Selling Churches

[SteveNZ]

I feel more connected to God through beautiful art and architecture. So... meh.

So do I. But generally they are only on older church buildings which are of a design easily destroyed by earthquakes.

Any rebuilding can have such art and architecture?
Why is it not done? I think primarily cost. And sound technology has removed the need for such wonderful 'sound shells' as within the classic church designs.

 

[SteveNZ]

I feel more connected to God through beautiful art and architecture. So... meh.

I do appreciate art and architecture aimed to glorify God in the same sense as I appreciate wonderful music glorifying God.

So tell me would you prefer replicating that what was destroyed (using modern materials with redesigned strengthening methods) or create modern art and architecture?

*That destroyed was primarily the older brick-stone buildings. Hence the older classical architecture, being so many churches.

 

[MKJ]

So do I - but if that building with beautiful art and architecture is empty , because there are no people to worship in it, the question is

what do you do with it ?

Yes, it is a difficult problem.

I used to live in a rural parish that had four churches, and a congregation between all of less than 100 - maybe less than 50. One part time rector.

One of the buildings, the biggest, was back on a dirt road that was difficult to get to at all in winter. At one time, a lot of people had lived back there, but they had moved out, and a lot of Mennonites moved in, and they had their own church.

Fewer people going to church was really only one problem - in some ways the fact that people could travel further by car meant that there was actually a wider area to draw on. But rural areas are much less populated than they used to be when those churches were built.

So what to do - there are limits to the funds those parishes are going to be able to come up with to maintain buildings.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Is selling churches to developers acceptable? I know the Catholic Church has sold property during church consolidations, but apparently Anglicans do too. I'm guessing all of our church communions have at some point.

Swapping prophets for profits: Anglican Church selling houses of God to property developers - Mirror Online

Do you consider selling a sanctuary to be an "ok" practice? Even if it is to a housing developer?

As I understand it, here in California, the RCC is financially staying solvent in large part because of the massive selling off of property. I recall reading that after one of the legal mandates from the pedophilia scandal, a huge piece of raw land in which a new high school was planned had to be sold to help come up with the funds. MANY Catholic parishes, schools, retreat centers, etc., etc. have been closed, sold and replaced with secular stuff. A LOT.

In my own LCMS, there is a TRAGIC reality that some tiny parishes in mostly inter-city communities could no longer support their facilities. The parishes typically are merged and one of the facilities sold - the capitol much needed in the new combined parish. SAD.... but it does seem to be a reality.



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Is selling churches to developers acceptable? I know the Catholic Church has sold property during church consolidations, but apparently Anglicans do too. I'm guessing all of our church communions have at some point.

Swapping prophets for profits: Anglican Church selling houses of God to property developers - Mirror Online

Do you consider selling a sanctuary to be an "ok" practice? Even if it is to a housing developer?

The part that makes me cringe is that, especially with the Episcopals but also with the PCUSA, is that these churches may be empty for reasons other than dwindling numbers. The fact that the diocese/presbytery owns the building means that, if a congregation wants to leave the denomination (for reasons like homosexual ordination and homosexual marriage), and anything less than 100% of all congregants agree to the move, the diocese or presbytery can say that the 1% who want to stay PCUSA/Episcopal are the true residents of the building. That 1% may no longer be a sustainable congregation, though, and while the 99% are ordered to vacate the premises, the building itself has to be sold anyway. Essentially, the loss of a whole congregation results in a net profit for the diocese/presbytery. Twisted. This is definitely something that has happened in the Episcopal Church USA, and friends of mine in the PCUSA are now facing the same reality.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

The part that makes me cringe is that, especially with the Episcopals but also with the PCUSA, is that these churches may be empty for reasons other than dwindling numbers. The fact that the diocese/presbytery owns the building means that, if a congregation wants to leave the denomination (for reasons like homosexual ordination and homosexual marriage), and anything less than 100% of all congregants agree to the move, the diocese or presbytery can say that the 1% who want to stay PCUSA/Episcopal are the true residents of the building. That 1% may no longer be a sustainable congregation, though, and while the 99% are ordered to vacate the premises, the building itself has to be sold anyway. Essentially, the loss of a whole congregation results in a net profit for the diocese/presbytery. Twisted. This is definitely something that has happened in the Episcopal Church USA, and friends of mine in the PCUSA are now facing the same reality.

