sit together close to the chancel. Even the services with lesser attendances, ranging in size from the smallest family wedding to the vesper assembly, do not feel dwarfed, because the feeling produced is of a singular attention to the chancel. Perhaps, because of the simple unity and dominant focal point of the central pulpit reinforced with the window above, one's attention is quickly obtained. This brings to mind the design concept of "less ' suggesting that simplified designs often convey more to the is more,’ beholder, as in understated beauty. Designers might be aware that the light wood used throughout the interior was a popular trend of the 1950's, but the reasons for its use here are well substantiated for the extremely large sanctuary would otherwise be dark and forbidding. The neutral background colors of gray block and pale wood allow great impact from the windows and the red velvet curtain selected for the baptistry. At present, 1Vande Vere, Wisdom Seekers, p. 229. 71 the aisles are carpeted in a pale gray, but could be effective in red. The warmth and richness would be a good addition and one's vision would be carried to the pulpit which is backed by the baptistry curtain (See Plate 13). In light of the criteria cited earlier, this church stands the test well. The sanctuary was designed for and is used in strict accordancevfllfiithe preaching of the gospel and other sacred services. The pulpit is central in scale and prominent enough for an interior of this size but is considerably dwarfed in importance by the lancet window. This is in violation of the criterion. There are secondary lecterns on each side of the pulpit to be used for scripture readings, prayer, announcements and other items of lesser importance to the preached gospel (See Plate 13). In this church, the communion table is behind the pulpit against the chancel wall. The placement is a bit out of the ordinary for Adventist churches, and would be more acceptable in front or to the side of the pulpit, or in a location where the congregation can sit around as in a circular plan. Even as it is, the table remains in a secondary position to the pulpit, and all can see. The baptistry has been designed in the traditional way as an opening in a wall covered by curtains when not in use. Some real meaning is lost when an important part of the sanctuary is closed off by curtains most of the time. It would be better to design open pools of water that would constantly remind one of the signifi- cance of baptism. There are many excellent solutions to this problem. PIONEER MEMORIAL CHURCH CENTRAL AISLE PLATE 13 72 73 The chancel has a symmetrical balance achieved by the lecterns flanked by the piano and organ console. The instruments are nicely placed in order to add beauty to the service. The pipes of the organ are stately and add dignity to the chancel. Their placement adds balance, variety, unity, color and rhythm. The Cassavant #2846 organ made in Canada, was installed in 1966 for $80,000. It includes 4,233 pipes and is considered one of the finest organs in Michigan.1 In view of the remaining criteria, it can be said that Pioneer Memorial Church fulfills its function. The congregation has not been burdened with excessive debt and has been able to contribute largely to other needs. From time to time many have commented about the worshipful qualities produced by the design, while others who overlook the good points complain that the church is too large, forgetting that everyone cannot be pleased and that the church has to accommodate the needs of people from all around the world. Overall, the founders and builders can be complemented on a job well done. 1Ibid. CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE STUDY Throughout the history of the world, architecture and de— sign have been fluctuating from one style or trend to another. Everyone is aware of changes that take place in fashion and the fact that styles are repeated over and over again in either the same way or in an updated version. Man has made changes in his environment for political, economic, social or religious reasons. Adn this is no less true in architecture and interior design. Decorative motifs, as well as designs for buildings centuries ago, have been known to reappear frequently. In architecture or fashion, one may hope, that the change be not for the sake of change, al- though this happens, but that there be very good reasons for that change. By researching the development of ecclesiastical architecture in ages gone by, it is learned that plans were revived from time to time partly due to the changing liturgy of the church. The archi- tectural experiments that are taking place today based on the square, the circle, ellipse, and trapezoid, are not new as some might think. For example, attractive features were seen in both the circular church plans and in the basilican plans (rectangular), both used today, but because of tradition and instinct, man persisted in 74 75 placing the altar at one end facilitating the horizontal movement of the clergy which was so much a part of the Eucharist and especially prevalent with the Catholic Church, but followed by others as well. Even in Seventh-day Adventist churches, members face in one direction when worshipping. Is this really necessary? The great