Cannon Chapel: From Contention to Consensus

Figure 1. Cannon Chapel recent, from above. (“William R. Cannon Chapel at the Candler School of Theology at Emory University,” The Paul Rudolph Institute for Modern Architecture. 2021.  https://www.paulrudolph.institute/197503-cannon-chapel ).

In 1974, Emory University’s Candler School of Theology acquired 220,000 rare books from Hartford Theological Seminary. In order to house all of these books, Emory hired architect Paul Rudolph to convert Emory’s Durham Chapel into Pitts Theology Library. Rudolph was a great fit for the job due to his familial ties to Emory—his father, Kenner Rudolph, was at that time the only living graduate of Emory’s first seminary class (1913-1914)—and his personal accomplishments. After the library project’s successful completion, the Emory University administration asked Rudolph to complete one more project for the campus: the design of a new chapel.  ^[1]   A document titled “A Historical Statement to the Candler Community: Negotiations about the Chapel,” explains that as the architect of the new chapel, Paul Rudolph was “completing a circle with the first generation of the seminary,” and it also made note of his status as a “first-line architect” who formerly held the role of Dean of Yale School of Architecture.  ^[2]  

Today, Cannon Chapel holds the reputation as a remarkable piece of architecture crafted by a world-famous architect. However, during Cannon Chapel’s design process Rudolph received an onslaught of unabated criticism and protest from all corners of the Emory community. This included faculty members’ liturgical concerns and students’ ethical concerns. By the time of Cannon Chapel’s completion, and in its legacy today, the Emory community takes pride in Rudolph’s structure, which has been deemed an architectural success (Figures 1, 2).

At the very beginning of the design process, Emory administration formed a chapel building committee to oversee the progress over the next few years. The committee consisted of several theology and university faculty members, in addition to two theology student representatives. Channing Jeschke, director of Pitts Theology Library, served as chairperson of the committee. 

 The committee hoped that the new sanctuary would provide a more intimate space than the campus’s current religious gathering space, Glenn Memorial Church, which seats 1,000 people and also serves as an auditorium.  ^[3]   The design of the chapel required “sensitive responsibility,” they argued, since they found that students perceived campus religious gathering spaces as the standard of places of worship. Furthermore, the sanctuary needed “versatility of structure” to host various forms of worship and a teaching function.  ^[4]  

Rudolph began by seeking out the interests of the faculty and staff. In January 1975, students and faculty received a questionnaire asking for their thoughts on the future chapel. The feedback reiterated the building committee’s goal of creating an adaptive space. The serving pastor Ted Weber listed eleven different ways he hoped to use the chapel. The Emory community also mentioned a desire for a lounge with amenities including a conversation area, kitchen facilities, vending machines, phones, and book racks.  

The new chapel was designated to adjoin Pitts Theology Library, just off the main thoroughfare of the quadrangle. According to Emory College and Yale Divinity School graduate Daniel Ledford, this location posed a “major problem,” as it coincided with one of the campus’s major firefighting access lines. As a result, Rudolph ultimately placed the chapel on the building’s second floor, above a 40,000 brick courtyard.  ^[5]   

The future building was to include the chapel itself, a common room, center for church ministries, a chaplain’s office, a choir and bride’s room, sacristy, and a reception room. A document titled “Furnishings for the William R. Cannon Chapel and Religious Center, the Claudia A. Rollins Center for Church Ministries and the D. W. Brooks Commons” explains that the corridors and foyers of the building would “have a life of their own,” rather than just “being used as passageways and vestibules.” Overall, each area of the chapel had its own purpose and use; there was to be no wasted space (Figures 3, 4, 5, 6) .

From correspondence, it appears that the building committee was initially concerned with how much the new chapel would stand out from other buildings on the Emory campus. For instance, in August 1977, Henry L. Bowden, later to be honored by Emory as an Outstanding Alumnus, shared his concerns with Dr. Jeschke. He wrote, “I do feel that we will do better with our fundraising efforts if we do not make the chapel too ‘way out’ as they say.” Rather, he believed that a more “traditional appearance” – both inside and outside – would be preferable.  ^[7]  

In that same month, serving pastor Ted Weber wrote to Dr. Jeschke through the Emory University Inter-Office Memorandum to critique the arch motif in Rudolph’s designs (Figure 7). Weber admitted that the “arch motif is present in many other places on the campus including, of course, the other theology building,” yet only as “a subdued and secondary motif.” He described Rudolph's plans to employ the arch motif in Cannon Chapel as “not necessarily offensive,” but still “too strident a clash with the rest of the campus architecture.” As a result, he believed there was an “inhospitality of the current design to the relationship between preacher and congregation.”  ^[8]   

