There’s an interesting disucssion taking shape on Gideon Strauss’ site about urban renewal and the Church’s place in it. I’m intrigued. I’d like to address a couple of other posts Gideon included.

First, one from Jon Barlow:

There are some beautiful old churches in the city of St. Louis that are just waiting for some enterprising congregation to renovate and occupy. But they are decaying, folks. Why did their congregations ever leave them? Why are we spreading out? Why waste these beautiful buildings and the crumbling neighborhoods surrounding them when we could all move in, renovate, and live together in community? How many of us are really moving out into the boondocks for good reasons?

Having been a member of a church growing up that had to deal with this very issue (a decaying church in a not-so-great neighborhood), I watched my parents and other leaders in the congregation try to deal with it. The biggest issue? The cost of maintaining such a church. Unless you’re absolutely filling the church every Sunday, it is very difficult to generate the money needed. Sad but true. Now, the cathedral is owned by a Pentecostal church, but that congregation doesn’t actually use the building — they just own the land.

That said, Barlow’s idea doesn’t fall on entirely deaf ears. I think the Church as a whole has moved away from being both a spiritual and physical community. Our church is no different. Few people live within a few blocks of the church, and some travel quite a distance every Sunday. While we are working in the community, the building is still mostly quiet four or five days a week.

Gideon has two other links — one to Jim Hart talking about urban redevelopment generally and another to Phillip Bess about the history of the Church in 17th century London. Hart’s subject matter hits close to home for those us in Pittsburgh. Urban redevelopment has become a critical issue here, and we’re watching it happen right now just down the street in “East Side” (the realtors’ creation between Shadyside and East Liberty that’s really just East Liberty). The issue in East Side is gentrification. Development is making East Liberty a more attractive place, and it is bringing more business to the area, but that development is doing little for the residents (I’m sure the Red Room Lounge is a great restaurant, but I’m guessing not many neighborhood residents are dining there). That’s fine line I guess — how do you revitalize a neighborhood without completely displacing the existing demographic? A question for the urban planners, I guess.

So back to Barlow’s entry. That could be a unique opportunity for the Church — the chance to revitalize a neighborhood without destroying its character or displacing its residents (there are plenty of empty buildings around Covenant Fellowship). Though it’s hard not to view this sort of movement through political glasses (as in, this is obviously a conservative thing, since it’s a group of individuals), it really goes beyond politics and into the realm of the Cultural Mandate as seen through Neocalvinist glasses — accepting the responsibility of bringing about cultural change through action. We would be effecting change by doing, not simply telling.

Finally, a word on Bess’ contribution to the discussion:

So here is my proposition: When we build, why cannot churches today play the part analogous to the London aristocrat? Instead of building a church and a parking lot on their six-to-ten-suburban acres, why not build a church, a public (not private) square, perhaps a school, and the beginnings of a mixed-use neighborhood? Why could not a church partner with a developer and use some of the proceeds from the development of its property to pay for part of the construction of its church building(s)? Why could not churches use this strategy to begin to integrate affordable housing and commercial buildings into suburbia as part of mixed-use neighborhoods? And who is to say that an initially random proliferation of such developments across suburbia ? once the exemplary pattern is established ? over time might not become, as it did in London, the very physical and spiritual centers so pointedly lacking in contemporary suburbia?

Suburbia is a sticky subject for me. I think there are “small towns” in the Pittsburgh area that would fit this sort of mold. These are towns that still have a vibrant local merchant community (one that hasn’t been overtaken by chain retailers), and residents who live there because the town bridges the gap between urban and rural. Of course, many of these small towns already have active church communities….but modern suburbia is different. People are leaving the city for the suburbs to “get away” from the urban environment. Perhaps they don’t like the diversity of culture (whether it is racial, economic, or intellectual), perhaps they don’t like the education system, perhaps they don’t like the “danger” of city living. And I believe that Bess’ idea would only work in “small towns” because any community as he describes it would be completely isolated from the larger community in suburbia. Most residential neighborhoods would probably never allow a church to be built, and what good would a church community be in a commercialized area with little to no foot traffic?

Posted on 19 November 2004