One of the most popular themes I encounter at the moment is that of 'getting rid of buildings'. Time and time again I find myself in a meeting or conversation where this issue is raised.
"Why don't we get rid of our buildings, they are a money pit and not fit for service (or services)," they cry. "We'd be much more flexible and could meet in [insert your location here], where everyone in the area would come!" Having been privileged to have planted a few churches over the years I generally sit and smile at these words and the wondrous naivety of the speakers. the problem is that they, generally, have been Anglicans for all of their Christian life and know no different. BUT . .
Not having a building is great, especially on a Sunday when you arrive with all the kit for the service (which now occupies your garage, spare room or most of the house) and, having loaded it into the vehicle, unload it. You take it into the building (one of the plants we did was up four flights of stairs!) and set up. Having done the service you then pack everything up (which takes ages) and take it out to the vehicle, load it and take it back home and unpack it.
Alongside this there is the gathering, and arranging, of the chairs followed by the stacking and removing same back to the place where they live (and they never seemed to live in the same place that you were going to do your service).
Drop into the mix the caretaker, who often appeared to be lurking somewhere that made them visible enough to let you know they'd like you to finish and clear the building so they could get back to their Sunday off!
ADD to this . . . .
The fact that even though you'd like to be doing a service on a bank holiday weekend, the building just isn't available and we'd love you to do something on Ash Wednesday but we'd love you to do it somewhere else! Christmas? Not a chance - could you do it somewhere else?
CONSIDER this . . .
The 'if we do it they will come' approach doesn't work when you're in a sports hall or a school hall. You might be doing a great job and the services may be sublime but whilst you will have your regulars the reality is that the casual drop-in visitor, the seeker of God because of some amazing epiphany and those who want a pretty 'looks like a church' venue just are going to make it. Mind you, if you are in a small place more will be aware that you're meeting (but will still want something more like church!).
THE REALITY is . .
One of the biggest dreams in every church plant I have done is that glorious day when the church has its own building and the lugging in and out of equipment ends; when there is a 7*24 presence and the ability to put something on the wall becomes more than a dream. That wonderful moment when you realise that the all night prayer meeting can happen and that almost indescribable feeling that rises up at the reality that you can walk in and everything is already set up (for those who doubt the frustration, niggle and eventual throwing out of the toys that is the bringing and taking, setting up and breaking down of kit all I can do is suggest that they give it a try for three months - and that's without the fact that it adds a couple of hours to the Sunday, EVERY Sunday).
We don't need to get rid of our buildings but we need to engage with the planners, the (never go to church but wants a say) Victorian, Dickens, 'Whoever was here' and 'whatever happened here' societies and those who want to conserve 'their' church and tell them the realities. If they want to pay for the roof restoration (£250k please) or the essential work on the organ (£75k) or rewire, replumb or whatever else needs doing (just give me all your money) then they can have a say in what is going on. BUT . .
Church is living stones and the building that houses them needs to be fit for purpose. Where we have buildings that don't do what we need, then we need to re-order them. Where we have buildings which are special because of the many generations of additions, modifications and the leaving of fingerprints, we need to preserve them and change the interiors sympathetically. But change them we must! And where this is not possible then we should perhaps bite the bullet and, as an extreme last resort, hand them over to the councils, preservation societies or the state.
Note the 'last resort comment though, for when we let go of our landmark buildings; when we leave a place without a visible (or invisible, done in some school, hall or house) church presence we are leaving that place, barring a great revival, without a Christian influence (and place of safety, welcome and salvation) for good.
Time to stop saying we need to get rid of buildings and time to start making buildings do what we 9and the community) need them to do and if this means a Post Office, newsagents and general store in the church hall (or even the back of the church or in a spare room) then so be it. Church should be seen and felt throughout the communities we serve and church buildings should serve the Church and the communities in the same way.
believe me - not having a building is bigger than you think (as I hope you'll see with the next bit).
Pax
4 comments:
Nicely put, Vic. However:
six buildings to look after
5 of them need at least 5-figure sums spent on them to keep them from falling down in the next few years
none of them with toilets or kitchen facilities
none of them with useable other space (hall, room etc.)
4 of them kept locked despite repeated attempts to get the PCCs to open them
5 of them with no audio facilities
5 of them bloody freezing in winter
etc. etc.
They may be a blessing, but sometimes I wish God had blessed someone else...
Know where you're coming from!
One of the churches in our patch actually had the water for the ablution freeze during a service in that wonderfully picturesque cold spell last winter!
I've been looking at the potential for using some of the closed rural buildings as centres (and servants) of the community and it's amazing how many of the local needs could be met using our buildings.
It's all reminiscent of my childhood where we kept the front room for 'special' guests and functions (which meant they were subject to minimal use) - many of our church buildings are in that category - which means (restoration and maintenance aside) they are in no way cost-effective.
Thanks for comments - feel for you as I sit in my one-room, 60's Barratt building and understand when look at the mediaeval palace we also have in our patch!
What Steve said (with appropirate contextual modifications).
The thing about church plants "progressing" to their own buildings is that for that community at that time, the building will be "right". It will serve the purposes and vision for the situation. But as we know, these change and buildings can be quite inflexible things unless someone has had the foresight to design with the future in mind. 1960s Barratt style buildings may have been wonderful then but probably won't cut the mustard now. One of my buildings is not only beyond economic repair but is now in entirely the wrong location with regard to how its community has developed over the past 25 years. The church is often the only community building that is expected NOT to adapt or move with the needs of its clientele.
great post!! as one who has suffered/enjoyed both traditional beautiful church and currently sports hall which requires setting up each week I recognise so much of what you say!
Personally I think, whilst old buildings are not ideal (to say the least) they are often very beautiful and atmospheric (our green sports hall is most defintely not either...). And on top of that just the very fact that people have worshipped in them for hundreds of years is special. It's like you can feel the prayers that have gone before. Also (onto one of my bugbears now) most communities have a church at the centre, and I would love to see them spiritually and metaphorcially at the centre of each community, not just physically.. love the idea of a post office in a church....!
redx
Post a Comment