 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Church in a warehouse, with bar
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
I wasn't sure whether this went with the "Decline of American Evangelicalism" thread, or the "New Ways of Being Church" one, so I thought I'd throw this into a new thread.
The NYT reports that a significant number of evangelical churches in the US are trying out new venues and styles in the attempt to attract the younger generation who are seeking "authenticity" - which rather implies that the megachurches (in particular) are not seen as "authentic"!
So they are trying old warehouses, coffeebars with "church" in the basement (where the music will attract the customers), places that might be open most days of the week to provide childcare,etc., and various other activities that sound very much like what some of those old fuddy-duddy establishment churches are also doing.
One quote from the article: quote:
With 3,000 members, National Community Church is technically a megachurch, according to religion scholars, for whom any congregation over 2,000 qualifies. But with a high turnover rate of nearly 40 percent a year, its continued growth is a noteworthy feat.
another: quote:
Five years ago, Mr. Clark said, 90 percent of his business was installing expensive lighting and sound systems for megachurches that could hold up to 5,000. But today, 70 percent of his business is working on existing buildings, like warehouses, to renovate the interiors as multipurpose spaces for churches to operate.
and the whole thing finishes off with an appeal to "relevance"
Is nothing new under the Sun?
edited to fix code - HB
[ 30. December 2012, 13:04: Message edited by: Horseman Bree ]
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Sigh. 'Trying to be relevant' never succeeds, but only being true and being real does. Providing childcare (for example) in order to gain converts isn't the answer, but providing those things because you love others and want to help them.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bostonman
Shipmate
# 17108
|
Posted
Tried and true Christian tradition, ever since the sixth-century missions to England got permission to use the buildings of pagan temples as churches rather than demolishing them.
Posts: 424 | From: USA | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
...ever since Christian congregations started to take over temples, basilicas and other public buildings following the Edict of Milan.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Many church leaders now agree that the traditional church building is off-putting to some people - that's why Fresh Expressions ventures in the UK often try to create church in non-typical settings. There's nothing instrinsically wrong with doing that.
However, although we all agree in theory that the setting isn't the main issue when it comes to doing church, the setting is still a fiercely controversial issue. I know of congregations that have chosen to disband rather than move their church life away from a high maintainance but prestigious building to a plain school hall or community centre. Even rearranging the chairs can be highly traumatic for a congregation! So we shouldn't underestimate the prayer, soul-searching and self-examination that some churches have to go through before they decide that a change of building would serve their ministry.
Re the quote in the OP, my understanding is that high turnover seems to be a feature of most growing church movements. Early British Methodism grew fast, but it also lost lots of members. In fact, it expelled a lot of people as well. I suspect that the same was true in the early church.
In terms of serving people out of pure, disinterested love, or serving people in the search for converts, some will say that there should be no division between these two things. In reality though, churches find it hard to blend service and evangelism successfully. Mainstream churches usually find that the former is easier to deal with than the latter. But without making new converts how are declining congregations and denominations going to have the people and the resources to do the serving?
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
I disagree that traditional church buildings put people off - why else do people want to get married in church because it looks prettier or visit cathedrals? Far more attractive than some ugly warehouse. I'm not being biased towards my own denomination here either - I love the simple beauty of old non-conformist chapels too. I think the attractiveness (or lack of it) does have an impact on worship and should be taken into account.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
I don't know about "relevance", but not having to build a new church facility from the ground up might be economically advantageous and free up funds for church ministries.
There's a non-denom a few miles from my Piskie church that bit by bit took over a whole (but smallish) strip mall. They started with one store front and kept going. I don't think I'd call it a mega-church, however.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mrs whibley
Shipmate
# 4798
|
Posted
Any church with a turnover of 40% per year should have some idea where those people are going. If they are going to mainstream churches or leaving the area then great, but if not then all that church is achieving is taking people previously open to church attendance and turning them off. That's sort of the opposite of evangelism, surely?
--------------------
I long for a faith that is gloriously treacherous - Mike Yaconelli
Posts: 942 | From: North Lincolnshire | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I disagree that traditional church buildings put people off - why else do people want to get married in church because it looks prettier or visit cathedrals? Far more attractive than some ugly warehouse. I'm not being biased towards my own denomination here either - I love the simple beauty of old non-conformist chapels too. I think the attractiveness (or lack of it) does have an impact on worship and should be taken into account.
