ArticlesSaint Georgeous Church, Rehab, Jordan, of 230 AD, whichstands atop an archeological site of a first century churchdiscovered in 2008.thesis in liturgical circles took the domusecclesiae as the architectural model <strong>for</strong>pre-Constantinian Christian architecture.<strong>The</strong> common vision <strong>for</strong> new parishesbuilt in the wake of Vatican II wasthere<strong>for</strong>e toward simpler, more domestically-scaledbuildings in emulation ofthe domus ecclesiae in which Christianssupposedly gathered be<strong>for</strong>e the Imperialapprobation of Christianity in thefourth century.<strong>The</strong> only problem <strong>for</strong> this romanticmodel of a domestic residential architecture,built <strong>for</strong> a small gathering ofearly Christians celebrating a simpleagape meal, is its dubious merit.Domus ecclesiae―popular among liturgiststo emphasize the communalnature of the assembly―is not a particularlyapt term. More to the point,it is simply anachronistic. <strong>The</strong> phrasedomus ecclesiae is not found in Scripture.No first, second, or third-centuryauthor uses the term to describe thechurch building. <strong>The</strong> phrase domusecclesiae cannot be found to describeany church building be<strong>for</strong>e the Peaceof Constantine (313 A.D.), but ratherseems used to imply a building ownedby the Christians, such as a bishop’sresidence. 16<strong>The</strong>re are many other ancient termsused to identify the church building,but domus Dei seems to be of particularimportance. Throughout the NewTestament, the assembly of Christiansis called domus Dei, the house of God.Paul’s passage in 1 Tim 3:15 could notbe clearer: in domo Dei … quae est ecclesiaDei vivi (“the house of God, whichis the church of the living God”). Likewise,domus Dei or its derivative domesticiDei (household of God) is foundPhoto: rihabresearchcenter.blogspot.comin Eph 2:19, Heb10:21, and 1 Pt 4:17.Following scripture,Tertullian (d.220) used domusDei in a way thatcan only mean achurch building.This key term,domus Dei andits Greek equivalentoikos tou theou,is found in Hippolytus(d. 235),Clement of Alexandria(d. 215), andEusebius (d. 339),among others. Buteven oikos or domusdoes not suggestany humble residential or domestic association.Oikos is generally a house,but it can also serve to describe a temple(as in a house of the gods). Similarly,domus could also refer to the grandestof buildings, such as the emperor’spalace—domus divina—or Nero’s ostentatiousDomus Aurea. <strong>The</strong>se are hardlysmall-scale and intimate associations. Itseems that long be<strong>for</strong>e the time of Constantine,the Church had already begunto move out of the residential environmentswe read of in the book of Actsand the letters of Paul.Textual Counter Evidence<strong>The</strong> problem is that we know verylittle about pre-Constantinian liturgyor Christian architecture. Yet from thescant literary evidence we do have, weshould not reject the strong probabilitythat even in the second century theChurch owned land and built specialbuildings <strong>for</strong> the community. <strong>The</strong> earliestrecord of the special purpose churchbuilding seems to be from Chronicle ofArbela, a fifth-century Syrian manuscriptwhich tells us that Bishop Isaac(Ishaq) (135-148) “had built a large wellorderedchurch which exists today.” 17<strong>The</strong> Chronicles of Edessa mention aChristian church destroyed in a citywideflood around 201. 18 Around theyear 225 A.D. Christians acquired apiece of public property in a disputewith inn-keepers to build a churchwith the explicit blessing of EmperorSeverus Alexander, who determined“that it was better <strong>for</strong> some sort of agod to be worshipped there than <strong>for</strong>the place to be handed to the keepers ofan eating-house.” 19<strong>The</strong> pagan Porphyry (d. 305), writingin the second half of the third century,attacks the Christians who, in “imitatingthe erection of the temples, buildvery large houses 20 , into which they gotogether and pray.” 21 <strong>The</strong> Emperor Aurelian(d. 275) makes passing referenceto a Christian church (Christianorumecclesia) in contrast to his own religioustemple (templo deorum omnia). 22 Lactantius(d. 320) recounts the destructionof the church in Nicomedia, calling it a“lofty edifice” and describes how it was“situated on rising ground, within theview of the palace” and how the emperorsDiocletian and Galerius couldsee it and debated whether to burn it tothe ground or pull it down. 23 It seemsthat, if the Emperor of the RomanEmpire knew a Christian church whenhe saw one, it was no simple obscurehouse.