architects of the sixth century met the challenge and fused the basilican plan with the centralized plan. Thus we have S. Lorenzo of Milan, S. Vitale at Ravenna, SS. Serguis and Bacchus, The Church of the Holy Wisdom, both at Constantinople, all of which were basically memoria (memorial tombs for the dead), but were made large enough to be used for liturgical celebrations.l Changes were made each time in old plans hopefully in accommodation of specific needs. This might explain the re-appearance of circular plans today in the archi-liturgical movement in that the plans emphasize the brotherhood of man or one family of God grouped around the altar, communion table, or giver of the WOrd. This popular concept has been said to be an outcome of a need to break away from the growing impersonality of the secular community. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with any shape if the need is justified. And if there is such a need in a particular Seventh-day Adventist congregation, then that congregation should build accordingly. Just as God has made us free moral agents, a church 181r Banister Fletcher, A History of Architecture (New York: Scribners' Sons, 1956), p. 154. 76 body should be free enough to produce a church that best promotes the good points of their worship service, however, within a controlled framework lest the church's identity be lost. This controlled environment for the church would be a result of following the criteria suggested in order to make the church building dis- tinctive and perhaps as unique as its own doctrine. If the church has a platform on which to stand against the secular trends that are taking place in what used to be a sanctuary solely dedicated to the preaching of the Word and worship of God, then the church will stand firm in its beliefs and become more unique as time goes by while other denominations lose their whole identity and inevitably unite as one. This appears to be the trend as it is becoming popular to meet the secular needs of the community in the sanctuary built for the worship of God. Pastor C. Raymond Holmes has this to say about distinctiveness in an age of compromise: Our liturgical responsibility as Seventh-day Adventists involves the use of prayers, music, the way we dress as we conduct services, the arrangements of the sanctuary, the order of service itself, the use of the preaching office, the ad- ministration of the sacraments, and also that which makes us unique and distinct as a people and as a movement. There are two things in my mind that threaten the purpose and the meaning of worship in the closing age in which we are living, and they are secularism on the one hand and ecumenism on the other.1 God has called the Seventh-day Adventist Church into being in this ecumenical age of compromise. Conformity is not the 1C. Raymond Holmes, "The Liturgical Mission of the Seventh- day Adventist Church," paper presented to a class on worship, Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary, Berrien Springs, Mich.: February 1973, p. 2. 77 way of relevancy, and we communicate by what we do when we worship. Whether we believe this or not, it's true. To be relevant is to be faithful and obedient to the divine reve- lation in terms of witness and mission, to bear bold and un- compromising witness to that which makes this church unique. Above all periods in the history of this church, the period in which we now live is the time to be conscious of, and faithful to, its unique message and mission. This consciousneSS'must be illustrated in our worship. This can be a vital factor in avoiding the danger of raising a generation of Adventist be— lievers that lack both conviction and courage.1 What I have been trying to suggest is that while other Christian churches are moving in the direction of similarity in liturgy, thus illustrating ecumenical beliefs, we must respond more fully to the first angel's message and move in the direction of liturgical distinctiveness in order that the contrast be more apparent and thus contribute to the incisiveness of the Advent Gospel we are called to proclaim to the world and the Church-at-large.2 While others are stripping their worship rooms (sanctuaries) of their meaning by moveable platforms for dance and drama, by removable seats to permit indoor games, Adventists should recip- rocate by adhering strictly to the principles and meaning suggested in Chapter I, and in turn strengthen the gospel and the people in this age of extreme secularity. The people who were involved in the early building of the church's doctrine back at the beginning Of the Allegan, Michigan, Church were devout believers of the gospel. Some of them had witnessed the Millerite movement which believed that Christ was to reappear the second time in 1844. After this time, called the "Great Disappointment," these folk did not give up in despair, but 11bid., p. 10. 