BreakPoint: “Be It Ever so Humble”

Worldview and Architecture

A Christian worldview impacts every area of life. Including making your house a home.

The magazine cover revealed one of the loveliest living rooms imaginable: Hand-painted silk covers the walls. Antique Louis Seize tables scattered about; a Picasso hangs on another wall. A Bavarian crystal chandelier sheds light on the ebony flooring. Guests may seat themselves on suede sofas, or read a rare book parked on a bookcase.

There’s just one problem: You’d never dare let a child loose in it. It’s a reminder that even when it comes to architecture and home design, worldview plays a role.

In her book, “The Making of Home,” Judith Flanders describes the work of a French-Swiss architect known as Le Corbusier, who made modern, open-plan architecture hugely influential in the 1920s and beyond.

But did ordinary people actually like the ideas of Le Corbusier and his colleagues?

The problem with high modernism, according to Flanders, has been its tendency to “focus its attention more on appearance than utility, both in architecture and in product design.” Seldom did modern architects concern themselves with the needs of daily life—staying warm, getting groceries into the house, cooking, eating, cleaning up after meals. Yes, they invented the concept of “form follows function,” but in practice, they ignored it.

“If a house looked sleek and streamlined, it was modern,” Flanders writes. “If a wall had no electrical sockets showing, it was modern, even if it left the residents nowhere to plug in a lamp. If a chair enhanced the design, it was good, even if it was too low, or too narrow.”

When it came to textiles and tableware, their designs “were not easier to use (like non-stick pans), nor easier to care for (such as linoleum flooring, which didn’t need intensive polishing). They just looked good,” Flanders notes. No wonder housewives didn’t like them.

Nor did architects care about what Flanders calls “the essence of homes:” that is, “how homeowners experience their domestic spaces.”  In fact, some philosophers, such as Theodor Adorno, considered the very idea of home as the enemy of modernism. German philosopher Walter Benjamin considered domesticity itself as “physically and mentally cloying,” Flanders writes.

In his 1863 essay, “The Painter of Modern Life,” the critic Charles Baudelaire “described the perfect flaneur, or man about town, as one who lives ‘in the ebb and flow, the bustle, the fleeting and the infinite . . . To be at the very centre of the world’ is his ideal. Such a man is “solitary . . . detached from both family and home.”

Modernism was eagerly embraced by urbanites who spent much of their time “in …the café, brasserie and restaurant,” notes Flanders. Many people live this way today, especially in big cities like New York and Tokyo. Some live in apartments that are designed and decorated as though children had never been invented.

But this is not the ideal for Christians, who embrace biblical teachings, not only about the importance of family life, but also of the value of permanent things. Home is—or should be—a place for companionship, for rearing children, and having friends and family over for meals, while the dog begs for scraps under the table. (At least, that’s what sometimes happens in my home.) It should be a cozy and comfortable place for putting our feet up, for reading, perhaps the Bible, and for praying together each evening.

The story of modern architecture is a reminder of how worldview influences every aspect of life. We should keep this in mind if we’re planning to decorate a new home in such a way that our own children will not be comfortable in it.

Instead, they should feel, as Dorothy did, that there’s no place like home.

Further Reading and Information

Be It Ever so Humble: Worldview and Architecture

To read more about the intertwining of worldview and architecture in the home, get a copy of Judith Flander’s book, “The Making of Home.” It’s available at our online bookstore.


The Making of Home: The 500-Year Story of How Our Houses Became Our Homes
  • Judith Flanders
  • Thomas Dunne Book for St. Martin's Griffin
  • September 2015
The Fine Art of Cozy
  • Anne Morse
  • February 15, 2017

Comment Policy: Commenters are welcome to argue all points of view, but they are asked to do it civilly and respectfully. Comments that call names, insult other people or groups, use profanity or obscenity, repeat the same points over and over, or make personal remarks about other commenters will be deleted. After multiple infractions, commenters may be banned.

  • HpO

    You have a problem here, Eric Metaxas. How can you tie all this talk of worldview to architecture (though a nice try), when Judith Flanders doesn’t even know her modern architectural history (nor her Victorian architectural history, for that matter)? It’s simply not her expertise. And it shows. Like these lame statements, for instance:

    (1) Homes have “changed and developed over the span of modern history.”

    (2) “Water, sewage, gas, electricity – these technologies connected the house to the networks of modern life around them, and they also enforced standardization on them”

    (3) Modernists “focus its attention more on appearance than utility, both in architecture and in product design. … If a house looked sleek and streamlined, it was modern … If a wall had no electrical sockets showing, it was modern, even if it left the residents nowhere to plug in a lamp. If a chair enhanced the design, it was good, even if it was too low, or too narrow.”

    (4) To Walter Benjamin domesticity is “physically and mentally cloying”; to Charles Baudelaire “man about town … solitary … detached from both family and home.”

    Start over, please. This time, though, rely more on what peer-recognized authorities on modern architectural history have to say on this matter of worldview. Like Kenneth Frampton.

    • You apparently don’t understand that your worldview affects how you see EVERYTHING in life.

      • HpO

        And what’s-her-name does? Where, then, in that lame book of hers – chapter and page numbers cited, please – does Judith Flanders even use that lame word “worldview” (of German idealism origin, which, of course, you, Mr. Jim Anderson, must’ve already known), then use it for vetting modern architecture of houses?

        Long ago when I was supposed to be putting on the mind of Christ informed only by the gospel of salvation through His crucifixion, burial and resurrection, this guy led me astray, James W. Sire, by saying stuffs like, A worldview is a set of presuppositions which everybody holds about the basic makeup of their world. That, he claimed, includes literally anything and everything related to Theology, Philosophy, Ethics, Biology, Psychology, Sociology, Law, Politics, Economics, History and, yes, Modern Architecture. And so there’s now this or that theory/praxis according to a Christian Theistic, Secular Humanist, Eastern Philosophy, Western New Age, Islamic, Marxist-Leninist, or Postmodern weltanschauung or worldview.

        God saved me from all that, the path of the lost sheep, after warning me, I can’t serve both God and Mammon, both gospel and apologetics, both gospel and worldview, both evangelizing and philosophizing, both evangelizing and theologizing. And so I’ve stopped with this worldview nonsense and idolatry ever since.

        You should, too!