I don't think they put everyone off, no. It's true that lots of people find old churches very beautiful, including myself. But there are other people who aren't really into architecture, and who don't see much connection between those old buildings and themselves.
Fortunately, noone is purposely going to rid England of her beautiful churches - but in the future many of them are likely to crumble to pieces due to neglect. The National Trust and others are very worried about this possibility. Meanwhile, there are Christians who are less and less willing to spend declining resources on looking after beautiful churches that lack congregations. Maybe at some point the state will take on the job, although goodness knows where the money will come from.
(Re weddings, it occurred to me the other day that there might be a good business opportunity to be had in buying up beautiful but neglected old churches, perhaps in rural areas, and renting them out as wedding venues. They could be used for civil weddings. People would have a beautiful setting for their wedding, but with none of the restrictions or requirements involved in having a religious wedding.)
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I think a lot of the turnover in new church initiatives - not necessarily 'mega-church' ones, comes from the creation of a particular dynamic or expectation that one always has to be at the forefront of the 'new thing'.
I was involved with a Baptist church plant which I very much enjoyed and appreciated at the time but which did have a very high turnover. A lot of it was down to people moving on to what they saw as something even newer and shinier elsewhere ... such as other church-plants or more avowedly charismatic places ...
That said, I think there is a growing and observable phenomenon of second and third generation drop-out from 'new-ish' evangelical and charismatic circles - which is the sort of thing that has been discussed on the other thread about a plateauing out of US (and US style) evangelicalism.
The buildings issue is a biggie ... as SvitlanaV2 says. I know a vicar who is heroically trying to raise money to build a very long ramp to provide disabled access to his wonderful - but highly impractical 14th century Perpendicular parish church.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I think a lot of the turnover in new church initiatives - not necessarily 'mega-church' ones, comes from the creation of a particular dynamic or expectation that one always has to be at the forefront of the 'new thing'.
I was involved with a Baptist church plant which I very much enjoyed and appreciated at the time but which did have a very high turnover. A lot of it was down to people moving on to what they saw as something even newer and shinier elsewhere ...
Yes - we have had a few 'church-hoppers' attend our Church then move on. They invariably moved on again, and again, and again ... I met a couple the other day. I knew what the answer to 'Are you still at the same Church?' would be before I asked it.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
In a different discussion months or years ago someone said or quoted "the building always wins."
Pastor in a nearby formal style church -- pews in rows facing front, raised altar/table and choir, stained glass windows, carpet -- tried to start a "contemporary" service but it turned into another formal service same as the 11 o'clock. The building won.
If you are trying to do something less formal in style, you maybe need a less formal setting? A differently structured setting?
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
(Re weddings, it occurred to me the other day that there might be a good business opportunity to be had in buying up beautiful but neglected old churches, perhaps in rural areas, and renting them out as wedding venues. They could be used for civil weddings. People would have a beautiful setting for their wedding, but with none of the restrictions or requirements involved in having a religious wedding.)
I think that's a great idea!
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Pastor in a nearby formal style church -- pews in rows facing front, raised altar/table and choir, stained glass windows, carpet -- tried to start a "contemporary" service but it turned into another formal service same as the 11 o'clock. The building won.
Was the building/decor the only factor in the demise of the "contemporary" service? Was the pastor uncomfortable trying to be "contemporary"? Did the praise band stink? Were the members of the congregation just not interested enough to keep it going? I doubt that everything can be blamed on the building.
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Ahem.
I think one should read the description of the funeral service of our dear Erin.
The building is a former hardware store, with sample cottage fronts along one wall- but it obviously works as an Anglican church.
The exact nature of the building may not matter so much as the attitude of the people who use the building.
But this re-using of a strip-mall location wasn't advertised as a paradigm-breaker or whatever high-falutin' phrase you care to use. It is simply a space that works. The community matters more than the building.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Pastor in a nearby formal style church -- pews in rows facing front, raised altar/table and choir, stained glass windows, carpet -- tried to start a "contemporary" service but it turned into another formal service same as the 11 o'clock. The building won.
