« Slope Armory Set-Back Price Cuts at 272 St. Marks Avenue »

November 4, 2009

Church Reboot on Clinton Avenue

Another church—just what the neighborhood needed. After years of lying fallow, it appears that the steel frame at 145 Clinton Avenue is finally getting some walls; the job was initially applied for in the early 1990s and the steel frame has been there as long as we can remember. The Celestial Church of Christ, which has headquarters facing Waverly Avenue and owns the entire through-lot, is the entity behind the job. It's really too bad that at a time when there are plenty of dwindling congregations in the area having a difficult time maintaining beautiful old churches that resources are being allocated to building a new structure that's sure to be an aesthetic bummer. GMAP P*Shark DOB

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/12126

Comments

Somehow I sense this will be a controversial thread here today.

Posted by: wasder at November 4, 2009 10:38 AM

from wikipedia:

"The Celestial Church of Christ is an African Initiated Church founded by Samuel Bilehou Oshoffa in 1947.

Samuel Bilewu Joseph Oshoffa was a carpenter born in French Dahomey, now called Benin, in 1909. A traumatic experience led to a spiritual awakening,Oshoffa believed that he received a call from God, this occurred in a forest during a solar eclipse,Oshoffa then became lost in the forest for exactly forty days and forty nights. Oshoffa felt called to preach, heal and raise the dead, this led him to found the church in 1947.[1] By divine ordinance he is called Prophet and he is also called Reverend, Pastor, and Founder, as he was the supreme head of the church and was responsible for the church coming into being. As "The Pastor" he had ultimate and unchallengeable authority in doctrinal and disciplinary matters. This made his death in 1985, after a vehicular accident, problematic.

The movement has continued to grow since Oshoffa's death, but has also suffered setbacks—the most immediate being severe difficulties related to the matter of succession.

Although the church takes elements from Yoruba thought, it also has strong similarities to the "purification movements" against paganism that are relatively common in African Christianity and Islam. Oshoffa believed he had a mission to combat "'Satan', 'fetish priests' and other 'powers of darkness'."(Marburg article) The name of the group comes from the Bible: Deuteronomy 26:15 "Look down from thy Holy habitation, from heaven, and bless thy people Celestial and the land which thou hast given us, as thou didst swear to our father, a land flowing with milk and honey". The name signifies that they deem themselves as celestial or a representative of the heavenly on Earth."

they are those weirdos that you see on myrtle on weekends with the pillsbury dough boy hats on.

Posted by: randolph at November 4, 2009 10:41 AM

if they aren't hurting anyone, who cares.

*rob*

Posted by: Butterfly at November 4, 2009 10:49 AM

Brooklyn is the Boro of Churches! Do you think we need another coffee house?

Posted by: Alexandria at November 4, 2009 10:55 AM

Actually yeah. I'd far prefer a nice new coffee house to this. Sigh. I'll spare anyone my take, as I don't think it'd come off very nice.

Posted by: Nokilissa at November 4, 2009 10:59 AM

I'm with rob. the level of snob snark in the post is pretty high. Guess it isn't hip enough?

Posted by: bxgrl at November 4, 2009 11:10 AM

A garden would have been beautiful in this space. Also, it would be have been a lot less noisy.

Posted by: campbrooklyn at November 4, 2009 11:10 AM

No, Bxrl. Nothing whatsoever to do with "snob snark", at least for me. But I won't go into it further, as I don't want to pull up my skirt and let my biases show. I'm an equal opportunity snarker when it comes to religion and in particular insular extremist religion, but has nothing to do with snobbery.

Posted by: Nokilissa at November 4, 2009 11:14 AM

It's not the slightest bit snarky. It's critical but perfectly earnest.

Posted by: brownstoner at November 4, 2009 11:15 AM

It's good to see that the value of a religious congregation is measured only by the aesthetics of their meeting place.

Posted by: DitmasSnark at November 4, 2009 11:15 AM

Aesthetics are important when they could, in turn, devalue the price of your home if you live nearby.

Posted by: campbrooklyn at November 4, 2009 11:23 AM

quote:
Aesthetics are important when they could, in turn, devalue the price of your home if you live nearby.

baloney. in Jesus' eyes there's no such thing as dollar signs.

lol

*rob*

Posted by: Butterfly at November 4, 2009 11:30 AM

i think you are missing the point here- from their website:

"Code of Conduct

The following is a summary of rules, regulations and tenets of Celestial Church of Christ.

