Purchasing Old Church Buildings

Status
Not open for further replies.

scottmaciver

Puritan Board Sophomore
I came across this article tonight about a minister who has purchased 12 old church buildings, with a view to them, at some point, being reopened as churches, rather than being put to some other use.

I've recently been on a week & a half of travel around the Outer & Inner Hebrides of Scotland & there are so many old church buildings, either sitting derelict or put to other uses. Further afield in Scotland, particularly in the Cities, beautiful old church buildings have been converted aplenty into restaurants and clubs & it's so sad to see.

I would love to see a reformed group of wealthy Christians form a group to purchase these old church buildings, as a trust. Is anyone aware of such a trust?
 
I used to attend church at a beautiful old building in Toronto. But the church has been sliding into liberalism for a long time. People have left, and the numbers of the young members that the church has so desperately tried to attract are still too low, and they just aren't giving enough to support the church.

I liked that building. I loved the grey stones, the wooden pews, the old bell... And I expect that, one day, the building will have to be sold.

I'm OK with that. The church, let us be reminded, is not the building. The Huguenots and Covenanters worshipped in fields and houses. Maybe our descendants will have to do the same.

Yes, it's sad that so many church buildings lie empty, converted into restaurants or bars or nightclubs, or in the case of one church in Toronto, a Hare Krishna meeting place. But to lament over the building is misplaced. We ought rather to grieve over the spiritual condition of our countries.
 
I used to attend church at a beautiful old building in Toronto. But the church has been sliding into liberalism for a long time. People have left, and the numbers of the young members that the church has so desperately tried to attract are still too low, and they just aren't giving enough to support the church.

I liked that building. I loved the grey stones, the wooden pews, the old bell... And I expect that, one day, the building will have to be sold.

I'm OK with that. The church, let us be reminded, is not the building. The Huguenots and Covenanters worshipped in fields and houses. Maybe our descendants will have to do the same.

Yes, it's sad that so many church buildings lie empty, converted into restaurants or bars or nightclubs, or in the case of one church in Toronto, a Hare Krishna meeting place. But to lament over the building is misplaced. We ought rather to grieve over the spiritual condition of our countries.

That is all certainly true Tom, I wouldn't argue otherwise. However, to purchase old church buildings for a reasonable sum ought not to be automatically misconstrued with lamenting over a building, or considering the bricks & mortar to be the church. Rather, such an endeavour could also be considered to be a prudent use of funds, and to pray towards the end that, at some point, these same physical buildings be filled, once again, with the church of Christ, His people.
 
Last edited:
While I applaud historic preservation, I don't think that this is good stewardship.

One church plant would be far better than 12 empty monuments.
 
Then there's this recent news, related by PCA TE Jon D. Payne:

"Wonderful news about Gateshead Presbyterian Church's acquisition of the historic All Saints Church building in Newcastle, UK. Delighted for Rev. Dr. Bill Schweitzer and the entire church family. After a few renovations, the congregation will begin worshipping in the building this fall. Follow the link below for the story on an iTV news segment. Pray for this dear congregation's witness for Christ in Northern England."

 
Twelve new missionaries fully supported to plant dozens of churches overseas where the faith is growing versus 12 old church buildings.
 
While having some reservations, I think the man's aims are laudable. These Welsh valleys are poor, socially deprived, spiritually devastated, and pretty much totally devoid of Gospel influence and have been for a generation - they are, like much of Britain, pagan societies, they need missionaries. The gentleman interviewed wants to get the Gospel and worship back into those communities, he says so explicitly, it's not about the building or historical preservation (as some of you seem to think), nor is it to make empty monuments (though fair enough that might happen in the end) - but he's taking a risk here and investing - not every church plant is a sure thing in any scenario.

I think in general in church planting circles the focus is always on cities and large towns - the country is often forgotten about, but rural regions need the Gospel too - and there is a significant population in these valleys.

My concerns are how this is, would be eccesiastically organised. The video linked above is about the excellent EPCEW (Evangelical Presbyterian Church of England and Wales) denomination which is aggresively church planting and has a strategy of buying old historic buildings as a strategy of getting Christ back into the centre of cities and towns and not sealed off in a school or industrial unit (where possible, many of them begin there).
 
Twelve new missionaries fully supported to plant dozens of churches overseas where the faith is growing versus 12 old church buildings.

I can understand your concerns Perg. However, just to say that our concern ought to be for both home mission and foreign mission. For instance, my own denomination have a church plant in Gambia, having also planted here in Scotland. The mission field is quite different in either case. In Gambia, you have a Muslim population, who are not not fundamentalist like many other Muslim countries, and in turn many are open to the Gospel. In Scotland, we have a country whch has, like Wales as per the original post in this thread, known much Gospel blessing, but is spiritually barren now and hardened to the Gospel. Many are not open to the gospel.

