Theology in Stone: Church Architecture from Byzantium to Berkeley (review)

Two things immediately struck me when reflecting on the recent book Theology in Stone by Richard Kieckhefer. The first is that this is a fascinating, richly detailed and readable account of church architecture in relation to the changing theory and practice of worship in Western Christianity, with some references also to the East. The second is that, from my perspective, the title of the book may give readers the wrong impression; it suggests a comprehensive study encompassing the whole range of elements involved in a theological interpretation of church buildings, a point to which I will return later. Although Kieckhefer consistently strives to maintain a sympathetic openness in his "reading" of church buildings and a sense of balance in his analysis of varying and conflicting attitudes to church design, his book is by no means a neutral study. What Kieckhefer offers is a compelling opinion piece on church architecture—even a moderate polemic—the purpose of which is to address several contentious questions with clear lines of argument sometimes robustly expressed.

In particular, the book confronts two issues. First, although Kieckhefer suggests a threefold typology of the major traditions of worship and their related church designs, and is studiously fair in his descriptions of each, he is most obviously at home in what may broadly be called the "Catholic" sacramental tradition; this tradition is classically expressed architecturally in a longitudinal design with its emphasis on movement (both God's movement "outward" and our movement towards God), on a variety of internal spaces, on thresholds and spiritual transitions. As Kieckhefer notes in his Introduction (especially 16–19), this architectural style is easily susceptible to reductionist interpretations whether favorable (for example, it is a uniquely perfect design, promoting a deeper contemplative participation in worship in contrast to folksy immediacy) or unfavorable (for example, it is rigid in form, hierarchical in ecclesiology and dualistic in theology). Against these stylistic fundamentalisms, Kieckhefer argues that the classic sacramental church is in reality "paradoxical and resists easy articulation" (18). He clearly demonstrates that across the centuries this tradition of church design has actually proved to be a varied and flexible instrument. Because of the endurance and continual reinterpretation of the sacramental style of building up to the present day, and also because of its peculiar tendency to be misinterpreted, Kieckhefer gives it his closest and most detailed attention.

The second issue the book confronts is the contemporary, often acrimonious debate between church designers. This is in effect a clash between reformers (often liturgists) who espouse congregational access and direct forms of participation, and traditionalists (often architects and artists) who attack what they interpret as "a diminished rootedness in tradition" (276) and (to their mind) the consequent banality of modern church design. This debate is not exclusive to the "Catholic" sacramental tradition but its articulations are arguably most sharply polarised in the contested interpretations of the Second Vatican Council within contemporary Roman Catholicism. While this clash between reformers and traditionalists is noted in the Introduction—and is therefore a backdrop to the whole book—it is confronted in detail in Kieckhefer's final Chapter 8, "Issues in Church Architecture." This chapter offers a passionate critique of the dogmatism, mutual ignorance and descent into caricature that is too often evident in the proponents of each viewpoint. Kieckhefer seeks to mediate between polarized positions. First, he invites the reader to reconceive "the sacred" and how this is materialized in church buildings not as an abstract concept but through liturgical practice. Yet at the same time, Kieckhefer is clear that, in the Christian scheme of things, to associate "the sacred" with particular religious buildings does not imply the necessary separation of a protected sacred "inside" from a profane cityscape "outside." Second, Kieckhefer contrasts "orthodoxy" with the dead hand of traditionalism. He suggests that we need to substitute a proper sense...