Weekender: The Green Church Bites the Dust

A building was torn down - not a church. A church is a community of faith. It is my understanding that the community of faith which occupied this building was unable to continue to support the maintenance necessary for the building; they sold the building and drew up plans to continue their ministry and their worship in space to be built within the new development. From an aesthetic viewpoint we (and I) can mourn the loss of the pretty building. But in this country (unlike others) we do not subsidize ecclesiastic buildings. Wandering through Europe one encounters many beautiful empty buildings which once had thriving church communities, but now they are supported by the national treasury and very little faith.

To state, as the original post does, that the pastor sold the church out is simplistic. There are some people who mask commercial enterprises in the guise of a church, maintaining a lavish lifestyle and selling church properties when advantageous to enrich themselves. I don't believe anyone has accused the pastor of the Green Church (which I believe actually has a name and a denomination, not just a color) or personally profiting from what must have been a very difficult decision. As a member of a now thriving church in the East Village (Middle Collegiate Church [www.middlechurch.org]), I often hear of the time when it was going to be shut down because there were only 23 attendees at services. It survived because it and its fellow churches own much of downtown Manhattan (hyperbole). Most churches are not so fortunate.

If you love a church building, then think about whether or not you are willing to love a church community and support it. If you aren't (which is okay by me), then don't expect others to struggle to preserve a pretty building instead of focusing on the mission of the real church - the people.

Whew - guess that preaching has worn off on me!

Posted by: Putnamdenizen at October 25, 2008 3:53 PM

There are lots of mistakes made in the destruction of attractive, historical buildings. I have no doubt that there are many who would have wished for a more sensitive response to the competing needs/wishes of the church members and those of some community members. But I am not sure at all that you see what I am saying, Pierre, when your response reduces the decision-making process of the Methodist Church members to "purely economic." You seem to say that "architecture is paramount" and contrast that to "money being paramount" on the part of the church. Do you really believe that? What of the social programs, the youth groups, the increased evangelistic opportunities which may be allowed by the church no longer being a servant to a building rather than god? You all are fetishizing the building (I know, not an uncommon act on this site!), and dare I say, asking that the church put a false idol (the building) before its needs as a religious community.

In the end, I am sure the church would have gladly sold the building to a preservationist group if they could have received an equal amount of money. And while we may judge that perhaps they should have been willing to accept less money in order to preserve what seems to have been a wonderful asset to the visual landscape. how much less? I hear and understand that those writing here are trying to make the church's decision as something shameful, since that is the only "weapon" they had in trying to tip the balance in this decision, but it rings hollow to me, especially given the complete lack of reflection or acknowledgment of what a church is. Of course my charge that you all just want to enjoy the benefits of the building without shouldering the financial burden of maintaining it could be applied to all efforts to landmark private property. We have, for better or worse, carved out some additional areas of protection for religious organizations. While I believe the outside can be covered by landmarks (i.e the St Barthalomew (sic) on park Avenue fight), the inside can never be landmarked.

Posted by: Putnamdenizen at October 25, 2008 5:34 PM

Pierre - I am remarkably calm. (BTW my minister was just interviewed on NPR about the completely insane organist our church had as artist in residence for the last year. He was great but played too loud!) Sounds like from your second email that you are willing to grant that there are difficult issues to be grappled with here. Which was exactly my point - and which was not the tenor of the comments prior to me posting.

I bow to the superior knowledge of Italiana et al who say that there were other alternative proposals, and that the pastor refused to meet with community members. Lack of dialogue can often cause situations to seem even worse.

My point, which I believe has now been made ad naseum, is that this wasn't really one-sided. Thanks for being willing to engage, folks...

P.S. It is too bad about the building. I am sure if I lived near there I would be sad too.

Posted by: Putnamdenizen at October 26, 2008 10:52 AM

Not sure about that legal point. A not for profit must seek approval of the state if it intends to shut down and dispose of its assets. In this case the church sold its asset in order to dedicate the resulting funds to its charitable efforts, under the same corporate name. But not my area of law.

Posted by: Putnamdenizen at October 27, 2008 1:37 PM