First of all, prior to yet another post on the organ, I wanted to take a moment to apologize to Musica_Ecclesia and any others who may have taken offense to some of my prior comments on this subject. Not all that I said was edifying and at times I was overly antagonistic. This is not to say that I've suddenly fallen in love with the organ, but that we should keep things in the proper perspective. Criticism may at times be necessary, but the spirit of conversation should be one of love.
It seems that I've posted many a time on something sparked by Mike Horton's A Better Way, but I'd like to do so once again. One of the topics that the book touched upon was the architecture of church buildings (pages 173 - 177), and this led me to reflect how we construct church buildings. Michael Horton took this argument as far as the slope of the roof, which seems to be a bit extreme to me, but do you attach any significance to this? I think that by and large we can agree that an organ is acceptable for accompanying worship, but that some give this instrument a significance which it is not due. Following along the lines of Michael Horton's comments, the question which came to mind is whether or not this can be counteracted through architectural changes.
Thought 1: Should the organ console be migrated to the rear of the church building? In this way it becomes less visible, and therefore hopefully less distracting.
Thought 2: Musicia Ecclasia has published on his site an article which complained about a "worship pit" containing musicians which was located above and behind the sanctuary. Although organ pipes are stationary, they seem to me to be the dominant architectural element inside most CanRC churches. Can or should organ pipes be migrated to the rear of the church? Could organ pipes be relocated to a lower level than they are currently generally found? Would either suggestion negative impact acoustics or space utilization?