Disagreements between the building committee and Rudolph went beyond the exterior arch motif, and the building committee and architect found themselves in conflict over the interior of the chapel as well. According to Ledford, the “moveable podium and altar were probably one of the biggest points of dispute between Rudolph and the building committee.”  ^[9]  

The increase in concerns comes through clearly in the correspondence of Don E. Saliers,  professor of theology and worship and Director of the Master of Sacred Music program.  ^[10]   In December 1977, Dr. Saliers writes of his growing concerns to Dr. Jeschke. He explains that “the design of the chapel furnishings (table, reading and preaching stand, font, chairs and so on) is of crucial importance.” More specifically, he notes, “The sense of freedom, grace, and Christian hospitality in that room will be directly manifest in the furnishings.” Knowing this, he questions whether Rudolph should be in charge of these designs, or “ought we seriously to think of someone who has extensive experience with liturgical furnishings?”  ^[11]   

Let me reiterate an earlier proposal: we need a competent architectural consultant badly–and it is not yet too late... We should not build a chapel with which we will always be uneasy because we gave in to the pressures of time and our own earlier unclarity.” 

A few months later, Dr. Saliers wrote again to Dr. Jeschke and Ted Runyon, professor of systematic theology. He finds it “very disappointing” that Rudolph does not take his “principle concerns” into account regarding the design of the building. Furthermore, he adds that Rudolph “has not really addressed the central problems pertaining to the liturgical uses of the main room.” He lists concerns with the seating arrangements, organ,  ^[12]   and natural light sources, but notes that “the fundamental problem still resides in the balcony-and-stepped-platforms concept. Thinking about the size, disposition and positioning of an organ illustrates our problem.” 

With all of these concerns, Dr. Saliers believes, “Quite frankly, I think we are in a bind on the present plan for reasons adduced above.” Yet he does not just list his concerns; he also adds his thoughts on a potential solution. He posits, “Let me reiterate an earlier proposal: we need a competent architectural consultant badly–and it is not yet too late.” He concludes, “We should not build a chapel with which we will always be uneasy because we gave in to the pressures of time and our own earlier unclarity” (Figure 8).  ^[13]   

Members of the building committee were not the only ones with concerns. From the outset of the Cannon Chapel project, Emory students “vigorously opposed the structure” of the chapel. A group of students gathered, drew up a letter of condemnation, and circulated it around campus to collect signatures. In the petition, they addressed the design, cost, and “conflicts of interest” the building appeared to present. 

This petition “aroused the student body,” and it led to three separate forums in the winter of 1978. That March, the student group, who called themselves the “Coalition Against the Chapel” convened to produce a letter that outlined their questions, comments, and concerns. They sent it to the administration, hoping to begin a “dialogue regarding the chapel.” 

The faculty took note of the students’ upset. In April, when Dr. Saliers writes to Dr. Jeschke and Professor Runyon, he opens his note by addressing the “rumblings of student unrest concerning the buildings (both the cost-ethics and the style).”  ^[14]   In the “Theological and historical statements concerning the Proposed Chapel Complex,” he wonders, “Who could foresee that a facility intended to enhance the quality of communal life and Candler would generate conditions ripe for dissent and division?”  ^[15]    The students were upset, and they had succeeded in making it known among the faculty and administration.

In response to all of the upheaval, Dean James. L. Waits proposed the formation of a Student Advisory Committee. At a later point, an additional “ad hoc committee” – formed by the chapel building committee and the Student Advisory Committee – gathered to discuss “theological concerns addressed by the building itself and the community who supports it.”  ^[16]   The student’s main objection stemmed from the cost of the building: around $4.8 million. Britton and Ledford write that the Coalition Against the Chapel’s main accomplishment in sparking dialogue with the administration was that chapel was ultimately “designed and presented as a space not only for teaching and worship but for performance, debate, and critical encounters as well.”  ^{[17]   [18]}  

Objections from within the student body died down after formation of the two committees including student voices. Furthermore, building committee members and Rudolph managed to reach agreements on design principles and details, however difficult the process was.  ^[19]   The rest of the design and construction process proceeded relatively smoothly. Shortly after construction concluded, student Shelly V. Brown wrote in Emory Magazine about the construction and opening of the chapel. She wrote that at the end of the process, under the Emory signature red roof, the chapel “contains 316,00 pounds of reinforced steel, 2,000 sheets of plywood, six tons of nails, 900 tubes of caulk, 20,000 feet of conduit, 100,000 feet of wire, and an inestimable amount of poured concrete” (Figure 9).

While the jury may still be out on the chapel’s design, one telling comment came from a blind student in the theology school. Although unable to observe the chapel’s appearance, after a walk though it with his guide dog, he said it felt like a cathedral.”