If you are trying to do something less formal in style, you maybe need a less formal setting? A differently structured setting?
The Christian writer Frank Viola is convinced that the setting influences the atmosphere and the proceedings of worship, and indeed, he claims that ancient church buildings were designed with this influence in mind. The following generations have tended not to question this influence, and have continued to design and build churches that have the same effect. Viola doesn't distinguish between traditional and newer (i.e. livelier) churches in this respect. (His focus is on the 'organic church', which requires more intimate, egalitarian surroundings.)
I have to say, the only time I ever attended an Anglican service that called itself 'informal' I felt that the setting clashed somehow with the contemporary atmosphere they were trying to create. I've attended contemporary services/events in 19th c. Baptist/ Congregationalist churches on other occasions and felt rather differently, but there were other contributing factors.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I think Belle Ringer is onto something ... some styles of worship (whether contemporary or traditional) just don't work in certain settings - in the same way that a packet of fish and chips would look odd in some buildings or interiors but not in others ... or a Big Mac and Fries would look out of place in a swanky restaurant.
I think it is possible to adapt some aspects to the building or setting though - I'm not saying it's impossible nor that it's all down to the building and the ambience - but I think as a general rule Belle Ringer has highlighted something that holds true.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Whoops, I cross-posted with SvitlanaV2 ... and I'd second what she says. For some reason, other than at the bespoke festivals and conventions such as New Wine and in New Expressions contexts, attempts at informality in Anglican settings seem a bit clumsy, a bit 'disco vicar' ...
I've seen Baptist churches do the self-same kinds of thing and it not appear cheesy or forced at all. But when Anglicans try to do it ...
I get funny looks from our vicar when I suggest to him that I'd like things to be more 'Anglican' from time to time ...
Heck, SvitlanaV2 might be interested to hear that I attended an ecumenical service at our local Methodist church this morning and in some ways it felt a lot more 'Anglican' than what tends to go on at our Anglican parish week by week. At least they used the lectionary for a kick-off ...
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
I don't know about "relevance", but not having to build a new church facility from the ground up might be economically advantageous and free up funds for church ministries.
There's a non-denom a few miles from my Piskie church that bit by bit took over a whole (but smallish) strip mall. They started with one store front and kept going.
There is a church in Salem, New Hampshire, which uses former farm buildings. Here is a statement from their website. quote:
St. David’s was founded in 1961 when a handful of Salem residents who had been traveling to nearby towns to attend an Episcopal Church decided to form one here. As the congregation quickly grew, they purchased a farm that housed horses from the race track. The farmhouse became the rectory, and the barn became the sanctuary. Additional space was added for meeting areas and a parish office. The cross behind the altar was constructed many years ago of fence posts from the former farm. It serves as a reminder of our beginnings.
I've been there. It works very well.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Heavenly Anarchist
Shipmate
# 13313
|
Posted
My church meets in a small warehouse which we own the leasehold of. I believe the church rented a hall in a school before. A growing church needs a home of its own and property is hardly cheap in Cambridge so a warehouse is a reasonable choice. The space works really well, we easily fit 300 into a normal service, and we have a good sized stage with plenty of room for musicians, and a small kitchen, toilets and children's rooms. There are some downsides, we need to expand to fit our children' work (we have about 80 kids over 2 services) but would need to buy the land and this is complicated due to being on industrial land (banks don't like lending because of 'pollution'). But the space does work well for us.
I love old buildings but they aren't necessarily the most affordable or practical options. My church didn't inherit a building to use so we have to work with what we have.
Our choice wasn't about attracting young people either but the practicalities of our services and the cost. We do have students but they are a small percentage of our congregation. We have lots of families and the biggest group of adults would be those in their 30s and 40s - we seem to have a fairly low turnover, the church is about 11 years old and 3 years ago we went from one morning service to two as we couldn't fit everyone in.
--------------------
'I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by.' Douglas Adams
Dog Activity Monitor
My shop
Posts: 2831 | From: Trumpington | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Pastor in a nearby formal style church -- pews in rows facing front, raised altar/table and choir, stained glass windows, carpet -- tried to start a "contemporary" service but it turned into another formal service same as the 11 o'clock. The building won.
