Ship of Fools: Renovation... Renovation... Renovation, That's What You Need

Thread: Renovation... Renovation... Renovation, That's What You Need 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=024824

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :

Hi, I'm Wood.

You may remember me from a long time ago. I used to come here a lot and then I realised that I had run out of things to say so I stopped saying things and from time to time I wander by and say hello.

Anyway. So I have been going to an Anglican church for about 18 months now, and in that time a lot of stuff has changed.

But anyway. This isn't the spot for that.

Here's the thing. Mrs Wood's been going to Vestry Meetings and PCC meetings, and there's this recent discussion about doing some renovatin' on our lovely Victorian Oxford-Movement church, which for the sake of convenience I shall call St. P.

See, for reasons that make a whole lot of sense, there's this proposal that four rows of pews right at the back of the church should go.

The space is needed for other things (which things are a testament to the recent success of the church in getting along new families and new people); and crucially no one ever sits there.

I am afraid that I am sorely lacking on the terms of church architecture, since I am only a new Anglican, but you don't walk into the church right at the back, you walk in about a quarter of the way along. And these four rows of pews are behind where you walk in, sort of an island behind the main pews, separate.

Anyway, since the meeting, a bunch of the older members of the congregation have taken to turning up to every service and sitting firmly, grim-faced, arms folded, in those four rows of pews right at the back, miles away from the table and the pulpit altar. Look, this is as if to say, they are being sat in, because we are sitting in them. To much consternation from many, and much amusement from me, because it is funny on so many levels.

I suppose the question is, to what extent is a renovation of a lovely old building (or even a not that old building, this being only 163 years old) justified?

Here's another example. So my brother-in-law goes to a big Anglican church over in England - we shall call it St. A - that is not as it was.

The pews are gone. Big bright lights are everywhere.

More importantly, there is now a stage. On the side of the church. Here's the problem. Those clever old architects built this place to have acoustics that go THIS way (points at one end of church and then the other) so you can talk at the pulpit this end and hear what's said at THIS end.

But now the entire order of the interior's been turned 90 degrees, carpeted, and lit and here's a rock band, and they're playing and talking at you in THIS direction. So what they've done is put F***off huge speakers on all the pillars blasting the sound out every which way meaning that the place is a super-lit super-loud migraine waiting to happen.

And there is no. escape. It's horrible. I hate it. I avoid going there whenever possible.

Now on the one hand, mounting a campaign of non-violent resistance through the expedient of parking one's arse because someone wants to take out four rows of pews that no one has sat in for ages (in real terms) and the space could be used for the benefit of the church is one thing.

On the other, ripping it all out and massacring the acoustics and harmony of the building is quite another.

But how much is too much? I mean, St. A's congregation seem to like it and, by crikey, there sure are a lot of them.

But does that make it right? Are the maverick pensioners of St. P right to think this the thin end of a wedge that might one day result in it becoming like St. A?

I'm not saying that losing the pews is always wrong - the spare, unadorned Baptist church that I used to go to years ago lost its airline-seat splintery pews for nice wooden chairs with upholstery and everyone admitted it improved the place (but then, it was a pretty ugly church and modernisation could only improve it).

OK, enough from me. Here's the tl;dr version of the question: In matters, of church renovation, where do you draw the line?

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

There is a firm belief among happening liturgists that sitting in rows is oppressive, and that sitting in frakkin' circles is soooooo spiritual. I draw the line at "church-in-the round" renovations.

My last parish didn't renovate, but it did get new lighting. I have to warn you that today's over-bright lighting systems really ruin the mood at Christmas Eve services, and energy efficient ones don't work on dimmer switches so it's either pitch black or face-of-the-sun bright. Just something to keep in mind.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Hi, I'm Alan.

I remember Wood from a long, long time ago.