I would suggest that we ought to be concerned for both mission fields. This would involve praying towards and putting finances towards the planting of sound reformed churches in both mission fields. Could this involve the purchase of old church buildings, with a vision to see them put back to Gospel use? These church buildings could be purchased and possibly rented out until they were to be put to use in a church planting scenario.
 
Last edited:
In Scotland, we have a country whch has, like Wales as per the original post in this thread, known much Gospel blessing, but is spiritually barren now and hardened to the Gospel. Many are not open to the gospel.
Agreed. The West is now a needy mission field. Scotland - the land of the covenant - will she once again restore the National Covenant and Solemn League and Covenant. We need revival.
 
While having some reservations, I think the man's aims are laudable. These Welsh valleys are poor, socially deprived, spiritually devastated, and pretty much totally devoid of Gospel influence and have been for a generation - they are, like much of Britain, pagan societies, they need missionaries. The gentleman interviewed wants to get the Gospel and worship back into those communities, he says so explicitly, it's not about the building or historical preservation (as some of you seem to think), nor is it to make empty monuments (though fair enough that might happen in the end) - but he's taking a risk here and investing - not every church plant is a sure thing in any scenario.

I think in general in church planting circles the focus is always on cities and large towns - the country is often forgotten about, but rural regions need the Gospel too - and there is a significant population in these valleys.

My concerns are how this is, would be eccesiastically organised. The video linked above is about the excellent EPCEW (Evangelical Presbyterian Church of England and Wales) denomination which is aggresively church planting and has a strategy of buying old historic buildings as a strategy of getting Christ back into the centre of cities and towns and not sealed off in a school or industrial unit (where possible, many of them begin there).

Thanks for your thoughts Paul. As you said, the vision of the man is not merely the simple preservation of these historic buildings, but his vision is specifically Gospel orientated. I trust we can put to bed the suggestion that the thrust of this thread is anything other than spiritual.

You made a good point in relation to risk. Yes, the man is taking a risk, but as you say, there is a great deal of risk in church planting. A few years back, our Presbytery attempted a church plant in Stirling, Scotland. For various reasons the plant folded after a great deal of finance having been put into the plant. I understand that a church plant with a preaching ministry is different to the purchase of a building, with no active ministry, at least for the time being. However, in terms of risk, the two are very similar.
 
I can understand your concerns Perg. However, just to say that our concern ought to be for both home mission and foreign mission. For instance, my own denomination have a church plant in Gambia, having also planted here in Scotland. The mission field is quite different in either case. In Gambia, you have a Muslim population, who are not not fundamentalist like many other Muslim countries, and in turn many are open to the Gospel. In Scotland, we have a country whch has, like Wales as per the original post in this thread, known much Gospel blessing, but is spiritually barren now and hardened to the Gospel. Many are not open to the gospel.

I would suggest that we ought to be concerned for both mission fields. This would involved praying towards and putting finances towards the planting of sound reformed churches in both mission fields. Could this involve the purchase of old church buildings, with a vision to see them put back to Gospel use? These church buildings could be purchased and possibly rented out until they were to be put to use in a church planting scenario.

I think I agree. You've convinced me. I believe the Western church has the money for both. We waste so much. We could be doing 10 times more at both home and abroad for the faith. Thanks for the corrective. It is hard to stay balanced.
 
I think in general in church planting circles the focus is always on cities and large towns - the country is often forgotten about, but rural regions need the Gospel too - and there is a significant population in these valleys.

To paraphrase Michael Moore, "We now have Tim Keller and you to blame for this!"
 
You made a good point in relation to risk. Yes, the man is taking a risk, but as you say, there is a great deal of risk in church planting. A few years back, our Presbytery attempted a church plant in Stirling, Scotland. For various reasons the plant folded after a great deal of finance having been put into the plant. I understand that a church plant with a preaching ministry is different to the purchase of a building, with no active ministry, at least for the time being. However, in terms of risk, the two are very similar.

Yes, risk is always involved, time, money and so forth are always ventured - we worked for a year on a possible plant in Dublin city, it didn't take off, we did get a family into one of our congregations though, and we still continue to build contacts.
 
and has a strategy of buying old historic buildings as a strategy of getting Christ back into the centre of cities and towns and not sealed off in a school or industrial unit

When we started our church, we had three options - an old church facility in the homosexual community, an abandoned industrial facility at a light rail stop, and a build from scratch on residential property. But at that point, we already had people.

While the facility will shape the result, you need the church (people) first, then the facility.
 
When we started our church, we had three options - an old church facility in the homosexual community, an abandoned industrial facility at a light rail stop, and a build from scratch on residential property. But at that point, we already had people.

While the facility will shape the result, you need the church (people) first, then the facility.