Members are forbidden to:

Commit Adultery or Fornication
Drink Alcohol, Wine and Smoke Cigarettes
Eat Pork & Crawling Animals
Merry-go-round at night
Wear transparent dress, especially for Soutana while in the Church premises
Wear Red or Black apparel, except for professional reasons
Sit male & female members side by side inside the Church
While in the Church premises, Female members are forbidden to:

Leave their heads uncovered
Paint their lips and nails

While in the Church premises, Male members are forbidden to:

Wear their hair too long

Women NEED to be Sanctified by an elder in the Church after 7th day of their monthly cycle

Spiritual Items: Soap, Water, Sponge, and a candle stick"

what is the candle stick used for!?

Posted by: randolph at November 4, 2009 11:35 AM

Our main point was that it's a poor allocation of resources since presumably these folks are all worshipping the same entity; so a gem like St. Bartholomew's (http://bk.ly/VF) in Crown Heights slowly crumbles while a couple of million bucks gets blown on this POS. Of course, judging from the description above, this particular organization doesn't sound like one that a traditional church would want to climb into bed with but still...

Posted by: brownstoner at November 4, 2009 11:35 AM

You're hating on a CHURCH?

Posted by: East New York at November 4, 2009 11:36 AM

Of course! What's an unattractive house of worship compared with a fancy bar or coffee shop? Why, the former does NOTHING for local property values! Any sufficiently self-interested person would understand that.

Posted by: East New York at November 4, 2009 11:39 AM

I agree completely with Bstoner on this one. The problem is that most old underused beautiful churches likely would not want to be affiliated with an organization such as this.

Posted by: 1842 at November 4, 2009 11:41 AM

quote:
Merry-go-round at night

LOL x 5000. they arent allowed to merry go round at night!? what does that even mean? please tell me they arent talking a playground merry go round hahah

*rob*

Posted by: Butterfly at November 4, 2009 11:42 AM

If, say, the Episcopalian church owned this lot, and was spending a lot of money to build out a new facility, then I would be the first to agree that the funds would be better spent on the upkeep and restoration of their fine collection of historic properties, most of which could use a lot of repair. That is not the same as a small, albeit fringe, church doing something on their own property. They are a separate organization, and the masters of their own expenditures.

I don't like fugly buildings either, but I totally agree with Rob, if they aren't hurting anyone, who cares? They have as much right to build as any private individual. If they aren't in an HD, there isn't much we can do about it, much like we can't stop someone from building either a Fedders, or a condobox, or a scaled down replica of the Taj Mahal.

Posted by: Montrose Morris at November 4, 2009 11:44 AM

and what are crawling animals?

Posted by: randolph at November 4, 2009 11:48 AM

sorry Mr. B is was snarky. And Now people who really know nothing about this Church making judgments and insults. St. Bart's, btw is a functioning church. They have a congregation- they are not falling to the ground nor empty. And there are people working on getting them help. There is still no need to denigrate a small congregation. Most of them work hard, they help members of their congregations, they feed the hungry, distribute clothes to those who need them- who are any of us to look down our noses?

and randolph- what's your religion? Because from where I sit, there is plenty of offensiveness and strangeness in all of them (including my own). Anyone want to discuss Scientology or the Mormons?

Posted by: bxgrl at November 4, 2009 11:52 AM

Not a professional theologian but those deuteronomical requirements listed by randi @11:35 were subsumed and overruled in the New Covenant. They were required to form the nation of Israel (the nation itself and the spiritual, world-wide nation all Christians belong to) but not any longer.

Also, many newer churches rent out space in older established ones. I think that may be Mr. B's point.

Posted by: Billions and Billions at November 4, 2009 11:56 AM

LDs are very interesting because their whole early history is tied with the opening of the West. Like Harold Bloom I am a sympathetic nonfollower.

Alos, polygamy was more originally a policy to protect all the single unmarrieds and widows, although that was not what it apparently became.

Posted by: Billions and Billions at November 4, 2009 11:59 AM

Take a chill pill, there bxgrl. We were not denigrating St. Barts in the slightest. We think it's an incredible place; the fact is we've spoken to people their about their financial situation and they could use every bit of help they can get. That Tiffany window alone is reason enough to root for the church's survival! Sorry but you're not going to get us cheering for the creation of an ugly new church for some fringe sect on a block with a bunch of beautiful old houses.