We recently moved to a different church. Sorry, this might sound like a bitch about the old church. The old church had movable pews, they were frequently turned around to face a stage for concerts, or stacked to side to make space for church fetes (although, not in recent years as they'd given up on such things). In Church Meetings there had been discussions about children in church, as there wasn't anyone willing to lead a Sunday School. A suggestion was raised that some of the older, more decrepid, pews be removed and the rest moved forward to provide space at the back where a space for the few children we had to colour, play with quiet soft toys, listen to the sermon & sing hymns if thy wished, supervised by one or more parents who could also participate in the service. It would also force the congregation a bit further forward marginally reducing the empty pew space, which would be no bad thing IMO. The idea was dismissed out of hand by the Meeting. Not because they were attached to the pews (the old ones have subsequently been skipped and not replaced anyway) but simply that it would introduce a way of accomodating children that was different from the way it had always been done.

We are at a new church. The congregation there is smaller, and a bit over 15 years ago they tore down the drafty barn of a building they were rattling around in, sold some land for sheltered housing and built a new multi-purpose building which serves as a worship space on Sunday mornings and a hall for a large number of different community groups during the week. I know which of the two is a more healthy approach.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

We all know people are more important than things. the trouble comes in when you've got decide between two sets of people, like the protesting elders and the children--or whoever--might need that space.

Generally what we do (being Asian) is try to schlep everybody into a consensus. Sometimes deep guile is needed, such as appointing two or three of the most likely to resist elders to whatever group is trying to meet the needs of the children, waiting until they are invested emotionally, and THEN raising the issue. [Two face]

Posted by Balaam (# 4543) on :

Depends on the church.

The CofE church that I attend has chairs, lights, platform and sound system. Given the choice, St A would be my place if I lived near you.

The building we have fits our needs, but then again we are so far down the candle as to be subterranean.

You say yours is an Oxford Movement church. In that case I'd strongly warn against going down the route of Church A. You have to have room to swing a thurible after all.

So I wouldn't go down the road of changing the nave much. Not in an Oxford Movement church anyway. Nor a PA system large enough for Glastonbury. (An organ with enough stops out that you don't just hear the bass but feel it though is a fine thing [Smile]

)

The church should reflect the needs of the congregation and the community. It looks like St P reaches part of the community that St A misses, and vice versa. I see them as being complementary, not competitive. Stick to your distinctiveness.

As for changing an area at the back to accommodate the needs of those that the church is reaching, I see this as a sensible idea which would not detract from what is distinctive about the way you worship. Go for it, but take the time to find out if there is something the church can do to accommodate those who are protesting.

You say they are older members of the congregation, could the church run a monthly weekday lunch for them? Or something else? Whatever it is you have to show them by your actions that they are cared for too and not just the young families.

I'll finish by saying that if this post contains any evangelical jargon, forgive me, but we do attend the polar opposites of Anglicanism.

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :

Thanks, all.

I should add that by "Oxford Movement" I mean "built in the heyday of" and that on a sunday St. P has an MOR communion service with a little music group at 0930 and little kids running about and a full-on choral sung eucharist at 1100, and I go to the first of those.

Oh, and there's a regular breakfast for the old folks. And loads of things. It's a busy little church, but not threatening in the way that my old church got.

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

Yay, Wood is back!

I have nothing particular to add to the thread except to say that... whatever is proposed will upset someone. Many with good justification, maybe not. But they WILL be upset, for a while at least. So, er, good luck!

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

163 isn't that old. And the mid C19 was more the era for dismal pitch pine than the attractive pews of say 1750, or really rare ones from 1450.

The real question is would having a space at the back serve the church's mission? It sounds as though it would.

If your brother-in-law's church is the one I think it might be, I'd agree with you that it feels skewed the wrong way round, and their music is much too loud. However, I suspect it might not have been that great before. And they do have a huge congregation, many of whom I suspect wouldn't be Christians at all if it wasn't for them. So in mission terms they must be dong something right that a lot of churches laid out the right way round may not be.

It's unfortunately unlikely that clever old architects designed the acoustics to fit the building on its original alignment. Until surprisingly recently, a lot of architects don't seem to have known much about acoustics, or have thought there might be any reason why they should. I'm not even sure how much knowledge there actually was, had they been bothered to try and find out. Some of the worst examples are as recent as the 1950s.

Also, many older churches got put together bit by bit, century by century, without any overseeing plan.

Isn't the real question though, whether it suits him and your sister, rather than whether it suits you?

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

Take a look at the Cathedral in Philadelphia, and make sure your church *doesn't* do anything they did. The term "wreckovation" is particularly appropriate here.

