Saturday, October 8, 2022

International Federal Capital Design Competition - 1911 - Canberra



The history of Australia's capital city is fascinating and filled with many a twist and turn.  There was a great deal of pressure to locate the capital in one of the existing cities of Australia, but that would have favored one over the other. The compromise solution was that the NEW capital city would be located at least 100 miles from any existing city.  After much consideration the site where Canberra was to built was selected. (See the Cycloramic view of the site, below).



Once that was resolved, the next step was to answer the question, just what would be built?  The approach was to announce an international Federal Capital Design Completion to offer architects and urban planners the opportunity to design the new city.

Response came from the USA, Canada, Great Britain, France, South Africa, Italy, Hungary, Sweden, India, Paraguay, Mexico, New Zealand, and Finland. There were 137 entries (three were either duplicates or unknown submissions, so the assigned numbers go up to 140), about whom research is ongoing.

Rather famously, the winning entry was from an American husband and wife team whose names are familiar to aficionados of prairie school architecture: Walter Burley Griffin (1876-1937) and Marion Mahony Griffin (1871-1961).  

You can see a drawing of their plan of part of the city in the second illustration, above.  Much of the credit for their success in the competition has been attributed by architectural historians to the delineating artistry of Marion Mahoney Griffin. (Below, see her perspective drawing, and a city plan hinting at her subtle use of color).





The Griffins not only won, but also Walter was  engaged by the Australian government to leave the US and go to Australia to oversee the work of creating the new capital city. His time in that role was somewhat brief and contentious.  Thereafter, they were quite successful in creating stunning architecture in a practice they established once Walter was no longer in charge of Canberra.  To this day, the Griffins are deeply appreciated - one would say lionized - as national heroes by the people of Australia.  Rightly so.

Both architects had worked alongside Frank Lloyd Wright in the Oak Park Studio.  (Please NEVER use the word "apprentice" when referring to them, they were architects in their own right and contributed greatly to the success that was credit mostly to Wright).  When Wright ran off to Europe with his paramour Mamah Borthwick Cheney (1869-1914), While Wright was incommunicado in Italy, Walter and Marion were independent contractors, working alongside those who cleaned up the mess Wright left behind, finishing the commissions Wright had abandoned, alongside the studio's staff architectural designers Isabel Roberts (1871-1955) and John S. Van Bergen (1885-1969), all supervised by architect Hermann V. Von Holst (1874-1955).  

Some important commissions were lost, notably residential commissions for Chicago plutocrat Harold McCormick and his wife, Edith Rockefeller McCormick; and automotive giants Mr. and Mrs. Henry Ford.  Presumably these worthies wanted the cachet of working with the great man himself, rather than others.  While Wright passed his time luxuriating in a picturesque villa overlooking Florence, the Oak Park team completed many other commissions before they shut down the Oak Park Studio forever.

Walter and Marion went on to do good work in the prairie school idiom in the USA, and they were married June 29, 1911.  While on their honeymoon they learned about the Canberra competition (launched in May 24, 1911, although some references say April 1911), and became so excited about the unique project, that they worked feverishly to meet the deadline for submissions.

Entries were judged by a board consisting of: Chairman John Montgomery Coane (a licensed surveyor), John Kirkpatrick (a Sidney architect), and James A Smith (a Melbourne engineer).  Judging took place in Melbourne. 

On May 23, 1912, from a worthy field of accomplished architects worldwide (more on that below), their submission was chosen as the winner.

The board broke open the sealed envelope containing the chosen entrant's name and announced that Competitor No. 29 was the winner: W. B. Griffin of Chicago. Further they announced Second Place, E. Saarinen, of Finland; Third Place,  D. Agache, of Paris; Fourth Place, Coulter and Caswell, of Sidney.  

Before long, the Griffins were off to Australia, Walter, never to return to the USA to live; Marion,  to come back only late life, as a widow.

You might wonder what the reaction was from their American architectural colleagues.  And well you might.  Their success drew international interest, including front page coverage in the "New York Times", in response to which coverage, Wright never spoke to Griffin again.