Was the building/decor the only factor in the demise of the "contemporary" service? Was the pastor uncomfortable trying to be "contemporary"? Did the praise band stink? Were the members of the congregation just not interested enough to keep it going? I doubt that everything can be blamed on the building.
Same pastor tried again a year or so later, this time putting the contemporary service in the informal fellowship hall. That worked, it is usually the best attended service.
I wasn't there at the time and can't know all the details, he was explaining to me why there are two formal services when neither half fills the sanctuary. His explanation for the failure of the first effort, it's evolution in less than five months into just a duplicate of the 11 o'clock, was that the people felt constrained by the formality of the old building.
Same pastor, same music director, mostly the same people in the praise band. Who knows what all might have been different, but "the building always wins" is a concept I learned on the Ship.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
roybart
Shipmate
# 17357
|
Posted
To focus on one point in Belle Ringer's post:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Pastor in a nearby formal style church -- pews in rows facing front, raised altar/table and choir, stained glass windows, carpet -- tried to start a "contemporary" service but it turned into another formal service same as the 11 o'clock. The building won.
The element in that list that seems the most "formal" in a negative sense are the conventional pews. I have never understand the reasoning behind the survival of the pew system. Most pews are bulky, rigid, astonishingly ugly, and -- if the experience of many Mystery Worshippers is to be believed -- often quite uncomfortable. Compare the great cathedrals with the typical small, traditional parish church. The cathedral -- with its system of individual and movable chairs -- has the potential to be much more flexible and informal in its worship design than does the parish church.
If you want informality, why not get rid of pews? And the choir stalls, which are basically pews at right angles to the congregation. And keep the rest.
[ 31. December 2012, 03:22: Message edited by: roybart ]
--------------------
"The consolations of the imaginary are not imaginary consolations."
-- Roger Scruton
Posts: 547 | From: here | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dennis the Menace
Shipmate
# 11833
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
There are already some of these disused churches operating as wedding venues.
Our church is a disused wedding venue, was complete with bar until some alterations and additions three years ago removed it!
--------------------
"Till we cast our crowns before Him; Lost in wonder, love, and praise."
Posts: 853 | From: Newcastle NSW Australia | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I disagree that traditional church buildings put people off - why else do people want to get married in church because it looks prettier or visit cathedrals?
They may get married there but rarely if ever, return. You can run a building and a congregation FOR irregular visitors but yoiu can't run it on them.
There are lots of uses old churches can be put to - not least community centres, shelters for the homeless, information points.
There comes a point where a decision must be made on sustainability if the costs of maintenance outweigh the mission possibilities.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
the giant cheeseburger
Shipmate
# 10942
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I disagree that traditional church buildings put people off - why else do people want to get married in church because it looks prettier or visit cathedrals?
They may get married there but rarely if ever, return. You can run a building and a congregation FOR irregular visitors but yoiu can't run it on them.
There are lots of uses old churches can be put to - not least community centres, shelters for the homeless, information points.
There comes a point where a decision must be made on sustainability if the costs of maintenance outweigh the mission possibilities.
I agree.
I'm part of a church which is lucky enough to have a dedicated building (let's keep some perspective here) but it's not exactly a venue which people would choose because the exterior looks good in a photo. Of those from within our quite large congregation who get married, near on 100% do choose our church as the venue because, to them, its significance as the home of their Christian community far outweighs what it looks like in a photo.
The ideal building for a church to use, in my opinion, is whatever building is appropriate for their needs, provides a suitable base for them to reach out to their community and is not a massive millstone around their neck siphoning resources away from mission. Or to put it simply - people over property.
--------------------
If I give a homeopathy advocate a really huge punch in the face, can the injury be cured by giving them another really small punch in the face?
Posts: 4834 | From: Adelaide, South Australia. | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by roybart:
If you want informality, why not get rid of pews? And the choir stalls, which are basically pews at right angles to the congregation. And keep the rest.
Have you ever tried dealing with a Victorian Society before (or whatever an American equivelant might be)?
Our Anglican Church is grade 1 listed inside and out and has a whole host of unneccessary Victorian pews that need to be removed. However because of it's age, status and the potential for interference by the Victorian Society it is taking an age to remove them. (how Cathedrals managed to do away with pews I'm not entirely sure...)
