The Design Language of Orthodox Church Architecture
…Space and time and their child, the form…
Rudolf Schwarz
Until the beginning of the 20th century, churches were among the defining landmarks of settlements and the inhabited Christian world. Despite their significantly diminished role in today’s society, church buildings remain a rich and multifaceted example of multidisciplinarity.
A language is defined by a vocabulary and a grammar. It is fundamental to any form of expression. But how is language itself defined? What does the vocabulary consist of? What are the rules of its grammar?
In architecture, this almost always depends on the architectural program. A dome is not simply half of a sphere, a wall is not merely a vertical plane, a window is not just a hole.
The construction of a church is a sublime synthesis of all advanced knowledge in the natural and human sciences available at the time of its construction. For over one and a half millennia, churches have defined their external space—whether in cities, villages, or even deserts—while simultaneously attempting to shape their interior as a reflection of the heavenly kingdom.
Churches are oriented (facing east) and give orientation to space. Through their presence, the world gains a certain order. This is evident at the settlement level but also in the space they create in their immediate surroundings.
The early centuries of Christianity were marked by intense conflicts with the state. The problem of Christians was almost exclusively one of confession. How can one do this? What can it mean? From these questions, the format of the first worship services developed. Since these were profoundly symbolic and mysterious in their core content, they required an appropriate spatial form.
Inside, there exists another world. “It is a religion of smells and bells,” as Robert Taft said.
*
Only with the recognition of Christianity in 325 by Constantine the Great as religio licita did true church construction become possible. The Christian church began its architectural development by adopting models from significant buildings of the time. The problem of language—how churches could represent the essential themes of the liturgy—was further elaborated theologically.
At this time, prayer spaces were not yet clearly defined. They were inspired by the spaces of power structures and developed alongside theological concepts. This was, of course, impossible during times of persecution.
At the same time, architectural experimentation in new church buildings began. Greek philosophy and mathematics were perhaps the key components of this new geometric approach. Naturally, these ancient methods were infused with Christian symbolism.
Thus, during this period, the first synthesis between architecture and theology was created. It became visible only two centuries later, under Emperor Justinian I, when the first divine liturgy was celebrated in the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople. During the five years of its construction, in addition to architecture and theology, mathematics and physics also came into play through the designs of Isidore of Miletus and Anthemius of Tralles.
Another problem in early Christianity—just as today—was the budget. Initially, new churches were built solely with the support of sponsors. Three centuries later, when Christianity became the state religion, access to the imperial treasury was granted.
Emperor Justinian then combined these four disciplines with politics and economics.
*
A step ahead of architectural experimentation was the theological definition of concepts. A milestone on this path was St. Maximus the Confessor. He was the first to express in words the relationships between the visible and invisible worlds.
*
The next major milestone in the history of church construction was reached in the 9th century after the two phases of the Iconoclast Controversy. This period is significant for two reasons. First, the severe political and economic challenges of the empire had a decisive influence on church development. This can be particularly observed in the dimensions of the churches. Second, before the Iconoclast Controversy, the Byzantine Empire had experienced profound theological upheavals, culminating in a fundamental redefinition of the theology of icons. After this critical crisis, church architecture integrated the essential elements that iconography (also understood as symbolism) brought into the liturgical space.
The synthesis of these seven disciplines—architecture, theology, mathematics, physics, politics, economics, and iconography/painting—formed the image of church architecture at the end of the first millennium. Despite numerous and fundamental changes within these disciplines, this synthesis has endured to this day.
How does the construction of a church, based on these seven dimensions, look in the present?
Modern materials and construction techniques, as well as the specific characteristics of the building industry, offer unique possibilities for expression and construction. Theology and the requirements of ritual are closely tied to eternity and thus stand in a different relationship to today’s technological advancements. There seems to be a fundamental contradiction between these two disciplines.
As in the time of Isidore and Anthemius, mathematics and physics mediate between them. Mathematics always offers models. Theology brings its own models, passed down through history, which remain unchanged yet can always be reinterpreted. Today’s techniques increasingly incorporate refined mathematical models, such as modern planning techniques based on BIM and parametric generative processes. Building physics constantly proposes materials with unprecedented properties.
Ideally, architectural expression today is ensured by the harmony between the requirements of worship and the possibilities of contemporary materials.
However, political support for these efforts has been absent for a long time. For more than a hundred years, church construction has not been a priority for European governments.
Today, political requirements are expressed through urban regulations. Questions about where a church can be built and what it may look like are no longer directly dictated by politics but are approved by the relevant authorities. The freedom of church architecture is now unrestricted. Orthodox church architecture is no longer a governmental will but a clear expression of the communities.
The responsibility for the continued use of churches, regardless of denomination, now lies with the community. Regarding new constructions, it is possible to acquire land or existing properties to either build new churches or convert them into Orthodox prayer spaces. The latter case poses a particular challenge for both the architect and his team, as well as for the theologian.
The financing of church construction today is almost entirely reliant on the resources of the communities. If political support is provided, it is not necessarily directed towards the construction of the church itself but rather towards fostering the community.
Under these conditions, architects are challenged to keep costs as low as possible while still ensuring that the architectural design aligns with the message of church architecture.
The configuration of their own world is a fundamental aspect of the identity of these communities. They have a model for this—the Kingdom of God—which is iconically represented through the church’s interior architecture.