Frank Lloyd Wright was overwhelmed by professional jealousy, that the Griffins should win.  Which is typical of Wright, who found little to like in the designs of others unless he was taking credit for them, and little to praise in the later work of those architects whom he had once employed. By winning the contest, Walter and Marion had proven their architectural genius beyond any possible detractors, even someone as notable as Wright.

You may wonder, as I have, who else submitted plans for Canberra in this international competition.  As I say, my research is ongoing.  However I find several things notable.  Among the finalists was the  great Finnish architect, Eliel Saarinen (1873-1950) father of architect Eero Saarinen of St Louis Arch fame.  You can see the birds-eye-view of his entry as the first photo accompanying this article.  Saarinen's design was not only a Finalist, it was the Second Place choice of the judges.  

Another noteworthy entry came from architect Bernard Maybeck (1862-1957) with several California colleagues.  Maybeck is known for creating highly distinctive and personal spaces that are a treasured part of the San Francisco Bay Area.  I have not yet seen the drawings of that entry, but I am sure it would have had much that was innovative and set it above conventionality.

I am in the early days stage of finding out who all of the other competitors were, and their back stories.  But here is what I know so far: 

There was a "Mystery Entry" - unidentified then, and still unidentified today, Competitor No. 39.  The Competitor No. 39 submission drawings exist (See the illustration below for a birds-eye-view of part of that plan). 

But the accompanying sealed envelope revealing the name of this submitter somehow became separated from the drawings, and more than a century later, has yet to be discovered.  

One wonders whether it may have been a well-known architect, perhaps one who would have been deeply disappointed not to have won, and even more so, to have lost to an erstwhile coworker.  

Fascinating possibility, right?

Furthermore, there seems to be no name or submission material associated with Entry No. 68.  It does not appear in Prof. John W. Reps' definitive book on the competition.  Does this mean that number was never assigned, or that the entry was somehow misplaced, overlooked, or disqualified?  "No Name No. 68" is another mystery yet to be solved.

And, what was Frank Lloyd Wright doing in 1911? Back from his stay in Europe he was reestablishing  himself in the world of Chicagoland architecture, albeit without the office or staff he once enjoyed in Oak Park.  He also claimed he was trying to make his family life work, "for the sake of the children".  It didn't work out that way.  That year, he designed  unbuilt projects that we know of: The Harry Adams House (I) in Oak Park (not the same as the house later built); Sherman Booth House and Cottage (Not the same as the houses later produced for Booth), in Ravine Bluffs; the Avery Coonley Greenhouse and Kindergarten (different from the Playhouse conducted later); the E. Esbenshade House in Milwaukee Wisconsin; the Madison Hotel in Madison Wisconsin; the Andrew T. Porter House in Spring Green, Wisconsin; the Edward Schroder House in Milwaukee; and the Frank Lloyd Wright House in Chicago. All of these were unrealized.  He also designed and completed: the Herbert C. Angster House in Lake Bluff, Illinois; the O. B. Balch Hose in Oak Park; Banff Pavilion in Alberta, Canada; the Geneva Inn on Lake Geneva, Wisconsin; and Taliesin I, the love nest he was creating in the Wisconsin of his childhood as a refuge for himself and Mamah away from the scandal mongers of Chicago.  



Would Wright have had time (and inclination) to put pencil to paper to enter an international competition?  Quite possibly.  You heard it here, first.

I am pursuing these and additional lines of research.  I will update this article as I learn more.  

***************************************************

Canberra 

 

Entry 29.  Walter Burley Griffin and Marion Mahony Griffin.

 

On May 23, 1912, the Griffins' design was selected as the winner from among 140 entries.

 

Known Competitors:


1 W J Gilroy, St Kilda, Melbourne

2 F V Tuxen, Melbourne, Australia

3 Edward Pullman, Brighton, Australia

4 Hubert Donat "Alf" Alfred Agache, Paris (1875-1959), worked in Brazil; see  Wikipedia article for "Alfred Agache".

5 Albert Faron, Sydney

6 George Parsons & Son, Melbourne Australia

7 Harold Van Buren Magonigle (1867-1935), New York. American, did the McKinley Memorial among others. See Wikipedia article about him.