I think the biggest problem faced by many UK side Anglican Churches is the historical aspect which gets in the way of trying to reorganise. There is of course the community (that never attends Church and probably never will apart from the occassional services) who get into a huff about changes being made to a Church, although of course they are easily ignored it doesn't go down well if you do...
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
I would love to get rid of our pews, and replace them with new portable* benches (which I prefer to individual chairs....), so that we could easily re-arrange them for certain services. I make no apology for being much influenced by the work and writings of Richard Giles!
*anyone who reads Church Building will know whereof I speak. Such benches are IMHO much more family-friendly than chairs....
But, praise be to God, at least our pews (which are quite comfy, really - there's just too many of them) are not nailed down to some horrible wooden platform. We moved some around recently to make a safe carpeted space for young Kidz, though it took 4 strong men to do it!
We have, as our neighbours in Christ, a Baptist congregation which formerly had its own little wooden chapel (an off-shoot from the town's main Baptist Church). Having given up the chapel, they now meet on Sundays in our local Community Centre - but feel hamstrung because they have no local facility in which to meet on any other day but Sunday! We have offered them the use of our Hall - and indeed, I personally would like to work much more closely with them than we already do (we support their locally-based Foodbank). One would think that their lack of permanent premises would give them unrestricted freedom, but it seems this is not quite the case.
Ian J.
--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)
Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
I totally get the impracticalities of many older church buildings - not least the heating aspect! Biscuit tin (warehouse-type) churches are often much more user-friendly. I was just responding to the idea that old-style church buildings put people off, which I don't think is true, but I do understand that they have their limitations.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
the giant cheeseburger
Shipmate
# 10942
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
We have, as our neighbours in Christ, a Baptist congregation which formerly had its own little wooden chapel (an off-shoot from the town's main Baptist Church). Having given up the chapel, they now meet on Sundays in our local Community Centre - but feel hamstrung because they have no local facility in which to meet on any other day but Sunday! We have offered them the use of our Hall - and indeed, I personally would like to work much more closely with them than we already do (we support their locally-based Foodbank). One would think that their lack of permanent premises would give them unrestricted freedom, but it seems this is not quite the case.
Ian J.
With dedicated premises you get certain freedoms but you lose others, and the same applies to not having dedicated premises as well.
Meeting in a non-dedicated space (like a school hall or a hotel's function facility) for worship on a Sunday and using other community facilities for other mid-week events can work really well, since there's less chance of people being intimidated by a big, brutal church building and it forces people to think of the church being the people rather than the venue. The disadvantages include the lack of stability, and the need to shift absolutely everything in and out each week.
Having a dedicated premises (whether owned or leased) avoids that problem of setup/packup and gives extra freedom to use the facility at will rather than as negotiated. The problem with this approach is that it brings the temptation to retreat out of the community and into the safety of the church building - eyes that should be looking out at the community can't see past the door.
The maintenance of heritage-listed buildings is a major concern for many congregations, it can be very easy for a congregation to have finances and energy stolen from mission and diverted to maintaining a property to a standard demanded by some heritage group throwing around their weight without any accountability or responsibility. In my opinion the heritage movement needs to be checked and the 'protective' legislation wound back to restore rights to property owners. It would be good to exempt all buildings which are still being used for their original purpose and by the original organisation which owned it (or a successor of that organisation), and also to give the owners of a building the right to veto heritage listing if the organisation attempting to get it listed is not prepared to buy it at market value. In Australia at least, the heritage movement has let themselves down by refusing to be discerning about what they attempt to get listed, by attempting to say everything that's old has heritage value they've devalued the whole concept of a structure having heritage value.
Across all western nations, there are probably many congregations with dedicated buildings who may be best served by walking away from them, and likewise many 'homeless' congregations who would see a great benefit from having an appropriate dedicated facility. The church I'm part of was one of these homeless congregations that needed a dedicated building 22 years ago, and they were lucky enough to have in the same area a (now defunct) church of a different denomination with the opposite problem, so the building was purchased and the two congregations swapped places.
--------------------
If I give a homeopathy advocate a really huge punch in the face, can the injury be cured by giving them another really small punch in the face?
