He rode into Jerusalem on a donkey. Not in a Mercedes.
In the middle ages they built cathedrals. Now we have (or did until recently) a space program.
(Gold doesn't need polishing. Silver needs polishing. I need scrubbing -- Brillo!)
Man's delight. Hmm. I wouldn't scorn that too readily. It's the whole "hospital for sinners" v."society of the elect" conflict. And there are echoes of the problem in the first part of Plato's Republic.
IF we were a society of deeply pious people, constantly aware of the presence of God in our lives, we probably still would need large buildings so that we could respond to needs of our brethren when there were calamities. Hangars and warehouses and garages so that we could drive to Katrina, Biafra, Bangla Desh, or Port au Prince and bring food and clothing and medicine -- and Bibles. Would it be so wrong for them to be beautiful buildings?
Is there no room for art? It seems one important thing about man is that he makes as well as perceives beauty, and it matters that among the earliest artifacts are objects of no utility (except possibly as idols) but of beauty only.
And IF we are creatures made to manifest beauty, is it intrinsically wrong to do so in order to assist in the praise of God? When David sings, "O worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness," does he mean ONLY an unearthly, uncreated beauty? Shall we, must we not have lovely songs, textiles to die for (of the things I have woven I am most grateful for an altar cloth I gave to a church), beautiful windows and paintings? If man will make buildings of breathtaking beauty (and it seems he will), may he not make them in the praise and abodah (service) of God?
SURE, once made, all these things can be tempting and distracting. But I think even in store-front churches people are tempted and distracted by something, while I know that God spoke to me early through beauty more than through sermons and discourses and coloring and other Sunday School activities.
I cannot remember when my heart was not restless, but it was the delight and beauty in my 'growing-up' church that not only stirred the restlessness up but prompted hope that there might be a place (or a Person) where my heart would find rest.
And, I suggest, there is as much a temptation to spiritual pride in conscious austerity as in an abundance of beautiful things. Our enemy is wily and can use the stained indoor/outdoor carpeting of a humble chapel as well as the luxurious tapestries of a cathedral to induce and ensnare us into thinking more of our piety than of God's grace.
And let's also think of the craftsmen and artists? They will do their craft and make their art whether there are churches or not. But is it bad for them to sew or compose or carve or erect to the greater glory of God (as well as their commission)? Must we reduce someone who could write a beautiful Gloria to the composition of advertising jingles for fear that beauty would distract him or us?
Donne's love poems are beautiful and witty. His sacred poems(and he was not a Catholic)are astonishing, as are those of George Herbert. And space does not permit to give Dante the praise he is due.
There is good in the store-front chapel, or in the aching austerity of a Trappist monastery chapel. And there is good in the lush beauty of, say, St. Vincent Ferrer's church in Manhattan, to which AliVeritas has posted a link. I'm glad that that architect found a worthy task for his art.
I agree with Plato that man will have his beautiful things. And if that is so, then let him have them in the service and praise of God.
/rant off.