8 W Powries, Albury, NSW 

9 AJ Macdonald, Elsternwick, VIC (also listed as JJ MacDonald)

10 W Scott Griffiths (1864-1929), Robert Charles Gibbon Coulter (1864-1956) and Charles Henry Caswell (1865-1940)

11 Thomas Nisbit Roberts, Capetown, S Africa

12 Henry O'Connor, Edinburgh, Scotland

13 H W Lundberg, Adelaide, Australia

14 Christe L Waite, Castleford, Yorkshire

15 Ernest W Gimson (aka Ginson, Gunson), West Cirencester, England

16. A R Sennett, Melbourne

17 Henry Musgrave Robinson, Manly, Sydney (1854-)

18 Eliel Saarinen - Finalist - Second Place (1873-1950)

19 J F Jodrell Reynolde & Eric Byron, London, Eng

20 Herbert J Kellaway, Boston, Mass (1867-1947)

21 Robert Lawrence Stables, Silverstown, Essex, Eng

22 Henry Hartford, Tidworth, Eng

23 Walter Schulz, Strand, London

24 George Keller, Hartford. CT

25 James Hine, Perth

26 George Wilson CE, Knaresborough, Eng

27 John A Moffat, Johannesburg [see 121]

28 J H Rafferty, London, Eng

29 Walter Burley Griffin, Chicago - Winner (1876-1937)

30 Francis L Jones, Stockton, CA

31 E T Mische, Portland, Oregon,

32 Dr. B F Eckberg, Stanley, Tasmania

33 George McMullen, Perth, Australia

34 E W Cracknell, Queensferry via Granville, VIC

35 Schaufelberg, Rees and Gummer, London - Finalist 

36 George G Lawson; David J Parr, Pretoria, S Africa

37 Andre Brard, Paris

38 John Alfred Langdon, London

39 "Mystery Competitor" (submission exists, sealed envelope lost)

40 James Coutts, Junior, Aberdeen, Scotland

41 Arthur C Comey, Cambridge, Mass - Finalist (1886-1954)

42 Louis H Rush; William D Hewitt; Alfred H Granger; Phineas E Paist, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,