Posts: 4834 | From: Adelaide, South Australia. | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I disagree that traditional church buildings put people off - why else do people want to get married in church because it looks prettier or visit cathedrals?
They may get married there but rarely if ever, return.
Seems to me people often want a wedding in a formally attractive place, not a place they would want to visit regularly, the point of a wedding setting being unusually elegant, instead of daily.
Many people seen to think formal settings and informal behaviors -- like a contemporary praise band in an old cathedral -- are jarring. I've learned people feel uncomfortable if I pull out grandma's elegant fine china for a spaghetti feed. People feel like they have to be on formal behavior around formal tableware -- or in formal churches -- not relax and be themselves.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
SvitlanaV2 might be interested to hear that I attended an ecumenical service at our local Methodist church this morning and in some ways it felt a lot more 'Anglican' than what tends to go on at our Anglican parish week by week. At least they used the lectionary for a kick-off ...
Use of the lectionary is routine.
Charismatic-style worship is rarer (though not non-existent) in Methodism than in the CofE, so it's hardly surprising that an Anglican might find more 'traditionalism' in Methodist worship than in their own church. My former minister used to say that other Christians were always surprised when they realised that Methodist worship was quite liturgical.
Going back to the conversation about 'beautiful buildings', as a Methodist I hardly have the right to wax lyrical about the importance of a beautiful setting for worship!! Methodist churches still in use often date from the late 19th c. or 20th c., and are hardly stunning places, on the whole. The most sumptuous Victorian Methodist (Wesleyan) buildings have been demolished by now, as have many smaller chapels. There are apparently 700 Methodist chapels listed as being of architectural interest, but how many of them are still in use? Few of them will be known to 'ordinary' Methodists beyond the local area.
If Methodists particularly want to admire church architecture they usually visit Anglican churches, or else go abroad and visit Catholic ones. But they routinely worship God in rather plain buildings, and are comfortable with that. On the other hand, 'warehouse worship' doesn't suit the aspirational Methodist mind. It's probably too reminiscent of the antediluvian days when Methodists worshipped in barns....
[ 31. December 2012, 18:48: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spiffy
Ship's WonderSheep
# 5267
|
Posted
I call shenanigans on the post title! I was all excited to up and move churches to one that served liquor or beer!
Although one of the things we've discussed at my parish here in Beervana, where you can't swing a thurible without hitting a microbrewery and half the Vestry are homebrewers, myself included-- is setting up a small beer brewing apparatus in the basement. It's been mostly just talk....
--------------------
Looking for a simple solution to all life's problems? We are proud to present obstinate denial. Accept no substitute. Accept nothing.
--Night Vale Radio Twitter Account
Posts: 10281 | From: Beervana | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
poileplume
Shipmate
# 16438
|
Posted
Just a few items to back up what other people have posted.
1. We let out our church to denominations that are homeless to hold services. We have never had more than minor problems. If we are not using the church at that time, why not?
2. We let the church for marriages and funerals to just about anybody, including civil marriages. We have never thought it was strange. In fact I am working on a package including the reception venue.
3. I am also working on discrete screening for the altar etc. and talking to the town council about using the nave for events during the week. In Quebec church naves were used as public space up to the twentieth century, so there is precedence. (I concur totally with the problem of the pews – I can see a fight on my hands, from those for and against retaining them).
By the way to reply to other postings, traditionally churches in Quebec provision for alcohol to be partaken after the mass, including at least one that had a bar in parish room.
--------------------
Please note I am quite severely dyslexic
Posts: 319 | From: Quebec | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Re the use of chairs in cathedrals: ISTM that the pre-Reformation cathedrals didn't have seating at all. Like the Orthodox, visitors to the Cathedral stood in that era. The Cathedral wasn't the parish church, after all.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
And, just for Spiffy (no, actually for anyone interested) Beer and Singing
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
Point taken re use of chairs in Cathedrals, but pews were not exactly commonplace in ordinary parish churches until the 16th C, no?
Ian J.
--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)
Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
(Re weddings, it occurred to me the other day that there might be a good business opportunity to be had in buying up beautiful but neglected old churches, perhaps in rural areas, and renting them out as wedding venues. They could be used for civil weddings. People would have a beautiful setting for their wedding, but with none of the restrictions or requirements involved in having a religious wedding.)
