Well ... I'm making a liar out of myself. I had vowed to quit this thread, but several posters have lured me to back into it.

When you recognize that a "church" is a building ... and it is built by humans ... that what it is ... A BUILDING BUILT BY HUMANS. Yet many people, even on this thread, have referred to the "holyness" ... the "sacredness" of the building. And indeed, it's that very mysteque (sp?) that I reject.

If a building, built by humans, succeeds in being acoustically good ... does that mean that it has become "holy" ... or something else?

Part of the reason, as Don Firth alluded too, I started this thread was a "church"experience I has when I was 12. I had to spend that summer away from my home and I lived with a Grandfather. He also happenned to be an elder in a Pentecostal church, in Vancouver, Washington. I was studying piano at the time, and my Grandfather obtained permission from the preacher for me to continue my piano lessons by playing the church piano.

That only lasted TWO DAYS ... the preacher's wife heard me practising my scales, and some simple Chopin ... and gave the orders that I was NO LONGER WELCOME to use the church piano ... my music was "TOO WORLDLY!"

I don't like to walk into churches anymore ... I don't care how good the folksinger is! Bob (deckman)Nelson