43 James Gibson, Cleveland, Transvaal, South Africa

44 Hugh J Davies, Mooroopna, VIC

45 J Blackwell, W Hartlepool, Eng

46 H Hanin, Paris, France

47 Bernard J Maybeck; M H White; Professor Charles Gilman Hyde, San Francisco,

48 Ole Jacob Holme, Poughkeepsie, New York,

49 Seraphin Ouiment, CE, Montreal, Canada

50 Frank Elsworthy, Bristol, Eng

51 John Humphreys Jones, London, England

52 Guy Sherwood, South Yarra, VIC

53. R J A Roberts, Hunters Hill, Sydney

54 Arthur B Wood, Tooranie, Moulamein, NSW

55 Edward Bellamy, NYC

56 C S Mitchell, LaWard, Texas

57 H Bedford Tylor, Birmingham, England

58 W A Ritchie-Fallon, Cape Town

59 A S H McClay, Menzies, WA

60 Charles Heath, Fawkner, Melbourne

61 Frank Garner, Glenferrie, VIC

62 A J J Forbes, Cape Town

63 G Wallace Williamson, Southbourne, Hampshire,

64 Christopher James Yorath, Acton, London

65 Charles E Powell, Binfield, Eng

66 Thomas Sunderland, CE, Coventry, Eng

67 William T Olive & Hugh S Olive, Capetown S Africa

68 No Name. Was it assigned? (Not on Professor John W. Reps' List)

69 Louis Mortelmans, Harrington, North London

70 Arthur J Price and Sons, Lytham, Lancashire, England

71 Charles AJ Clayton; Harold Slicer, London

72 Arthur Winder, Williamstown, S Africa

73 Francis Masey, Salisbury, Rhodesia S Africa

74 Alfred J Roewade, aka Ravad, Chicago, Illinois,

75 Phillio A Ribson, London, Eng

76 Ralph Heaton, Birmingham, England

77 James Saunders, London Eng

78 C Jorgensen, Bundaberg, Australia

79 Donald C Leach, London

80 F S Elpgenstone, Pretoria S Africa

81 Nils Gellerstedt,Stockholm, Sweden - Finalist

82 V Maddison, Wellington, NZ

83 Andre Machiels, Paris, France

84. Edward James Bennett, Brisbane,

85 Cartwright Metheson Co, Consulting Engineers, Vancouver, Canada

86 S G Weisman & S Arkin, New York

87 Louis J Grealy, Brisbane

88. C Cousins, Sidney

89 C E Sharland, Mildura, Australia

90 Alfred H Waddington, Bradford, Eng

91 John Herbert Hinchcliff, Skelmanthorpe, Eng

92 J W Lovemore, Queenstown, S Africa

93. Alexander Adams, Randwick, NSW

94 E G Wilson, Brisbane, Australia

95 A A Eisenhofer, Johannesburg, S Africa

96 E W Chance, s kensington, Eng

97. William Butterworth, Bulli NSW

98 M M Delattre & H Mantez, Halluin Nord, France 

99 Joseph Parer, Melbourne, Australia

100 John Greenfield, London

101 Dr Imre Forbath, Eugene Lechner, Landislas Warga, Budapest, Hungary 

102 Herbert C Chivers, San Francisco, CA

103 Raoul Gaston Lawrinowa, New England NSW Australia

104 O J McLean, Bagshot, Australia

105 W H Tibbits, Woollahra, Australia

106 Leslie Knowles, Manchester, Eng

107 D J Byron, Christchurch, NZ

108 William M Jackson, Sydney, Australia

109 Ernest Alfred William Phillips, Hove, Sussex, Eng

110. A H C E Byron, Melbourne

111 Otto Willie, Moonee Ponds, Australia

112 Richard Rowntree, Seattle, WA

113. George Bicknell, Ballarat, East Victoria

114 H Jacob, Adelaide, Australia

115 Clarence B Yost, Tyler, Texas

116 C Wingrave Jr, Southend on Sea, UK

117 W R Menmuir, Capetown S Africa

118 E A Stone, Vancouver, Canada

119 George Jackson, Herne Bay, Eng

120. Murray R Bocking, Sidney 

121 John A Moffat, Johannesburg, S Africa [see 27]

122 Ambrose Barrett, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

123 Edwin Ernest Renwick, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Eng

124 John D. Leckie, Villa Rica, Paraguay

125 Bernard Backhouse, Meopha, Kent, Eng

126 John Gogerly, Calcutta, India

127 Strachen & Weekes, London, Eng

128 Louis De Segovia, Isere, France

129 Walter W Watts, Brisbane, Australia

130 E White, Ryde, Australia

131 Agostino Botazzi, Trisobbia, Italy

132 Wilfred Adams Canal, East Moors, Cardiff, Wales

133 Robert W Davies, Christchurch, NZ

134 Robert H Lalor, Seven Hills NSW, Australia

135 John H Wayman, Pittsburgh, PA

136 George W Hulluck, NYC

137 JR Gieske, Ceredo, W VA

138 George H Bruns, Brooklyn NY

139 Pedro Roveda, Mexico City

140 Thomas Seabrook Brown, Roanoke, VA


(Notice John A Moffat, Johannesburg, made 2 submissions, 27 & 121.)


I an indebted to the late John W. Reps, Professor Emeritus, Cornell for his 1994 definitive list of the known competitors. And to the National Archives of Australia for corroborating material on many of them.









Isabel Roberts and Ida Annah Ryan Documentary Screening

 


Looking forward to speaking at Casa Feliz in Winter Park on Tuesday evening.  The new documentary about Isabel Roberts and Ida Annah Ryan will be screened.  A magical architectural event in a magical architectural setting.  Hope you can join us!

