About

Programs

Worship

HISTORY

"The Unitarian Temple"

The Reverend Vern Barnet, DMn, 1975 June

The Unitarian temple is a strong and imposing example of the Greek Revival Style of architecture adapted to the purposes of a meeting house or church. There is no comparable structure in the vicinity. The church is listed in the 1941 national catalog of the Historic Buildings Survey. Measured drawings and pictures of it can be found in The Early Architecture of Western Pennsylvania by Charles M Stotz (New York, 1936 and 1971). It is marked by the Pennsylvania State Historical Commission.

STYLE

A large, squarish red brick edifice, the church has a severe wooden Doric tetrastyle portico with an unadorned pediment. Behind the columns of the church, a very tall door approximates the proportion of door to columns in original Greek temples. The actual doorway is incorporated in a larger simulated opening. Similarly, the side windows are large and plain in design in harmony with the basic style. The use of wood to appear as stone, for example in the entablature, is skillfully done; but no attempt was made to plaster the exterior brick to imitate the masonry prototype. Talbot Hamlin, in his study Greek Revival Architecture in America (Oxford, 1944; Dover, 1964; p 274) praises the church for its "excellent general proportions."

The interior, plain and handsome, and lighter in detail than the outside, nevertheless echoes the severity of the exterior with its restraint, its strong rectilinear emphasis and Doric motif, and its plain wooden box pews, painted white, each with a door. A generous scale impresses one both within and without. Hamlin finds the interior "especially attractive in its quiet dignity."

The Christian Register (November 14, 1845) expressed the propriety of church style: "Gothic architecture belongs to the Trinitarian Church, while the severe majesty of the Doric would better suit the simplicity of the Unitarian faith." The temple has no stained glass windows to shut out the world. Its clear windows affirm the religiosity of celebrating life in this world. Unlike the towering Gothic, the building’s scale pays homage to the dignity of man, and its proportion expresses the nobility of man's reason.

The Unitarian temple "has stood for over a century at the head of Meadville's public square. As a scene of the graduation exercises of the Meadville Theological School from 1846 to 1925, it is perhaps the most venerable landmark of Unitarianism in the Midwest."—C H little: Freedom Moves West (Boston, 1952), p 56.

While the most famous building of the Doric style is probably the Parthenon, the Unitarian temple echoes not only its Greek prototype, with its religious implications, but the church also recalls the most popular style of important US government buildings, an appropriate reminder of the Unitarian faith expressed in the Declaration of Independence and by many of our nation's founders and leaders, appropriate because American Unitarianism is a unique religious movement, co-incident with national ideals.

CONSTRUCTION

The building was begun in 1835 and dedicated in 1836. Modeled after a Philadelphia Unitarian church since destroyed by fire, its architect was Captain (later General) George W Cullum, a son of the church who later designed the more famous structure at Fort Sumter. Edward Derby built the church by contract for $3500.

The interior walls were grey and the ceiling was flat and plain. The pew seats were 5" higher and 3" narrower than they are now. The pew purchase chart shows 11 pairs in the center, 12 pews on each side, and at the front 4 on each side facing the pulpit. The minister's seat was in the alcove where the organ now is, and the platform was several steps higher. In the gallery was a pipe organ given by the young Buffalo Church. The church was lighted by a chandelier of whale oil lamps.

HISTORY OF ALTERATIONS

In 1859, the original organ was replaced by a new one of 12 stops at a cost of $550. In 1863, extensive repairs and the addition of eight pews cost $800. In 1874 the church was again renovated at over $600.

In 1887, the organ was removed from the balcony and placed at the front of the church east of the pulpit. A photograph from this period suggests that the choir sang directly in front of the organ. The front pilasters were painted grey with the inscription "This is life eternal, that they might know Thee, the only true God and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent. John xvii.3." The Beatitudes were inscribed on the front west wall. The church exterior was painted grey, but in 1892 it was returned to the original red, and the pillars and cornice were painted brown.

A new organ was purchased in 1893 for $1885. In 1897 the church received extensive re­pairs aimed to restore it in harmony with the original plans but with modern freshening and brightening of color. The church was given a new ceiling. The alcove behind the pulpit was brought forward and some pews were removed to make room for this. The repairs cost about $2500.

In 1949 a series of repairs and alterations were begun. The floor beams were strengthened with structural steel, the roof trusses were reinforced with steel rods, new carpeting was laid, the organ underwent a major overhaul, a new furnace was installed, and the church was rewired and given new light fixtures. The curtains atop the choir railing were removed. Center rear pews were removed to enlarge available walk-space.