Telling the story of how the chapel ended up with clear windows, a somewhat unconventional choice, Brown shows Rudolph’s ultimate success in his design (Figure 10). She writes, “Emory looked to internationally known artists Frank Stella and Ellsworth Kelly to design the windows, but when Stella came to Atlanta to see the chapel, he inspected it carefully–and turned down the commission.” Brown explains that Stella thought that “the chapel was ‘right’ the way it was, that Rudolph’s ideas came through purely, that the use of stained glass would diminish the building.” As a result, not only did Stella refuse the commission for designing stained glass windows for Cannon Chapel, he recommended that no one do so. Emory took the advice of Stella, and, indeed, the clear windows allow pure shafts of light to shine directly in the sanctuary (Figure 11).  ^[20]  

While Brown refers to the initially divisive opinion surrounding the chapel, she shows that after several years of objection, the general consensus was leaning in favor of Rudolph’s work. “While the jury may still be out on the chapel’s design, one telling comment came from a blind student in the theology school. Although unable to observe the chapel’s appearance, after a walk though it with his guide dog, he said it felt like a cathedral.”  ^[21]  

Even though the design process for Cannon Chapel was tumultuous, the product has been and continues to be a source of pride of the Emory community. Ledford writes, “What Rudolph has achieved in the Cannon Chapel is a lasting space that has allowed for an interfaith community to thrive at Emory.”  ^[22]   Ledford and Britton believe that Cannon Chapel holds the status as one of Paul Rudolph’s best works. He goes so far as to say that “if the Yale Art and Architecture is the embodiment of Rudolph’s architecture theory par excellence, then the Cannon Chapel is the archetype for what a religious space should be.”  ^[23]  

Daliya Wallenstein is from Atlanta and a sophomore at Emory University. She is majoring in Interdisciplinary Studies and minoring in Architectural Studies. 

Keywords: Emory, Cannon Chapel, Paul Rudolph, building committee, students.

“A Historical Statement to the Candler Community: Negotiations about the Chapel,” 1974-1979, Candler School of Theology Buildings and Facilities Collection, box 2, folder 11, Pitts Theology Library.  

Brown, Shelly V. “No Ordinary Chapel: Emory consecrates a new spiritual growth,” Emory Magazine. 1981.  https://religiouslife.emory.edu/_includes/documents/sections/sacred-spaces/emorymagazineca nnonchapel1981.pdf .

Candler School of Theology. “Don E. Saliers.” Accessed June 13, 2024.  https://candler.emory.edu/faculty-profiles/don-e-saliers/ 

“Don E. Saliers to Channing R. Jeschke,” December 13, 1977, Candler School of Theology Buildings and Facilities Collection, box 2, folder 11, Pitts Theology Library.  

“Don E. Saliers to Professor Channing Jeschke and Professor Ted Runyon,” April 20, 1978, Candler School of Theology Buildings and Facilities Collection, box 2, folder 11, Pitts Theology Library. 

“Emory University Inter-Office Memorandum; Memo to Channing Jeschkek; From Theodore R. Weber”, August 30, 1977, Candler School of Theology Buildings and Facilities Collection, box 2, folder 11, Pitts Theology Library.  

“Furnishings for the William R. Cannon Chapel and Religious Center, the Claudia A. Rollins Center for Church Ministries and the D. W. Brooks Commons,” 1974-1979, Candler School of Theology Buildings and Facilities Collection, box 2, folder 11, Pitts Theology Library.  

“Henry L. Bowden to Dr. Channing R. Jeschke,” August 17, 1977, Candler School of Theology Buildings and Facilities Collection, box 2, folder 11, Pitts Theology Library.  

Office of Spiritual and Religious Life.“OSRL History.” Accessed June 13, 2024.  https://religiouslife.emory.edu/about_us/osrl-history.html  

Ledford, Daniel. “The Religious Architecture of Paul Rudolph.” Unpublished manuscript. Yale Divinity School, 2014.   https://www.academia.edu/10199990/The_Religious_Architecture_of_Paul_Rudolph .

Ledford, Daniel and Karla Cavarra Britton. “Paul Rudolph and the Psychology of Space: The Tuskegee and Emory University Chapels.” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 78, no.3 (2019): 327–346.  https://online.ucpress.edu/jsah/article-abstract/78/3/327/60967/Paul-Rudolph-and-the-Psychology-of-Space-The?redirectedFrom=fulltext .

“Subject: Theological and historical statements concerning the Proposed Chapel Complex, To: The Community of Candler School of Theology” 1974-1979, Candler School of Theology Buildings and Facilities Collection, box 2, folder 11, Pitts Theology Library.  

The Paul Rudolph Institute for Modern Architecture. “William R. Cannon Chapel at the Candler School of Theology at Emory University.” 2021. Accessed June 13, 2024.  https://www.paulrudolph.institute/197503-cannon-chapel .