The documentary utilizes many of my photos and much of my research on Ryan and Roberts, Architects, and their practice in Central Florida.



Wednesday, June 1, 2022

Murdoch Mysteries and Frank Lloyd Wright

As some of you know, we have been watching the Murdoch Mysteries this season.  

We were drawn in by the first episode, in which the fictional Detective William Murdoch of the Toronto Constabulary encounters the real life Nikola Tesla, in a clever plot line.  Since then, there have been any number of well-known figures from the early 1900s making appearances, from Thomas Edison and Henry Ford to Helen Keller, Emma Goldman, Annie Taylor, Winston Churchill, Arthur Conan Doyle, Harry Houdini, Elizabeth Arden, Al Jolson, the Wright Brothers, Mark Twain, Buffalo Bill, Alexander Graham Bell, J P Morgan, Jack London, Andrew Carnegie, George Westinghouse, Guglielmo Marconi, and Teddy Roosevelt (whose life Murdoch saves not once but twice, so far).  To name but a few.  Such fun!

At our recommendation, Judy's sister Donna has been watching these as well, from her home in Rochester, NY.  We comment to her when we have seen particular interesting episodes.  She has gone far ahead of us, episode-wise, and has been eager for us to reach one particular episode.

This week, we did.  


We came to the episode in which Detective Murdoch and his wife Dr. Julia Ogden, move into their long-anticipated new house.  The visuals crept up on us.  The happy couple paused in front of their new house, and I said to Judy, "Well, it looks like someone has been dabbling in the Prairie Style!"  Sure enough, when they got inside, they were greeted by their architect.  Who was none other than Frank Lloyd Wright.

As the story unfolded, the question came to our minds: Did Wright design a house in Toronto?

From what we can tell, no he did not. However, there were some buildings in Canada - both residential and commercial - that were designed by Wright's only Canadian associated architect, in the prairie years and thereafter.  Francis Conroy Sullivan was his name. You can read all about his life and work on Wikipedia.  However I thought some visuals might prove interesting, so I will add them below.  

By the way, the episode about the Murdoch house and Wright gets it mostly right.  Wright is quite self assured and somewhat disparaging of other architects (very true to life!).  

The house is recognizably prairie style in almost all of its details, and I won't quibble about the places where it varies from them.  The long and low one story exterior is somewhat reminiscent of the Edwin and Mamah Borthwick Cheney House in Oak Park, right down to the front wall.  Although, the imaginary Murdoch house has a flat roof, while the Cheney house has a low slung hip roof.


The interior has a central hearth, lot of wood bands set along the walls in a plain geometric pattern (some of the vertical wood details tie in with some of the now-gone shops Wright designed in Chicagoland), grouped leaded glass windows in a prairie style type design, and the muted fall colors of the prairie.  The lights in the interior remind one of the lights in the Robie House, among others.  More conventionally-minded visitors to the Murdoch house (such as Inspector Brackenreid) note the absence of walls separating one space from the next, which was a typical Wright motif.  The floors emulate slate in a random paving pattern not unlike Fallingwater, but in a near-Cherokee Red hue (more Usonian than Prairie).

The interior also utilizes immediately recognizable Stickley dining and living room furniture (still being made by them in the Arts and Crafts style, and marvelously so).  Wright specified Stickley furniture for clients who did not choose to have his custom-designed furniture (especially in the bedrooms).  Julia's desk is based on the print tables of Wright, and looks convincingly authentic.  Desk and table lamps have leaded glass shades.

As for Wright's accompanying female assistant, the obnoxious "Miss Ann Ryand", (played by Downton Abbey's Sophie McShera aka "Daisy Mason") well, she is not based on any of the women who worked with Wright - certainly not the two best-known, Marion Mahoney (who would have rather been caught going over the Falls in a barrel than accompanying Wright on his jaunts), and the ever-faithful and proper Isabel Roberts.  The ficticious sidekick was mean in the extreme and had a pronounced British accent.  No one in the Oak Park years even faintly resembles this annoying character.  The similarity of the character's name to the novelist Ayn Rand is perhaps not coincidental; since Miss Rand was a devotee of Wright.