I think that's a great idea!
Already done! I can remember getting into a conversation with some managers from a conservation society who were doing exactly that. I cannot remember whether it was the likes of English Heritage or someone like Friends of Friendless Churches.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Jengie
Thanks to you and others for reminding me of this! I was already vaguely aware of this happening. It doesn't appear to be extensive enough, though, considering the fears of the National Trust, etc., that England's heritage of ancient churches is underappreciated, and endangered. The link that you posted states that (Anglican) Welsh church buildings have more secure sources of support than English ones.
I suppose that some churches will just have to be demolished or allowed to deteriorate, while others, if they're in the right place or have the right associations, can be converted to other uses.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sure, I am familiar with how Methodist churches worship, SvitlanaV2 ... I attended one for about three months in 1981 and have probably visited about half a dozen Methodist services since that time ... I know that doesn't make for extensive knowledge. I was aware that most Methodists follow the lectionary, I was simply commenting on it because our parish church doesn't and I wish it did.
Then they could be more like me ... ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
So, Gamaliel, why don't you just become a Methodist?? Surely it would be simpler to make a 'traditional' Methodist church a bit more traditional than to get a charismatic Anglican church to switch over entirely...? ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
It seems to me that for the CofE, 'charismatic to traditional' would feel like a step backwards, whereas for the Methodists, moving from being a bit traditional to more traditional is a well-established path that appears to represent progress.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Point taken re use of chairs in Cathedrals, but pews were not exactly commonplace in ordinary parish churches until the 16th C, no?
Probably later than that. Certainly spinning the removal of pews as 'restoration to the original design' might be worth trying in some cases. However in others it is clearly a lost cause.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og: Thread Killer
Ship's token CN Mennonite
# 3200
|
Posted
So I was thinking about this and asked myself what I would if offered a church like this.
My answer - If there was a Mennonite church in an old warehouse with a bar in my neighbourhood, I would go.
Theology is important to many of us still.
And, I can't go to one of these new fangled spaces cause we don't own a car, and my neighbourhood was corn fields 50 years ago and never had warehouses on it. So, being near is important to some of us, but not all.
Soooooo...........
The building might win for those who are there, but if you can't get to the building, or don't want to be with those in the building, you arn't part of that.
--------------------
I wish I was seeking justice loving mercy and walking humbly but... "Cease to lament for that thou canst not help, And study help for that which thou lament'st."
Posts: 5025 | From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
the giant cheeseburger
Shipmate
# 10942
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
And, I can't go to one of these new fangled spaces cause we don't own a car, and my neighbourhood was corn fields 50 years ago and never had warehouses on it. So, being near is important to some of us, but not all.
Soooooo...........
The building might win for those who are there, but if you can't get to the building, or don't want to be with those in the building, you arn't part of that.
Well of course, if there is no disused warehouse in your area then a new church building designed to serve your area will have to be built from scratch or some structure of some other type fitted out to serve as a church venue. Just because some have talked about warehouses being used doesn't mean anybody thinks that it's just limited to disused warehouses, any suitably-sized vacant building could be fitted out to serve as a church's new venue.
Trying to get a suitably-sized allotment of vacant land for a church in a new greenfield development can be extremely difficult and expensive for a church, even if they do have a planning authority which requires space be set aside to be purchased by community organisations. This is even harder in a large urban renewal project, but at least there is more likely to be an option to use an existing structure in the area.
[ 03. January 2013, 05:46: Message edited by: the giant cheeseburger ]
--------------------
If I give a homeopathy advocate a really huge punch in the face, can the injury be cured by giving them another really small punch in the face?
Posts: 4834 | From: Adelaide, South Australia. | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
This is even harder in a large urban renewal project, but at least there is more likely to be an option to use an existing structure in the area.
This is a question that I have long wanted an answer too - and sorry if I come from this with an Anglican/RC sort of thought about parishes.
How easy is it to convert, say a house on a housing estate, into a Church - not renovation cost wise but more from a planning point of view.
I heard of the flat that the Community of St. Mary the Virgin used to have but that was a base for their work on a council estate, more a home opened up to others rather than acting as a central 'church' point in the community...