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

Just to note that, as I suggested before, this can be an emotive topic and one on which people's opinions may validly differ. It would probably be better for the development of the thread if loaded terms like 'wreckovation' were avoided.

Many thanks for everyone's co-operation.

dj_ordinaire, Eccles host

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :

Aw no, I only just came back. I don't want a flame war.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
Thanks, all.

I should add that by "Oxford Movement" I mean "built in the heyday of" and that on a sunday St. P has an MOR communion service with a little music group at 0930 and little kids running about and a full-on choral sung eucharist at 1100, and I go to the first of those.

Oh, and there's a regular breakfast for the old folks. And loads of things. It's a busy little church, but not threatening in the way that my old church got.

If what you are doing is working and the parish is growing, then stick with it. However, I do think that the bolshie pensioners are being a little short-sighted in refusing to allow the removal of four rear rows.

OTOH, if their fear is that the next stop is praise bands, loud music, and a stage in one aisle then that needs to be addressed. It is important to address those concerns. The management needs to say, right out of the gate, that there is no hidden agenda, and carefully explain what they want to do with the space.

Many of us who are of a more traditional bent have war stories about the thin edge of the wedge, and what came after that, and after that, and after that... Mine starts with a green felt banner.

PD

Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on :

quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
Yay, Wood is back!

I have nothing particular to add to the thread except to say that... whatever is proposed will upset someone. Many with good justification, maybe not. But they WILL be upset, for a while at least. So, er, good luck!

I'm with dj_o on this point.

I will add that I am not in favor of change for the sake of change, and that I am adamantly opposed to poorly-done church renovations. The end result should be spectacular, and should not detract from the existing beauty of the space, preferably adding to it. If a church cannot accomplish this, then they shouldn't undertake the renovation. It is perfectly okay to work with the designers of the renovation to make sure that it looks spectacular, as if it has always been part of the building, and it is perfectly okay to find designers who are willing to work within the congregation's own parameters.

Wood, in my experience with those old grumps (and I have been on both sides of this...) it really helps to engage them positively. Truth be told, most of them are probably thrilled that the church of their childhood is seeming to come into its own again. Of course, that brings in all sorts of new opinions and ideas. What you need to make sure to do is to engage them. They may have a valid point--if the church is growing, is it such a good idea to eliminate seating without a contingency plan for adding additional seating at a later time? Then again, maybe their issues are simply concerning the appearance. One must admit that most, but definitely not all, church renovations are hideous. Perhaps this crowd could help with design consulting. I would simply ask them what they suggest should happen to provide space for the new programming and membership needs.

[ 12. June 2012, 20:39: Message edited by: Martin L ]

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PD:

quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
Thanks, all.

I should add that by "Oxford Movement" I mean "built in the heyday of" and that on a sunday St. P has an MOR communion service with a little music group at 0930 and little kids running about and a full-on choral sung eucharist at 1100, and I go to the first of those.

Oh, and there's a regular breakfast for the old folks. And loads of things. It's a busy little church, but not threatening in the way that my old church got.
*snip*
OTOH, if their fear is that the next stop is praise bands, loud music, and a stage in one aisle then that needs to be addressed. It is important to address those concerns. The management needs to say, right out of the gate, that there is no hidden agenda, and carefully explain what they want to do with the space.

Many of us who are of a more traditional bent have war stories about the thin edge of the wedge, and what came after that, and after that, and after that... Mine starts with a green felt banner.PD

PD has a point. I have on several occasions seen thin-end-of-the-wedge manoeuvres put into play. I fear that some renovators believe that, since their goal is righteous, all possible means to attain the goal are equally righteous. The four rear pew gang might have reason to distrust proponents, or they might not. Renovator need to sit with them in all honesty and see if they can find a way ahead. A mediator might be needed to help both parties look honestly at themselves in the mirror.

