Which one would you choose?

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by mioque, Mar 12, 2004.

  1. mioque

    mioque
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2003
    Messages:
    3,899
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is a purely hypothetical question. Just post number 1000 happening for me, combined with a little morbid curiosity.

    The congregation of your baptistchurch has expanded to the size that a new churchbuilding is certainly needed.
    Now there are 2 options.
    1. Build a brandnew churchbuilding to your own specifications, this has the consequence that most churchactivities have to be scaled back considerably for a couple of years.
    2. The local Roman Catholic church has been shrinking for years and they are willing to sell a building for a very affordable price. The problem is that it is a gothic building. Something like this.
    http://www.sint-niklaas.be/frans/t21.jpg
    It has a couple of other issues as well.
    Including tainted glass windows of RC saints that can't be removed because the building is on the heritage list, ofcourse the acoustics are...ahum 'eccentric' by baptist standards and let's not even try to get into the baptismal font situation.

    Which option would you choose and why?
     
  2. Greg Linscott

    Greg Linscott
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/7963.jpg>

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2004
    Messages:
    521
    Likes Received:
    0
    I say Option #1.

    Consider it an investment.
     
  3. Jailminister

    Jailminister
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2003
    Messages:
    907
    Likes Received:
    0
    If the price of the Catholic church is a good price, and reconstruction cost not to high(membership labor), the option #2 would be great. What better tesimony then to see a once dead church turn into a live church.
     
  4. Bro Tony

    Bro Tony
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,398
    Likes Received:
    0
    All other things being considered equal along with the qualification placed by JM. Option #2
     
  5. Gina B

    Gina B
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    16,944
    Likes Received:
    1
    Wow.
    I love stained glass.
    I love historical buildings.
    I'd jump on that chance just for those reasons, but then add that you'd be saving money by doing so? I LIKE IT!
    I may be misunderstanding or ignorant of something.
    What's wrong with stained glass and old-fashioned buildings? :confused:
     
  6. Karen

    Karen
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2000
    Messages:
    2,610
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would save money and enjoy the stained glass windows.
    The windows, in a non-Catholic view, depict Biblical truth and / or lives of Christian heroes. Doesn't mean you have to worship them.

    Although the two choices would not necessarily be realistic everywhere. In the UK, from what I have seen and have been told, many small evangelical congregations meet in storefronts and other rented facilities at the same time many historic church buildings are closed up, only used for museums, or converted into businesses. Many of these historic buildings are vastly expensive to repair and maintain.

    I remember reading in English Heritage magazine that preserving these buildings will be an increasing challenge because of the cost.

    Karen
     
  7. Servent

    Servent
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2003
    Messages:
    797
    Likes Received:
    0
  8. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    I'm not into neo-platonism, the basis of the gothic cathedral look, even for cheap.

    I'm very much into multi-purpose 24/7 facility that is a wise investment of God's resources.
     
  9. Kathy

    Kathy
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    1,541
    Likes Received:
    0
    I say Option #2 to save money for the church! You could use some of what you've saved and incorporate the baptismal...and I liked what Karen said about the stained-glass windows...

    Kathy
    &lt;&gt;&lt;
     
  10. mioque

    mioque
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2003
    Messages:
    3,899
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Many of these historic buildings are vastly expensive to repair and maintain."
    Longterm that is ofcourse a real issue with option 2 that I should have stated more clearly. On the other hand government subsidies could alleviate that burden somewhat (the other side of the coin when you are on the heritage list).

    One of the plusses of stained-glass windows is ofcourse that if you are bored with the sermon you can look at them instead of the ceiling. [​IMG]

    Gina
    "What's wrong with stained glass and old-fashioned buildings?"
    There are a couple of problems. Let's see, for this example I will have to speculate on reverent Griffin's style of preaching.
    You see I suspect that when dr. Bob truly get's started inside the pulpit, the glasses get put away, the bowtie comes of, the fire of the Holy Ghost starts burning in his eyes and he sounds&looks like Jimmy Swaggart doing his best Fire&Brimstone work (only even better ofcourse). [​IMG] [​IMG]
    The acoustics design of Gothic architecture however assume that the preacher speaks slowly in a carried tone of voice... [​IMG]
    (I'm deeply sorry Bob, couldn't help myself)

    "If the price of the Catholic church is a good price, and reconstruction cost not to high(membership labor), the option #2 would be great."
    I assumed (should have included it in post 1) that RCC would cart out the statues and hand it over in a well maintained state, meaning that 'enlarging' the baptismal font is the only real job that needs to be done. Everything else would either be practically impossible or could be done very cheaply.
     
  11. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,970
    Likes Received:
    128
    Congradulations on post #1000, Moique. That milestone is coming up for me soon too.

    I'd choose Option #1

    Their are great advantages to relocating to a building that already is built. The cost of building a church from ground up is quite large.

    Renovation of an older building would be a great option but the restrictions placed upon a historical building are too great. The added disadvantage: being a Gothic structure. In the modern mind-set that means dead!

    The hassles that the leadership team would have in renovation process of the building would be immense.

    The image that is presented to the unsaved may be compromising. A new believer could have problems as well.

    Rob
     

Share This Page

Loading...