Posted by: brownstoner at November 4, 2009 11:59 AM

So everyone's beef with brownstoner's take on this (which essentially is that it would be better if the new church congregation used an existing old church that is in need of funds to maintain its current building) is that he shouldn't be concerned about aesthetics if it is a church? Why not? We regularly bemoan crap architecture and development by for profit entities. Do churches and non-profits get a pass? I don't think they should. Hypocritical.

Posted by: 1842 at November 4, 2009 12:12 PM

Mr. B, 1842- I'm not arguing architecture. I'm arguing the look down your nose at a small community church. I doubt they have loads of cash and will probably build the equivalent of a fedders. But its what they can afford- unless some of you would care to donate to their coffers and work on getting them an architecturally tasteful building.

Posted by: bxgrl at November 4, 2009 12:16 PM

Why in the world would I donate to them. Bstoner had a practical suggestion - allocate your resources to another stuggling small congregation like St. Bart's by renting time to use their facilities, thereby maintaining an already existing beautiful old church.

The alternative is to build a POS. They should sell the land if they have no money. They'd have plenty after that that they could use to rent time/space in an existing church that needs help in maintaining their building. Of course, with what has been described as the dogmatic nature of this particular congregation, affiliation with any other congregation would not work.

Basically, people seem to take great umbrage at any critique of church developments simply because they are churches. They, bxgirl, read snarkiness and snobbery into it. A POS development is a POS development regardless of who does it and what its purpose is. Just because it is for a church doesn't mean that the community should ignore its ordinary concerns about streetscapes and quality of life issues.

Posted by: 1842 at November 4, 2009 12:23 PM

criticism of religious organizations (or intimation thereof) is definitely a no go in our touchy society. I agree with the premise that an already existing church building (of which there are plenty in Clinton Hill) could be repurposed and be more attractive, but the "just what we need" eye rolling is the factor that arouses people. I am completely agnostic and find the puritanism of our American dialogue mystifying but it was easy to see how this thread would provoke people.

Posted by: wasder at November 4, 2009 12:39 PM

No 1842. It was this opening line: Another church—just what the neighborhood needed. And then the comments by randolph and others. Seeing as the frame stood unfinished for years my bet is that the congregation was trying to raise funds. And I ma a lover of old architecture and preserving it but maybe this congregation is too poor to take over an old building and renovate it or reconfigure it to their needs. Before I condemn anyone I like to know all the facts. Ditmas put it perfectly:
"It's good to see that the value of a religious congregation is measured only by the aesthetics of their meeting place."

Posted by: bxgrl at November 4, 2009 12:42 PM

Perhaps if, as residents of the block, we thought that the building of this structure, religion aside, was done with planning and care that would, perhaps, be different. As it is, when the steel beams went up several years ago, they cut a hole in the chain link fence that borders the sidewalk on Clinton Avenue and passed the beams through the small hole. They then had a cement / concrete truck that also passed the concrete (for the foundation) THROUGH this small hole (in some small tube - I'm no expert on this terminology) and into what would become the foundation. At the same time, that same concrete substance, went ALL OVER someone's car and all over the street. (I witnessed workers trying to get the substance off the car.) So, religion aside, there are better ways to go about building. And if you don't have the money for it, don't do it.

Posted by: campbrooklyn at November 4, 2009 12:52 PM

Fair enough bxgrl, I can understand taking issue with the statement "just what the neighborhood needed" - even if I agree with the statement (how snarky of me ;-))

I do think that the practical aspect of this (renting space at struggling existing old church buildings) makes a lot of sense though. It would be more cost effective for a small congregation and would serve to preserve our beautiful old church buildings.

Posted by: 1842 at November 4, 2009 1:02 PM

this is real estate website. its perfectly reasonable to talk about the aesthetic aspect of this, and to be criticial of it in the same way you would any real estate development. Why should a religion (yes, as it happens, a cultish insular one) be an exception? Fugly condos and their buyers are also not hurting anyone. This doesn't mean anyone is saying the value of their religious congregation is inherently linked to the building aesthetics-- that's quite a leap, Ditmas Snark, and bxgirl, you're all over the place.

Posted by: blowfish at November 4, 2009 1:09 PM

> Another church—just what the neighborhood needed.