Enoch felt that 163 years is not old.... ah in my neck of the woods it is ancient-- older than the country. These churches are sometimes the oldest existing building in a place-- in some places, they are an extraordinary artistic and cultural expression of the aspirations and skills of the first settlers. When there are historical designations in play, renovators have to first realize that it is not simply their playground, and that they need to carefully think about what they actually want, and the best way to go about it. (The Québec government is pretty generous with its aid to heritage properties, for those churches lucky enough to be in that province)

Posted by CorgiGreta (# 443) on :

Hallo, Wood. I'm happy to see you back posting.

I generally oppose removing pews. It seems to signal a church in decline, and hopefully the day will come when those pews are needed at least for overflow on Christmas Eve and Easter.

Not that long ago, my parish could have justifiably removed up to half its pews, but now, due to unforseen growth during the last decade, we need all those pews and then some.

Is there any chance that the renovation will allow at least occasional use of the space for overflow seating? That would satisfy me, and I'm likely as old, crusty, and opinionated as the pew squatters in your parish.

Greta

Posted by Amazing Grace (# 95) on :

Hello Wood! Glad you're back!

Oh dear, oh dear. This does appear to have gotten to a bad place. What you all are proposing sounds perfectly reasonable to me. In my historic-by-California-standards church, we didn't even put the last pew-removal (to accommodate the new font while leaving sufficient room for the choir and musicians) up to the PCC-equivalent. The relevant parties had a discussion and set a date, then the choir assisted the sexton in getting the pews moved upstairs. We'd already done some pew-rearranging to make a carpeted space for children and some spaces good for wheelchairs.

(Now our redevelopment process ... THAT went through the whole megillah. Including having someone who's doing the equivalent of moving to the back benches and pouting.)

I think that PD+ has the right of it; to some people any change is threatening because it feels like a thin edge of the wedge.

I'd suggest a charm campaign with the "sitters" - have someone listen to their concerns, allay their fears, go over why it's happening. Gush about the growth in young families. But LET THEM RANT if they need to, and then work on bringing them around positively. That sort of thing. Start with the ringleaders and work out.

Some sort of parish meeting may or may not be appropriate. If you have one, having an "outside" leader running it would likely be optimal. Ask the Diocese/Deanery for recommendations.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

This sounds like a family church, the common type that tries to be average for its denominational identity and caters to local families.

I've been in plenty of these churches. I love these churches. At their best they are a fantastic amount of fun. However I was in one a few years ago and there were no children. There had been children, but there weren't any anymore. I was younger than the rest of the congregation by decades. There is nothing sadder than a family church without children. I enjoy hearing a baby cry in our current congregation, it's such a delight when you realize how dreadful the alternative is.

The proposed renovation sounds very reasonable, it is designed to enhance everything about the current church's identity and practice and not eliminate anything, except a few pews. This is a good kind of renovation, an honest one. I agree with PD that the the protesters need to be engaged and convinced of this; they probably want to be so convinced and I'll give a 50/50 chance that's the real reason they're doing it.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

I have pastored family size churches throughout my ministry and the dynamics are usually such that change has to be wrangled through rather than imposed. My usual method has been to start with vacuous remarks like "we need some space for such-and-such." Then I collar the biggest stick-in-the-mud or dragonlady in the parish and see how they suggest dealing with it. In most parishes if you can get the parish's Big Momma on side then you are free and clear, the women are far better at running the men than vice versa. If the matriarchs are behind a project then you won't get much real opposition.

OTOH, if you don't get the Parochial Big Momma, or the Parish Stick-in-the-Mud (preferably both) on your side then you have two options:

1. Retreat gracefully - for which reason I do the vacuous comments routine because I do not want to seem committed until it seems politically practical.

2. Push the change through with the backing of the PCC. However, you will need to start scouring the parishes vacant column in the denominational "chip-wrapper."

PD

[ 13. June 2012, 05:05: Message edited by: PD ]

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

The best thing is probably to let the Minister and lucky person on the PCC who is responsible for the renovations to talk directly to the people who’ve taken to sitting in the pews individually and find out what the issue is. And then address it in the way that Amazing Grace describes:

quote:
I'd suggest a charm campaign with the "sitters" - have someone listen to their concerns, allay their fears, go over why it's happening. Gush about the growth in young families. But LET THEM RANT if they need to, and then work on bringing them around positively. That sort of thing. Start with the ringleaders and work out.