Is this not also the case with the ELCA, or at least some of their parishes?

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Is this not also the case with the ELCA, or at least some of their parishes?

I'm not aware how property ownership works in the ELCA.

Edit: Upon more research, it seems the diocese do not usually own the buildings, but do often pay pastor's salaries (which actually seems sensible): https://www.pcusa.org/news/2010/10/14/parishes-leaving-elca-find-unexpected-price-pay/

It also seems that they do own the buildings of mission churches, which honestly also seems fairly sensible.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I was told that in the ELCA, most parishes are literally owned by the denomination - but not all.

The denomination is a merger of two previous denominations. In the LCA, parishes were owned by the denomination. In the ALC, parishes owned their own facilities (as is the case in the LCMS and WELS). At the merger in 1988, parishes were "grandfathered" into whatever was the case at the merger but future new parishes (which have been VERY few), the property would be owned by the denomination (as is the case in the RCC and in Episcopal churches).

This is why we've seen a number of former ALC parishes leave ELCA - there is no great financial implication. But very few former LCA parishes have - they would loose their facilities (as we've witnessed with Episcopal Churches that have left the Episcopal Church in the USA).

An ELCA pastor told me about this..... I hope I correctly understood. I'm sure some ELCA friend here will correct me if I have this wrong.


Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah

 

[Gnarwhal]

The part that makes me cringe is that, especially with the Episcopals but also with the PCUSA, is that these churches may be empty for reasons other than dwindling numbers. The fact that the diocese/presbytery owns the building means that, if a congregation wants to leave the denomination (for reasons like homosexual ordination and homosexual marriage), and anything less than 100% of all congregants agree to the move, the diocese or presbytery can say that the 1% who want to stay PCUSA/Episcopal are the true residents of the building. That 1% may no longer be a sustainable congregation, though, and while the 99% are ordered to vacate the premises, the building itself has to be sold anyway. Essentially, the loss of a whole congregation results in a net profit for the diocese/presbytery. Twisted. This is definitely something that has happened in the Episcopal Church USA, and friends of mine in the PCUSA are now facing the same reality.

This is something I've been concerned about for a while since my church was going to enter a period of discernment here soon to decide whether to leave the PCUSA or not. It's on hold for now because our pastor moved away and they need to address that need first, but when the time comes I'm nervous that the denomination might try to do some gymnastics to kick the church out.

The church is a landmark in town, one of the oldest church buildings here commissioned by and named after the town's founder. It's also one of the bigger churches in the PCUSA from what I understand.

I did do some research and found some city paperwork for historic building inventory and under the "ownership" part it listed the name of the church. Wouldn't it say "Presbyterian Church (USA)" if it were otherwise?

 

[MKJ]

This is something I've been concerned about for a while since my church was going to enter a period of discernment here soon to decide whether to leave the PCUSA or not. It's on hold for now because our pastor moved away and they need to address that need first, but when the time comes I'm nervous that the denomination might try to do some gymnastics to kick the church out.

The church is a landmark in town, one of the oldest church buildings here commissioned by and named after the town's founder. It's also one of the bigger churches in the PCUSA from what I understand.

I did do some research and found some city paperwork for historic building inventory and under the "ownership" part it listed the name of the church. Wouldn't it say "Presbyterian Church (USA)" if it were otherwise?

I think you would need a lawyer to find out - sometimes with older buildings it can be more complicated.

I don't necessarily have an issue with the fact that a denomination or diocese has a claim, it the structure of those churches, there is some sense to that. If there is still a viable congregation left, I can see why they might have more of a claim than those leaving the bishop.

But it is really these cases where they will no longer have a viable congregation, because most are leaving that it seems very very wrong. Especially if it is a church that they themselves contributed materially to building and maintaining.

It seems like demanding the building and going through legal channels in these cases is in bad faith, and shows a kind of gross spiritual illness.

 

[Gnarwhal]

I think you would need a lawyer to find out - sometimes with older buildings it can be more complicated.

I don't necessarily have an issue with the fact that a denomination or diocese has a claim, it the structure of those churches, there is some sense to that. If there is still a viable congregation left, I can see why they might have more of a claim than those leaving the bishop.

