Comments on: Why Young Churches Want Old Buildings

By: Friday’s Links To Go | Tim Archer's Kitchen of Half-Baked Thoughts

Friday’s Links To Go | Tim Archer's Kitchen of Half-Baked Thoughts — Fri, 01 Mar 2013 13:32:14 +0000

[...] Why Young Churches Want Old Buildings “Because that’s the thing about a building, or work of art, or even a sunset in the mountain,” Bean said. “You can engage beautiful objects or spaces, but they don’t ultimately satisfy your longing to encounter beauty. Beauty is designed to point to something beyond itself, and in that sense our passion for space is born out of a desire to have every aspect of someone’s experience with Redeemer point them to Jesus, as the one who is sufficiently and ultimately beautiful.” [...]

By: Why Young Churches Want Old Buildings | Worshiping...In Spirit and In Truth

Why Young Churches Want Old Buildings | Worshiping...In Spirit and In Truth — Thu, 28 Feb 2013 12:28:13 +0000

[...] See more at: http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2013/01/14/why-young-churches-want-old-buildings/#sthash.oGM... Share [...]

By: Brian Sam

Brian Sam — Tue, 19 Feb 2013 16:51:32 +0000

Another way to entitle this story (while going a little deeper) would be to call it "Old Churches Look for New Buildings." That's certainly the story of Mars Hill Downtown Seattle. Unmentioned by the author is that the First United Methodist Church of Seattle took its $32 million prize for its property and built a sparkling facility near downtown with a parking garage, human service space and energy-efficient, modern sanctuary. They're set for the next 100 years with a building whose costs are low and advantages are high -- particularly since they've plunked themselves down in a dense residential neighborhood (the same one Mars Hill left behind).

On the other hand, Mars Hill Downtown got this: a crumbling building with seismic issues, a plumbing system that needs major overhaul, huge heating costs, inconvenient and expensive parking, a large distance to residential neighborhoods and now the news that they'll have to move since the building's owner/developer has plans to convert the old building to a hotel ballroom and restaurant (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-13/seattle-s-tallest-tower-in-two-decades-to-house-sls-hotel.html). Mars Hill has benefitted hugely from the publicity around its move, but sadly it'll soon be back in the search now for a new home after spending thousands of dollars on this temporary fix.

I think it wasn't just "beauty" that attracted Mars Hill to the location. It was also the sense of historic roots that rootless and transitory people long for and don't find in a black box evangelical start up like Mars Hill.

By: Nick from Australia

Nick from Australia — Sun, 27 Jan 2013 05:15:45 +0000

True beauty lies in the now resurrected and ascended, but still creaturely, Jesus Christ. I daresay that that the aesthetic beauty found in so many buildings has some kind of nexus with Him. However, I'd suggest that we need to hold loosely to other created objects of beauty, for there is a long history of loving them too much and Him not enough. I found Jared's comments to be an helpful reminder of the extreme wealth of the west; where consideration of church architecture can be considered to be a weighty matter. Thanks Jared and big prayers too for the work of gospelling the neighbourhood in Sojourn and Shelby Park.

By: Repaso: January 26, 2013 | Tim Høiland

Repaso: January 26, 2013 | Tim Høiland — Sat, 26 Jan 2013 10:01:36 +0000

[...] Young churches, old buildings Martin Swant explores the trend among relatively new churches (especially “young, restless, [...]

By: This Week’s Good Reads | Pastor Dave Online

This Week’s Good Reads | Pastor Dave Online — Sat, 19 Jan 2013 12:59:15 +0000

[...] “Why Young Churches Want Old Buildings” by Martin [...]

By: Jared

Jared — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 04:27:36 +0000

Steve,
Thank you for your response. I appreciate it and everything that your church does for the community of which it is clearly a part. By my comments I do not mean to denigrate Sojourn or offend anyone there. You are correct, I do speak out of ignorance, as we all do most of the time. I would ameliorate my comments only by suggesting that I meant them generally, not specifically, even if Sojourn became a target because it was mentioned in the article.

But as your experience in Shelby Park has shaped you, my time spent living in India has shaped me. The context I am writing from gives me a litany of difficult circumstances as well. I have held a dehydrated woman laying on the side of a street to die saved only by strangers and the Sisters of Charity in Calcutta. I have seen a man lying, living in, and eating trash for days. I have touched a living man’s arm eaten to the bone by maggots with not so much as an aspirin to alleviate his pain. I have seen a local pastor try to feed his family and run a ministry off of $25 a month. I have seen countless children with no parents and no hope begging on the streets, only to turn in what they “earn” to their “masters” at the end of the day. I have walked through red light districts filled with women enslaved to their beds and their madams and their debt.