Some sort of parish meeting may or may not be appropriate. If you have one, having an "outside" leader running it would likely be optimal. Ask the Diocese/Deanery for recommendations.

Accept that whatever you do, Someone Is Going To Be Unhappy. [Even in the kind of church where these things are discussed in a Meeting and voted upon, people will be unhappy and do the pouty thing].

Nice to see you back btw. [Yipee]

Tubbs

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

It's unfortunately unlikely that clever old architects designed the acoustics to fit the building on its original alignment. Until surprisingly recently, a lot of architects don't seem to have known much about acoustics, or have thought there might be any reason why they should.

I once, unexpectedly, had the rather odd experience of being a congregation of one reading the responses to Common Worship Evening Prayer being said by one clergyperson responses in Rochester Cathedral (no choir, most tourists not there to take part in the service). Its not as big as many cathedrals but its arguably the oldest interior of any large church in England ("arguably" because like all old churches its had lots of changes) The acousitcs were so good that an ordinary speaking voice - not a "reading aloud" voice but a quiet speaking voice - could be heard throughout the whole space. I could even hear my own echoes coming back. I think those builders knew what they were doing. (Doesn't mean they all did of course)

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

With the exception of St Paul's Cathedral, 17th and 18th century building - provided the Victorians did not bugger around with them too much - usually have good acoustics. The Waterloo Churches are also pretty good. However some Victorian churches look good, but you cannot make yourself heard 20 feet from the pulpit! Either that or you have the echo from hell. Modern churches usually have sound systems and quite often they do not need them. Usual proviso though - one has to be careful not to mumble nor drop one's voice too far at the end of sentences. Those bad habits can defeat even the best (or most obnoxious) of sound systems.

PD

Posted by Amazing Grace (# 95) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PD:
I have pastored family size churches throughout my ministry and the dynamics are usually such that change has to be wrangled through rather than imposed. My usual method has been to start with vacuous remarks like "we need some space for such-and-such." Then I collar the biggest stick-in-the-mud or dragonlady in the parish and see how they suggest dealing with it. In most parishes if you can get the parish's Big Momma on side then you are free and clear, the women are far better at running the men than vice versa. If the matriarchs are behind a project then you won't get much real opposition.

True, dat.

Posted by St Everild (# 3626) on :

I call these the "as it was in the beginning, is now and for ever shall be" group.

I had a similar debate about the need for baby changing facilities. We didn't need them as we didn't have families with children of that age...we did have a mom and tot group running on a different day, however, and families bringing their kids for baptism.
What changed that (sorry) was someone known t the principal objector coming along to a baptism, and having difficulty changing their baby. A changing mat on the floor of the disabled accessible loo wasn't good enough, and very soon a baby changing facility was introduced...

Good luck with moving the pews. Your church will need a faculty to do so, the objectors can have their say if the matter hasn't been resolved beforehand, and the chancellor will take not account the missy needs of the parish.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

Lrt me introduce you to Margaret, she was a Methodist and I trust has gone to just reward because on one level she showed all the signs of being a saint. On more than one occasion Margaret then in her eighties took a stranger into her home and cared for them. This is important, please remember it in what I post next.

Margaret was also disliked change at least in church. So much so that at one clear out she was found crying over chucking out a broken tea cup. No I am not making this up. It was to her the last cup of a set that was donated to the church by a long departed member and therefore special. It might have been possible to deal with this, but this was not exceptional for Margaret and nothing would have been chucked out that day if it had been up to her.

To what extent do we humour Margaret's foibles and to what extent do we go ahead and ignore someone who in other ways is a far better saint than I will ever be? How do you deal with things pastorally when needs are so conflicted.

For that is crucial, let's not pretend that those who want change are in some ways more spiritual than those that don't. They aren't, and I say that as a paid up member of the change club.

My own conclusion is we need to walk with humility, help people cope with the fear and start thinking that the task is to get change through, often the task is to get people to be willing to try something new, and that means building up trust around change.

Jengie

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
For that is crucial, let's not pretend that those who want change are in some ways more spiritual than those that don't. They aren't, and I say that as a paid up member of the change club.