In my article about Isabel Roberts, which you can read here on the blog, I note all of the people who worked with and for Wright in the Oak Park Studio.  Francis Conroy Sullivan is listed there as working with Wright in 1907.  Interestingly, at the end of his life he again worked with Wright in Chandler, Arizona, dying there in 1929.

Here are some photos for you to enjoy, of the Canadian Prairie Style of Francis Conroy Sullivan.  If you see similarities to Wright's work, this is not accidental. It is up to you to decide if they indicate contributions Sullivan made to Wright's more famous creations, or vice versa (those of you who follow me know what I would say about that):
















 

Sunday, May 8, 2022

The Art and Craft of the Christian


OT: Exodus 31:1-11 ; NT Philippians 4:8-9

May 6, 2022

The Rev. Dr. John A. Dalles

Alumni Day - Lancaster Theological Seminary

Exodus 31:1-11- Bezalel and Oholiab

31 The Lord spoke to Moses: 2 See, I have called by name Bezalel son of Uri son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah: 3 and I have filled him with divine spirit,[a] with ability, intelligence, and knowledge in every kind of craft, 4 to devise artistic designs, to work in gold, silver, and bronze, 5 in cutting stones for setting, and in carving wood, in every kind of craft. 6 Moreover, I have appointed with him Oholiab son of Ahisamach, of the tribe of Dan; and I have given skill to all the skillful, so that they may make all that I have commanded you: 7 the tent of meeting, and the ark of the covenant,[b] and the mercy seat[c] that is on it, and all the furnishings of the tent, 8 the table and its utensils, and the pure lampstand with all its utensils, and the altar of incense, 9 and the altar of burnt offering with all its utensils, and the basin with its stand, 10 and the finely worked vestments, the holy vestments for the priest Aaron and the vestments of his sons, for their service as priests, 11 and the anointing oil and the fragrant incense for the holy place. They shall do just as I have commanded you.


Philippians 4:8-9:

 

8 Finally, beloved,[a] whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is pleasing, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence and if there is anything worthy of praise, think about[b] these things. 9 Keep on doing the things that you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, and the God of peace will be with you.


Introduction:

The work was almost completed.  With skilled hands, a keen eye, and a flair for aesthetic beauty, the floral designer put the finishing touches on the arrangement for the chancel flower display.  As the church members had come to expect, it was yet another magnificent creation.  of shapes and colors – thoroughly gorgeous. The florist stood back, to be sure the proper effect had been achieved.  And then, carried the bouquet into the sanctuary. It happens at many a church, on many a Sunday. Talent and inspiration combine with a desire to point the worshiper to God, and to glorify God, as well,


Not only in our Old Testament lesson, but in many other places, we find that God has something specific in mind when it comes to the art surrounding the worshiper.  Careful instructions are given.  Regarding measurements, and materials.  God draws the plans, God provides the specifications, and – more than this – God gives those who will implement the plans the talent that they need, to do so.  

“Talent” is too limiting a word. God speaks of:

divine spirit,[a] with ability, intelligence, and knowledge in every kind of craft, 4 to devise artistic designs, to work in gold, silver, and bronze, 5 in cutting stones for setting, and in carving wood, in every kind of craft. 

We hear this and we marvel – that people are given the work of making art, and crafting works that will lead people to a deepening relationship with the Almighty. They become agents of God’s will.  They are set apart, for a holy purpose. They use this divine spirit they are given,  to inform, inspire,  and instill in the people of God divine truth, that they might otherwise miss. 

Art does that. Scripture decrees that God intends for the places where his people worship to be exceptional. God provides for a design that will draw people closer.  God also provides abilities to implement God’s.