I say this not to make myself seem like a big deal, nor to exploit the misery and dignity of the world’s most vulnerable, but just to make the point that I cannot fathom the amounts of money discussed in this article. They are like mountains to me. I cannot reconcile the man who ate trash with these mountains.

I do not know your neighborhood, your church, or your elders, and I do not claim to. What I do know is what I have seen, and my own struggle to match the finances of the West with the misery of the world. I of course agree with you that finances are not ultimately a “cure” for any neighborhood, but this does not mean that finances are unimportant.

It is for these reasons, with the utmost respect to you for your comment, that I stand by mine.

By: Steve Leach

Steve Leach — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 00:27:47 +0000

Jared,
I think you are well-intentioned but you are speaking out of ignorance. This article is not an all-inclusive look at Sojourn or Shelby Park. There is no mention of the quarterly free medical clinics, fall festivals, mercy/benevolence ministries that help with bills, pay for funerals, advocate against eviction, help folks move and more (not to mention informal support of neighbors by individuals and community groups), counseling ministries, multi-congregational prayer meetings, members who serve on the neighborhood association board, those who volunteer at the community center, organize street clean-ups and community art projects. You didn't read about Sojourners who evangelize the lost, take meals to their neighbors, give rides, do yard work, bake cookies, go Christmas caroling, host barbecues, witness and care for women in the sex industry, and the list goes on. Work is beginning on a housing initiative/urban missionary training program that will seek revitalization both physically and spiritually - your emphasis on spending suggests that you see finances as the cure for the ills of the neighborhood. As to the church not being representative of the community, I think you are mistaking the median income as absolutely representative of all incomes. This community is a mixed-income area, ranging from those living in our many homeless shelters and halfway houses, to professionals (lawyers, engineers, business owners, newspaper editors, etc) and all levels in between. Shelby Park is a very small neighborhood and there are around 50-75 Sojourn members living here who represent the full financial gamut, much like our neighborhood. We are less representative racially than financially, to be sure. I would challenge you to ask the residents, Community Center staff, police department, and other churches if they feel served by those of us who live here, and the church in general. If you are as interested to see what our neighbors think as you say, then come to Shelby Park and ask around. And before you go knocking the money spent on a building, please understand that many from this neighborhood would simply not venture the 200 yards or so (literally on the other side of the tracks) to our previous facility but are now willing to attend services at St. Vincent's. There is always wisdom to be gained by the church in all areas, including finances, but you seem to be insinuating that our elders acted in an unwise and un-Christian manner when moving forward with the facility and that our congregation is not loving our neighbors. The former is a very serious charge and the latter is simply untrue. I wholeheartedly invite you to come and look at our church and our building in context and see if it is devoid of beauty.

By: Jared

Jared — Wed, 16 Jan 2013 19:58:15 +0000

Hi Chris, Thanks for your comment. I believe you when you say that the neighborhood is not wealthy. But I think that actually proves my point - the church is not representative of the community at all. Median household incomes under $24K/year cannot support multi-million dollar renovations. It is far more likely that a church in this situation is filled with wealthy folks from the suburbs. I'm not saying this is always true, and may not be in this case, but it's more than likely. Further, renovating an old church building does not equal serving a poor community. Job training programs, child tutoring centers, supplemental food pantries, free or cheap day care programs for single mothers, etc., are a few hastily thought of ways to serve a poor community. I am sure holes can be shot in all of these examples, but my point is that there are much better ways to spend millions of dollars than on architecture. I'm not saying there's no place for a building like this, just saying that there must- there must- be wiser ways to spend this money. Finally, I'd be interested to know what people who live in this community think of the church's renovation in the context of it being there to "serve" them. Do they feel loved, and do they want to know Christ because a congregation spent millions on refurbishing original mahogany wood ceilings? Forgive me if I seem curt - this is not my intention. But is all of this really in keeping with the spirit of the New Testament? Think of Jesus, with no place to lay His head. Think of Paul, who encouraged us to "have this treasure in a jar of clay." Think even of current believers in other countries who do not have access to a hundredth of the resources we have access to. In this context, can we still call spending money this way beautiful?

By: Chris

Chris — Wed, 16 Jan 2013 19:33:19 +0000

Jared, I don't see how this "money only goes to serve the already-wealthy."

For example, the neighborhood that Sojourn moved into is anything but wealthy. To cite just a couple statistics, according to oldish (2008-09) data the median household income was 24k/year and single-mother households came in just under 24%.

A simple drive (in-person or via google street view) through the neighborhood reveals that Shelby Park, though not a wretched hive of scum and villainy, is surely not a wealthy area. There are many "broken people and broken systems" in the blocks surrounding the building.

So yes, I do see beauty in that.