|
||||
| ||||
|
|
Should We Build a Sanctuary? January 8, 2006 The Reverend Roger Fritts Cedar Lane Unitarian Universalist Church Bethesda, Maryland An Anglican minister, Quentin Morrow, wrote: The Church building is important to us because it elevates us to the infinite. For most of the week we are occupied by the mundane, the ordinary, the earthbound: mortgage payments; the transmission that needs repair; the kids’ runny noses; the next door neighbor’s dog that barked all night. But one day a week we gather in a place that transcends the everyday, and transports us from the finite to the infinite. Going to...[church]... is not like going to the garage, the grocery store, or the local saloon. The Church building, by its very nature, points our often limited vision away from the ordinary to the transcendent. The word sanctuary means “building set apart for holy worship,” from the Latin word meaning a sacred place. In Europe under medieval Church law, fugitives or debtors enjoyed immunity from arrest in churches, so the word sanctuary came to also mean a place of refuge or protection. Under English law, a person claiming the right of sanctuary had 40 days to confess and accept permanent banishment. This was abolished in Britain in 1625 in criminal cases, and in 1722 in civil cases.
I should explain to any of you who are new to our church a little about the history of this congregation. This church was founded in 1951 and met for its first few years in rented space at the Chevy Chase Women’s Club. In 1955 the congregation bought this land, and chose Pietro Belluschi, the dean of architecture at MIT, to be the architect of the church. Because of costs, the original plan called for us to build in three stages; this auditorium and class rooms were completed in 1958; a chapel wing was completed in 1963; and a sanctuary wing, which we have not yet built. One reason we have not built the sanctuary wing is that this room is a big success. Three and a half years ago I invited the congregation to write letters to me on the subject of worship space. Members of this congregation told me in words the ways that this room and this building works for them. I want to read some of the comments: “The big attraction for us was the trees.” “The worship space is beautiful, the views out the sides fantastic, and the room is sufficiently large for the number who attend each service.” “Over the years the space has been made sacred to us by memories of attending Sunday Services, square dances, Thanksgiving dinners, Youth Group dinner productions, Alliance luncheons, memorial services, and even a daughter’s wedding and reception.” “I love the sanctuary we have. Also I like the fact that it can and does serve many other purposes.” “What fulfills me is being in a room of like minded liberals who have spent their week making the lives of those less fortunate better, using whatever gifts they may have been given or developed.” “From the day I started attending Cedar Lane services over 43 years ago, I have regarded the room—with its bank of windows on each side overlooking our magnificent grounds—as an ideal setting for a meaningful spiritual experience.” “A sanctuary is defined as a place of safety and of worship. I’ve felt that the whole church was a sanctuary.” “Our building is Unitarian presenting itself simply and dignified in its natural setting.” “The Auditorium has been my sanctuary, my place of rest and reflection.” “The nature views through walls of glass on either side are calming.” As you can see by these comments, people like this space. It is a positive testimony to the founding members of this congregation, that they built such a wonderful room and facility. Because of its success over the years many people have not felt a need to complete the original plan of 50 years ago, and build a sanctuary wing. Another reason why we have not built the sanctuary is the cost. The last time we got an estimate on building the original plan was in 1989, and the cost was estimated to be 2.4 million. Obviously building costs rise each year, and now it would be much more. On the other hand, when I first arrived to serve as one of your ministers in 1993, I had an intuitive feeling that it would be good if this church were to build a sanctuary. I had a feeling that building a sanctuary would be a break through experience for this congregation, that building the right sanctuary would deepen and enhance the religious life of this congregation. Over the twelve and a half years I have served as your minister, that feeling has not changed. I think a sanctuary will enhance the whole mission of this church, it will magnify our whole purpose for being, all that we do, all that we empower, engender, inspire, and evoke. Our church is a symbol as much as it is a physical institution. Its only power as an effective institution in fact depends on its symbolic meaning to people. I believe that if we have a great sanctuary, people in our county will take our liberal religious ideas more seriously. Our place in the larger community will be stronger. In 1993 I was supported in this feeling by a few long-time members who had been active in the church in the 1950s when the original three stage plan was developed. I remember in particular going to Jim and Marguerite Murray’s house in Garrett Park over ten years ago. Jim look at me and said, “Are you the minister that will build the sanctuary?” Jim died several years ago and Marguerite now lives in Virginia. Colleagues also encouraged me to build a sanctuary. For example, Forrest Church, the Senior Minister of All Souls in New York City, and I were together one evening in 1993, shortly after I had arrived to serve this congregation. Forrest grew up in Bethesda when his father was in the Senate. He said simply: “It’s a puzzle to me why the Cedar Lane congregation does not build a sanctuary. It is so obvious that they would benefit from one.” Ken MacLean, the senior minister of this church for 20 years, said to me shortly after I arrived that he was sorry that in twenty years of service to this church he was not able to convince the congregation that they would benefit from building a sanctuary. John Buehrens, the President of the Unitarian Universalist Association for eight years, said to a group of us at a dinner in San Diego 1998, that “Cedar Lane needs to build a sanctuary. Until they do the congregation will never achieve their full potential as one of the largest churches in our denomination.” Alida DeCoster said to me as she was leaving after serving this church as its associate minister for twelve years, that if there was anything she could do to encourage the church to build a sanctuary, I should feel free to call on her. In other words, while some are content and satisfied with what we have at the present, others look at this congregation and see wonderful, exciting potential that we have not yet achieved.
