Wed
May
10
2006
Church buildings - rain shelters or something more?
Michael Jensen (yes, nephew of Philip J.) has a thoughtful and helpful blog where he reflects of all manner of theological issues.
This article is on church buildings.
Sydney Anglicans as a group, are renown for the attitude that ‘church buildings are just a means to keep the rain and sun off us when we meet’. A view I tend to be rather fond of myself. But the reality is that all of us possess some sensitivity to the aesthetic. That is, we all respond in some way to the surroundings we find ourselves in, and so we can’t just ignore aesthetics when it comes to building or changing church buildings.
Bringing this into sharper focus today is the news that a fire has destroyed Barney’s on Broadway early this morning.
Here’s a link to the news story, and a piece on sydneyanglicans.net. As sad as that is to see a vital part of older Sydney die, it was great to hear Bishop Rob Forsyth (Senior Minister at Barney’s for 17 years) speak in very positive terms on 702 radio this morning, commenting that the God who raised Jesus from the dead wasn’t going to let gospel ministry at Barney’s die that easy! Also, knowing that the 702 Breakfast host – Adam Spencer- is also on the Sydney Uni board, he put the squeeze on him for a vote when the church approached the Uni to hire a hall or two soon. Good stuff.
Update: Nice reflection here by a Credo worker whose office was lost in the Barney’s building.
So what do you think, gentle reader?
What are church buildings to you?
What should Barney’s do faced with rebuilding from scratch?
What would you build if you had to erect a building for church use in a new suburb?
Have a read of Michael’s article and feel to comment here.
Comment
Commenting is closed for this article.
There’s a thread on the SydAng fora about chuch buidlings. Michael J is involved in the (good natured) discussion.
I note (with glee??) that our own A-frame building (St Dunstan’s) is nominated as being amongst the ugly and unwelcoming ones. It certainly takes on an arctic aspect in winter. I gultily confess to passing a comment yesterday along the lines that it was a shame that Barney’s burned down and Dunny’s didn’t!
For me, church buildings need to be based on the ‘form follows function’ rule. That is, you figure out what you want from the building first, then see how those needs can be met in something that looks OK.
As a (former) churchwarden, I’d look for the following in planning church buildings:
* multipurpose spaces (not much point in a building so dedicated to the Sunday worship service that it is unusable for other things during the week)
* robustness
* storage space (oh boy, do we need a shipping container in the St Dunny’s car park)
* smaller spaces for meetings and groups
* a welcoming foyer
* decent food preparation and serving arrangements
* adequate indoor toilets.
Also, I’d have a total ban on memorials in the building. It’s essential that we honour and respect those who have been great examples in the past, but too often we lumber our churches with memorial fixtures and fittings that become impossible to remove or replace (due to emotional attachments) when they are no longer useful or appropriate.
Peter Jensen writes on the subject here: http://old.anglicanmedia.com.au/index.php/article/articleview/1247/1/25/.
I also have a more in-depth (and older) article he wrote a number of years ago. It’s floating around here somewhere…
Bottom line: a building is a useful thing, but I subscribe to the view that the church is the people of God. So the people of Barneys have lost a building but the church still stands! It’s sad that their nice(ish) old building is gone. It will be a huge job for the leadership team to rebuild the buildings. But the fire may give them the opportunity to rebuild in a way that the buildings are optimised to support the work of the church in reaching out to students and the community.
— Richard · May 11, 06:25 AM · #
I think Barnies have been handed a great opportunity by God – it will be interesting to see what they do with it.
As I read all of these news stories I can’t help but think – “what would our church do if the building burnt down?” We had a similar experience a few weeks ago when someone broke in and trashed the place. It seems to me that most people felt that it would have been a blessing if more damage had been done (so we could fix the roof and other problems). There is nothing wrong with trying to make your home as nice as possible, why should you go out of your way to make your church building ugly just to make a point? That would be even more distracting to our task than having a building that was built like a temple.
We also had a similar experience a decade ago when we knocked down the old building, which was well over 100 years old at the time and one of the oldest buildings in the area. We had people protesting outside the grounds the next sunday, all of whom we had never actually seen in the building meeting with the real church. Although many people in our church were also upset about the building being destroyed (all family were baptised and grew up there, which can leave a strong attachment to a place), most people recognised that God is so much greater than a building and got on with the job of glorifying God and enjoying him.
— David Corless · May 11, 10:21 AM · #