Think of a handful of different places that have inspired you – when you have gathered to worship. It may be the church that you are part of now.  It may be some other church that you’ve been part of in the past.   It may be a church of great historic interest.  Or one that has won design awards.     It may be the simplest of gathering places, a church that is so simple, that nothing gets in the way of your focus upon God and God‘s word. Maybe an outdoor worship setting.  (A camp or conference center), where trees form the arches overhead. Where the wind prompts you to sense the Holy Spirit.

Now, someone might say not a lot of human artistry was involved, in so simple a setting. Except of course that someone chose the location, someone made provision for where you would be seated,  someone decided what direction you would face. All of these things were intended to achieve the best possible result, when worshipers gather. The worship space might be simple or elaborate, but it is the art and the craft of Gods’ people that has brought it in to being.

If you go to one of the great cathedrals. And you walk in.  And look up at the elaborate tracery of the ceiling, and then look down the long nave toward Chancel, the thought might come to you – “Surely, the Lord is in this place!”

       If you go a little country church. And you walk in.  And look around at the spare furnishings, and the wavy clear glass of the windows. The thought might come to you – “This is holy ground I am standing upon.” The art and the craft of the Christian has made it so.

       Old Testament scripture, leads us to say, what God did then, God has done ever since, and will do long beyond the memory of each of us.  The artist works the gold. The weaver works the silk.  The carpenter carves the wood. The musician uplifts the heart.  They each bring what they have, and offer it to God in ways that help shape the community of the Living Lord.

What does that mean for us today?

 Does it mean that we will be prayerful, careful and deliberate, about where we gather for worship?  Do we consider: Will the worshiper feel closer to God here? Will it help them hear God’s Living Word?  Will it speak to them, even when other worshipers are present? 

My guess is that your sanctuary has many elements that lead people closer to God. Indeed, we can look around – here – where so many of the artistic details speak of God. We cannot gather here without sensing the artistry of those who came before us.  Their art and craft are here.  And so are the echoes of church leaders who still speak to us of God’s truth.  Listen to Philip Schaff:

”The style of the Bible - in general - is singularly adapted to people of every class and grade of culture, affording the child the simple nourishment for its religious wants, and the profoundest thinker inexhaustible matter of study”.

This great truth suffuses every work of art and craft of the Christian. They are adapted to people of every class and grade of culture.  So that, the simplest hearts and most complex minds may all draw from them doorways to God’s grace.

Perhaps you have many such treasures in your sanctuary.  Carved wood, or tapestries, murals, stained glass windows that speak to the hearts and minds of the worshipers. It’s a fortunate congregation that has, among their membership, people who can create these wonderful things, to praise the Lord. It is a great congregation that is aware of, acknowledges, and celebrates these gifts, that bring Christ close.

How blessed we are, when the God-given, God-inspired, God-directed talents of our sisters and brothers, bring new insights about the Good News of Christ, to express God’s love and wonder, forgiveness and faithfulness, mystery and majesty. To see what others have not seen.  To show what others may have missed.

It is no small thing to recall that Jesus our Lord was engaged in the creative work of carpentry – before he began to build the church on which we stand. His is the art, His the craft, His is the love.

 

                     There is more to show than there is time to create it.  There is more to share than there is time to give it.


The work was almost completed. The floral designer put the finishing touches on the arrangement for the chancel.  It was yet another magnificent creation. The florist carried the bouquet into the sanctuary.  And just as the bouquet was being placed, just so, into the sanctuary, there came a small child. Who walked slowly but with measured step down the center aisle, until that child stood alongside the florist.  The child extended a little hand, in which was one big, yellow dandelion, in full bloom.

“Here, “ said the child. “This is for God.”

The florist smiled, and received the gift, and found a place for it – a place of honor – in the bouquet.

And that is the Art and the Craft of the Christian.


******


Here are a few photos from the trip to Lancaster for my 40th anniversary of graduation from Lancaster Theological Seminary:


Arriving in Lancaster County 
The Printed Schedule
Santee Chapel in the Rain
Mercer Tilework in the Dietz Refectory
Luncheon in the Deitz Refectory
Judy and me at lunch - above and below

Preaching in Santee Chapel
With Rev. Dana R. Schlegel

With Rev. Bill LaSalle