All the years I have served as your minister one of my goals has been to encourage you to become more receptive to the idea of building a sanctuary. One of my goals as your minister is to break down your resistance to a sanctuary, and to encourage you to become excited about the possibilities of a sanctuary. I do not see this as something I can achieve in one meeting, or one newsletter article, or even in one sermon (no matter how eloquent) but a something that will take years of patience persuasion. Ten years ago we completed a long-range plan that called on the congregation to transform the parsonage into an education center and memory garden. We completed this work successfully in 1998. The long range plan also called on us in the new century to explore the possibility of building a sanctuary. In December of 2000 a Worship Space Options Committee was appointed, consisting of Kathleen Reedy, Chair, Jim Heltman, Stewart Grubman and Chris Patton. The committee met many times over four years. They contracted with the Kerns Group Architects in Arlington, Virginia, and nearly two years ago, in February of 2004 the Kerns Group presented some ideas to the congregation. They showed us drawings of a sanctuary that was less of a rectangle, but that picked up on the angle that Pietro Belluschi used repeatedly in his design. If you look at the angle in the walls of the chapel, and then at the angle of the edge of the stage and the angle of the ceiling of the room, you will see that they are all the same. Two problems with the Kerns designs became evident to me. First they did not understand the critical role that music plays in our worship service. The three hundred seat sanctuary had no place for the choir or the organ, which made it a non starter as far a this congregation is concerned. While I knew that they were early, preliminary drawings and the organ and choir could be added, I also know this congregation. We have the potential for a choir with a hundred members—a choir so large that it would make up a third of the entire worshiping congregation on Sunday morning. Any sanctuary design needs to take that into account.
Second, we did not give the Kerns architects a budget. Standard formulas exist that calculate how much a congregation can spend on a capital campaign. According to these formulas we can spend about two million dollars on a Sanctuary. We would raise about one point two million from the congregation and get a bank loan of about eight hundred thousand dollars. However, we did not give this budget to Kerns. Without a realistic limit, they came up with several plans that would each cost several million dollars. When we took a straw vote in May of 2004, the board could not see any clear direction in the vote. In the intervening time the board has taken a break from the issue. Time has passed and I hope you are ready to look at this issue again. The 1956 design recreates the highly successful churches of the 1950s and 1960s. The world has changed in fifty years. Look for example at the lobby of the 1956 design. The lobby or foyer is a small space, providing a short transition from street to sanctuary, a space used to shake umbrellas or remove hats and gloves in inclement weather. Today when I think about what kind of worship space this congregation might build, I imagine a sanctuary more like the churches being built today—with a large lobby, a kind of fellowship hall that greets people as they come and go. This lively space is the hub of a church and includes a welcome center, a coffee area, entrances to large accessible restrooms, and a bookstore. I imagine a sanctuary here at Cedar Lane that is semicircular in shape so that people can see each other and be closer to the speaker. There are multipurpose flexible platforms in the sanctuary so the space can be changed for the choir one Sunday and a drama the next Sunday. When it comes to sound, the sanctuary will use the latest engineering and technology to create excellent acoustics for the organ, the choir, and the speakers. A sound control booth is in the sanctuary so that a volunteer running it can hear the feedback or any other problems that may develop, unlike our system where our volunteer is in a side closet and cannot hear what is going on. A new sanctuary will be a well-insulated worship space, unlike the single pane glass that makes up much of this room’s walls. Of course, the future of any church is in its ability to reach out to younger people. If we are seriously interested in attracting, and serving Americans born after 1960, we need to have a worship space that attracts young people To serve a generation that has grown up with audio and visual communication, the church must learn to speak the language that connects the message with the people. Thanks to television, computers and video games, visual communication has moved far ahead of oral communication in grabbing and holding the attention of today’s young people. Today one of the most powerful forms of communication are projected visual images. Twenty-first century sanctuaries have video projection screens and black out screens for their windows. Hymnals are being replaced with hymns on projection screens so that members look up instead of down to sing and to read responsively. The screens show still pictures and video as part of worship. Television cameras are being built into new sanctuaries. Churches broadcast the service in the coffee area of the fellowship hall where some people prefer to watch the service on television while having a cup a coffee. Churches also broadcast worship services on the internet, so that anyone with a computer and high speed access can sit at home and hear the sermon and the choir. And Churches are making services available for down load into I-pods. Should we build a sanctuary? This question has been asked off and on in this congregation for the past 50 years. But for me at least, it remains an exciting question. It opens the door to possibilities, it points to the future. If we were to change this space, how might we change it? If we were to build a new worship space what might it look like. This is fun stuff. It is the kind of stuff that makes life interesting, that makes me want to get up in the morning and see what the day will bring. Just as we did in 1998 with the creation of the chalice house, and as we did more recently with the lower level renovation, we can do some of the work ourselves. Energy, enthusiasm, and community are created when we work together on a common project. The people who built this church in the 1950s did wonderful work, they created a wonderful space. They had the excitement, the adventure, the struggle of doing so. What they gave us, this building, this room is wonderful. It is a room that meets the needs of many in this congregation here in the present. For many it is enough. However to appreciate the meaning of a sanctuary, to engage this discussion meaningfully, it is necessary that we hold in our vision the past, the present, and the future of the church. How do we want this church to be in ten years? In twenty years? Now it is our time, our time to give a gift to the future. What do you want to do? I know what I want. I want complete stage three of the founders plan. I want to build a sanctuary that will attract a new generation to this church. I end by reading the passage that began this sermon: The Church building is important to us because it elevates us to the infinite. For most of the week we are occupied by the mundane, the ordinary, the earthbound: mortgage payments; the transmission that needs repair; the kids' runny noses; the next door neighbor's dog that barked all night. But one day a week we gather in a place that transcends the everyday, and transports us from the finite to the infinite. Going to...[church]... is not like going to the garage, the grocery store, or the local saloon. The Church building, by its very nature, points our often limited vision away from the ordinary to the transcendent. |
Cedar Lane Unitarian Universalist
Church |