2Ibid. 78 with strong zeal searched the scriptures to find new hOpe. Their interest as witnessed in the small structure was singularly toward understanding the Advent gospel of Christ. The quaint structure was built in as close accordance with the doctrine of the church at that time by emphasis on the spoken Word as the prime importance of the structure. As we compare the other two structures discussed in the previous chapters, we see a great change, due to the advanced techniques in building and a more established church in doctrine, organization, and in finance. Now the church has fully developed capabilities to provide facilities for all the acts of worship rather than just the spoken WOrd, resulting in baptistries, specific areas for the choir, and the communion table. Furthermore, other facilities are provided within the church's complex for Sabbath School, for community welfare work, church dinners, and areas for appropriate secular activities. There remains a problem within every church group at such times when the church has to remodel, redecorate or build entirely new structures. What is this problem? The church building committee is usually the problem because unless there is a person with expertise in the area of design, which is rarely the case, then everyone voices his opinion as to how he or she feels the church should be constructed. Out of this situation comes confusion. It is also known among those who have weathered the challenging feats of such a committee, that the average committee usually has one or more professional persons (nothing against professional people), such as the local doctor, 79 dentist, lawyer, or businessman, and because he is accustomed to making major decisions and will probably donate the largest single amount of money by an individual toward the building costs, that inevitably this person is going to have the major control in the decision making, and unfortunately without the necessary expertise. This is just one small example of the problems that can be avoided. When indecisiveness and many changes occur, this is evidence that the committee is not fulfilling the correct function, but assuming tasks for which it is not qualified. The churches at Allegan, Battle Creek, and Berrien Springs show substantial evidence of upholding the standards pointed out for the church. However, the minutes of the building committees Ob— viously did not record all that was discussed particularly in the area of design. Quite a lot was left out creating questions as to the decision making of specific elements of the interiors. It would be advisable that in the future, building committees divide into various parts according to the specific abilities of the members, and that minutes be kept in each area, such as minutes of the financial, site and construction, and design committees. These smaller groups could come together when necessary in order to vote in major decisions. This plan has been followed by some churches and found successful. The proper function of a building committee is not to design a church, but to set the ground rules and approve of many of the large decisions. The task is simply to determine the architect, contractor (with the architect's guidance), general budget, type I itall l I III II III].- III. 80 of facilities, size specifications, and the type of styling wished by all in general. Before the architect is commissioned, the committee should spend the majority of its time composing a list of specifications which coincide with the church's doctrine and criteria cited earlier in this thesis. Once the committee has formulated the list of specifications and limitations both physically and aesthetically, a qualified architect and a designer should be commissioned to take over,£n:which time the committee can rest for a while. 'If these professionals are skilled, they will present a plan that will most likely serve the congregation in every need and desire. Upon completion of preliminary plans, the committee can be called together in order for the architect to present the overall design and point out solutions to Specific areas and styling. The committee at this time can go over the plans carefully in order to detect anything which might not coincide with the list that was formulated. If all requirements have been met, then the architect can proceed to finish the drawings. Upon completion, the committee can advise the architect to submit copies of the plans to local contractors for bids on the cost of construction. Two very important points of advice are these: let the pastor continue pastoring, but be a part of the committee, not the chairman, as he has enough responsibilities in the spiritual needs of his con- gregation; secondly, if at all possible, have a professional architect design the structure. The problems should be far fewer and the money ~ 81 will be well spent. If the architect is a member of the same denomination this is to the advantage of the church as he will understand the reasons for the criteria more readily. If the committee has completed its specific tasks, the architect will function with greater ease and the results should be rewarding. Giving consideration to the great hope and belief the Adventist people have in the second advent of Christ, on which their whole life is built, it would seem appropriate to build churches that are modern and progressive in appearance. This concept would convey belief in today and the future hope of salvation from the world. Arguments for the so-called "churchy-church" of traditional designs tend to convey a looking back at Christian events in history and at the cross, an over used symbol of the church. Of course, this reminder of Christ's crucifixion