Ship of Fools: Church in a warehouse, with bar

Thread: Church in a warehouse, with bar Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=024528

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

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 ]

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

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.

Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on :

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.

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

...ever since Christian congregations started to take over temples, basilicas and other public buildings following the Edict of Milan.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

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?

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

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.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

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.

Posted by mrs whibley (# 4798) on :

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?

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

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.)

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

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.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

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.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

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?

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

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!

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

There are already some of these disused churches operating as wedding venues.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

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.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

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.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

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.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

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.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

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]

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

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

Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on :

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.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

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.

Posted by roybart (# 17357) on :

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 ]

Posted by Dennis the Menace (# 11833) on :

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!

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

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.

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

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.

Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :

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...

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

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.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

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.

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

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.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

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.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

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 ]

Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :

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....

Posted by poileplume (# 16438) on :

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.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

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.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

And, just for Spiffy (no, actually for anyone interested) Beer and Singing

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

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.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

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

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

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.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

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 ... [Biased]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

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]

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.

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

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.

Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :

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.

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

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 ]

Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :

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?

Posted by beatmenace (# 16955) on :

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.

Posted by beatmenace (# 16955) on :

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.

Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :

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.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

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.

Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on :

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.

Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
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 ...[]... That doesn't stop - and it should encourage - Christians moving into such areas and themselves become the focus of faith/witness.

I'm sure of course that you are aware of the problems raised above by others about the use of community centres as Churches and have no need to repeat them.

Further, whilst ecumenical relations are, in the main, a good thing, I am not a post-denominational Christian, I am an Anglican because I firmly believe it has as true as possible a theology and Church governance, if I thought non-conformists had it right I'd be a Methodist/Presbyterian/etc/etc. Therefore an Ecumenical builing is going to lack certain things in my view...

Whilst I fully respect the point you make about builders not factoring in a denominational space (in fact I made that point...) it doesn't answer my question of the ease, or lack thereof, of converting a house into a space for Church in the middle of a housing estate...

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Now I know why Beatmenace is called that.

I agree with him that a cathedral provides poor acoustics for a drum kit. They weren't intended for drum'n'bass.

I'm just glad he's found a former Sally Army building to play with his toys. Then he doesn't subject the rest of us to it ...

[Razz]

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

When a United Church of Canada congregation in downtown Halifax, NS, ran into the "building-too-big, too-hard-to-heat, etc." problem, they pulled the whole thing down and built a seniors' apartment building (which got them considerable gov't, and other, assistance) which included space for convenience stores and a worship space/hall on the ground floor, all in the space that the old church used to occupy.

So they stayed put in their old neighbourhood, while having a modern, multi-purpose space available in a place that needs their presence (even for the non-church-goers)

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
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.

In the UK, many warehouse-type churches are likely to be accessible by public transport, as they're in or near major cities or towns. I imagine that access is one of the factors taken into account when choosing a site. But of course, every church will be inaccessible to someone, if only to the housebound.

quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
I'm sure of course that you are aware of the problems raised above by others about the use of community centres as Churches and have no need to repeat them.

Since noone's yet mentioned the problems of church ownership, perhaps I should do so. Many Anglican churches enjoy a certain degree of subsidy, so I understand, but this isn't the case for most Nonconformist churches. My church building was finally closed, despite soaking up years of our finances, and years of trying to come up with alternative solutions. Although renters have challenges, they're liberated from the constant demands of maintaining a large and inflexible (if historical) building, demands which often detract from the other duties of a church. Also, some church commentators note that the dynamic of church life changes once it moves from a house or hired hall to its own building, and not necessarily for the better. The new church movements should be wary of rushing into real estate ownership.

If you've already got an old, deteriorating building and have enough money left to demolish it and rebuild something more serviceable, as in Horseman Bree's example that's great. But many congregations (at least in the UK) leave it too late.

British housing estates have always been difficult for churches to penetrate. But necessity could be the mother of invention. If there's no space to build an Anglican church, perhaps these places could develop the cell church model. Maybe this is already happening. It won't satisfy those Anglicans who need to worship in beautiful surroundings, but such people can either catch a bus to worship elsehwere, or, more likely, they're probably not living on an estate in the first place!

[ 03. January 2013, 12:07: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

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.

How this goes depends on the proactivity of the authority overseeing the development, and the church in question. A denomination which is well-organised when it comes to effectively communicating with government agencies and gets involved early on in the development process (i.e. before the street layout is locked in!) shouldn't have a problem getting in if it's a large development. This is certainly the experience of the Uniting Church in Australia (in South Australia at least) with numerous new facilities in the last 20 years that have managed to get into excellent locations, including one large allotment still yet to be built on in the northern suburbs where the government was practically begging them to commit to the area.