My own conclusion is we need to walk with humility, help people cope with the fear and start thinking that the task is to get change through, often the task is to get people to be willing to try something new, and that means building up trust around change.

This is a very very good point. I am not involved in either side of the discussions, and my wife has actually decided to go back to my old church, so won't be going to any more vestry meetings.

It's possible that in the acrimony between the two sides of the debate, something has been lost, and I think your post gets to the heart of that.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

A lot depends on how much you trust the decision-making body of the church. Are they only asking to remove four rows of pews because four rows would make a very lovely meeting area / child play area, and only four rows are needing to be removed? (In which case, go ahead).

Or are they being dishonest, planning to start with four rows, then another four, then another, and gradually - when they can get away with it - the whole lot? (If so they need to make their intentions very clear so you know what you are dealing with. And can express your disapproval of the scheme if need be.)

Personally, I don't mind if they get rid of some of the pews, as long as they don't get rid of the lot - for example to extend the children's play area, which is currently very small and cramped. But I promise to haunt forevermore anyone who dares permanently remove the choir stalls. [Mad]

Posted by Bran Stark (# 15252) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
My last parish didn't renovate, but it did get new lighting. I have to warn you that today's over-bright lighting systems really ruin the mood at Christmas Eve services, and energy efficient ones don't work on dimmer switches so it's either pitch black or face-of-the-sun bright. Just something to keep in mind.

Almost every church I've been in has been far too bright. If it's daytime, and you have big windows, then you don't need artificial lighting at all. And if it's dark outside, you need just enough to be able to see. No more.

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:

Or are they being dishonest, planning to start with four rows, then another four, then another, and gradually - when they can get away with it - the whole lot?

OK, no. No one wants that. And I mean, no one.

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Wood:

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:

Or are they being dishonest, planning to start with four rows, then another four, then another, and gradually - when they can get away with it - the whole lot?
OK, no. No one wants that. And I mean, no one.

Anybody who has attempted to get a faculty for the removal of pews will know, that it is a very long and arduous process. With opportunities for objections along the way. To have a plan to remove by stealth like this, would have to be a seriouly long term plan - years and years

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

My feeling is that, as with liturgy, whatever you do you gain something and you lose something. The congregation needs to recognize this and decide what it is they want to gain, and what it is they're willing to lose.

I'm sure it's not that simple, though.

I personally am NOT in favor of violating the integrity of a building. I've often heard people say, "Architecture always wins," and then proceed to bruise and bloody themselves banging against the architecture (metaphorically, of course).

But the church building is sacramental - it's not just four walls like a warehouse. It's not just a convenient place to meet. Care should be taken to understand what the building is saying. For example, the traditional church with its sanctuary and altar on the east side, entrance on the west, represents our pilgrimage toward heaven, and in a very tangible, bodily way, orients us toward the Good, True, and Beautiful. It also orients the congregation together, in a common enterprise. That's not very post-modern, and if you want to bring a post-modern sensibility into an older building (e.g., you can't afford to simply build yourself a new building), you shouldn't just do it haphazardly as if you weren't fighting against the building you do have. I'm sure there are ways to make an adjustment like that once you've understood and taken into consideration the character of the building as it stands.

But taking out a few pews at the back, IMO, is hardly renovation. Taking out all the pews, or moving them to face a different direction, while technically just a rearrangement of furniture, would feel like a renovation and should be undertaken with lots of serious consideration.

I attended a funeral a couple years ago in a Catholic church that had turned 90 degrees in order to place an altar on something like a stage in a way that the chairs could be gathered (sort of) around it. The altar was slightly forward from the wall, but the sanctuary was still up against a wall. It looked completely wrong to me. The former sanctuary was simply a vacant space. It would be much better, IMO, had they at least created a separate chapel in the apse, perhaps finding a good way to visually separate the spaces so you didn't feel (as I did) that the congregation was ignoring the old altar and using a make-shift one.

(edited to make my post even longer - I mean, to add)

Harmony is an essential quality of beauty. Churches should be beautiful. As Hans Urs von Balthasar said, “We can be sure that whoever sneers at Beauty’s name . . . can no longer pray and soon will no longer be able to love.”

[ 14. June 2012, 20:24: Message edited by: churchgeek ]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0