Is there a religious rationale for elaborately decorated houses of worship?Is there a

Factual Questions
1

Cathedrals, mosques, synagogues, tabernacles, and Hindu temples are some of the greatest works of architecture in history. There are even temples of Buddhism, a religion that values simplicity, that are magnificent works of art, just as ornate and decadent as the other major religions. Historically, were these buildings built just to inspire awe, attract converters, and display prosperity, etc? Or is there a religious rationale for a “showy” house of God?

2

Joseph Campbell, in The Power of Myth With Bill Moyers talks about this. He has a wonderfully detailed explaination which I can’t do justice to here. Basically, it boils down to creating a space which pulls the mind away from this mortal coil and forces it to focus on the Divine.

3

There may also be more down-to-earth reasons related to demonstrating earthly power and influence of religious institutions and their wealthy patrons. I suspect that there is a strong corelation between luxury of the architecture and whether the associated religion has a cetralised organisation and/or a symbiotic relationship with the state.

4

Also see Aldous Huxley’s Heaven and Hell.

Though a lot of it is about (biochemical) altered mental states, he delves into how stained glass, gleaming marbles and bronzes, brightly colored mosaics and frescos, silver and gold ornamentation, fine-fabric vestments, high soaring spaces with enhanced acoustics, larger-than-life sculpture of the gods/saints/heroes, etc. are another way of “lifting” the minds of the folk, by stimulating their senses in an extraordinary manner, relative to their everyday life. Think of it: except for the most powerful princes, or the major religions, who could command large collective wealth, for a large part of human history even “nobility” lived in what to the modern Western world would seem very drab, dank conditions. And he states it’s not just when done on a grand scale. Even in modest churches/temples/synagogues/mosques in lower-rent communities you find items – even if it’s just one fine prayer rug or Torah wrap, a silver chalice or incense holder, a handsomely bound volume of scripture, brightly colored priestly vestments – and activities – stylized rituals, chants, ceremonial languages unrelated to the local vernacular – that are “luxurious” in the sense of not being a practical application of limited resources, and are ways to call your attention to the sacred.

There is also the idea of the temple/church as audiovisual learning aid. Never mind mass AV media, mass basic literacy has been a rare commodity until very, very recently. So you load up the church/temple with scenes from scripture/tradition; or you design your sacrificial pyramid so that on the equinox the shadow on the staircase will look like the Plumed Serpent descending to Earth.

It doesn’t hurt, either, that impressive, breathtaking art and architecture “for the greater glory of (the) God(s)” also impresses the folk with how their religious leaders can command the kind of wealth and power you challenge only at great risk, and proclaims that such power is theirs by divine anointment.

Finally, if you are a believer and to you, your god(s) is(are) truly the Greatest and THE reason for your existence, you want to make the place of worship an expression of how impressed you are with (the) god(s).

jrd

5

In historical Christian terms, the idea that religious art is didactic and useful (only one of its functions, though) goes back at least to Gregory I (or most often cited-ly) and the idea that by concentrating on beautiful objects the mind-spirit can transcend the material world and approach the divine was also a popular neo-Platonic Christian idea. So Joseph Campbell is right-- what he suggests was very widely and openly understood as early as, oh, 400 AD. Some groups, like mendicant orders, cistercians, disagreed and went the ascetic route, but both trains of thought co-existed.

6

Also remember that the separation of church and state is a relatively new concept. Religion has more often been used to rule the people, and many houses of worship are propaganda tools funded by the rulers. That includes Buddhism (e.g. in Japan).

7

  1. It’s being done for God, and of course God deserves the best you can muster. This is almost instinctive. Think about how bent peple would get if you put a shrine n a porta-potty.

  2. Focusing the mind of the viewer on the divine. This also is the rationale for Greek (and Russian) Orthodox Icons.

  3. “Propaganda tools funded by the rulers” is a tad pejorative, IMHO. Such propaganda tends to work against the rulers, I think; especially if it’s done in a way as to greatly deprive the populace. I would see it as community pride, like when the various European cities tried to outdo one another with their great cathedrals.

  4. Great houses of worship and other similar fancy religous things are quite a draw. This benefits the church and the community. Think pilgrimages.