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…
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
and what are crawling animals?
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.
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*