is an important part of Christian beliefs, but with the "crucified, risen and soon coming Saviour," it would seem much more sensible to construct buildings which would represent a forward looking denomination. It appears necessary that the church not only assimilate the criteria as a prerequisite for all church structures, but that it study in depth non-verbal communication. Just as a person by his life represents a Christian way of living and doing all things, then too, the structure built in service to God can communicate in a very real non-verbal way the peoples' belief who worship inside. Carl Droppers, a Cleveland architect, suggests that Adventists build to speak of the Advent in a non-verbal way just as the denomin- ation proclaims the seventh day for worship in a non-verbal way simply 82 by church attendance on that day. The second advent of Christ is virtually as important as the day on which God is worshipped. This concept could proclaim the advent message in a three- dimensional way to the passerby. Carl Droppers explains non-verbal communication in architecture in the following effective way: Sometimes speech is thought of as the only form of communi- cation. However, consider the thoughts and reactions to the sight of various materials, items, and colors. Here are some examples: Does the uncomfortable pew or folding chair speak of the length of the sermon or the ability of the teacher? Does the tile floor say 'do not lay down, I'm cold,’ whereas the carpeted and wood floor say the opposite? Does the wood paneling say 'do not touch' whereas the unpainted block wall say 'this is a place for roughhouse? Does the tackboard say 'thumbtack me,‘ as opposed to the plasterboard that says 'no holes please'? Does a dull gray color discourage the viewer, whereas a bright, sunny, red, or golden color lift the spirits? Yes, inanimate objects speak in a very real way, they speak in nonverbal language. Now if the brick appears on the front of the church building, and block appears on the sides and back, what does this church building say? It clearly states that this church has placed a veneer or mask on the front of its building. A thin veneer to hide a so called lesser material and to hide its inner being. The astounding fact is that this church is placing a veneer or mask in front of God. How much better to use either brick or block for the wall and accept the material just as it is, an expression of the ingredients from which it was made. An honest brick wall speaks correctly, just as an honest block wall speaks correctly. They are both sincere materials without masks, false faces, outer shells or veneers.1 Mr. Droppers also comments on the constant physical repre- sentation of the baptistry as a continuing reminder to members through- out the year. Instead of hiding the baptistry behind curtains on a distant wall, place it near the congregation with no disguise as to its use. Perhaps allowing water to be seen and heard would have a positive psychological effect on people's minds. 1Carl H. Droppers, "Architecture For The Seventh-day Adventist Church," paper presented for publication, 1974, p. l. 83 The church does educate the mind, but it does not educate the senses as well. . . . The nose smells the stale and musty odor of the church closed throughout the week and does not sense vitality. The ear does not hear the sound of water and is not reminded of baptism. The mind and the senses have been taught. The mind has been taught exactly, the senses very carelessly. Conflict is created in the individual for the mind records one thing, but the senses . . . record another. This deliberation for non-verbal communication in our churches seems sagacious because peOple of today are very much influenced by what they see. We live in a visually oriented society where deep and long lasting impressions are made through the senses. This sub- stantiates Kenneth Clark's statement that the buildings of a people, society, or institution are better indications of their beliefs than speech or print, conveying the influential visual impression of structures. This area of non-verbal communication in architecture could be an interesting and rewarding area for future researchers. Relative to this idea, one could study specific solutions or the acceptability of structural symbolism as well as decorative symbols that are part of the interior furnishings of a church building. This could be an aid to church members who find it difficult to accept symbols such as the cross. Out of this thesis, a more comprehensive Study could point out regional differences that might exist in architectural representation of the church from state to state. It is possible that the criteria cited in this study might be modified to conform to local ethnic or geographic requirements. 1Ibid., p. 4. 84 New interpretations of histOric ideas may appear in our new church structures, as it is virtually impossible to be original in all aspects of a design. However, the challenge of every congregation, today, can be to produce a structure that uniquely fulfills the functional and aesthetic needs based on the particular theology. SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY liege Bieler, Andre. Architecture in Worship. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1965. Bruggink, Donald, and DrOppers, Carl. Christ and Architecture. Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1965. Christ~Janer, Albert, and Foley, Mary M. Modern Church Architecture. New York: McGraw-Hill Publishing Co., 1959. Clark, Kenneth. Civilization. New York: Harper and Row, 1970. Dahinden, Justus. New Trends in Church Architecture. New York: Universe Books, Inc., 1967. Dubuyst, Frederick. Modern Architecture and Christian Celebration. Richmond, Va.: John Knox Press, 1968. Fletcher, Sir Banister. A History of Architecture. New York: Scribners' Sons, 1956. Hammond, Peter. Liturgy and Architecture._ New York: Columbia University Press, 1961. Maguire, Robert, and Murray, Keith. Modern Churches of the World. New York: E. P. Dutton and Company, Inc., 1965. Mirsky, Jeannette. Houses of God. New York: Viking Press, 1965. Noorbergen, Rene. Ellen G. White, Prophet Of Destiny. New Caanan, Conn.: Keats Publishing, Inc., 1972. Seventh-day Adventist Historical Landmarks in Battle Creek, Michigan. Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing Assoc., n.d. Seventh-day Adventist; Michigan Conference. Worker and Church Office Directory. Lansing, Mich.: Michigan Conference of Seventh- day Adventists, 1967. Vande Vere, Emmett K. The Wisdom Seekers. Nashville: Southern Publishing Association, 1972. 85 86 White, Arthur L. Ellen G. White, Messenger to the Remnant. Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1969. White, Ellen G. Evangelism. Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1915. Gospel Workers. Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1915. Testimonies. 9 vols. Mountain View, Calif.: Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1948. Testimonies to Ministers. Mountain View, Calif.: Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1923. White, James. Protestant Worship and Church Architecture. New York: Oxford University Press, 1964. Journals Bouley, Allan. "Buildings For People." Journal of the Guild for Religious Architecture (October, 1972): 23. Bruggink, Donald J., and Droppers, Carl. "Architecture For Total Ministry." Your ChUrch 20 (Nov.-Dec. 1974): 1-4. Garrison, Webb B. "Wesley's View of Baptism and the Lord's Supper." Ministry Magazine 28 (April 1955): 36. Lynn, Edwin C. "Shaker Spaces: The Psychology of Simplicity in Religious Architecture." Journal of the Guild for Religious Architecture (October 1973): 16-17. Santini, Ray. "The Choir Loft." Ministry Magazine 26 (January 1953): 40. Weener, Jay R. "Architecture For Total Ministry." Your Church 20 (Nov.-Dec. 1974): 5. White, Ellen G. "Christ's Mission." Review and Herald (15 August 1899): 2. . "Honor the Lord With Thy Substance." Youth's Instructor (26 August 1897): 266. . "Lessons from the Life of Solomon." Review and Herald (4 January 1906): 7. 87 . "Work in Christ's Lines.". Review and Herald (24 June 1902): 8. Wood, Kenneth H. "The Danger of an Edifice Complex." Review and Herald (27 July 1972): 2. Newspapers Kopka, Gus, and Bockelman, Karen. "Church Building Must Serve Several Needs." Towne Courier (21 August 1974). Minutes of Church Committees The Allegan Seventh-day Adventist Church. "Minutes of the Church Board." 4 June 1864; 5 May 1876. The Battle Creek Seventh-day Adventist Tabernacle. "Minutes of the Financial and School Board." 8, 9, 14, 15, 18, 25 January; 2 February; 9, 13 March; 20, 24 April; 26 July; 14 September; 16 October 1922; 12 February; 5 March 1923; 5, l9v0ctober 1925; 25 January; 19 July; 9 October 1926. The Emmanuel Missionary College Seventh-day Adventist Church. "Minutes of the Church Building Committee." 9 July; 15 December 1956; 4, 7 February; 3, 10 March; 21, 25 April; 16 May; 1 August; 20 September; 19 October; 24 November 1957. Unpublished Material Droppers, Carl H. "Architecture For The Seventh-day Adventist Church." Paper presented for publication, 1974. Gibson, J. 1., Secretary of the Battle Creek Chamber of Commerce to Tabernacle Board of Finance, 10 February 1922. Guthrie, William, President of Lake Union Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, to George E. Judd, Chairman of the Building Committee, 29 March 1924. Holmes, C. Raymond, "The Liturgical Mission of the Seventh-day Adventist Church," paper presented to a class on worship, Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary, Berrien Springs, Mich.: February 1973. Vande Vere, Emmett K. History of the Church as printed in Dedicatory Bulletin at the Dedication of the Pioneer Memorial Church, Berrien Springs, Mich., 21 May 1960. 88 White, Arthur L., to W. W. Menshausen, 10 April 1964. Q and A File 16-0-1, Ellen G. White Research Center, Andrews University, Berrien Springs, Michigan to Richard Hawley, 20 October 1971. Q and A File 16-0-2, Ellen G. White Research Center, Andrews University, Berrien Springs, Michigan. White, Ellen G. "Building a House for God," Manuscript 23, 1886. Ellen G. White Research Center, Andrews University, Berrien Springs, Michigan. . Manuscript Release 398 (November 1974). Interviews Garber, V. E. Vice-president, Andrews University, Berrien Springs, Michigan. 3 March 1975. Harvey, Mrs. Marshall. Member of Allegan Church, Allegan, Michigan. 9 March 1974. Marsh, Alice G. Chairman, Andrews University Department of Home Economics, Berrien Springs, Michigan. 18 December 1974. l'l'llll'H-lll'