New plans for old churches

Christchurch Anglican Cathedral

Christchurch. The garden city endowed with inspiring architecture and majestic structures.  Awe inspiring steeples and stained glass cathedrals.

Many of these beautiful, iconic church buildings now lay in ruins.  Since the recent earthquakes, they are being condemned and demolished - leaving the faithful standing on vacant lots,  disillusioned, yet unshaken in their faith and resolve.

Is this their darkest hour or their greatest opportunity?

Some would have us question the place of church in modern society.  Martin Van Beynen's provocative article entitled 'Save space, just one church should cover it' is an example of this.  However, Christianity and traditional churches are an important and significant part of Christchurch's history for many people.

Christ Church Oxford

The city of Christchurch was born in 1856 making it the oldest established city in New Zealand.  It was named after Christ Church, Oxford - An educational institute and cathedral in England.  This was to be the model for the new settlement in Canterbury.  Graduate John Robert Godley, suggested the name for the city which was approved at the first ever meeting of the Canterbury Association.

Now, 155 years later the churches in Christchurch are presented with a unique opportunity.  They have the space and the resources to build new and creative structures that can support Christchurch now and into the future.  Structures that add value and depth to the whole community as well as providing a "home base" for believers.  The challenge in 2011 for Christchurch is to celebrate and honor it's rich heritage, yet rebuild in such a way that is relevant for an ever changing population.

Charles de Lint asks, "Why did men worship in Churches, locking themselves away in the dark, when the world lay beyond its door in all its real glory?"  

Imagine churches with doors wide open.  Not to worship the glory of creation (which pales in comparison to the glory of the Creator) but to unite the city and its people in a living faith that reaches the deepest needs and feeds the souls of humankind.

It might be a far off dream.  It might never happen...but what's the alternative?

The Upside Down Church?

Inflatable Church?

Church of Charles Darwin?

Whatever Christchurch does with its buildings, the Church will live on regardless.  Bridget Willard sums it up perfectly with this quote.


“Church isn’t where you meet. Church isn’t a building. Church is what you do. Church is who you are. Church is the human outworking of the person of Jesus Christ. Let’s not go to Church, let’s be the Church.” Bridget Willard

Norway attacks - Christian extremist?

Like it or not, Anders Behring Breivik is the new face of Christian extremism.

If you don't believe me then just type the words "Christian extremist" into google images and you'll get dozens of results depicting the infamous 32 year old Norwegian.

It has been nearly two weeks since the self proclaimed Christian Knight Templar committed his terrible crime in Norway.  His carefully planned attacks took the lives of at least 77 people, and left his country and the rest of the world stunned.

In the aftermath many are trying to understand what drove this man to his actions.  Could he be mentally insane?  The cold and callous way in which he carried out the attack and the fact that he shows no remorse suggests that this may be the case - and will likely be the basis for his legal defense.  However, Dr Tarjei Rygnestad, the head of Norway’s Board of Forensic Medicine, says it is "unlikely that Breivik would be declared legally insane because his attacks were so minutely planned and executed."

The media has labeled Breivik a Christian extremist.  This has sparked heated debate across the board.  Christians, understandably, don't want to be identified with a fanatical mass murderer.  Muslims think that since Muslim extremists have somewhat tarnished the reputation of the Islamic faith why shouldn't Christianity be in the same boat?  Those with a political bent think it's a move by the left wing politicians and media to undermine Christian tradition and push their social agenda.

Breivik, in his 1500 page manifesto which he distributed just hours before the attacks, makes a distinction between Cultural Christians and Religious Christians.  According to him a Religious Christian is someone who has a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God.  A Cultural Christian can be someone who "believes in Christianity as a cultural, social identity and moral platform"  Breivik considers himself a cultural Christian and says "if there is a God, I will be allowed to enter heaven as all the martyrs for the Church in the past".  

So apparently, to be a cultural Christian you don't need a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and you don't even need to believe in God!  Christianity can be used as a moral platform and a social identity - but only when it's convenient.  It is nice to have those lovely Christian traditions like Christmas, Easter, weddings, etc... but belief in God is optional?