Since most new housing developments are away from the Parish Church (it having been situated for a much smaller community) and as far as I know never contain a Church in the building plan, there is a void in the spiritual presence in these new developments which could be solved by the conversion of a house as a modern day 'Chapel of Ease'... but of course how easy is that to do?
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
beatmenace
Shipmate
# 16955
|
Posted
Oh dear - 'relevance' again. Seems every so often this word gets dragged out to justify changing things.
I have always felt that church should take the shape of the people in it. If, like me , you like the church band cranked up to 11, the pre Reformation Norman ediface might not be the best place (I know - i have drummed in a Cathedral - its not exactly ideal acoustics for it).
When we refurbished our (former) Salvation Army building last year we looked at the type of things we did and rebuilt the space accordingly (for example boxed off the balcony into small rooms for Childrens work, build a specific soundmans box / proper stage etc).
The big danger with seeking 'relevance' is to try and look like something you are obviously not. No one is fooled by that and its easy to look silly.
If you are at home clubbing / gig going (say) then a NOS type setup might be already in your cultural landscape and as church be a logical extention of it, otherwise...just no. People laugh at you.
--------------------
"I'm the village idiot , aspiring to great things." (The Icicle Works)
Posts: 297 | From: Whitley Bay | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
beatmenace
Shipmate
# 16955
|
Posted
Sorry - for non Brits - NOS was Nine O'Clock Service a post-modern, alt worship church group which ran in Sheffield in the 90s.
It all ended up a bit messily but was a breath of fresh air ( or dank, noisy, and smokey with incence , if you prefer) when it started. But was geniunely an attempt for people FROM alternative culture to do church in their own way.
--------------------
"I'm the village idiot , aspiring to great things." (The Icicle Works)
Posts: 297 | From: Whitley Bay | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by beatmenace:
Sorry - for non Brits - NOS was Nine O'Clock Service a post-modern, alt worship church group which ran in Sheffield in the 90s.
It all ended up a bit messily but was a breath of fresh air ( or dank, noisy, and smokey with incence , if you prefer) when it started. But was geniunely an attempt for people FROM alternative culture to do church in their own way.
There is also the 'experiment' which is the Goth Eucharist I don't know too much about it, but it is crtainly an attempt at something with a different approach from the mainstream from what I gather.
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
This is even harder in a large urban renewal project, but at least there is more likely to be an option to use an existing structure in the area.
This is a question that I have long wanted an answer too - and sorry if I come from this with an Anglican/RC sort of thought about parishes.
How easy is it to convert, say a house on a housing estate, into a Church - not renovation cost wise but more from a planning point of view.
I heard of the flat that the Community of St. Mary the Virgin used to have but that was a base for their work on a council estate, more a home opened up to others rather than acting as a central 'church' point in the community...
Since most new housing developments are away from the Parish Church (it having been situated for a much smaller community) and as far as I know never contain a Church in the building plan, there is a void in the spiritual presence in these new developments which could be solved by the conversion of a house as a modern day 'Chapel of Ease'... but of course how easy is that to do?
Most large housing develoments contain provision for a community centre which is where local planners assume a church will meet: they also assume that any such churches will be ecumenical. They often won't entertain planning permission for denominational churches on such estates. This was the particular model in the development of Milton Keynes.
I've seen it elsewhere at Northampton, West Swindon, Plymouth, Cambourne (Cambridge), Bar Hill (Cambridge) - I;m sure there are other examples.
That doesn't stop - and it should encourage - Christians moving into such areas and themselves become the focus of faith/witness. It means using their homes but what are homes for anyway? It doesn't depend on clergy, just on Christians.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Heavenly Anarchist
Shipmate
# 13313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Point taken re use of chairs in Cathedrals, but pews were not exactly commonplace in ordinary parish churches until the 16th C, no?
Probably later than that. Certainly spinning the removal of pews as 'restoration to the original design' might be worth trying in some cases. However in others it is clearly a lost cause.
That's the approach St Helen's Bishopsgate used when battling with the Victorian society during the rebuild after the IRA bombs. They were restoring the church to its 14th century design.
--------------------
'I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by.' Douglas Adams
Dog Activity Monitor
My shop
Posts: 2831 | From: Trumpington | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Pages in this thread: 1 2
|
Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0
|
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
