Without looking it up, I'll define it as a method of discovering how nature works.
A scientist tries to examine an aspect of nature by isolating it from the totality of the universe. This allows the scientist systematically to record the outcomes of an experiment, while varying a small number of parameters over which they have control. They then may be able to produce a theory to explain their results. Which may need further experimental verification, but hopefully will be able to both describe and prescribe real events.
(A really great scientist like Newton or Einstein somehow works out that the planets obey the law of gravity, or the speed of light is constant, even though experimental verification isn't available for years.)
Science has become increasingly mathematical, which makes it pretty difficult for the layman.
Back to technology - the practical application of science.
Is the wheel a technology? By the above definition, probably not. Unless we imagine a caveman starting with a triangle and knocking corners off until it rolled.
Once past the stone age though, one can imagine a rigorous methodology applied to the production of metal implements. And bricks etc. for building.
And construction techniques too - the norman or gothic arch surely is a result of studying fallen arches!
In Salisbury cathedral is a model of the building being constructed.
There is a large windlass that was used to winch huge blocks of stone up to the top of the building.
Technology was applied to the building of the great cathedrals. And when we consider the stained glass used, they were hardly going to use an inferior, older technique. They would have used the best available for God. The Temple in Jerusalem in all it's incarnations was a very splendid thing indeed.
There is a question of whether we should have cathedrals at all. Should we give God the best that we've so far been able to produce, or something second best that's more affordable? And give the cost difference to charity?
In practice, we have a habit of keeping the best stuff for ourselves, and giving to God the 10% that's left instead of the first fruits of our labours.
If we go along with "cathedral theology" - that only the best is right for God - then that leaves us with some technological questions.
Do we have the best lighting? The best heating? The best sound system? The answers as far as I've seen are generally no, no, and no.
(I will discuss more advanced technologies in a later post.)
1Kings 8 (TEV)
17 And Solomon continued, "My father David planned to build a temple for the worship of the LORD God of Israel, 18 but the LORD said to him, 'You were right in wanting to build a temple for me, 19 but you will never build it. It is your son, your own son, who will build my temple.' 20 "And now the LORD has kept his promise. I have succeeded my father as king of Israel, and I have built the Temple for the worship of the LORD God of Israel.
Location:Shed
Not sure about 'cathedral theology'. Whilst the people that did the actual building did seem to want to give the best to God, even to doing detailed work that, at that time, would never be seen by anyone except God, I'm not so sure about the people who funded the work. Quite often their motive was to outdo the building put up by someone else, or it was done in an effort to expiate their gruesome and bloody past - neither seems to me to be giving the best to God.
ReplyDeleteWhat is the best? At a recent music practice we were discussing the fact that powerpoint is more limiting and prescriptive than the good old OHP when it comes to worship.
Just been discussing tithing this evening: How some churches seem to hold on to that Old Testament idea as if it is one of those few things that finds no fulfilment in the New Testament. I made the same point as I see you have done, that we often fail to note that the Old Testament tithes were the 'first' 10%. This was a symbol of the whole. As Christians we should not be teaching a tithe but pointing to the use of the whole 100% because that is what Jesus did (Mark 12:44).
ReplyDeleteI'm not a fan of cathedrals. I agree with the link between them and the Jewish Temple which you made - but I note that the Temple as a stone building is now no longer required by God and was demolished.
It is often said that 'the church is the people' and everyone agrees with that, but I find churches are often more willing to invest in their stones than their people.
Buildings have a place when they are used for God's purposes, to God's glory, which is different to the earthly glory of buildings (Mark 13:1-2... straight after the widow's offering!)
Do Catherdrals convey the Gospel message? They could be used to do so but all too often they are more a sign that the church 'belongs to the olden days', is 'disconnected from reality' (obscure) and is 'a tourist attraction'...
Having visited York last week, I faced the issue of cathedrals charging people to enter. They are a tourist attraction and they charge just like every other tourist attraction. They claim they have to do this to keep going: They are a business just like any other business. That's what many people see, not a special gift 'given to God'.
When we look for the 'best' in church technology, it is important again to ask what 'best' means: What does the purchase say to others about our priorities, including our concerns for the environment?
Yes I suppose there are always mixed motives when you're building a cathedral. Went down to the crypt of Paddy's Wigwam recently - that would have been amazing if they'd been financially able to compete with the Anglican one. Love the one that's there instead though.
ReplyDeletePowerPoint more limiting and prescriptive than an OHP???? No, that's just madness! Can't think of any way that's remotely correct. I can knock up a song on Powerpoint in next to no time, or choose one from a folder. Most people use something like EasyWorship though cos it's easier.
I was thinking of the incarnations of the Temple that aren't made of stone too.
ReplyDeleteGlad to report that not all cathedrals charge an entrance fee. Many ask for a suggested donation. I thought York was particularly bad for that too. Liverpool cathedral is pretty good for being more than a tourist place, though now the Dean is off to be Bishop of Durham, that may sadly change.
The last church/tech book made a good point that we tend to invest in equipment rather than paying for training for people to use it.
It seems that your eye has gone substantially more red on your second post. Evidently if you stop up beyond 12.30am, you suffer badly for it!
ReplyDeleteI have been pleased to see that some cathedrals are not only staying 'free' but are thinking about what their role should be beyond an ancient building. Are any cathedrals seen as a shared resource by the local churches? They could timeshare responsibility for providing outreach events of various kinds throughout the year. I think that if cathedrals were seens as active hubs with strong links to the local church network then the local churches themselves would want to invest in their cathedral and would see it as a mission opportunity rather than an ancient liability - not that they ALL are!
I remember a scheme about 20 years ago when I went to the cathedral playing guitar in a little music group. It was part of a scheme whereby each parish church had to look after the cathedral for a day and do something. We were just about to leave when a coach load of tourists turned up. Great scheme- dont know what happened to it.
ReplyDelete