In 1970 several west front pews were removed in order to extend the speaker's platform to accommodate dance and other activities. The 1897 pulpit was removed for storage, The pew cushions were recovered and the pew repainting was completed. A system for recorded music in memory of Noel Arthur was purchased and dedicated. Outside, the steps to the portico, which over the years had become misaligned, were reset. In 1972, the church exterior was sandblasted, revealing rare and beautiful (and unusually hard) brick. In 1973, Charles Wrye installed a three-station remote control system for the operation of house lights, tape recorder and slide projector. In 1974 pews and risers in the balcony were removed to accommodate church archives; a mini-museum was envisioned.

In response to Key 73, an evangelical effort "calling the continent to Christ," the Parish Board voted unanimously to ask Carl Heeschen to design and execute symbols for the portico metopes, to express affirmatively but without verbal argument, the Unitarian openness to the many religious "answers" besides Christ, and to demonstrate acceptance of diverse religious backgrounds, values and views. Nine masonite panels were covered with Contac and screwed onto ,the frieze. This temporary decoration of a building, fortuitously placed in the town, celebrated the meaning of the building within the community, as the brightly colored Greek temples originally must also have done. In the fall of 1974, a series of newspaper advertisements, with District financial support, explained each symbol and invited those interested to a sermon series on the religions thus represented.

The om, star and crescent, ankh, yin-yang, thunderbird, flaming chalice, cross, lotus and star of David panels generated three views articulated within the congregation. 1) The symbols should be made a permanent part of our architectural self-expression. 2) The symbols violate the purity of the Greek Revival Style and should be removed. 3) Symbols emerging from the religious experience of the congregation should replace those borrowed from major religions.

Early in 1975 the panels were removed when a banner commemorating the 1825 founding of the church was hung between the two west pillars. Designed by Sunny Pickering, the 16-foot multi­colored banner depicted the weaver' s knot, keeping the theme of “150 years weaving together the strands of individuality.” On Palm Sunday a second banner, Ygdrasil, was dedicated for the front left interior wall, in a service recalling the rich religious meanings of the Tree.

APPELATION

Some people inquire as to the reasons for calling the building a "temple." Of course no one is compelled to use language distasteful to him, and the building may be referred to as church, sanctuary, meeting house, temple or whatever, so long as it is the place where we celebrate our affection for one another, gratitude for life and devotion to the search for wisdom. There are, nevertheless, reasons why temple may be a particularly suitable appellation.

Historically the building has been called a temple, Above, Dr. Lyttle's designation was noted. But primarily we may recall the 1836 Aug 20 sermon which dedicated the building after con­struction. "We enter this day a new temple of religious worship; we bow down for the first time in this humble house of prayer; and henceforth call this place holy unto the Lord. This is a serious and deeply affecting occasion. We indulge no superstitious limitings of divine presence; we hold no local Deity. We adore a Being, to whom the illimitable universe is one great temple, filled and irradiated by his presence .... Such are the grounds on which we dedicate this temple to the worship of God; on the principle of his unity and his spirit­uality." (Henry Colman's sermon, first sentence and excerpts.)

Institutionally, it may be useful to distinguish between the people (who are the church) and the building which houses the church. Unitarians claim that the church is the people not the building, or the history or the Bylaws.

Architecturally, the building, as noted, is inspired by ancient Greek temples. To speak of its architectural members, temple nomenclature is natural. Calling our building a temple can remind us of our heritage; for temple is more universal than church, which is largely a Christian designation. Hindus, Jews, Egyptians—and Christians—have temples. Our hymnal makes use of the word frequently largely for the more universal connotations of temple, and members of the community have thus found themselves appreciating our religious embrace simply from the temple architectural designation.

Semantically, the word seems especially appropriate for the use we make of the building. The dictionary defines temple as "a place set apart for a special purpose or function, as a school is a 'temple of learning.’” Our place is set apart as a temple of worship, a place where we gather to consider things of worth.

Practically, since we have two buildings often used by the congregation, if is useful to clearly specify which building is intended. It is clearer to say, "I'll meet you at the parish house" or "I'll meet you at the temple," than "See you at the church."

STYLE FIDELITY

Throughout the changes and decorations, even the Victorian excesses, each generation has sought to render the temple suitable for its religious life while respecting the building’s basic integrity. Even the biggest change, the organ placement, has not radically altered the style from its successful application in 1835. That a religious community which celebrates change, and which has changed almost incredibly in 150 years, should still find in its original building a genuine expression of its values and aspirations indicates the genius of its founders and the durability of honesty, proportion, and grace.

Sources: Charles H. Lyttle, Esther Walling, Earl Morse Wilbur, Carl Heeschen, Jean Barry, Frances Walton, Charles M. Stotz, Talbot Hamlin.