The link below take you to RealClearReligion's compilation of the 35 ugliest churches in the world (though there are non-Christian entries in the bunch). For the slideshow go to RealClearReligion – The Ugliest Churches in the World – The Ugliest Churches in the World.
Or try here: http://www.realclearreligion.org/lists/the_ugliest_churches_in_the_world/the_ugliest_churches_in_the_world.html?state=stop
It is hard to say who is more to blame--the architects who designed these or the churches which suggested and/or approved these designs. To be fair, I don't think all of these deserve the title "ugly."
A few teasers.
1) There are some Lutherans in Scandinavia who need to repent.
2) The "chicken church" in Florida really isn't that bad looking of a building. But once you see the chicken, you will not see anything else.
3) Michigan is represented THREE TIMES (Detroit, Muskegon, and Portage)!
4) The queen mother of all ugly churches is the last one, a Roman Catholic Church in India. If someone could explain what they are trying to say with their design, I would appreciate it. I will entertain just about all suggestions.
One of the lessons which we from this: Architecture matters. Churches are to be sacred spaces dedicated to the glory of God and for the specific use of the preaching of the word and the administration of the sacraments. As such, they are to be the best we can give. They are to demonstrate to any who walk in that we regard these places as holy and reverent. (Granted, sometimes the best a group of Christians can give is rather humble, but they can still be reverent.) Architecture should reflect theology. That is what drives everything the church does, including how its buildings are designed.
Hat Tip: Cranach, the Blog of Veith (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/geneveith/2013/07/the-ugliest-churches-in-the-world/)