Ideas toward a theology of church building:
(Margaret, Geoff, Jody: June 2012)
The most important skill set required for a church building committee, [Murray Rae] suggested, was the ability to articulate theological vision. Practical matters needed to be entrusted to the church’s architect. Peter Carrell
We use our church building for a variety of things and we appreciate all of them (social, community, worship, practical, symbol) but if we had to choose ONE we'd say “sacred space” because all other aspects can be found elsewhere in the community, but standing for sacred space is one thing unique to a church.
A church should not be afraid to know what it is, what it stands for.
We like the idea of beauty for beauty's sake (art, music, etc) and think this should be a value reflected in our building.
Wouldn't it be cool if we opted for less building not more – is that a statement about letting go, not being greedy, thinking about the environment?
One thought that would reflect some of the priorities we discussed is to take away the chapel for the sake of creating more open space, and develop the hall to be hall and office space.
Car parking will never our strong point, so perhaps we should think of innovative ways to be less car-centric. Negotiate bus discounts for staff and congregation?! Encourage carpooling?! Design services that are shorter but give people topics to discuss/reflection on while walking/cycling/carpooling home?! etc
Like the idea of churches drawing people in from public spaces. We are well poised for this but don't fully the make the most of our position. The green/cobbled space out the front could be put to much better use to draw people in – even if they only ever picnic on the lawn that might still be considered a valuable function of the church as sacred space.
We also discussed the idea of drawing people through sacred space to access the more practical spaces. EG everyone wanting to access the CORT offices needing to walk through the main church. The principle behind this would be (hopefully) reminding people what our roots for social action/compassion are...
We are happy for sacred space and social space to double, but our emphasis would be on the sacred space working and the social space fitting in with that (even if it's a bit clunky) rather than the other way around. An example is probably the difference between having morning tea in the main church on communion Sunday and the January services which are based around social space. Both are nice but we'd lean towards the first example if we had to choose only one.
You can walk past a restaurant when it's closed but all the tables might be set and ready – inviting, purpose. A church space should be ready, prepared, have a “higher calling” in mind (amidst other functions).
This said (about sacred space, and keeping a church “ready” and “set apart” for what is unique and special to a church...) we think that the mission of the church should be expressed in its building. One issue is to show care for the community/world that God cares about (green spaces, relaxing, sacred, welcome) but another is CORT of course – so our building should be a statement about CORT too. This begs the question though, if CORT moves out, how will our theology cope? Do we uproot and follow?! Plant a church where they go?! Forge links with the church nearest to them wherever they shift to?!
We need to take a longer term view and not imagine everything has to be achieved in the next five years or our “lifetime”. We are all tenants and guardians of a wonderful space – we need to set future congregations up well.
We think it would be worthwhile getting someone like Mark Southcomb, Murray Rae or John McClean to come and speak to the church as part of the process.
(Margaret, Geoff, Jody: June 2012)
The most important skill set required for a church building committee, [Murray Rae] suggested, was the ability to articulate theological vision. Practical matters needed to be entrusted to the church’s architect. Peter Carrell
We use our church building for a variety of things and we appreciate all of them (social, community, worship, practical, symbol) but if we had to choose ONE we'd say “sacred space” because all other aspects can be found elsewhere in the community, but standing for sacred space is one thing unique to a church.
A church should not be afraid to know what it is, what it stands for.
We like the idea of beauty for beauty's sake (art, music, etc) and think this should be a value reflected in our building.
Wouldn't it be cool if we opted for less building not more – is that a statement about letting go, not being greedy, thinking about the environment?
One thought that would reflect some of the priorities we discussed is to take away the chapel for the sake of creating more open space, and develop the hall to be hall and office space.
Car parking will never our strong point, so perhaps we should think of innovative ways to be less car-centric. Negotiate bus discounts for staff and congregation?! Encourage carpooling?! Design services that are shorter but give people topics to discuss/reflection on while walking/cycling/carpooling home?! etc
Like the idea of churches drawing people in from public spaces. We are well poised for this but don't fully the make the most of our position. The green/cobbled space out the front could be put to much better use to draw people in – even if they only ever picnic on the lawn that might still be considered a valuable function of the church as sacred space.
We also discussed the idea of drawing people through sacred space to access the more practical spaces. EG everyone wanting to access the CORT offices needing to walk through the main church. The principle behind this would be (hopefully) reminding people what our roots for social action/compassion are...
We are happy for sacred space and social space to double, but our emphasis would be on the sacred space working and the social space fitting in with that (even if it's a bit clunky) rather than the other way around. An example is probably the difference between having morning tea in the main church on communion Sunday and the January services which are based around social space. Both are nice but we'd lean towards the first example if we had to choose only one.
You can walk past a restaurant when it's closed but all the tables might be set and ready – inviting, purpose. A church space should be ready, prepared, have a “higher calling” in mind (amidst other functions).
This said (about sacred space, and keeping a church “ready” and “set apart” for what is unique and special to a church...) we think that the mission of the church should be expressed in its building. One issue is to show care for the community/world that God cares about (green spaces, relaxing, sacred, welcome) but another is CORT of course – so our building should be a statement about CORT too. This begs the question though, if CORT moves out, how will our theology cope? Do we uproot and follow?! Plant a church where they go?! Forge links with the church nearest to them wherever they shift to?!
We need to take a longer term view and not imagine everything has to be achieved in the next five years or our “lifetime”. We are all tenants and guardians of a wonderful space – we need to set future congregations up well.
We think it would be worthwhile getting someone like Mark Southcomb, Murray Rae or John McClean to come and speak to the church as part of the process.