But it is really these cases where they will no longer have a viable congregation, because most are leaving that it seems very very wrong. Especially if it is a church that they themselves contributed materially to building and maintaining.

It seems like demanding the building and going through legal channels in these cases is in bad faith, and shows a kind of gross spiritual illness.

Yeah, it's hard to say. So much is happening right now I'm not even sure if they'll continue with that. I know for the immediate future they'll be focused on rebuilding the leadership since we've lost three of the even (or so) pastors off of the staff since December.

But I digress...

 

[SteveNZ]

It is a sad commentary on Christian growth (or the opposite in many denominations) that this issue is even relevant.

Our Lord is still in control.... AMEN

Of Gifts - On a legal side I see that very often land was 'gifted' for a purpose to serve God by allowing a Christian group utilise the land for a meeting place. Often the village/town founding fathers would do so. I know here that such a gift must never be abused ............ it should remain as gifted or the gifting document identifies what should happen to the land.

I wonder what those folk who gave such gifts would think of what was happening in this current society?

 

[Liberasit]

It is a sad commentary on Christian growth (or the opposite in many denominations) that this issue is even relevant.

Our Lord is still in control.... AMEN

Of Gifts - On a legal side I see that very often land was 'gifted' for a purpose to serve God by allowing a Christian group utilise the land for a meeting place. Often the village/town founding fathers would do so. I know here that such a gift must never be abused ............ it should remain as gifted or the gifting document identifies what should happen to the land.

I wonder what those folk who gave such gifts would think of what was happening in this current society?

I don't agree. It can actually be a wonderful testimony to the work of the church.

A lot of inner city churches were built amongst slum dwellings (in Victorian times). They campaigned tirelessly for better living conditions, which meant relocation of many of their parisioners to new towns. Cue empty church in city centre.

 

[SteveNZ]

I don't agree. It can actually be a wonderful testimony to the work of the church.......

Hi, I was commenting on the issue of churches splitting (due to whatever reason) and folk having to argue over who gets to use/own the buildings .....

All the best.

 

[Gnarwhal]

The disregard, disrespect and altogether shunning of church buildings is a poor reflection on Christianity, because it exhibits how much of Christian culture has completely lost the concept of sacred space.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

The disregard, disrespect and altogether shunning of church buildings is a poor reflection on Christianity, because it exhibits how much of Christian culture has completely lost the concept of sacred space.

I would therefore recommend:

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The disregard, disrespect and altogether shunning of church buildings is a poor reflection on Christianity, because it exhibits how much of Christian culture has completely lost the concept of sacred space.

Point received.... and certainly some validity there... but over the past 2000 years, there must be millions of buildings consecrated as churches that no longer are. The discontinuation of buildings for worship is nothing new. Sometimes the "life" of a building - even a parish - ends. I suspect MILLIONS have done so. Lots in each of the past 20 centuries. I'm not detracting from your point (I hope) simply noting the history, the reality here.


Blessings on your Holy Week....


- Josiah

 

[Gnarwhal]

Point received.... and certainly some validity there... but over the past 2000 years, there must be millions of buildings consecrated as churches that no longer are. The discontinuation of buildings for worship is nothing new. Sometimes the "life" of a building - even a parish - ends. I suspect MILLIONS have done so. Lots in each of the past 20 centuries. I'm not detracting from your point (I hope) simply noting the history, the reality here.


Blessings on your Holy Week....


- Josiah

Oh I'm not arguing that some buildings cease to function as churches, and depending on the architecture they can absolutely function as something else. There are other buildings I think that will always have a sacred feeling to them, like Hagia Sophia for example. Even though it was a church first, then a mosque and now it's a museum, it still feels no less sacred to those who understand it's history within our faith.

The way a church can transport our hearts and minds into the heaven is a compelling thing that has either been forgotten or hasn't been experienced altogether, and it's quite wonderful. It doesn't happen in a converted mall or a tin warehouse. If, for example, one steps into a gothic cathedral though, there's a sense that it mirrors the majesty of God's throne room. Seems appropriate as a place to worship the God of the universe if you ask me.

Thanks for sharing those books, I may check them out.