I tend to agree. Which did you go for...I can see plus points for all three?
 
Not necessarily a bad idea to hit cities first; though like preacher like church sadly, so we need a more robust confessionalism and less the errors of the big people steeples as they used to call them. This is what James Durham observes on churches in cites in the NT in 1653 (the manuscript date of his lectures), or implies, that the first missionaries went to the large cities first. New less obtrusive brackets in use (the ˻ ˼ indicate text added in the published text, the corresponding upper, none below I don't think, unique MS text).
And 1. It would be considered why these churches are designed from the name of the cities wherein they were. We rather speak a word to this because we find churches in the New Testament named by towns. It is true, the churches in Galatia are also named, but most frequently they are named by cities, as the Church at Jerusalem, the Church at Rome, the Church at Corinth, etc. ˻And Titus is to ordain elders in every city, by Paul’s appointment, which was for the city, and it is likely also for the edification of these about, God making the gospel spread from cities to countries about, as it is said, the Word spread from Ephesus to all Asia [Acts 19:10],˼ though there were other churches beside these that were within the walls of these towns. The reasons of this we conceive to be: (1) Because the cities or towns were most famous for the populousness, and were well furnished with officers, and there was most occasion of getting a harvest of souls in them by spreading the net of the gospel among them, in respect of which accidental and politic considerations, which belong not to the essence of a church, some cities being more famous and able to keep the Word of truth, and make it forthcoming to other churches. It is not unagreeable to scripture to have ˻particular˼ respect to cities, and churches in them, as they may further the work of the gospel. (2) Because in these great cities and places of concourse, the ministers and officers of the church, who served in the work of the Lord and went round in a circuit in the churches about, had their most ordinary residence, as it would seem, and that their fixed, collegiate meetings and combinations were there. {1} Because we find no particular congregations mentioned, but only the church at such a town written unto, though there were many particular congregations about, and these cities kept not the Word within themselves. {2} Where they are mentioned, as the church at Jerusalem, it takes in not only these within the walls, but all the churches in Judea. ˻So Corinth takes in Cenchrea, etc.˼​



To paraphrase Michael Moore, "We now have Tim Keller and you to blame for this!"

Yes, risk is always involved, time, money and so forth are always ventured - we worked for a year on a possible plant in Dublin city, it didn't take off, we did get a family into one of our congregations though, and we still continue to build contacts.

I think in general in church planting circles the focus is always on cities and large towns - the country is often forgotten about, but rural regions need the Gospel too - and there is a significant population in these valleys.
 
When we started our church, we had three options - an old church facility in the homosexual community, an abandoned industrial facility at a light rail stop, and a build from scratch on residential property. But at that point, we already had people.

While the facility will shape the result, you need the church (people) first, then the facility.

That's true that you need the people Edward. However, in the case of the purchasing of old church buildings, this could be done strategically, i.e. by purchasing buildings reasonably near existing congregations. That way, when a plant is eventually begun, whenever that may be, members of an existing congregation could form a core church group, in order to take the work forward.

I have no doubt that the Lord has blessed the work of church planting in places without a core group in place at the inception of the plant. However, I tend to agree that it is far more preferential to have a core group in place before beginning the church planting work.
 
Not necessarily a bad idea to hit cities first; though like preacher like church sadly, so we need a more robust confessionalism and less the errors of the big people steeples as they used to call them.

Quite so Chris - it is often the wiset use of resources, and often in today's multi-cultural society the city offers the best opportunity for growth. I know in Dublin our main contacts and potentials attendees were not Irish born and bred, but mainly from Latin and South America, East Europe etc.

I suppose my comment was mainly in relation to the UK and especially places like Wales and Scotland where certainly there are huge populations in cities which often cluster together (like the central belt in Scotland and South Wales) that if the other areas are ignored significant population centres will be left unchurched, and indeed this is the case throughout the UK. This particularly the case in the Welsh valleys of the original post.

Without doubt Wales is one of the most beautiful places in the world, but one of the most discouraging place for a Christian to travel around - closed churches everywhere. It is particularly sad as Wales was also a hotbed of revivalism in the early 20th century (hence the numeracy of chapels) - that in my opinion is a large part of the explanation of how it is where it is today but that's another discussion!
 
Just from my uninformed layman's point of view, I think I see where having some kind of real building, set apart for Lord's day worship, may be vital to the long-term success of a church plant, or maybe that's just the way it seems to be here in the South. It doesn't have to be anything fancy, but I think people are more apt to visit and view a new plant as "real" or viable if they have a building. What do y'all think, and if there's anything to that do you think it holds true for everywhere?
 
Times change. If you drive the backroads of Virginia, you'll find tiny buildings within a wagon's drive of most of the population. Now people don't seem to mind pooling their resources in larger communities. Many times people with family connections maintain the lovely country buildings.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top