THRIVING CHURCHES | PART 7 | THE RIGHT BUILDING SHAPE

Q 6 | DOES OUR CONCRETE SET US?
                      Based on an article from a coupe of years back ...

It was Winston Churchill in 1943 who said: “First we shape our buildings, then they shape us” and Stewart Brand who then in 1994 said: “First we shape our buildings, then they shape us, then we shape them again - ad infinitum”.

There is a fine balance between architecture and community. The buildings we design directly influence the way in which we live our lives, they direct and manipulate the way in which we engage with our social values and spiritual needs, even our appreciation of the arts.

This means the balance between society and architecture is in a constant state of flux, buildings and people evolve repeatedly, new buildings are built to facilitate our social development but more often than not, it is the existing buildings which are re-shaped, as Stewart Brand’s quote suggests, “First we shape our buildings, then they shape us, then we shape them again-ad infinitum”. Stewart Brand’s quote in 1994 is a reinterpretation of Winston Churchill’s quote in 1943 “First we shape our buildings, then they shape us” whilst addressing the nation with regard to the re-building of the ‘Houses of Parliament’ after its destruction during the Second World War.

There were 51 years between each quote and in that period of time, society was changing rapidly, freedom from world war, politics, technology and science had accelerated development in travel, communication and finance. These changes had altered the way in which society viewed itself, it was now well on its way to becoming an International community. Cultural phrases such as, “the global village” appeared and architecture has changed too.

As our cities have suburbanised the idea of the close-knit ‘village’, with the home; the village green; the community marketplace; the commons; and the church as the shared spaces, which support neighbourhood community, has disappeared. The home has become a thoroughly private retreat, fenced of from those next-door (who may not even be known). The workplace may be many kilometres away and the market is a private space designed lure consumers.

Not only that, but the modern suburb is an invention – a private developer creates an ‘instant’ estate, often complete with faux lake or faux farm-fencing. There are often fewer public spaces and amenities. The new residents are strangers who share no common mythology or history. There are no traditions and memories to long past heroes. The relational and spiritual identity of these faux villages is disembodied and distant, as is the workplace and the place of leisure. The plasma screen, rather than the window screen provides the interface with the world! With the pressures of debt high and the social support low – within a generation, these new and pretty estates can become centres of social dysfunction and juvenile discontent - Where do we belong, and why does it even matter?

American sociologist, Richard Sennett (The Conscience of the Eye: The Design and Social Life. New York: W.W. Norton and Company: 1990) argues that western culture suffers from a division between the private and public realms. ‘It is a divide between subjective experience and worldly experience, between self and city.’ This separation, according to Sennett, is based on our unacknowledged fear of self-exposure – interpreted as a threat rather than life-enhancing.  Sennett suggests that city design has increasingly concentrated on creating safe divisions between different groups of people. (Consider the gated-communities that physically exclude strangers).Apart from consumer spaces, public space becomes sterile, as the main purpose is to facilitate movement across it rather than encounters within it. According to Sennett, for the city to recover, we need to reaffirm the inherent value of the outer social life.

In his influential book “The Great Good Place”, Ray Oldenburg (1989, 1991) argues that “third places” are important for civil society, democracy, civic engagement, and establishing feelings of a sense of place. Oldenburg calls one's "first place" the home and those that one lives with. The "second place" is the workplace — where people may actually spend most of their time. Third places, then, are "anchors" of community life and facilitate and foster broader, more creative interaction.

All healthy societies already have informal meeting places; what is new in modern times is the intentionality of seeking out distinct places to the home or the market place as vital to current societal needs. Oldenburg suggests the hallmarks of a true "third place" include free or inexpensive; food and drink, highly accessibility, proximate for many (walking distance); involves regulars – those who habitually congregate there; welcoming and comfortable; both new friends and old should be found there.

“Associational groupings” rather than “geographic proximity” also defines an individual’s ‘tribe’ or neighbourhood. The sporting team; the mates who hang at the pub; the motorcycle club; the Kinder; the craft-group; the surfing group; the golf group; book-club; ethnic club; street gang; music band; work-buddies or even adult education class are the new tribes. An estate of 300 homes and 1200 residents may in fact be a criss-cross of 40-50 associations – none of who’s members know each other, though they live next door!

The spaces they choose to inhabit will be important in defining them (and vice-versa). Territory is important! Why do they meet in that Pub? How come those kids loiter at that mall?

As we take seriously our place as ‘Salt in the City,’ so we will need to consider how our public space brings peace to the city we find ourselves in. “... And work for the peace and prosperity of the city where I sent you into exile. Pray to the Lord for it, for its welfare will determine your welfare.” (Jeremiah 29:7 NLT). What does it mean to understand our many ‘tribes’ and their needs? How will we partner with our government authorities and other civic agencies in recovering some of that sense of belonging that gets lost in the sterility of the suburbs?

There is a lot more to understand than this very brief (and amateur) snapshot – but as we as missionaries connect with our ‘tribes’ and understand them, so our buildings will reflect the message of hope we seek to bring. Our spaces and ourselves are gifts to them.

A vital step in our planning is to design the space we need around our theology; vision and people-group. The Vision and objectives must shape the bricks and mortar. Some tips:

-  Think about our personal attitude to property: Are our members prepared to ‘give’ their homes to God, as spaces of blessing to their vicinity? It takes one family home with an open table and front yard to welcome kids – to kindle a sense of belonging. This challenges the assumptions of our world that ‘privatizes’ the home’. An informal, unofficial playgroup in a home for parents’ in that court has the potential to build bridges in a way that a formal playgroup in a custom built kinder never can – it will also transform the lives of the Christian family who are stewards that home! The street becomes the ‘parish’ for that family! Book-clubs, shared gardening; neighbourhood watch; care of those in difficult times; even an instant youth group. This is where community development meets outreach!

-  Ask yourselves what you need space for and for how long? Is retaining property the best way?

-   Build relationships and alliances with persons in council and others community agencies such as the schools, welfare agencies, new settler groups- what are their needs? Is there a point of synergy or overlap?

-  Talk to a community planner as well as an architect. How can we ensure that our space does not in time pull our people back to ‘temple’ mindset? Where we become devotees attending our 'sanctuary', rather than missionaries serving from their own homes and from third places – with the church centre as a community hub, to support rather than replace them.