Well, leaps aside, that opening comment sounded totally snarky even to me (one who is snarky by nature and has no use for any church).

Posted by: DitmasSnark at November 4, 2009 1:48 PM

the people next door will be bummed, since their views will be blocked thereby decreasing the value of their investment

Posted by: witchdoctor at November 4, 2009 3:07 PM

It's in threads like these where I miss the What.

Posted by: NOP at November 4, 2009 3:14 PM

We don't like churches because they file noise complaints when we try to sell "quaint" goods across the street every weekend at 200% markups.

Posted by: kimcheater at November 4, 2009 5:25 PM

Yeah, because church is the real problem in Clinton Hill...Brooklyn...or New York for that matter. Especially new churches. Everything doesn't have to be recycled! If you like old stuff so much, you move in it. Paste it together and be proud.

The whole beginning of this post sucked. It's cool when it's a new organic market or a new condo building in Williamsburg, but church...for real? Foolywag. Besides, all the empty churches are going condo anyway...so why not build a church that may actually stay a church.

Posted by: cillmylandlord_again at November 4, 2009 6:24 PM

This has nothing to do about a church or a condo or a coffee bar, etc. It has to do with being a good neighbor. Isn't that what we're all looking for in our community? A good neighbor helps the entire community and neighborhood and raises the bar on the quality of life for all.

For those of us who live in this neighborhood and have been fighting the illegal C of O for the building on Waverly, the lack of a permit to assemble on Waverly, the rattling of our windows and thrumming of our walls through hours and hours of drum beating, yelling, etc. every Sunday and/or holiday of choice, the blocking of our street (even during snowstorms causing the plows to go elsewhere)and driveways, the name calling, the garbage and dog feces building up on the sidewalk on Clinton which is never swept OR shoveled leaving a sheet of ice, the loss of value of our homes, the damage done to the property of others I say go to the DOB Website, look it up. This is not the kind of neighbor you want, be it church, condo or coffee house. And now this structure after years and years of exposure to the elements is in some stage of development and within the first week violated specifics of their permit. It has been a total eyesore for close to 20 years without any regard for how this affects the quality of life for anyone and since almost all of the congregants don't live here why should they care? They walk away after their done worshipping and call it a day.

Posted by: rooseveltideas at November 4, 2009 7:02 PM

Oh and I forgot the thousands and thousands of dollars in unpaid violations from the DOB and the ECB.

Posted by: rooseveltideas at November 4, 2009 7:20 PM

Right cause you care about the DOB unpaid violations...get outta here.

Posted by: cillmylandlord_again at November 4, 2009 7:43 PM

Right, I do care about unpaid violations. It's a sign of irresponsibility and not caring. If you own property you do have responsibilities. Some of the problems we have now, e.g. buildings collapsing on Myrtle this past Father's Day, stem from individuals not recognizing that. I believe that a property owner does have the right to develop his or her property however there are such things as permits, inspections, etc. that are in place as a protection for the rest of us becuase there are a lot of people who simply don't give care and/or feel that, as in this case, they are above it all because they are a religious organization.

Posted by: rooseveltideas at November 4, 2009 8:35 PM

I'll back rooseveltideas on this, having lived on that street very close to the church for over a year. these church goers were not good neighbors.

Posted by: soxfordgal at November 4, 2009 9:41 PM

One more thing to ponder: they claim they're building an "extension" to the already existing building on Waverly to "be used as a church." Now what do you think? Is this a free standing building OR an extension?

Posted by: rooseveltideas at November 5, 2009 11:06 AM

I see Brownstoner's point about the beautiful old churches in Brooklyn falling into disrepair and use of land. But, as someone who attends a pretty progressive (and thriving) church, I can't say that my congregation would mesh very well with theirs. We have female leaders and welcome gay and lesbians into our doors. We would certainly welcome them in as well, but I doubt they would stay long.

That said, I would rather see them take up residence in an old church that is on the selling block than see another church torn down or converted into condos. That would be a better use of land and it would preserve an architectural gem of Brooklyn.

Posted by: rocketal at November 6, 2009 11:11 AM

« Slope Armory Set-Back Price Cuts at 272 St. Marks Avenue »

November 4, 2009

Church Reboot on Clinton Avenue

Trackback Pings

Comments

Post a comment

Latest Restaurant Additions