In answer to something that came up in one of the comment threads, I don’t want this to be just a “Lutheran blog.” I want all of our readers, including those from all kinds of church bodies and those from none at all, to feel welcome.

For those of you sick of all this Lutheran talk, please be patient. Actually, within American Christianity as a whole, the Lutheran perspective seldom even comes up. (Notice how all those books giving different positions on eschatology, government, etc., etc., almost never include Lutherans.) Part of that is our fault, since we often just talk with ourselves. This blog intends to be an exception.

I do think even non-Lutherans can benefit from the Lutheran take on things. We have famously been said to have a “different spirit” from other Christians (not as in the Holy Spirit, which we have in common) that can be interesting and even refreshing. Or obnoxious, so–my co-religionists–let’s don’t let it be that.

On the whole, as I keep saying, this is the best community of discourse that I have found anywhere on the internet. So JayfromCleveland, my longtime reader whom I actually met in the flesh–in Cleveland–and WebMonk, who apparently lives in the same small town I do, and the rest of you: Please stay with us!

The Third Church of Christ, Scientist, in Washington, D.C., has been declared a historical landmark because it is such a good example of the architectural style known as “Brutalism.” The building is only 36 years old, it has no windows, it is ugly, it is utterly unfunctional, and the congregation itself hates it. But now it cannot be demolished, as the congregation wants to do, or even substantially remodeled.

“Brutalism” was a radical, in-your-face style of architectural “modernism,” brutally rejecting ornament, meaning, and obsolete pre-modern notions such as beauty. It is characterized by the use of extremely rough, hardly-finished concrete, emphasizing the nitty-gritty materiality that is all there is to existence.

So why would a church want a building in the “brutalist” style? I mean, Christian Scientists don’t even believe in the true existence of the material world, so that their theology is contradicted by every detail in the building! Well, back in 1971, some of you may recall, churches wanted to be relevant to the modern world, and “brutalism” must have seemed very cutting-edge and impressive, a sure way to draw in denizens of “the secular city.”

Well, the “brutalist” sanctuary was designed to hold 400 worshippers, apparently the size of the congregation in 1971, but now it has only 40 or so. And, despite its designation as a historical relic, the building is mocked and derided as a blight to the neighborhood by the people who live in the city. One lesson to be learned is that committing yourself to a fashion is the surest way to be old-fashioned, since, by definition, fashions are always changing. Notice, by contrast, that the classical architecture of Washington’s national buildings is STILL magnificent and that it never ages in its appeal.

Another lesson is for churches today. A basic principle of aesthetics is that the form must be in harmony with the content. And when they diverge, it is the FORM that is going to communicate more than the content that it is supposed to convey. Today we have church buildings designed like pre-fab industrial buildings (conveying the message that the faith is cheap and temporary), concert halls (conveying the message that faith has to do with entertainment) and shopping malls (conveying the message that faith has to do with consumerism). Pre-modern churches were built in the shape of crosses, conveying the message that in the church people come together in the Cross of Jesus Christ. You can certainly have contemporary church architecture. My first Lutheran church had a contemporary style that communicated powerful Christian messages: a massive concrete altar; a skylight pouring in light from above; steel and brick structures that communicated the solidity and strength of what was taught in that building.)

Of course, the Gospel can be preached in any style of building or in no building. But just remember, the laws of aesthetics and the relation of form and meaning operate whether anybody likes them or not. Beware of unintended messages. And of becoming irrelevant in one’s zeal to be relevant. Remember the “brutalist” church in D.C. Stop by and see for yourself. It’s going to be around for a long time.

So, are you placated by Mitt Romney’s JFK moment as he addressed concerns about his Mormon faith?

Mormons tend to be strong on civic righteousness, to use a term from the other day, so he’d probably be OK. Michael Gerson has a good analysis of the speech, showing how he was actually differing in a substantial way from what Kennedy said about his Catholicism, insisting that faith does have a role in the public square. But I still have qualms. Mormons are very big on civil religion, and I fear what that could become. What do you think?

The trailer is out for the movie, which will be released May 16. This chronicle of Narnia by C. S. Lewis is about a time when the land has forgotten Aslan. In other words, it is about OUR world. Yes, I’ve written a book expounding Lewis’s novel, which will come out in February. Here is the trailer for the movie, which has the same young actors as “The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe” and which looks promising, though we’ll see how much the producers do with the extensive culture war themes of the book

When something bad happens, it always comes as a surprise.