The Church (building) today

I just came across this article by R.C. Sproul on the lessons for modern church design that we can learn for the tabernacle (Here is the link).  I found it quite interesting.  Dr. Sproul points out that the design of the tabernacle in the Old Testament was meticulously laid out by God Himself down to the threads and linens of the gowns and furnished with the most costly and beautiful materials known to man.  In fact, the very first people mentioned in Scripture as being indwelt by the Holy Spirit were the artisans who worked on it.   There are more chapters of the Bible devoted to the construction of the tabernacle than in the whole book of Romans.

Now, obviously the Law has been fulfilled in Christ and the rules of regulations of the Old Testament temple system no longer apply--we don't need to build our churches to tabernacle specifications.  However, Sproul argues that there are principles under those specifications, just like the principles that undergird the Decalogue and the rest of the Law, that should instruct us on what is true and good.

Sproul's argument is that the actual church building is meant to appeal to the senses as a place dedicated to God, something that points to and reflects a Sovereign Lord up above.  He specifically mentions, in modern church buildings, how the church used to be built around a raised pulpit, reflecting the primacy of the Word of God.  Modern churches now have movable pulpits, if they have them at all, so that the church can look more like a concert hall than a place to sit under the Word.  The old testament tabernacle was meant to point towards the heavenly through all senses, through the beautiful sights, the beautiful sounds of psalmody, and even the beautiful smell of incense.  

I'm not sure exactly where I stand on all of this.  A big part of me reacts against the grandiosity (or, occasionally gaudiness) of high church cathedrals and what not, desiring instead a simpleness and humbleness of design.  How much of that, however, is just a function of what I'm used to and my Protestant reaction against all things Roman Catholic?  It also seems like the grand churches, in the Protestant world, are those pastored by shallow televangelist types who care more about appearance and prosperity than really understanding and teaching the Scriptures.  The money spent on beautifying the buildings could best be spent on the community, and in the mission field.  Then again, however, that option existed in the Old Testament too, and that is not how God commanded Israel's resources be spent.  Obviously there is a wrong way to build grand churches (e.g. selling indulgences to rebuild St. Peter's Basilica), but maybe the Romists have this one, at least partially, right.

Does a utilitarian multipurpose facility church really point to the majesty of the Lord the way it should?  I'm honestly not sure.  There's probably a happy medium here (and I think that's probably Sproul's position, coming from a Reformed background), where churches don't have to be spectacular marvels of architecture, but merely are designed in such as way as to display proudly and conspicuously their goal of being a light to the world and the majesty of God.  We can't expect a small congregation the third world to build a cathedral.  In fact many early New Testament churches met in homes, not dedicated church buildings.  Nevertheless, for congregations with some means, there may be a lesson here.  At the very least we shouldn't necessarily leap to judgment when we see a congregation spending seemingly excessively on a new church.  What do you guys think?