One model that is well worth considering for new developments is a purposeful co-location with a new private school, with the co-location planned and designed for right from the start of the building's planning process. This can allow an effective sharing of space so that there is some dedicated space (a separate entrance, a couple of good-sized meeting rooms, plenty of office space for the staff and storage for equipment) that the church can use 100% of the time, but with the main space used for worship being an auditorium shared with the school having Monday-Friday use and priority for some night meetings. Throw in a commitment to some spaces of the new joint facility being available for other groups a few nights a week, and perhaps accepting some restrictions on the school's fees and being open to all, and you have a package that would stack up very well to any planning authority. This is a method that worked very well for what is now one of the largest Uniting Church congregations in the north-east of the Adelaide metropolitan area which shares space with a large Christian school owned by the Uniting and Anglican Churches - the primary thing is that it's given them a dedicated facility right in the centre of a large area, while almost all the other churches are around the fringe of what was a greenfield development originally..

Conversion of a house is as close as you'll ever get to a complete no-no, there you would be up against zoning issues, requirement of development approval which would be open to public comment and so on. For example, if there isn't adequate space for car parking what is the plan there? Attempting to get away with that on the sly is also not a great idea, governments (in Australia at least) are usually fairly sharp when it comes to maintaining zoning restrictions and are not afraid to send a business/group packing if they are breaking the rules.

Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
For example, if there isn't adequate space for car parking what is the plan there?

This may be a difference on what is considered a sizeable housing estate in the UK to Australia, but if the building were to be converted it would be for the local area, the immediate housing estate so I can't see parking being an issu in reality...

I always liked the idea of the cell style in estates, but turning them into a more lay-mininstry outreach... an open 'monastic' settlement which has the primary purpose of being a source of social aid and centre of information to those around them - from what I gather of Fresh Expressions this is something of a key component so I'm possibly treading on already worn paths (I have a lot of experience of poor estates rather than rich ones so much more concerned with that...) but also provides a space for those in the community who maybe do not want to go to the parish Church but want a more relaxed and informal set of options including meditation etc.

Posted by Huia (# 3473) on :

Due to the severity of earthquakes and aftershocks in Christchurch since Sept2010, the government has changed the building code for all buildings used by the public throughout NZ. This means that many buildings will either have to be strengthened to meet the new standards or demolished completely and possibly rebuilt.

This change means difficult decisions about the future of the churches in some areas will have to be made. I know in one small city (Nelson) the Methodists and Presbytarians are both selling their buildings and going to use a floor in a new multi-storied building. (I'm not clear whether they are merging or just sharing the space).

I'm hoping that out of the grieving for what has been will come new creative solutions both in terms of building design and use of other space.

One of the factors affecting the decisions is that the cost of insurance has now risen to the level where some churches in Christchurch have deciced to remain uninsured.

Huia

Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on :

The emerging church deals in coffee, couches and candelabra so to speak.

It also like to convert old building for it's purposes and this is not a new phenomenon, British charismatics have been at it for years.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong in a church doing this IMHO.....but......there is a tendency in churches for a shallow self agrandisment and that can become a serious problem.

If the O2 arena (in London) can have that sound system or such and such a group has that, well why can't we have it to make us hip and cool etc.

Many charismatic churches have tried it with varying degrees of success. In the USA the scale will be larger than say in the UK, but the underlying issues, both good and bad will be the same.

Saul

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
Conversion of a house is as close as you'll ever get to a complete no-no.

Mind you, it's been going on for centuries ...

Posted by beatmenace (# 16955) on :

quote:
I'm just glad he's found a former Sally Army building to play with his toys. Then he doesn't subject the rest of us to it ...

Indeed - unless you live next door and like to sleep in on a Sunday morning.

I've suffered for my art and now its your turn......

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Heavenly Anarchist:
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've been to St Helens a few times - they have a lunchtime service during the week - and I've noticed that the interior arrangement looks a bit odd, like it's deliberately set out so that no-one faces east!
The Orthodox, you might be surprised to know, can set up Church more or less anywhere. Although we usually use buildings with some history of Christian usage (sometimes we share buildings with Anglicans) there's nothing to stop us using a barn or warehouse if there's nothing else suitable around - so long as the Bishop blesses the place.
A few icons, candles and incense soon make anywhere feel like a church!

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

(Something tells me I've probably missed the point completely.)

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0