<strong>The</strong> Problem of PlaceDespite the textual evidence thatargues <strong>for</strong> significant church buildingsbe<strong>for</strong>e the age of Constantine, thedearth of archeological evidence <strong>for</strong><strong>for</strong>mal church buildings has seemedpersuasive. With the recent discoveryof a pre-Constantinian basilica atAqaba it seems timely <strong>for</strong> liturgistsand architects to reconsider the validityof the residential domus ecclesiae asa meaningful model <strong>for</strong> contemporarychurch architecture. <strong>The</strong> Aqabachurch dates com<strong>for</strong>tably to 300, andperhaps as early as 280 A.D. 24 We haveno knowledge of what other pre-Constantinianchurches looked like, butwe can have certainty that Christianshad special, purpose-built, urban-scalechurches be<strong>for</strong>e the Emancipation in313 A.D. We should there<strong>for</strong>e reevaluatethe claims about the “authenticity”of the simple house church as ameaningful architectural model <strong>for</strong> theChristian assembly both in the earlyChurch and <strong>for</strong> today.However, we should also considerthe emotional impetus <strong>for</strong> the housechurch. <strong>The</strong> romantic notion of theprimitive house church has a strongsense of attraction: the desire <strong>for</strong> morecommunitarian and domestic churchbuildings is enticing in the alienatingcondition of post-agrarian and post-industrialmodern life. Both the massivescale of the modern city and the anonymityand placelessness of suburbansprawl contribute to the desire<strong>for</strong> a sense of domestic rootedness. In-14 <strong>Sacred</strong> <strong>Architecture</strong> <strong>Issue</strong> 21 2012
Articlescreased mobility in the modern work<strong>for</strong>ce and the consequent breakdown oftraditional community and family lifealso create a tension and a desire <strong>for</strong>familiarity, welcome, and belonging inthe parish community.<strong>The</strong>se perhaps contribute to thenostalgic longing <strong>for</strong> a more domesticparish facility. But the church buildingmust function on a variety of levels.Church architecture is necessarily symbolic,and the various metaphors bywhich we understand church buildingsare derived from the metaphorsby which we understand the Church.<strong>The</strong>se metaphors find their poignancyand potency in the human condition:matters of embodiment, relationship,dwelling, and community life <strong>for</strong>m amatrix of symbols <strong>for</strong> the Church, theparish community, the liturgy, andchurch architecture. Among the mostsignificant Scriptural images <strong>for</strong> theEcclesia (and there<strong>for</strong>e the liturgy andthe church building) are the Body ofChrist, the nuptial relationship, theTent of Dwelling/ Temple of Solomon,and the Heavenly City. <strong>The</strong>se speak ofthe fundamental human experiences ofembodiment, of marriage and domesticfamily life, of dwelling and habitation,Isometric of the House Church at Dura-Europus circa 232AD (after Crawfoot)<strong>Sacred</strong> <strong>Architecture</strong> <strong>Issue</strong> 21 2012and of social life.This residential model of domus ecclesiaehas been placed into a false oppositionto the domus Dei as a model <strong>for</strong>sacred architecture. Both are modelsthat find their validity in the humanexperience of dwelling and family life,but the <strong>for</strong>mer has come to imply animmanent expression of the home <strong>for</strong>the local community whereas the latterhas a transcendental and eschatologicalhorizon that is more apt <strong>for</strong> sacramentalbuildings that are called to be “trulyworthy and beautiful and be signs andsymbols of heavenly realities.” 25 <strong>The</strong>desire <strong>for</strong> a domestically-scaled liturgicalenvironment is not wrong per se,but it cannot stand in isolation withoutreference to the broader framework ofecclesiastical, liturgical, and architecturalsymbolism. All are needed <strong>for</strong> theperson and the community to understandhow the liturgy and the liturgicalenvironment express and participate ina greater sacramental reality beyondthe confines of the local assembly.If the domestic model has no surefoundation, then the arguments erected<strong>for</strong> rejecting the hierarchical and <strong>for</strong>malmodels of liturgy; <strong>for</strong> discarding thesacramental language of Christian architecturein favor ofa functionalist andprogrammatic approachto building;and <strong>for</strong> dismissingany appeals to therich treasure trove ofCatholic architecturalhistory and varioushistorical styles aresusceptible to fallinglike a house of cards.Photo: Dura-Europus, by JW Crowfoot, Antiquity Vol 19, No 75: 113-121Steven J. Schloeder, PhDAIA is the founder ofLiturgical Environs PC,an architecture firmspecializing in Catholicchurch projects across theUnited States. He is theauthor of <strong>Architecture</strong>in Communion (SanFrancisco: Ignatius Press1998), among many otherarticles in scholarly andpopular journals. He canbe contacted at steve@liturgicalenvirons.com.(Endnotes)1 Pius X, Tra le Sollecitudine, November 22, 1903.2 See <strong>for</strong> instance, Maurice Lavanoux, “Religious Art and<strong>Architecture</strong> Today,” in F. McManus, ed. <strong>The</strong> Revival of the Liturgy(New York: Herder and Herder, 1963), 152-54.3 Edward Mills, <strong>The</strong> Modern Church (London: <strong>The</strong> ArchitecturalPress, 1956), 16. See also Mills, <strong>The</strong> Modern Factory (London: <strong>The</strong>Architectural Press, 1951).4 Cf. Kevin Seasoltz, A Sense of the <strong>Sacred</strong> (London: Continuum,2005), 95-98.5 Richard Vosko, God’s House Is Our House: Re-Imagining theEnvironment <strong>for</strong> Worship (Collegeville MN: Liturgical Press, 2006),22.6 Edward A. Sovik, “<strong>The</strong> Place of Worship: Environment <strong>for</strong>Action,” in Mandus A Egge, ed. Worship: Good News in Action(Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1973), 98. Quoted inMark A. Torgerson, An <strong>Architecture</strong> of Immanence: <strong>Architecture</strong> <strong>for</strong>Worship and Ministry Today (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007),152-53.7 Vosko, (2006): 27; Michael E. DeSanctis, Building from Belief:Advance, Retreat, and Compromise in the Remaking of Catholic Church<strong>Architecture</strong> (Collegeville MN: Liturgical Press, 2002), 30.8 Joseph Rykwert, Church Building (London: Burns and Oates,1966), 81.9 H.A. Reinhold, <strong>The</strong> Dynamics of Liturgy (New York: Macmillan,1961), 87.10 H.A. Reinhold, Speaking of Liturgical <strong>Architecture</strong> (Notre Dame:University of Notre Dame Press, 1952), 13.11 Louis Bouyer, Life and Liturgy (New York: Sheed & Ward,1965), 7. Also Kevin Seasoltz <strong>The</strong> House of God: <strong>Sacred</strong> Art andChurch <strong>Architecture</strong> (New York: Herder and Herder, 1963),110-114.12 Reinhold, Speaking of Liturgical <strong>Architecture</strong> 32.13 Ps.-Clement. Recognitions. 10.71.14 E.g., S. Lang, “A Few Suggestions Toward a New Solution ofthe Origin of the Early Christian Basilica,” Rivista di archeologiaChristiana 30 (1934): 189-208.15 Cf. Kimberly Bowes, “Early Christian Archaeology: A State ofthe Field”, in Religious Compass 2/4 (2008): 575-619.16 Katerina Sessa, “Domus Ecclesiae: Rethinking a Category ofAnte Pacem Christian Space,” in Journal of <strong>The</strong>ological Studies, 60:1(April 2009): 90-108.17 Cf. Sources Syriaques. t.1, trans by A. Mignana (Mossoul:Imprimerie des Peres Dominicains, 1907). NB: Davies gives thedates even earlier as 123-136 in his <strong>The</strong> Origin and Development ofEarly Christian Church <strong>Architecture</strong> (London: SCM, 1952), 14.18 Cf. Uwe Lang, Turning Towards the Lord (San Francisco:Ignatius Press, 2005), 67. Harnack makes note of this in his <strong>The</strong>Mission and Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries(London: Williams and Norgate, 1908).19 Lampridius, Life of Severus Alexander, 2.49.20 <strong>The</strong> Greek in Macarius is “they build very large buildings”.Porphyry distinguishes between these large buildings andresidential houses, “their own houses”, in which they lived.In Ezra 4:1, the same construction is used specifically <strong>for</strong> thebuilding the Temple. <strong>The</strong>re is no reason there<strong>for</strong>e to assume“oikos” meant a residential dwelling house, since it could beused <strong>for</strong> a house, any building, or a temple. Cf. Macarii MagnetisQuae Supersunt, ed. C. Blondel (Paris: Klincksieck, 1876), 201.21 Porphyry, Adversus Christianos, known to us from thefragment addressed by the later Macarius in Apocriticus, 4. 21. Cf.T.W. Crafer, <strong>The</strong> Apocriticus of Macarius Magnes (London: SPCK,1919), 146. Crafer notes that some took this passage as proofthat Porphyry lived and wrote after the Emancipation, thoughhe considers this argument weak. <strong>The</strong> conventional dates <strong>for</strong>Porphyry are c. 234 - c. 305.22 Epistle of Aurelian, quoted in Joseph Bingham, OriginesEcclesiasticae (London: 1722), 8.1.1.23 Lactantius, On the Deaths of the Persecutors, 12. Cf. <strong>The</strong> Ante-Nicene Fathers, VII, “Lactantius” (New York: Christian LiteratureCompany, 1886). Lactantius uses the term editissimum to speak ofthe tall building, and notes the church was ex palatio videbatur.24 Another <strong>for</strong>mal basilican church, Saint George at RihabJordan, is quite controversially and, in my view, improbablydated to 230. <strong>The</strong> earliest accepted church currently is theChristian prayer hall in Meggido, Israel, which is not a basilicaand found in the structure of a larger early third-century Romanvilla. NM25 General Instruction of the Roman Missal, 288.15